TANESCO itafutiwe mshindani wa kibiashara?

[ShyaRuwa]

Wenje kuna kipindi alishauri kitu kama hivyo bungen alipigwa vita na kijan mpaka akaomba po lakin ilikia kwa nia njema na maendeleo ya taifa lakin kwa vile nchi imejaa diri ndo ivo ilo ni sawa na fao la kujitoa

Mambo mengine ni ya kudai na siyo kuomba Mkuu.

 

[Msukuma_De_Great]

Mambo mengine ni ya kudai na siyo kuomba Mkuu.

Hii nchi unadai vip... unamfaham dict. Uchwara

 

[ShyaRuwa]

Hii nchi unadai vip... unamfaham dict. Uchwara

Tatizo ni M7!

 

[balbu]

Yawepo tu maana daa uu umeme wa tanesco utafikir unapewa bure ulivyo na manyanyaso

 

[nsekwa]

Kuwe na ushindani kama ilivyo kwenye mitandao ya simu. Yani itakuwa poa sana mkuu.

Duniani kote hakuna nchi yenye ushindani kama zilivyo simu. Simu miundombinu yake ni rahisi kama wireless nk. Umeme ni nishati, hata kama kukiwa na kampuni zaidi ya moja, hawataweza kutoa huduma kwenye eneo moja, mfano; haitawezekana kwa mteja mmoja kuwa na zaidi ya makampuni mawili au zaidi, hii kitu haipo duniani kote! Umemeni usalama wa nchi hauwezi kuachiwa kiholela kila mtu akajiendeshe kama ilivyo kwenye mawasiliano. Kwanza jiulize nishart pa kuipata si rahisi na miundombinu kuijenga ni very expensive.

 

[BAK]

Why we should pull the plug on privatising electricity

Surging power prices are having savage consequences for household discretionary incomes. Some would blame the government’s carbon tax, but the real culprit is price gouging. Judging from the pronouncements of government and industry — including mainstream economists — privatisation is the practical solution to achieve low prices. Indeed, Australian state governments have embarked upon privatisation programs to varying degrees since the 1990s.

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.

Wakuu wa Jukwaa heshima kwenu!

Moja kati ya nguzo muhimu za maendeleo ni ushindani.Hata mataifa yaliyoendelea ni yale yaliyohubiri sera za ushinadi.Ushindani unaongeza mbio za maendeleo ya anayekimbiza na anayekimbizwa.

Ukiangalia shirika la uzalishaji na ugavi wa umeme nchini halina mshindani, linaendeshwa ki-monopoly mno. Haishangazi kuona linagubikwa na kashfa lukuki za kifisadi huku likitoa huduma kwa kusuasua kwa wateja wake wachache lililonao.TANESCO ni tofauti sana na makampuni mengi yenye washindani kama ya mitandao ya simu za mikononi, ya usafirishaji, n.k.

Sasa nauliza je kuna uwezekano wa kuwepo makampuni ya kushindana na TANESCO kwenye biashara ya kuzalisha na kusambaza umeme nchini?

Je kama ushindani utatokea, pata kuwepo na uafadhali kwa mtumiaji wa umeme kama vile umeme wa uhakika kwa bei nafuu?.....Au hakuna unafuu utakaopatikana zaidi ya huu wa TANESCO?

 

[BAK]

Critique of Electricity Privatisation

Dozens of governments have embarked on the pathway to electricity deregulation and privatisation since the mid-1990s. It has become the accepted wisdom amongst governments and opinion leaders despite the consequent price rises and disasters that have followed in its wake: the series of blackouts that have been experienced from California to Buenos Aires to Auckland; the government bailouts of electricity companies that have been necessary in California and Britain; the need for electricity rationing in Brazil; and the fact that it has become too expensive for millions of people from India to South Africa.

