Beyond the megawatts: The murky waters of Nyerere Dam

Beyond the megawatts: The murky waters of Nyerere Dam

The Nyerere Dam (JNHPP) has been in the news for the wrong and right reasons lately. The cause is that the debate for or against the construction of the dam isn’t settled yet. It is apparent that many are waiting for anything remotely proving their point of view to praise or discredit the project.

The first thing in the news was the commissioning of the first turbine, thus dispatching 235MW of power to the national grid. The achievement has brought much-needed relief to the power crisis that Tanzania has had for years. With many more turbines yet to be commissioned, we can be sure that the powers that be will milk every ounce of political advantage out of every turbine that will be commissioned from now onwards.

The second thing is the release of the excess water from the dam, thus causing floods downstream, affecting thousands of people in the Rufiji River floodplains. Apparently, the dam is releasing 700,000 litres of water per second, enough to fill the Benjamin Mkapa Stadium twice per second. Critics have come out in droves highlighting why the dam shouldn’t have been built from the beginning.

I have also struggled with the rationale for the JNHPP question for a while, especially why President Magufuli decided to bring forward the construction of the dam for almost two decades. Ultimately, I concluded that the motives for the construction of the dam were sound.

To be fair, I understand Magufuli’s critics. The man was a treasure-trove of bad ideas, therefore, if he initiated something, then it was quite safe to assume that there was something wrong with it. That applied to JNHPP too. The fact that JNHPP touched on the interests of many rambunctious international players didn’t help because the criticism of the project became greatly amplified.

From the very beginning, the project has faced many questions about its environmental impact. Being situated in a World Heritage site and with a reservoir over two-thirds of Zanzibar, JNHPP wasn’t going to endear itself with the environmentalists of this world. 38 percent of Tanzania is under some conservation protection – I bet that many out there wish to increase that percentage even more, Tanzanians’ rights to use their land for development purposes notwithstanding.

Interestingly, it is some of those very activists who are using the flooding of Rufiji as evidence for the project’s lack of environmental soundness. But that is grasping at straws at best. Even without JNHPP, the area used to flood quite frequently. The release of excess water implies that the dam is full – which is good news – and that had the dam not been around, flooding downstream would have been more devastating.

Financially, the Nyerere Dam is a murky picture. Initial cost estimates suggest a price tag of USD 3.9 billion for 2.15GW. However, some experts argue that cost overruns would be over twice that figure. Had that kind of investment gone into alternative solutions such as geothermal, coal, solar and wind, we could have generated double the output of JNHPP that way. This raises concerns about the financial and technical soundness of the project.

While those concerns are real, the promised cost per unit of power generated by the Nyerere Dam offers a potential economic boon. The dam will produce electricity at a rock-bottom rate of 4.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, far below Tanzania’s current average cost per unit generated. This competitive pricing could provide a crucial cost advantage for industrial development.

Strategically, Nyerere Dam’s dependence on rainfall is another objection. Experience has shown that periods of drought can drastically reduce water flow and cripple electricity generation. Prioritising the construction of the natural gas-powered Kinyerezi III and IV plants would have provided a more reliable solution, especially considering the abundant domestic reserves at Songosongo and Mnazi Bay.

I have used that argument before, but the problem is that we have all been assuming that we have abundant gas reserves – which we don’t. Barring the operationalisation of new gas reserves, which will take at least 5 years from now, the existing reserves can support current demand for at most a decade. Adding more gas plants the size of Kinyerezi III and IV will exhaust the existing reserves before the supply from new reserves starts. The results would be catastrophic.

I am sure that Magufuli was presented with this scenario and concluded that without increased supply, more gas plants would be a huge liability at this point. I don’t understand why the government hasn’t done a better job of explaining this position. Unless the people in power take pleasure in keeping the public in limbo about their actions and motives.

The Nyerere Dam is a complex project with a long shadow. While the first flickers of power offer hope, the environmental and financial concerns linger. Was it a colossal misstep? The answer might lie not just in the dam’s functionality, but in Tanzania’s ability to manage its resources and its message. One thing is for sure though: this dam will be a prominent fixture in Tanzania’s story for decades to come.

So, buckle up.

