Adolph Jr
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 5, 2016
- 5,950
- 9,511
Nina wasiwasi na sisi wa tz....idea yako ni nzuri ila kila mtu akabidhiwe rungu la kufunga solar na kui-connect na main grid,...mmh.!
Na hawa hawa wakina Fundi maiko...?
Jinsi ya kuifanya Kampuni ya Tanesco kuwa Kampuni Bora na ya Kujivunia Tanzania na Afrika kwa Ujumla
Jinsi ya kuifanya Kampuni ya Tanesco kuwa Kampuni Bora na ya Kujivunia Tanzania na Afrika kwa Ujumla
Na hawa hawa wakina Fundi maiko...?
Logikos
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 26, 2014
- 15,460
- 24,233
- Thread starter
- #22
Hakuna kuwakabidhi watu Binafsi; let watu Binafsi wakatengeneze Tanesco zao huko wawasupply watu ambapo hawajafikiwa and compete if they can....,
Ila watu wote waalikwe..., wenye uwezo wa kupata nishati cheaply na kuwauzia Tanesco na wafanye hivyo ili waweze kusambaza na kuitunza (Storage) . Hivi wewe kwenye hilo banda lako la choo na hio nyumba ya uwani na mbele ukiweka solar zako za kutosha na kwa masaa 12 unatengeneza units za kuwauzia Tanesco una hasara gani ? Kama ni surplus utajikuta luku yako kila ukisoma inasoma credits bila wewe kuweka pesa...
Ni kama wewe una wateja na una butcher kama unauza nyama kilo moja elfu moja utakuwa chizi kama mtu akija na kukuuzia wewe 250/=; sio uuze butcher alafu kesho uje ununue nyama kwa 1,250/= (yaani hapo kipato chako umegawa na kuweka rehani chakula yako ya kila siku)
Adolph Jr
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 5, 2016
- 5,950
- 9,511
Logikos
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 26, 2014
- 15,460
- 24,233
- Thread starter
- #24
Hizi meter tayari zipo; Back to Grid Meter; (Net Metering) n.k. zina majina mengi sana..., kinachofanyika umeme wa solar ni DC kwahio unabadilishwa na kuwekwa kwenye frequency sawa na ya GRID na automatically unakuwa connected kwenye Mita za Tanesco (Smart Meters) hakuna miundo mbinu mipya....
Na hii Kazi wanasimamia Tanesco wenyewe wewe hakuna kugusa kitu hizo solar juu ya bati yanakuwa kama mapambo tu ukizalisha unit 100 ukatumia 50 basi hizo 50 utakuwa umewapa Tanesco kwa Bei yao elekezi huenda watakupa units 20 za kutumia baadae (inabidi uwape asante ya kukutunzia mchana wakati wewe utakapowasha usiku) ukitumia zaidi basi utalipia ziada...
Ila na hili Bwawa likiisha huenda units bei yake ikawa sawa na peremende...
Koffi Annan
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 23, 2018
- 1,771
- 5,087
Watu wanatema madini
TimeOut
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 20, 2022
- 3,894
- 8,454
Nimeelewa kiongozi
Bavaria
JF-Expert Member
- Jun 14, 2011
- 53,092
- 53,496
Ushindani upi wa kibiashara?
Ile mitambo ya Dowans, Escrow imekuwa inawauzia umeme tanesco wa diesel kwa bei ya juu mwisho wa siku mzigo unakuwa wa serikali.
Naweza kuweka mitambo yangu nikawauzia bei ya juu ila ile tofauti tukagawana na wakubwa shirikani.
Logikos
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 26, 2014
- 15,460
- 24,233
- Thread starter
- #30
Jambo ambalo watu wanasahau au wanajifanya hawajui kwenye Private Companies ni Profit at all Costs..., kwanza Shareholders walipwe mengine baadae; kwahio bei ita-reflect cost of production plus as much profit as possible, hata ukiweka regulator watakachopunguza ni huduma na sio faida yao...