Electricity deregulation and privatisation is referred to as ‘liberalisation’ by its advocates who use the term to disguise what is in essence a massive shift of ownership and control of electricity from public to private hands, in the name of economic efficiency and in the cause of private profits. ‘Liberalisation’ has meant that maintenance teams that were once fully staffed have been dramatically cut leading to frequent equipment failures. It has meant that privately owned electricity conglomerates are able to blackmail governments into bailouts and high prices with threats of blackouts. And it has meant that the planning function of electricity authorities that once ensured adequate generating reserves for times of peak demand, and kept infrastructure up to date in developed countries, have been abandoned to market forces. Because of market forces electricity prices are based, not on the cost of production, but on how desperately consumers want electricity and this has led to sky-rocketing prices whenever private companies have been able to limit supply in times of high demand.

The privatisation of electricity is not something that citizens have demanded nor wanted. In general, there has been very little public participation in electricity reform decisions and as the consequences are observed, there have been many bitter protests against electricity privatisation. Popular uprisings have occurred in Argentina, India, Indonesia and Ghana. Protests have halted privatisation proposals in Peru, Ecuador and Paraguay. In the Dominican Republic several people were killed during protests against blackouts imposed by privatised companies. In South Africa thousands marched during a two day general strike to protest privatisation, which they labelled “born-again apartheid”. In Papua New Guinea students were killed when thousands rallied against the planned privatisation of government services including Elcom, the electricity authority. Even in China, workers protested the sale of a power plant in Henan province to a private company and threatened to “block the state highway and lie on the railroad while the trains run over us”.[1]

Wakuu wa Jukwaa heshima kwenu!

Moja kati ya nguzo muhimu za maendeleo ni ushindani.Hata mataifa yaliyoendelea ni yale yaliyohubiri sera za ushinadi.Ushindani unaongeza mbio za maendeleo ya anayekimbiza na anayekimbizwa.

Ukiangalia shirika la uzalishaji na ugavi wa umeme nchini halina mshindani, linaendeshwa ki-monopoly mno. Haishangazi kuona linagubikwa na kashfa lukuki za kifisadi huku likitoa huduma kwa kusuasua kwa wateja wake wachache lililonao.TANESCO ni tofauti sana na makampuni mengi yenye washindani kama ya mitandao ya simu za mikononi, ya usafirishaji, n.k.

Sasa nauliza je kuna uwezekano wa kuwepo makampuni ya kushindana na TANESCO kwenye biashara ya kuzalisha na kusambaza umeme nchini?

Je kama ushindani utatokea, pata kuwepo na uafadhali kwa mtumiaji wa umeme kama vile umeme wa uhakika kwa bei nafuu?.....Au hakuna unafuu utakaopatikana zaidi ya huu wa TANESCO?

 

[ShyaRuwa]

Duniani kote hakuna nchi yenye ushindani kama zilivyo simu. Simu miundombinu yake ni rahisi kama wireless nk. Umeme ni nishati, hata kama kukiwa na kampuni zaidi ya moja, hawataweza kutoa huduma kwenye eneo moja, mfano; haitawezekana kwa mteja mmoja kuwa na zaidi ya makampuni mawili au zaidi, hii kitu haipo duniani kote! Umemeni usalama wa nchi hauwezi kuachiwa kiholela kila mtu akajiendeshe kama ilivyo kwenye mawasiliano. Kwanza jiulize nishart pa kuipata si rahisi na miundombinu kuijenga ni very expensive.

Tunakoelekea ni tofauti na tunakotoka.
Siyo ajabu wire less electrical transmission ikaingia sokoni muda wowote[kama wengine hawajaanza]

Kumbuka jinsi simu ilivyotumika zamani na wakati huu, ni tofauti sana.

Kuhusu gharama sidhani kama ni big deal, gharama ni sehemu ya uwekezaji.

Hakishindikani kitu kusambaza umeme kwa gharama ndogo kuliko ilivyo sasa hivi.

 

[LebronWade]

Kuwe na ushindani kama ilivyo kwenye mitandao ya simu. Yani itakuwa poa sana mkuu.

