This article looks at how two countries, one in Himalaya – Nepal and one in East Africa are striving to overcome the EV global divide. This is their comparative story. Enjoy.
Hydropower Highways: How Nepal Became the World’s Unlikely EV Leader.
Nepal has emerged as a global leader in electric vehicle (EV) adoption, with EVs comprising “73% of all four-wheeler imports” in FY 2024/2025—among the highest rates worldwide, trailing only Norway, Singapore, and Ethiopia. This transformation stems from strategic policies, abundant hydropower, and regional partnerships. Below is a detailed analysis of the drivers, impacts, and challenges behind this shift.
⚡ 1. Extraordinary Growth in EV Adoption.
– Market Surge:
EV imports surged by “149% in FY 2022/2023” and reached “16,701 units” (73% of passenger vehicles) by mid-2025, up from just 236 units in 2019–2020.
– Consumer Shift:
EVs now dominate Nepal’s streets, with Chinese brands (BYD, Neta) leading at “76.4% market share”, followed by Indian (Tata, Mahindra) and Korean models.
– Public Transport:
Kathmandu’s electric “safa tempos” (three-wheelers) and buses have expanded, with “40 operational e-buses” and 100 more planned by Sajha Yatayat (public transit).
🏞️ 2. Hydropower:
The Clean Energy Backbone.
– Grid Reliability:
“94% of Nepal’s population” has grid access, powered by “100% hydroelectricity”.
The Nepal Electricity Authority eliminated load-shedding and upgraded infrastructure to support EV charging.
– Cost Efficiency:
EVs run on domestically generated hydropower, reducing operational costs. For example:
– Charging an e-bus costs “1/30th of fueling a diesel bus”.
– Hydropower enables “carbon savings”—e.g., the Bhotekoshi plant reduces emissions by 160,092 tons of CO₂/year.
– Infrastructure Expansion:
“400+ charging stations” exist nationwide, with plans to double this within a year, including fast chargers along highways.
📜 3. Government Policies: Tax Incentives and Subsidies.
– Import Duty Disparity:
EVs face “25–90% import duties” versus “276–329% for ICE vehicles”, making EVs price-competitive (e.g., BYD Dolphin costs NPR 4.1 million vs. similar ICE models at NPR 6+ million) .
– Recent Policy Stability:
The 2025–2026 budget “maintained EV tax breaks” and added incentives:
– “1% customs duty” on charging station equipment.
– “5-year income tax exemption” for charging-infrastructure industries.
– Financing Challenges:
Bank loan caps for EVs were reduced from “90% to 60%”, raising upfront costs (e.g., down payment for Tata Tiago EV doubled to NPR 1.1 million). Dealers warn this could cut sales by 50%.
🚗 4. Role of Manufacturing Powerhouse Neighbors.
– Chinese Dominance:
“76.4% of Nepal’s EVs” are Chinese imports. Brands like BYD leverage competitive pricing (NPR 4–10 million) and advanced features (e.g., AI-driven ADAS).
– Indian and Korean Influence:
Tata’s affordable EVs (NPR 2.74–5.69 million) and Hyundai/Kia models cater to mid-tier buyers.
– Local Assembly:
Startups like “Yatri Motorcycles” are developing locally assembled e-motorcycles, signaling potential for a domestic EV ecosystem.
⚠️ 5. Challenges and Contradictions.
– Petroleum Dependency:
Despite EV growth, diesel/petrol imports “rose by 3–8.5% in 2024–2025”, straining foreign reserves.
– Infrastructure Gaps:
Rural charging access remains limited, and grid upgrades are needed to handle rising EV demand.
– Policy Uncertainty:
Abrupt financing cuts and unclear long-term strategies deter foreign manufacturers from local investments.
– Battery Waste:
No formal recycling system exists for lithium-ion batteries, posing environmental risks.
🌍 6. Environmental and Economic Impacts.
– Air Quality:
EVs reduced Kathmandu’s vehicular PM10 emissions (38% of total pollution), improving public health.
– Trade Balance:
EVs could curb Nepal’s “$2.5 billion/year petroleum import bill”, freeing foreign exchange.
– Job Creation:
New roles in EV dealerships, charging stations, and maintenance services have emerged.
🔮 7. Future Outlook.
– Net-Zero Goals:
Nepal targets “90% private EV sales by 2030” and net-zero emissions by 2045.
– Market Resilience:
Despite financing cuts, EV sales grew “25.5% in early 2025”, showing strong consumer demand.