Haya tukisema pia ushindani...., kuna wa ku-compete na hydro ya Tanesco baada ya Bwawa la Nyerere na economy of scale ya Tanesco ?, Au tutawagawia watu Bwawa watuendeshee... na kuliua Tanesco ili Kampuni nyingine zionekane ni Bora ?!!! Refer TTCL
Logikos
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 26, 2014
- 15,460
- 24,233
- Thread starter
- #31
Import Note; Ni kwamba Privatisation Nyingi za Utility Companies zinafanyika kwenye High Income Economy na Watu wenye Kipato cha Juu huenda hii inasababishwa na kwamba gharama wanaweza kumudu zaidi kuliko kina Average Joe....
Cheki Extract hapo Chini:- Private versus public electricity distribution utilities: Are outcomes different for end-users?
1. Most distribution utilities are publicly owned but privatization is more likely in higher income economies
Of the 201 business cities covered by Doing Business, 71% have electricity distribution utilities that are majority-owned by the public sector, while the remaining 29% privately-owned distribution utilities are concentrated almost entirely in middle and high-income economies. This is in line with findings of studies showing that privatization typically takes place in wealthier societies, where efficient stock markets enable firms to issue public debt. At the regional level, private utilities are rare in Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and Pacific and Middle East and North Africa. In contrast, Europe and Central Asia and the OECD high-income group have a more balanced share of private and public distribution companies (Figure 1).
Cheki Extract hapo Chini:- Private versus public electricity distribution utilities: Are outcomes different for end-users?
1. Most distribution utilities are publicly owned but privatization is more likely in higher income economies
Of the 201 business cities covered by Doing Business, 71% have electricity distribution utilities that are majority-owned by the public sector, while the remaining 29% privately-owned distribution utilities are concentrated almost entirely in middle and high-income economies. This is in line with findings of studies showing that privatization typically takes place in wealthier societies, where efficient stock markets enable firms to issue public debt. At the regional level, private utilities are rare in Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and Pacific and Middle East and North Africa. In contrast, Europe and Central Asia and the OECD high-income group have a more balanced share of private and public distribution companies (Figure 1).
Lycaon pictus
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 31, 2021
- 9,189
- 16,128
Kilichofanyika TTCL kifanyike TANESCO. Makampuni binafsi yaruhusiwe kuwekeza na kuuza umeme.
Logikos
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 26, 2014
- 15,460
- 24,233
- Thread starter
- #33
Yamekatazwa ?
Na kama Kampuni binafsi ziruhusiwe pia kufanya distribution ?, Yaani Mtaani tuwe na nguzo za kila Kampuni ?
Wazo langu kila raia / binadamu aruhusiiwe kuzalisha (kwa kuzingatia mazingira) na kuwauzia Tanesco kwa bei ndogo kuliko wanayouza wao; ili waweze kuwapa wananchi nafuu na kuuza nje kwa faida ya nchi...
Logikos
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 26, 2014
- 15,460
- 24,233
- Thread starter
- #34
Privatisation Sio muafaka wa kutokukatika kwa umeme
4. Utility ownership has little correlation with power outages
When we factor in income per capita, natural resource endowment and geography, we observe that power outages – measured both in terms of duration per customer (SAIDI index) and frequency (SAIFI index) – are not significantly associated with the ownership status of the distribution utility. This is perhaps not surprising as power outages largely depend on a country’s production capacity, over which distribution utilities have little control. Interestingly, the existence of an electricity sector regulator – either at the state or federal level – is significantly associated with lower outages, suggesting that when there is an independent body monitoring utility performance on reliability, power outages are less likely to occur. In San Salvador, for instance, SIGET, which is an independent regulatory agency, approved Norm 320-E-2011 to (i) set an outage cap objective for the utility and (ii) to monetarily compensate clients in case of outages.
blogs.worldbank.org
4. Utility ownership has little correlation with power outages
When we factor in income per capita, natural resource endowment and geography, we observe that power outages – measured both in terms of duration per customer (SAIDI index) and frequency (SAIFI index) – are not significantly associated with the ownership status of the distribution utility. This is perhaps not surprising as power outages largely depend on a country’s production capacity, over which distribution utilities have little control. Interestingly, the existence of an electricity sector regulator – either at the state or federal level – is significantly associated with lower outages, suggesting that when there is an independent body monitoring utility performance on reliability, power outages are less likely to occur. In San Salvador, for instance, SIGET, which is an independent regulatory agency, approved Norm 320-E-2011 to (i) set an outage cap objective for the utility and (ii) to monetarily compensate clients in case of outages.
