The Nuclear Energy Option for Tanzania: An Economic

Developmental Vision for 2035

Peter K. Msaki
Department of Physics, University of Dar esSalaam, P O Box 35063, Dar esSalaam, Tanzania
ABSTRACT: The current energy mix in Tanzania is 61% hydro,
27% oil and 12% natural gas. The demand of energy in Tanzania
is expected to increase by 10% from the current value of 925MW
to 3800MW by 2025MW and 6540MW. Analysis shows that 2025
target can be met by using 58% draught resistant hydro, 5%
imported hydro, 16% oil, 11% coal, 8% gas and 2% wind. When
depletion of gas and coal is taken into account the target of 2035
cannot be met without inclusion of 25% nuclear in the energy
mix. There is urgent need for Tanzania to have local training
program in nuclear science and technology by 2010.
ABSTRACT: The current energy mix in Tanzania is 61% hydro,
27% oil and 12% natural gas. The demand of energy in Tanzania
is expected to increase by 10% from the current value of 925MW
to 3800MW by 2025MW and 6540MW. Analysis shows that 2025
target can be met by using 58% draught resistant hydro, 5%
imported hydro, 16% oil, 11% coal, 8% gas and 2% wind. When
depletion of gas and coal is taken into account the target of 2035
cannot be met without inclusion of 25% nuclear in the energy
mix. There is urgent need for Tanzania to have local training
program in nuclear science and technology by 2010.
Table 2: Theplannedenergy-mix for Tanzaniafor 2025showingsourceand
capacity andyear of completion.
Introduction
Until 2001, Tanzaniahad installed electricity generation capacity of
925 MW, of which 561 MW was hydropower and 364 MW oil. Of
interest in this paper is thepredicted growing national demand for
electricity of about 9-13% per annumduring the2001-2005. The
demand for electricity in Tanzaniawas expected to experience
annual grow rateof 9% from2001 to 2003, 6% during 2004 -
2006 and 5.7% during 2007 - 2015 [World Bank 200]. According
to thesepredictions, thedemand for generation capacity is
expected to increased fromthe925MW in 2001by afactor of
2.33 to 2155 MW by theyear 2015. Assuming theannual increase
rateremains at 5.7% thereafter, this demand will haveincreased
by afactor of 4.07 to 3800MW by 2025 and by 7.09 to 6560 MW
by 2035. Thequestion of interest is will Tanzaniabeableto meet
this demand usingtheconventional energy sources?
Many scholars believethat this demand can bemet easily with local
energy resources sinceTanzaniais known to havesufficiently
largereserves of indigenous energy resources including natural
gas, coal and hydropower to meet theenergy demandsfor an
extended period [Kitova, 2003; Saleh, 2001]. According to these
authors, 561 MW of theestimated hydropower potential of 4500
MW had already been installed by 2001. This was only 12% of the
estimated hydropower potential for Tanzania. Already full
feasibility studies havebeen conducted on Rumakali (222 MW),
Ruhuji (358 MW), and Mandera(20MW) as futurehydropower
options [Kitova, 2003].
Plan to includelocally produced fossil fuels in theenergy mix have
been completed or is at advanced stagesof development. The
completionof theSongosongo natural gas project hasincluded
diversification by replacing 112MW capacity originally based on
imported oil. Theextragasnot required for theUbungo plant to
generatethis capacity will besold to other industries such as the
WazoCement Factory and TanzaniaBreweries according to an
agreed tariff [Kyaruzi, 2003; Karekezi et al, 2004]. Under this
arrangement thereareplans to install 180MW gas-fired plant at
Kinyerezi and to convert theIndependent Power TanzaniaLimited
(IPTL) oil fired plants to usenatural gasfromSongosongo. Other
studies havebeen conducted to assess technical feasibility and
economic viability for theestablishment of Thermal Power Plant
with acapacity of 400 MW at Mchuchuma[NDC, 1998]. Plans to
import 200 MW (hydropower) fromZambiaarealso at advanced
stages.
It will beof interest to thereader to notethat someof theseefforts
havestarted to bear fruits. Many in Tanzaniahavewitnessed the
creation of Songas as thesolution to thechronic problemof power
rationing, low fuel diversification and high electricity tariffsin
Tanzania. Similar benefits areexpected when theMchuchuma
coal-fired power plant becomes operational in thefuture. The
paper has threeobjectives. Thefirst is to providean in depth and
well reasoned out explanation as to why useof locally available
energy resources will not meet theenvisioned energy needs in
Tanzaniabeyond 2035 without theinclusion of nuclear in the
energy mix. Thesecond objectiveis to outlinetheobstacles that
need to beovercometo establish thedesired human and physical
resources needed for nuclear scienceand technology Tanzania
needs to support theinclusion of nuclear in the2035 energy mix.