– Global Lessons:
Nepal proves that “low-income countries” can lead in EV adoption through clean energy, fiscal incentives, and infrastructure investment.
💎 Conclusion: A Model for Developing Nations.
Nepal’s EV revolution demonstrates how “strategic policy” (tax breaks), “natural resources” (hydropower), and “regional partnerships” (Chinese/Indian imports) can accelerate clean transportation. However, sustaining growth requires “stable policies”, ”rural infrastructure”, and “battery recycling solutions”.
As a template for other developing economies, Nepal highlights that EV leadership is not exclusive to wealthy nations but achievable through coherent planning and leveraging indigenous renewables.
> “Our electricity is from hydropower—clean energy. Nepal is ideally placed to run vehicles the best way: without coal, gas, or petroleum.” — Kanak Mani Dixit, Environmental Activist .
Why Tanzania Departs From The Nepal EV Initiative?
Tanzania’s approach to electric vehicle (EV) adoption diverges significantly from Nepal’s due to distinct “geographical, economic, infrastructural, and policy contexts”. Below is a detailed analysis of the key factors:
⚡ 1. Energy Infrastructure and Grid Reliability.
– Hydropower Advantage (Nepal):
Nepal’s grid is 100% hydroelectric-powered, providing stable, low-cost electricity for EVs. This enables operational costs as low as “1/30th of diesel vehicles” and supports extensive charging infrastructure.
– Tanzania’s Grid Challenges:
Only 40% of Tanzania’s population has reliable grid access, with frequent outages due to gas-dependent generation. Rural charging deserts persist, forcing reliance on solar solutions (e.g., UNDP’s solar-powered EVs) and incremental infrastructure expansion.
📜 2. Policy and Fiscal Frameworks.
– Nepal’s Aggressive Incentives:
EV imports face “25–90% lower duties” than ICE vehicles, with income tax exemptions for charging infrastructure. Subsidies make EVs like the BYD Dolphin **30% cheaper** than ICE equivalents.
– Tanzania’s Nascent Policy:
No national EV policy exists yet, though one is under development (targeting 2024/25). High import taxes (up to 25% for e-motorcycles) and unclear registration processes deter adoption. Proposed solutions include tax reductions and charging infrastructure integration at fuel stations.
🚗 3. Market Structure and Vehicle Preferences.
– Nepal’s Four-Wheeler Focus:
73% of passenger vehicle imports are EVs, dominated by Chinese/Indian models (e.g., BYD, Tata) suited for urban use [citation:omitted].
– Tanzania’s Two-/Three-Wheeler Dominance:
59% of registered vehicles are motorcycles/tricycles. EV growth centers on affordable options:
– “E-bikes” ($558) and “e-bajajis” ($3,500) from companies like TRÍ Tanzania.
– Used EVs (e.g., Nissan Leaf at $7,430) remain unaffordable for most.
💰 4. Economic and Investment Landscape.
– Nepal’s Strategic Partnerships:
Proximity to Indian/Chinese manufacturing hubs reduces import costs and accelerates supply chain integration.
– Tanzania’s Funding Gap:
E-mobility startups raised “only $1 million” (vs. Kenya’s $50 million), limiting local assembly. Initiatives like SPIRO’s battery-swapping network aim to lower costs but face scalability challenges.
🌍 5. Socioeconomic and Environmental Priorities.
– Nepal’s Urban Air Quality Focus:
EVs directly target pollution reduction in congested cities like Kathmandu, leveraging existing hydro infrastructure.
– Tanzania’s Multimodal Strategy:
Emphasis on “electric buses” for BRT systems and “solar-charged fleets” (e.g., UNDP’s initiatives), addressing broader sustainability goals beyond private EVs.
🔮 6. Future Trajectories.
Tanzania is crafting a “context-specific EV roadmap”:
– Policy:
National framework prioritizing tax reforms, mechanic training, and renewable-powered charging.
– Technology:
Solar microgrids and battery-swapping to bypass grid limitations.
– Partnerships:
Learning from China’s EV ecosystem while fostering local assembly (e.g., SPIRO’s Dar es Salaam plant).
💎 Conclusion: Divergent Paths, Shared Goals.
Tanzania isn’t “failing” to follow Nepal but is adapting to its “unique constraints”: unreliable grids, rural mobility needs, and funding shortages. While Nepal leverages hydropower and subsidies for rapid four-wheeler adoption, Tanzania’s focus on “affordable two-wheelers, solar integration, and phased policy development” reflects a pragmatic approach tailored to its infrastructure and economic reality. Success hinges on finalizing its EV policy and scaling renewable energy solutions.