Private versus public electricity distribution utilities: Are outcomes different for end-users?
Does the ownership structure of electricity distribution utilities matter? Distribution utilities are usually private or government-owned.
Logikos
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 26, 2014
- 15,460
- 24,233
- Thread starter
- #35
Interesting Reading Why we should pull the plug on privatising electricity
There is only one small problem with privatisation: the long-term history of the electricity industry has shown it almost always leads to disaster. University of Wollongong professor, Sharon Beder, has provided the evidence in the book Power Play: The Fight to Control the World’s Electricity. It supplies much needed historical context to the battle between public and private ownership played out over more than one hundred years in the United States and Britain, and the last couple of decades in Australia, Brazil and India.
Beder shows throughout this history, industry practised the modern art of propaganda, conducting public relations blitzes to convince consumers private ownership was superior, despite public anger with poor service and unjust pricing. Although industry attempted to equate public ownership of electricity monopolies with communism, they had no principled dispute with monopolies as long as ownership, control, profits and decision-making were private.
Australian governments once wholly owned the four sectors comprising the electricity industry: generation, transmission (large networks), distribution (local networks), and retailers. These sectors have been split into competing firms and spun off.
The natural monopoly character of the electricity industry makes designing competition difficult. Generators have large fixed capital costs, meaning oligopolistic competition will feature. In transmission and distribution, duplicative infrastructure is wasteful and precludes competition. Retailers tend to follow the same oligopolistic pattern as generators (TRUEnergy, AGL and Origin Energy).
The National Electricity Market (NEM) was instituted to increase competition, but is beset with problems. For instance, the transmission losses over the interconnectors range from 40 to 90% and a powerful oligopolistic industry still dominates the market.
A primary argument for privatisation is the issue of moral hazard under public ownership. While this is certainly true, history has shown something rather interesting: privatisation instead enhances moral hazard. Firms will leverage their market dominance to often blackmail the government with bankruptcy and blackouts if regulators do not raise prices, thereby risking the wider economy.
Other times, firms will teeter on the brink of insolvency because of ill-informed decisions, usually over long-term capital investments that have never become profitable. Accordingly, firms pressure regulators to increase prices to cover sunk costs. An astounding fact revealed by Beder is that the electricity industry is one of the most bailed-out in history, perhaps second only to the banking sector.
These bailouts, however, do not generate the publicity that surrounds banking bailouts. It is often done on the sly, with regulators approving substantial price increases and governments providing massive taxpayer-funded subsidies and below market rate loans. Typically, years elapse before the public discovers the truth.
As Beder documents, privatisation almost always results in escalating electricity prices, even at times when total demand is falling. Rolling blackouts may also occur as rising prices don’t provide a market signal to increase generating capacity; firms instead turn off generators to ensure prices skyrocket, creating a positive feedback loop.
While raising prices in the short-term is indeed profitable for industry, in the long-term it has the potential to backfire. The reason is the emerging alternative electricity source for households: solar power. This has grown exponentially in recent years, as the cost of solar panels fell by an impressive 42% in 2011. Grid parity may be achieved soon when the cost of solar panels equals purchasing electricity from the grid.
The solar panel revolution threatens both the generating and network firms whose revenues and profits depend upon supplying increasing amounts of electricity. They are fighting back by making it difficult and costly to connect the solar panels to the grid as an anti-competitive strategy, which is probably the single most important issue regarding the installation of solar panels.
Publicly owned electricity systems are beset with their own problems. Cost-plus accounting is a “spend more, earn more” incentive, resulting in gold-plating (over-investment) in the network infrastructure, which obliges higher prices. Prices also increased ahead of privatisation so the government receives a higher return and ensures privatisation cannot be blamed for the inevitable rises. Pricing formulas based upon asset values ensure that the remaining publicly-owned systems act as private ones, increasing asset values and hence profits, regardless of whether it is necessary, again raising prices.
