So a few comments to make to explain some of the difference.
1) Damns aren't generally comparable to other renewable projects in cost, because they're dependent on a natural resource that doesn't scale. i.e. a sizeable river and geography that can act as a natural reservoir for water. Hydro can't really scale, even in Canada, a gigantic country with a relatively tiny population and a relatively huge hydro industry, can't really find new hydro projects that make economic sense because they've exhausted the opportunities already.
Imagine instead of energy, you'd be looking for a source of drinkable water for your goats. You can either build a pipeline to a nearby source of fresh water, or you can build a desalination factory. Of course the former is cheaper. But you can hardly compare its cost to another region that has no fresh water, and needs to build a desalination factory, and then say 'the price difference is huge!'. It's expected to be, particularly for very old hydro projects, which are usually the hydro projects that were the lowest hanging fruit and the easiest to exploit (unlike e.g. today's potential hydro projects in Canada, which are 10x more expensive than some of the old ones from decades ago. That cost differential is not really a function of technology)
2) Even disregarding the above, $10 in 1959 is not $10 today. In fact, it's ±$80 today. In fact, the project cost roughly $765m in today's dollars. I mean hell, in 2014 there was a crack that cost $69m to repair alone, almost as much as building it you'd almost think :p Citing a $93m cost is unintentionally misleading.
3) So about 11 more expensive, not 900x.
4) You're now referencing the 370 Gwh per annum figure, but that's for only the first part of the project that has 160 MW of capacity (which has a significantly lower cost than the $9b figure you're using). The $9b project has a capacity of 580 MW, so roughly 1350 Gwh per annum, so about 2/3rds less, not 10x less.
So you're off by a LOT with some of the numbers. Regardless, the point still stands that this is an expensive project, but then I refer to point 1) which is that you can't compare them. A better comparison would be to look at what it'd cost to build a new dam in Morocco, and there's not really much potential there that hasn't already been exhausted by the existing hydro stations in Morocco. Hydro would definitely be a more expensive venture, for sure, as would wind and fossil. As expensive as this may be, it beats what they currently have, which is importing 95% of their fossil fuels, which is a financial huge burden on a country that doesn't have a hard currency.
So a few comments to make to explain some of the difference.
1) Damns aren't generally comparable to other renewable projects in cost, because they're dependent on a natural resource that doesn't scale. i.e. a sizeable river and geography that can act as a natural reservoir for water. Hydro can't really scale, even in Canada, a gigantic country with a relatively tiny population and a relatively huge hydro industry, can't really find new hydro projects that make economic sense because they've exhausted the opportunities already.
Imagine instead of energy, you'd be looking for a source of drinkable water for your goats. You can either build a pipeline to a nearby source of fresh water, or you can build a desalination factory. Of course the former is cheaper. But you can hardly compare its cost to another region that has no fresh water, and needs to build a desalination factory, and then say 'the price difference is huge!'. It's expected to be, particularly for very old hydro projects, which are usually the hydro projects that were the lowest hanging fruit and the easiest to exploit (unlike e.g. today's potential hydro projects in Canada, which are 10x more expensive than some of the old ones from decades ago. That cost differential is not really a function of technology)
2) Even disregarding the above, $10 in 1959 is not $10 today. In fact, it's ±$80 today. In fact, the project cost roughly $765m in today's dollars. I mean hell, in 2014 there was a crack that cost $69m to repair alone, almost as much as building it you'd almost think :p Citing a $93m cost is unintentionally misleading.
3) So about 11 more expensive, not 900x.
4) You're now referencing the 370 Gwh per annum figure, but that's for only the first part of the project that has 160 MW of capacity (which has a significantly lower cost than the $9b figure you're using). The $9b project has a capacity of 580 MW, so roughly 1350 Gwh per annum, so about 2/3rds less, not 10x less.
So you're off by a LOT with some of the numbers. Regardless, the point still stands that this is an expensive project, but then I refer to point 1) which is that you can't compare them. A better comparison would be to look at what it'd cost to build a new dam in Morocco, and there's not really much potential there that hasn't already been exhausted by the existing hydro stations in Morocco. Hydro would definitely be a more expensive venture, for sure, as would wind and fossil. As expensive as this may be, it beats what they currently have, which is importing 95% of their fossil fuels, which is a financial huge burden on a country that doesn't have a hard currency.