Do The EV Option Combine With Solar Charger?
The combination of “electric vehicles (EVs) with solar charging” is not only feasible but increasingly practical—especially in sun-rich regions like Tanzania. Here’s how it works, its benefits, challenges, and real-world applications:
☀️ How Solar-EV Charging Works.
1. Direct Solar Charging:
– EVs can be charged using “solar photovoltaic (PV) panels” via inverters and EV chargers.
– Options include:
– Home setups:
Rooftop panels + Level 2 chargers (e.g., 7–22 kW).
– Public stations:
Solar canopies with integrated battery storage (e.g., Tesla Powerpacks).
2. Battery Buffering:
– Solar energy is stored in “batteries” (e.g., lithium-ion) to charge EVs at night or during cloudy days.
✅ Benefits.
– Energy Independence:
– Reduces grid reliance—critical in Tanzania, where only “40% of rural areas” have reliable electricity.
– Cost Savings:
– Solar-powered EV fueling costs “~$0.05–0.10/km” vs. $0.15–0.20/km for grid charging (or $0.25/km for gasoline).
– Carbon Neutrality:
– Solar-charged EVs achieve near-zero emissions—ideal for countries targeting net-zero goals.
– Grid Relief:
– Avoids overloading weak grids (e.g., Tanzania’s grid faces 150+ annual outages).
🌍 Real-World Examples in Africa.
| No | Country. | Project. | Details |
| 1.0 | Tanzania. | UNDP Solar E-Mobility | Solar-powered charging hubs for e-buses and e-bajajis in Dar es Salaam. |
| 2.0 | Rwanda. | Ampersand Motorcycles. | Solar-charged battery-swap stations for e-motos. Cuts rider fuel costs by 40%. |
| 3.0 | Kenya. | Roam Electric Buses. | Nairobi’s electric buses use solar-charged depots. 1 bus = 50 tons of CO₂ saved/year. |
⚠️ Challenges.
– Upfront Costs:
– Solar + storage adds “~$5,000–$15,000” to EV setup costs (panels, batteries, installation).
– Space Requirements:
– Charging a typical EV (60 kWh battery) needs “~30 m² of solar panels”—challenging for urban users.
– Intermittency:
– Cloudy/rainy seasons reduce output (e.g., Tanzania’s solar capacity factor: “18–22%”).
– Payback Period:
– Breakeven takes “6–8 years” in ideal conditions—longer than grid-only charging.
🔧 Solutions & Innovations.
– Battery Swapping:
– Companies like “SPIRO” (Tanzania) use solar-powered swap stations for e-motos—no home charging needed.
– Microgrids:
– Solar mini-grids power rural EV fleets (e.g., ZOLA Electric’s projects in Tanzania).
– Hybrid Systems:
– Combine solar with grid/wind to ensure 24/7 reliability.
💡 Is Solar-EV Viable for Tanzania?
Yes—with tailored approaches:
1. Two-/Three-Wheelers:
Solar charging suits e-bikes/bajajis (smaller batteries, lower energy needs).
2. Public Transit:
Solar-powered depots for e-buses (e.g., Dar es Salaam’s BRT expansion).
3. Rural Mobility:
Solar microgrids + battery swaps for off-grid communities.
> Key Stat:
Tanzania receives “2,800–3,500 hours of sunlight/year”—making solar-EV synergy one of its most strategic clean transport pathways.
Policy Support Needed:
Tax breaks for solar-EV infrastructure, standardization of chargers, and public-private partnerships (e.g., UNDP’s Tanzania pilot) can accelerate adoption.
Bottom Line:
Solar-charged EVs are a **technically mature, economically rational solution** for Tanzania—bridging grid gaps while aligning with its solar potential. Though challenges exist, innovations in battery swapping and hybrid systems are making this combo increasingly accessible.
What Are Killer Assumptions Befuddling Both Nepal and Tanzania’s EV Push?
Based on the above discourse, the “killer assumptions” underpinning Nepal and Tanzania’s EV initiatives are the foundational hypotheses that must hold true for their strategies to succeed. Below is a comparative analysis of these critical assumptions, their supporting evidence, and inherent risks:
⚡ Nepal’s Killer Assumptions.