Thethird is to briefly explain theroles technology playsto
overcomestructural-related problems of theenergy sector by
creating thelong awaited retail competition that enables the
customers to select suppliers of electricity
Limitations of Present Energy Mix.
The2001energy mix (with natural gas included) is presented in
Table1. This energy mix havethreebasic limitations. Thefirst
limitation is that, about 27% of theenergy mix is produced by
thermal power plants, which relies on imported Oil (HFO), J et-A
(aviation) fuel and diesel that lowers thesecurity of theenergy
mix as aresult of oil prices fluctuations. Theenergy security
associated with theuseof locally availablenatural gas has not
been felt becausethemarket shareof natural gas (12%) is too
small to producetheanticipated impact on energy security.
Another drawback isthat theover dependency onhydropower
(61%) is making Tanzaniavulnerableto electricity shortage
associated with bad climatic conditions. Already theGovernment
of Tanzaniais spendingsubstantial amount of money in formof
credit, which could havebeen usedfor moreuseful projects to
mitigatetheseeffects [World Bank Group, 2004].
Limitations of the Planned Energy Mix
Thecapacity for planned energy mix is presented in Table2under
category A. Thecapacity considered as being insensitiveto
weather listed under category B. As beforetherearetwo
environmental factors that makeinclusion of hydropower plants in
theenergy mix problematic. For similar ecosystempreservation
reasons, theinclusion of theUpper Kihansi in theenergy mix
would beunacceptablefromenvironmental conservation view
point. This is ahomeof special kindof frogs. TheNyumbaya
Munguhydropower plant should beexcluded becausetheplant is
located in River Pangani. Rumakali, Ruhidji and Mpandashould
also beexcluded sincetheseplantsarelocated in small tributaries
of major tributaries of theRufiji River.
Table 1: The2001energy mix showingcapacity of different energy
sourcesinTanzania
TheRufiji River meet and pass througharelatively narrow passagecalled the
Stiegler's Gorge, beforedescending to theflat lower plains, and finally flowing into
theIndian Ocean. For this reason hydropower plants located at this position are
placed category B in Table2.
Diversification of The Planned Energy Mix
In order to diversify the 2025 energy mix, coal, oil and natural gas have also been
proposed as indicated in Table 3. The total local hydro becomes the sumof the
adjusted hydropower capacity of 34MW fromMtera, 85 MW fromKidatu and 2100
MW fromStiglersGorge. Other sources will includecoal (400 MW), oil (622 MW)
and natural gas (292 MW). This adds to 3733 MW, which is just about thevalues of
3800 MW predicted earlier by theWorld Bank [World Bank 2001]. Thesmall deficit
of 67 MW would be compensated by wind energy which is the fastest growing
renewableenergy worldwide. Theweakest point of this mix is that it still includes a
relatively largeproportion of oil, with prices that depend on economic and political
factors in theMiddleEast.
The Ultimate Energy Mix
Thedemand for electricity generation capacity in Tanzaniawill haveincreased from
the925 MW in 2001 by afactor of 7.07to 6540 MW by 2035. Assuming weretain
theenergy mix of 2025presented in Table3, wewould need to increasegeneration
capacity of each fuel to theamount indicated in Table4. As indicated inthis table, the
energy mix would demand additional resources to meet theincreasing demand for
power generation. Therefore, thechallenges of this energy mix call for moreprudent
and rational utilization of natural resources in thefuturethanthepresent moment.
Thelocally availablehydropower, which is not vulnerableto climatic conditions, is
2219 MW thereforethedeficit of 1606 MW obtainedfromthedifferencebetween the
figures given in Tables 3 and 4must comefromanother source. Themost logical
alternativeis to increasethecapacity of natural gas. However, according to the
rapidly increasing demand for theSongosongo gas in other sectors, this fuel source
will havebeen depleted by 2035thereforeits market shareshould beassigned zero
percent [Kyaruzi, 2003; Dickson, 2004].
Unfortunately thecoal reserves, which givetheenergy mix such agood flavor in
Table4, would bedepleted within 35-40 years, if consumption of coal continues to
support the400MW capacity. If this information is correct, it is possibleto maintain
this depletionperiodby reducing thedesired capacity of 688 MWto theprevious 400
MW. Again thedeficit of 298 MW must besupplied by another source. Theproblems
of oil areknown thereforethis optionis not attractive.