Original Media Source

Share this news

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp

This Year's Most Read News Stories

Zanzibar Commerce
Top News
Investment News Editor

Zanzibar Airports Authority enforces Dnata monopoly

. Airlines that have not joined the Zanzibar Airports Authority’s (ZAA) preferred ground handler, Dnata, at the Abeid Amani Karume International Airport (AAKIA) face eviction from the Terminal Three building Dnata is the sole ground handler authorised to provide services for flights that operate at Terminal 3.Continue Reading

Air Tanzania Banned From EU Airspace Due to Safety Concerns
Tanzania Foreign Investment News
Chief Editor

Air Tanzania Banned From EU Airspace Due to Safety Concerns

Several airports have since locked Air Tanzania, dealing a severe blow to the Tanzanian national carrier that must now work overtime to regain its certification or go the wet lease way

The European Commission has announced the inclusion of Air Tanzania on the EU Air Safety List, effectively banning the airline from operating in European airspace.

The decision, made public on December 16, 2024, is based on safety concerns identified by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which also led to the denial of Air Tanzania’s application for a Third Country Operator (TCO) authorisation.

The Commission did not go into the specifics of the safety infringement but industry experts suggest it is possible that the airline could have flown its Airbus A220 well past its scheduled major checks, thus violating the airworthiness directives.

“The decision to include Air Tanzania in the EU Air Safety List underscores our unwavering commitment to ensuring the highest safety standards for passengers in Europe and worldwide,” said Apostolos Tzitzikostas, EU Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism.

“We strongly urge Air Tanzania to take swift and decisive action to address these safety issues. I have offered the Commission’s assistance to the Tanzanian authorities in enhancing Air Tanzania’s safety performance and achieving full compliance with international aviation standards.”

Air Tanzania has a mixed fleet of modern aircraft types including Boeing 787s, 737 Max jets, and Airbus A220s.

It has been flying the B787 Dreamliner to European destinations like Frankfurt in Germany and Athens in Greece and was looking to add London to its growing list with the A220.

But the ban not only scuppers the London dream but also has seen immediate ripple effect, with several airports – including regional like Kigali and continental – locking out Air Tanzania.

Tanzania operates KLM alongside the national carrier.

The European Commission said Air Tanzania may be permitted to exercise traffic rights by using wet-leased aircraft of an air carrier which is not subject to an operating ban, provided that the relevant safety standards are complied with.

A wet lease is where an airline pays to use an aircraft with a crew, fuel, and insurance all provided by the leasing company at a fee.

Two more to the list

The EU Air Safety List, maintained to ensure passenger safety, is updated periodically based on recommendations from the EU Air Safety Committee.

The latest revision, which followed a meeting of aviation safety experts in Brussels from November 19 to 21, 2024, now includes 129 airlines.

Of these, 100 are certified in 15 states where aviation oversight is deemed insufficient, and 29 are individual airlines with significant safety deficiencies.

Alongside Air Tanzania, other banned carriers include Air Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe), Avior Airlines (Venezuela), and Iran Aseman Airlines (Iran).

Commenting on the broader implications of the list, Tzitzikostas stated, “Our priority remains the safety of every traveler who relies on air transport. We urge all affected airlines to take these bans seriously and work collaboratively with international bodies to resolve the identified issues.”

In a positive development, Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) has been cleared to resume operations in the EU following a four-year suspension. The ban, which began in 2020, was lifted after substantial improvements in safety performance and oversight by PIA and the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority (PCAA).

“Since the TCO Authorisation was suspended, PIA and PCAA have made remarkable progress in enhancing safety standards,” noted Tzitzikostas. “This demonstrates that safety issues can be resolved through determination and cooperation.”

Another Pakistani airline, Airblue Limited, has also received EASA’s TCO authorisation.

Decisions to include or exclude airlines from the EU Air Safety List are based on rigorous evaluations of international safety standards, particularly those established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

The process involves thorough review and consultation among EU Member State aviation safety experts, with oversight from the European Commission and support from EASA.

“Where an airline currently on the list believes it complies with the required safety standards, it can request a reassessment,” explained Tzitzikostas. “Our goal is not to penalize but to ensure safety compliance globally.”

Airlines listed on the EU Air Safety List face significant challenges to their international operations, as the bans highlight shortcomings in safety oversight by their home regulatory authorities.

For Air Tanzania, this inclusion signals an urgent need for reform within Tanzania’s aviation sector to address these deficiencies and align with global standards.

The path forward will require immediate and sustained efforts to rectify safety concerns and regain access to one of the world’s most critical aviation markets.

Source: allafrica.com

Continue Reading