Unlike privatised firms, however, price gouging by public firms can return the profits (indirectly) to the taxpayer rather than to owners and managers. With public ownership, customers as citizens can influence the public policy process; privatisation neuters this lever.
The electricity industry has been purposely reshaped via neoliberal ideology from a system of public subsidy, public profit into public subsidy, private profit where risks and costs are socialised but profits and power are privatised. Industry today is like a restaurant menu: there are multiple retailers, offering a variety of plans and prices that appears to offer consumer choice.
Unfortunately, none of the options available include inexpensive electricity. Citizens and customers have no influence over how the menu is constructed; instead, they are offered the illusion of choice. The business model that retailers operate under is inefficient and does not serve consumers well. Also, industry works to silence those who speak out against it.
Much like the privatisation and deregulation of the financial sector that promised choice and efficiency according to pseudo-scientific economic models, it has instead resulted in endless financial disasters, coming after a period of apparent tranquillity. The costs to governments vastly exceed all the costs and problems of public ownership.
Economist Steve Keen has shown that the models used by economists to prove that electricity privatisation functions more efficiently are lacking due to three issues: a monopolistic industry structure may be more welfare enhancing than a competitive one, spot markets are subject to speculative volatility, and enforcing marginal cost pricing can potentially bankrupt firms. Neoclassical theory is biased towards market outcomes, but only due to the numerous nonsensical assumptions needed to make models “work” while ignoring the large body of empirical literature that show these models are false and misleading.
Economists advocating and devising privatisation programs are themselves beset with conflicts of interest. Many are employed by, consult for, manage, and/or own organisations with a direct interest in profiting from privatisation. Listening to the pronouncements of conflicted persons and organisations is similar to letting Big Tobacco determine the direction and outcomes of medical science.
When privatisation results in diametrically opposite outcomes to those claimed, supporters - governments, industry, think-tanks and the corporate media - offer an ad infinitum argument: the problems were caused by too little privatisation. It is only when the predations of industry become obscene, as with California’s energy crisis, will governments step in to deal with the problem.
Given the historical trends documented by Beder, it is likely that Australia’s privatised electricity industry will follow in the same direction as its historical counterparts. As Mark Twain observed, history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
There is only one small problem with privatisation: the long-term history of the electricity industry has shown it almost always leads to disaster. University of Wollongong professor, Sharon Beder, has provided the evidence in the book Power Play: The Fight to Control the World’s Electricity. It supplies much needed historical context to the battle between public and private ownership played out over more than one hundred years in the United States and Britain, and the last couple of decades in Australia, Brazil and India.
Beder shows throughout this history, industry practised the modern art of propaganda, conducting public relations blitzes to convince consumers private ownership was superior, despite public anger with poor service and unjust pricing. Although industry attempted to equate public ownership of electricity monopolies with communism, they had no principled dispute with monopolies as long as ownership, control, profits and decision-making were private.
Australian governments once wholly owned the four sectors comprising the electricity industry: generation, transmission (large networks), distribution (local networks), and retailers. These sectors have been split into competing firms and spun off.
The natural monopoly character of the electricity industry makes designing competition difficult. Generators have large fixed capital costs, meaning oligopolistic competition will feature. In transmission and distribution, duplicative infrastructure is wasteful and precludes competition. Retailers tend to follow the same oligopolistic pattern as generators (TRUEnergy, AGL and Origin Energy).
The National Electricity Market (NEM) was instituted to increase competition, but is beset with problems. For instance, the transmission losses over the interconnectors range from 40 to 90% and a powerful oligopolistic industry still dominates the market.
A primary argument for privatisation is the issue of moral hazard under public ownership. While this is certainly true, history has shown something rather interesting: privatisation instead enhances moral hazard. Firms will leverage their market dominance to often blackmail the government with bankruptcy and blackouts if regulators do not raise prices, thereby risking the wider economy.