1. Hydropower as a Perpetual Low-Cost Energy Backbone.
– Assumption:
Nepal’s 100% hydro-powered grid will indefinitely supply cheap, abundant electricity for EVs, keeping operational costs 90% below fossil fuels.
– Evidence:
– Grid access reached 94% of the population, with load-shedding eliminated.
– NEA built 62+ fast-charging stations nationwide, leveraging hydro resources.
– Risks:
– Climate change-induced droughts could reduce hydro output, increasing reliance on imports.
– Grid strain from rising EV demand may require costly upgrades (e.g., transformers, smart grids).
2. Tax Incentives as a Permanent Market Catalyst.
– Assumption:
Aggressive tax differentials (EVs: 5–50% duties vs. ICE: up to 329%) will sustain EV price competitiveness.
– Evidence:
EVs captured 73% of passenger vehicle imports in FY 2024/25 due to cost savings.
– Risks:
– Recent tax hikes (e.g., 15%→50% customs duty for large-battery EVs) threaten affordability.
– Loan-to-value ratio cuts (80%→60%) increased down payments, potentially halving sales.
3. Chinese Imports as a Stopgap Until Local Industry Matures.
– Assumption:
Cheap Chinese EVs (76.4% market share) will dominate until domestic manufacturing scales.
– Evidence:
BYD/Tata lead sales, while startups like Yatri develop local assembly.
– Risks:
– Substandard Chinese EVs caused fires and accidents due to lax safety regulations.
– No formal battery recycling policy risks environmental contamination.
☀️ Tanzania’s Killer Assumptions.
1. Solar Energy Can Bypass Grid Limitations.
– Assumption:
Off-grid solar charging and battery swapping will overcome <40% rural electrification and frequent outages.
– Evidence:
– UNDP/Solar E-Mobility use solar hubs for e-buses, cutting diesel use by 90%.
– SPIRO’s battery-swapping network reduces grid dependency.
– Risks:
– Solar intermittency (18–22% capacity factor) may disrupt charging reliability.
– High upfront costs for solar infrastructure slow deployment.
2. Two/Three-Wheelers Will Drive Mass Adoption.
– Assumption:
Affordability of e-bikes ($558) and e-bajajis ($3,500) will spur uptake where cars are unviable.
– Evidence:
– Two/three-wheelers comprise 59% of registered vehicles.
– Companies like TRÍ Tanzania target 500+ e-bajajis in Dar es Salaam by 2025.
– Risks:
– High import taxes (25% on e-motorcycles) negate cost savings.
– Funding gaps: Tanzanian startups raised only $1M vs. Kenya’s $50M.
3. Policy Frameworks Will Materialize by 2025.
– Assumption:
A national EV policy (slated for 2024/25) will resolve registration chaos and attract investors.
– Evidence:
– Draft policy proposes tax cuts, mechanic training, and charging infrastructure.
– COSTECH confirmed inclusion of incentives in 2024/25 fiscal laws.
– Risks:
– Delays in parliamentary approval could prolong investor uncertainty.
– Conflicting tax rates (e.g., 0% excise for e-cars vs. 25% for e-motorcycles) undermine coherence.
⚠️ Shared High-Risk Assumptions.
– Battery Costs Will Decline Steadily:
Both countries assume falling battery prices will improve affordability. “Reality”:
Global lithium shortages could increase costs, hurting EV uptake in Nepal and Tanzania’s solar-storage projects.
– Public Behavior Aligns with Environmental Goals:
Assumes drivers prioritize sustainability over familiarity.
Reality:
In Tanzania, 65% of consumers distrust EV performance, requiring costly awareness campaigns.
– Supply Chain Resilience:
Ignores geopolitical risks. Nepal’s Chinese EV dependency and Tanzania’s used-import reliance (e.g., Nissan Leaf) create vulnerability to trade disruptions .
💎 Conclusion: Validation Status and Strategic Implications.
| No. | Assumption. | Nepal. | Tanzania. |
| 1.0 | Energy Reliability | ✔️Hydropower proven). | ❌(Grid/solar scaling needed.) |
| 2.0 | Policy Effectiveness | ⚠️ (Recent tax instability). | ⚠️ (Draft stage). |
| 3.0 | Affordability Pathway. | ⚠️ (Chinese imports risky). | (E-bajajis viable). |
| 4.0 | Infrastructure Scalability. | ❌ (Rural gaps critical). | ⚠️ (Solar pilots promising). |
Recommendations:
– Nepal:
Stabilize taxes, accelerate battery recycling regulations, and diversify EV imports beyond China.
