Tanzania's Power Struggle: Why Investments in the Power Sector Are Stalling

Tanzania's Power Struggle: Why Investments in the Power Sector Are Stalling

Tanzania is suffering from the worst power blackouts on record. People used to complain about a few hours of power cuts in weeks, but now they are forced to go for 24-hour-long blackouts even twice per week. The situation has been worsening with time, and, certainly, the political risk for the government due to these power cuts is increasing by the day.

The government has blamed insufficient power generation for the ongoing blackouts. For the past decade, while demand has grown significantly (I conservatively estimate it to be 5 to 10 times), supply has not increased one iota. It is a catastrophic failure in leadership, but at least the government has finally come clean about the real cause of the problem: insufficient power generation. This is a huge step in the right direction.

The government cites insufficient rainfall, power plant maintenance issues, and the delayed Nyerere Dam (JNHPP) commissioning as reasons for the current power crisis. Indeed, heavy El Nino rains notwithstanding, areas feeding Mtera, Kidatu, and Kihansi dams received lower rainfall, contributing to the shortfall. Moreover, while the government acknowledges inadequate maintenance, it has not admitted how serious the state of the disservice of power plants is (my sources tell me that the situation is dire). Finally, the JNHPP, originally scheduled for completion in 2022, is significantly behind schedule. Despite two years' delay, only the first turbine is undergoing testing, with an uncertain 225MW potential contribution if successful.

The government's narrative, attributing the power crisis to insufficient rainfall, inadequate maintenance, and JNHPP delays, fails to address the critical issue of stalled private investments. While these factors undoubtedly contribute, some of us wonder why solutions seemingly hinge solely on the mentioned trio and further government spending.

The reality, often left unsaid, is that some investors are eager to contribute. Their participation could significantly bolster power generation capacity. However, these investments remain unrealised, raising questions about potential roadblocks or disincentives hindering their involvement.

Considering the current power crisis, exploring swiftly deployable solutions like wind and solar power could have been crucial. I asked my electrical engineering PhD friend regarding construction timelines for 100MW power plants. By his estimation, when all issues related to site acquisition and compliance are excluded, it is possible to acquire this capacity within 3 months. Tanzanians have suffered for years, but 3 months is all it takes to inject an additional 100MW at strategic locations: One can do 400MW in a year, or much more across multiple sites.

For perspective, China, a global leader in renewable energy, brought into operation a total capacity of 216 GW of solar power in 2023 alone. In other words, China was commissioning solar capacity equivalent to two JNHPPs every week. But, for two years, no one in the whole Tanzanian government has thought of such possibilities.

Don’t we have enough suitors? Quite the opposite. Many investors are highly interested in putting money into the power generation sector in Tanzania. What we call demand, they call opportunities. While in Paris last year, I talked to the president of Africa’s operations of one such suitors – the offer that they gave to Tanesco was quite competitive, possibly beating the best offer that Tanesco has today. Yet, no further developments are seen.

We have heard of similar interests from Masdar, an Emirati firm proposing building a curious 2 GW renewable energy capacity in Tanzania. A year and a half in, we only have a few sites mentioned for development while not a single unit of power has been generated.

There are many other suitors, and Songas is one of the better-known ones to have publicly expressed interest in expanding its power generation portfolio in Tanzania beyond gas. Many suitors are unknown to the public. I have talked to two interested investors who informed me of their discouraging experiences trying to break into Tanzania’s power generation sector. One of them, after submitting a highly competitive price offer to EWURA, was asked to increase it by 60 percent by other players. Increase it, not lower it. Is it any wonder that after years of chasing shadows, they have decided to pursue other endeavours?

Meanwhile, Tanzanians still languish in power struggles. Businesses suffer—a friend who has launched his new very promising business in Mwanza was telling me how the power issue jeopardises his investments. Production suffers – lost productivity and increased cost of production. And families suffer – darkness, waste, and all inconveniences. This is all quite preventable.

We will dive deeper into why private investments in the power generation sector in Tanzania are stalling next week.


?

Currently, green energy(no CO2 gas) in favor of climatic transformation is a global agenda. Business analysis should go parallel with risk assessment, I know most of us would think of abrupty benefits rather than its process and given risks. In short Mega projects have no jokes. The TCO(CAPEX and OPEX) is extremely huge and the TTM(Time to Market) is really a storm to digest for such enormous projects but the project aging is good whilst the project operation has natural dependency incase of no rain or too much rain to destroy the infrastructure. We need to expand the commercial strategy extensively as possible to cover the PUE and probabilistic risks. if you need to have more efficient and strategic solutions i mean state of arts you need challenges from competitors. I am happy for my country, Trying is better than never let's appreciate the efforts.

回复
Irvin Davis

Director and President of SET Foundation

9 个月

To Mr. Makakala, resending an earlier message: Lake Kivu bottom gases are reported to be 17% CH4 (methane) and 83% CO2, while Lake Tanganyika is estimated to contain 23 million tonnes of CH4. We know Rwanda already has a power solution which recovers and utilizes the Kivu methane bottom gas as fuel, while leaving the more dangerous CO2 to accumulate in the Lake to threaten future catastrophe. As an improvement on the Rwanda approach, our method will continually draw off and make value-added use of both bottom gases from the lake, thus greatly reducing threat by converting geogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) and biogenic methane (CH4) to economic benefit. On the Carbon Capture Recycle (CCR) platform, our method will economically reform recovered methane producing hydrogen fuel while acting on recovered CO2 as input to our proprietary Dissociation Water Carbon (DWC) Process producing far more hydrogen fuel for local decarbonized gigawatt power generation. Sharing this in hopes you may push buttons for Tanzania to take the lead in promoting a public-private partnership executing a regional build-operate-transfer (PPP-BOT) to convert the ongoing threat of lake bottom gases to enormous economic benefit. Regards Irvin Davis

Liubym Gerasymenko, FCCA, MIM

CEO’s business partner in tackling challenging business environments ? Critical energy infrastructure ? Energy transition ? Industrials ? Sensible decarbonization ? Corporate transformations ? M&A ? Multi-cultural exec

9 个月

Mistreatment of IPPs and generally the private sector plus ever-lasting political struggles that place political appointees instead of technocrats to the top seats at regulatory authorities are two primary reasons for the appalling state of affairs. Magufuli's "legacy" will haunt the country for a long, long time.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了