Sio kirahisi hivyo....kuanzia Generation,Transmission na Distribution hakatizi mtu hapo mzee....ni investment ya ajabu na return yake haitakuja karne hii,utairudisha mwaka 2100...

Ngoja nikutafsirie:

Kama Wilaya ya Kishapu,utatumia takribani billioni 12 kuwavutia umeme,wateja ni domestic users wa shilingi 244 kwa uniti,utatumia karne ngapi kurudisha mtaji wako?Kumbuka nyumba za nyasi zimeachana umbali mrefu kati ya mteja na mteja,ni useless kufanya biashara hii.

Nadhani wafanyabiashara washafunguliwa kwenye Generation,watengeneze vinu wazalishe umeme waiuzie Tanesco,huko nako nadhani wafanyabiashara wanasuasua maana kinu kimoja mfano cha gesi ni zaidi ya usd bilion 250 cha megawatt 300...hamna mbwa anakatiza hapo.

Wateja wa majumbani ni hasara moja kwa moja,im sure revenue za tanesco kutoka majumbani ni 20% na viwandani ni 80%...sisi wa majumbani ni bure tu,ningekua tanesco ningewakatia umeme mnanitia hasara tu,umeme wa majumbani ni charity tu....kwenye viwanda humu navyo vipo vichache,biashara ndio maana inamuwia vigumu Tanesco,I really understand their position.

 

[ShyaRuwa]

Yawepo tu maana daa uu umeme wa tanesco utafikir unapewa bure ulivyo na manyanyaso

Ndio maana nauliza je kama ni kuwepo, itawezekanaje?

 

[nsekwa]

Tunakoelekea ni tofauti na tunakotoka.
Siyo ajabu wire less electrical transmission ikaingia sokoni muda wowote[kama wengine hawajaanza]

Kumbuka jinsi simu ilivyotumika zamani na wakati huu, ni tofauti sana.

Kuhusu gharama sidhani kama ni big deal, gharama ni sehemu ya uwekezaji.

Hakishindikani kitu kusambaza umeme kwa gharama ndogo kuliko ilivyo sasa hivi.

Yaani unawaza kuwepo transmission line za wireless? Hilo halitakuja tokea milele, umeme unasafirishwa katika power kubwa sana kiwango cha MegaWatt mpaka GigaWatt, kama wewe ni mwanasayansi nafikiri utaelewa kuwa uwezekano huo haupo. Teknolojia hiyo labda miaka 800milion ijayo ndio wanaweza kugundua hilo

 

[mjingamimi]

Siku hizi wanakata sana umeme usiku.wakati wa kampeni tuliambiwa umeme utakuwa wa uhakika.

 

[ShyaRuwa]

Sio kirahisi hivyo....kuanzia Generation,Transmission na Distribution hakatizi mtu hapo mzee....ni investment ya ajabu na return yake haitakuja karne hii,utairudisha mwaka 2100...

Ngoja nikutafsirie:

Kama Wilaya ya Kishapu,utatumia takribani billioni 12 kuwavutia umeme,wateja ni domestic users wa shilingi 244 kwa uniti,utatumia karne ngapi kurudisha mtaji wako?Kumbuka nyumba za nyasi zimeachana umbali mrefu kati ya mteja na mteja,ni useless kufanya biashara hii.

Nadhani wafanyabiashara washafunguliwa kwenye Generation,watengeneze vinu wazalishe umeme waiuzie Tanesco,huko nako nadhani wafanyabiashara wanasuasua maana kinu kimoja mfano cha gesi ni zaidi ya usd bilion 250 cha megawatt 300...hamna mbwa anakatiza hapo.

Wateja wa majumbani ni hasara moja kwa moja,im sure revenue za tanesco kutoka majumbani ni 20% na viwandani ni 80%...sisi wa majumbani ni bure tu,ningekua tanesco ningewakatia umeme mnanitia hasara tu,umeme wa majumbani ni charity tu....kwenye viwanda humu navyo vipo vichache,biashara ndio maana inamuwia vigumu Tanesco,I really understand their position.