Other times, firms will teeter on the brink of insolvency because of ill-informed decisions, usually over long-term capital investments that have never become profitable. Accordingly, firms pressure regulators to increase prices to cover sunk costs. An astounding fact revealed by Beder is that the electricity industry is one of the most bailed-out in history, perhaps second only to the banking sector.
These bailouts, however, do not generate the publicity that surrounds banking bailouts. It is often done on the sly, with regulators approving substantial price increases and governments providing massive taxpayer-funded subsidies and below market rate loans. Typically, years elapse before the public discovers the truth.
As Beder documents, privatisation almost always results in escalating electricity prices, even at times when total demand is falling. Rolling blackouts may also occur as rising prices don’t provide a market signal to increase generating capacity; firms instead turn off generators to ensure prices skyrocket, creating a positive feedback loop.
While raising prices in the short-term is indeed profitable for industry, in the long-term it has the potential to backfire. The reason is the emerging alternative electricity source for households: solar power. This has grown exponentially in recent years, as the cost of solar panels fell by an impressive 42% in 2011. Grid parity may be achieved soon when the cost of solar panels equals purchasing electricity from the grid.
The solar panel revolution threatens both the generating and network firms whose revenues and profits depend upon supplying increasing amounts of electricity. They are fighting back by making it difficult and costly to connect the solar panels to the grid as an anti-competitive strategy, which is probably the single most important issue regarding the installation of solar panels.
Publicly owned electricity systems are beset with their own problems. Cost-plus accounting is a “spend more, earn more” incentive, resulting in gold-plating (over-investment) in the network infrastructure, which obliges higher prices. Prices also increased ahead of privatisation so the government receives a higher return and ensures privatisation cannot be blamed for the inevitable rises. Pricing formulas based upon asset values ensure that the remaining publicly-owned systems act as private ones, increasing asset values and hence profits, regardless of whether it is necessary, again raising prices.
Unlike privatised firms, however, price gouging by public firms can return the profits (indirectly) to the taxpayer rather than to owners and managers. With public ownership, customers as citizens can influence the public policy process; privatisation neuters this lever.
The electricity industry has been purposely reshaped via neoliberal ideology from a system of public subsidy, public profit into public subsidy, private profit where risks and costs are socialised but profits and power are privatised. Industry today is like a restaurant menu: there are multiple retailers, offering a variety of plans and prices that appears to offer consumer choice.
Unfortunately, none of the options available include inexpensive electricity. Citizens and customers have no influence over how the menu is constructed; instead, they are offered the illusion of choice. The business model that retailers operate under is inefficient and does not serve consumers well. Also, industry works to silence those who speak out against it.
Much like the privatisation and deregulation of the financial sector that promised choice and efficiency according to pseudo-scientific economic models, it has instead resulted in endless financial disasters, coming after a period of apparent tranquillity. The costs to governments vastly exceed all the costs and problems of public ownership.
Economist Steve Keen has shown that the models used by economists to prove that electricity privatisation functions more efficiently are lacking due to three issues: a monopolistic industry structure may be more welfare enhancing than a competitive one, spot markets are subject to speculative volatility, and enforcing marginal cost pricing can potentially bankrupt firms. Neoclassical theory is biased towards market outcomes, but only due to the numerous nonsensical assumptions needed to make models “work” while ignoring the large body of empirical literature that show these models are false and misleading.
Economists advocating and devising privatisation programs are themselves beset with conflicts of interest. Many are employed by, consult for, manage, and/or own organisations with a direct interest in profiting from privatisation. Listening to the pronouncements of conflicted persons and organisations is similar to letting Big Tobacco determine the direction and outcomes of medical science.
When privatisation results in diametrically opposite outcomes to those claimed, supporters - governments, industry, think-tanks and the corporate media - offer an ad infinitum argument: the problems were caused by too little privatisation. It is only when the predations of industry become obscene, as with California’s energy crisis, will governments step in to deal with the problem.
Given the historical trends documented by Beder, it is likely that Australia’s privatised electricity industry will follow in the same direction as its historical counterparts. As Mark Twain observed, history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