Theenergy mix that takes into consideration thedeclining energy resources has been
nicknamed theultimate energy mix presented in Table5. Sincewind energy is rapidly
growing, appropriatecurriculumreview inuniversities and technical institutions
should makeit possiblefor Tanzaniato usescienceand technology to exploit
substantial (5%) amount of energy fromthis sourceasindicated inTable5. The
deficit of 1074MW created in so doing will haveto besupplied by another fuel
source. Theonly plausibleenergy fuels sourceavailablefor Tanzaniato cover the
deficit of 3603 would beimported hydropower fromSAPP and nuclear energy. Due
to low prices, it would beattractiveto import 10% fromZambia. Dueto both low
priceand high-energy security, it would also beconvenient to import 20% from
Grand IngathroughUganda. Theremaining deficit of 1628 MW would begenerated
locally by nuclear power plant.
Conclusion
Thecombination of decreasing energy resources and increasing demand for energy in
Tanzaniawill makeit inevitablefor Tanzaniato includenuclear energy in theenergy
mix by theyear 2035. Thereis thereforeneed for thecountry tomakedeliberate
efforts to createhuman and physical capacities that will enablethecountry to produce
theskilled labor needed for this industry. However, in order for nuclear technology to
beaccepted in Tanzania, efforts must bemadeto educatethepublic about how this
technology can beused to minimizetheshortageof electricity in thecountry.
References
J ames J , 2004: Cement Factory Beats Power Cuts with On-SiteSupply,
http://www.jxj.com/magsandj/cospp/news/2004_01_06.html
Karekezi S, KilhyomaW, and Lwimbuli J , 2004, Goodbyepower cuts, welcome
cheap easy renewableenergy http://www.afrepren.org/news/pressrpt/eastafeb.pdf
Kitova, H.H., 2003: Presentation paper on thedevelopment and management of
hydropower resources in Tanzaniahttp://www.ich.no/kurs/he2003/Paper-Tanzania-
new2.pdf
Kyaruzi I., 2003: Study on converting IPTL to gas planned, Business Times October
24, 3003 http://www.bcstimes.com/cgi-
bin/bt/viewnews.cgi?category=1&id=1066988053
NDC, 1998: Mchuchumathermal power project; http://www.ndctz.com/power.htm
PFC, 2004: PFC energys global crudeoil and natural gas liquidssupply forecast;
http://www.csis.org/energy/040908_presentation.pdf
World Bank, 2001: AfricanDevelopment Indicators 2001, World Bank, Washington
DC
Table 3: Projectedenergy mix of Tanzaniaby 2025basedonavailability of
energy resources
925 Total Grid System
252
100 IPTL Tegeta
152 Regional Oil
112 Songas
80 EPP
32 ABB Ubungo Gas Turbine
561
180 Lower Kihansi Kihansi
8
Nyumbaya
Mungu
21 Hale
68 Pangani falls
Pangani
System
80 Mtera
204 Kidatu
Great Ruaha
River
Hydropower
Installed Capacity
( MW)
Name of Station Location Energy Source
1253 4648 Total grid
1053 1053 Subtoal
180 2005 180 Kinyerezi (natural gas)*
365 2017 365 Newoil steam
5 5 Grid-connecteddiesel
112 2004 112 Ubungo2(OperatedbySongas)
400 400 400 Mchuchuma(coal) Thermalpower
3595 Subtotal
200 2006 200 ImportionfromZambia
2100 2100 StieglersGeorge
- 118 Msigira
- 21 Madera
0 160 Mpanda
0 2010 358 Ruhidji
0 2023 222 Rumakali
0 96 NyumbayaMungu, etc.
0 2006 120 Upper Kihansi Hydropower
Capacity-B
( MW)
Completion
Capacity-A
( MW)
Name of Facility Plant Plant
100 3800 Total
1.7 67 Other renewableenergies(wind)
7.7 292 Gasbasedpower plants
10.5 400 Coal basedpower plants
16.4 622 Oil basedpower plants
5.3 200 Importedhydropower
58.4 2219 Locally producedhydropower
Percentage of Total
(%)
Installed Capacity (
MW)
Fuel Source
100 6550 Total
1.7 111 Other renewableenergies
7.7 504 Gasbasedpower plants
10.5 688 Coal basedpower plants
16.4 1074 Oil basedpower plants
5.3 347 Importedhydropower
58.4 3825 Locally producedhydropower
Percentage of Total
(%)
Installed Capacity (
MW)
Fuel Source
Table 4: Projection of energy mix for Tanzania by 2035 and beyond
whenlocal energy resourcesarelimiting
100 6550 Total
24.9 1628 Nuclear
5.0 328 Other renewableenergies
0.0 0 Gasbasedpower plants
6.1 400 Coal basedpower plants
0.0 0 Oil basedpower plants
20.0 1310 Importedhydropower from
GrandInga
10.2 665 Importedhydropower from
Zambia
34.9 2219 Locally produced
hydropower
Percentage of Total
(%)
Installed Capacity (
MW)
Fuel Source
Table 5: Theultimateenergy mix for Tanzaniaintheyear 2035