Mkuu kwenye maelezo unasema kinu kimoja kinauzwa USD 250 billions, kabla sijasema kitu, je hiyo figure ipo kwenye billions au millions?[Labda ulijichanganya?].......Maana USD billions 250 ni zaidi ya 500 Trillions Tshs.

 

[ShyaRuwa]

Yaani unawaza kuwepo transmission line za wireless? Hilo halitakuja tokea milele, umeme unasafirishwa katika power kubwa sana kiwango cha MegaWatt mpaka GigaWatt, kama wewe ni mwanasayansi nafikiri utaelewa kuwa uwezekano huo haupo. Teknolojia hiyo labda miaka 800milion ijayo ndio wanaweza kugundua hilo

Mkuu wireless kwenye umeme siyo jambo la kutegemea kwenye kizazi chetu lakini siyo la kulikatia tamaa kama unavyoeleza. Kama mtu wa 1500 angeambiwa ipo siku mtu atafika mwezini, angebisha kwa nguvu nyingi kuliko wewe.

 

[nsekwa]

Mkuu wireless kwenye umeme siyo jambo la kutegemea kwenye kizazi chetu lakini siyo la kulikatia tamaa kama unavyoeleza. Kama mtu wa 1500 angeambiwa ipo siku mtu atafika mwezini, angebisha kwa nguvu nyingi kuliko wewe.

Mkuu ikiwezekana kusafirisha umeme wireless basi hata fuel na gesi tutakuwa tunazisafirisha kwa wireless

 

[ShyaRuwa]

Mkuu ikiwezekana kusafirisha umeme wireless basi hata fuel na gesi tutakuwa tunazisafirisha kwa wireless

Lakini haya mambo siyo mageni sana.
Hata Tesla aliwahi kuwa na hili wazo ingawa aliishi zamani.....Tusijilazimishe kusema haiwezekani.

 

[kenstar]

Me nadhani wangenunua menejiment ya nje sababu hakuna tuwezacho,wameshindwa kutumia fursa zilizopo ktk utoaji huduma,au waingie ubia wa menejiment na Kenya power tu uone maboresho.

 

[Kennedy]

Nusu Mwaka Nimelipa Umeme Na Hadi Sasa Kimya
Ukifika Ofisini Pale Morogoro Majibu Ni Ajabu
Tunangoja Nguzo Na Mita Mara Tutaanza Kuwafungia Waliolipa Mwezi Wa Tano
Maana Mimi Nimelipa Tarehe 24.06.
Wamejaa Ujanja Mtupu

 

[nsekwa]

Me nadhani wangenunua menejiment ya nje sababu hakuna tuwezacho,wameshindwa kutumia fursa zilizopo ktk utoaji huduma,au waingie ubia wa menejiment na Kenya power tu uone maboresho.

Hukumbuki wameshawahi kuletwa Makaburu?

 

[nsekwa]

Lakini haya mambo siyo mageni sana.
Hata Tesla aliwahi kuwa na hili wazo ingawa aliishi zamani.....Tusijilazimishe kusema haiwezekani.

Mkuu kama umesoma pysiscs angalau hadi kidato cha nne umekutana na kanuni hii; "At the given state, energy can change from one state to another but can not be neither created nor destroyed"
Kwa maana hiyo ili umeme uusafirishe lazima uubadilishe uende kwenye state nyingine swali langu ni kuwa utaubadilisha uwe nini ndio uusafirishe? Utaunasili uwe sauti? Au uwe heat? Au utafanya muujiza gani wa kuubadili kwenye energy nyingine ambayo itakatiz a kwenye solar system ambapo napo pana energy ya kutosha tu? Kuliko kuwaza kusafirisha umeme wireless kwa nini usivune tu kutoka kwenye jua na kuupata wa bure kabisa kwa kununua solar panel? Au kwanini usinunue mitambo ya upepo ukazalisha umeme wako wa bure?
Mkuu tuache porojo mawazo yako hayawezekaniki milele.