– Tanzania:
Fast-track policy approval, standardize tax rates, and incentivize local assembly to cut costs.
– Both:
Secure critical mineral supply chains and launch cross-sector awareness campaigns to counter misinformation.
> “Nepal’s hydro-EV nexus and Tanzania’s solar-mobility leap are bold experiments, but their success hinges on converting assumptions into anchored realities.”
Tanzania’s Vast Rare Earth Minerals To Power Domestic EV Or Not?
Tanzania’s vast reserves of lithium, graphite, cobalt, and rare earth elements position it as a critical player in the global EV supply chain. However, whether these resources will catalyze local economic transformation or perpetuate raw-material dependency hinges on strategic policies, investment patterns, and implementation efficacy. Here’s a detailed analysis:
⛏️ 1. Resource Wealth and Global Significance.
– Lithium:
Significant deposits were confirmed in Dodoma (Mohanga, Kongwa, Chamwino) with CGrowth Capital securing 189 km² of prospecting licenses.
– Graphite:
Ranked “6th globally” with 17 million tonnes of reserves; projects like Lindi Jumbo (40,000-tonne annual production) and Mahenge are already exporting to Europe and Asia.
– Rare Earths:
The Ngualla project holds world-class neodymium-praseodymium deposits, attracting $667M in Australian investments.
– Cobalt/Copper:
New copper processing plants (e.g., Mast facility in Mbeya) aim to produce 75%-pure concentrate.
🏭 2. Local Processing: Progress and Policies.
Policy Frameworks.
– Raw Export Ban:
Since May 2024, unrefined lithium exports are prohibited to force local value addition.
– Tanzania Critical Minerals Strategy (2024):
Aims to develop refining, smelting, and battery manufacturing via tax incentives and FDI.
– Minerals Security Partnership:
Collaboration with 14 Western nations/EU for financing and technical support in mineral processing.
Operational Projects.
– Graphite:
Lindi Jumbo produces battery-grade concentrate locally; Mahenge integrates processing with South Korea’s POSCO.
– Copper:
Mast’s plant in Mbeya processes 31,200 tonnes/month of ore.
– Battery Manufacturing:
UNIDO-backed initiatives (e.g., Oasis Financial Services) pilot local lithium-ion battery production for e-motorcycles.
⚠️ 3. Risk of “Shortchanging”: Persistent Challenges.
– Infrastructure Gaps:
– Only “40% grid coverage” in rural areas limits processing facility viability.
– Power shortages delay projects (e.g., Geita Gold Mine took 25 years to connect to the grid).
– Bureaucracy:
Mining licenses require approvals from 3+ agencies (TFS, TAWA, NEMC), causing delays.
– Capital Intensity:
Establishing battery-grade lithium refineries needs “$0.5–1.5 billion” upfront—challenging for local firms.
– Global Pressure:
Despite export bans, Chinese dominance in refining (e.g., 80% of global lithium processing) incentivizes raw-material exports.
💡 4. Local Value Capture: Emerging Opportunities.
Economic Potential.
– Battery Manufacturing:
Tanzania could produce “LFP batteries at $68/kWh”, generating “$10–15B/year” and 25,000 jobs by 2030.
– Job Creation:
Beyond mining, battery swapping stations (e.g., SPIRO) and e-mobility assembly create skilled roles.
Innovative Models.
– Solar-Integrated Mining:
Projects like UNDP’s solar-powered e-bus hubs reduce diesel dependency by 90%.
– Battery Swapping Networks:
Companies like Ampersand (Rwanda) and SPIRO (Tanzania) bypass grid limitations.
🌍 5. Geopolitical Dynamics.
– China vs. West:
– China:
Controls refining (e.g., 80% of global lithium processing), creating dependency risks.
– West/US:
Diversifying supply chains via partnerships (e.g., Minerals Security Partnership) to counter Chinese dominance.
– African Agency:
Tanzania leverages partnerships but insists on ”75% local ownership” in mining JVs.
⚖️ 6. Verdict: Cautious Optimism with Caveats.
| No. | Factor. | Progress. | Risks. |
| 1.0 | Policy. | Export bans, processing mandates (✔️). | Enforcement gaps, tax instability (⚠️). |
| 2.0 | Infrastructure. | Renewable-integrated mines (e.g., solar microgrids) (✔️) | Rural electrification delays, grid fragility (❌). |
| 3.0 | Value Addition. | Graphite processing, copper refining (✔️) . | Lithium refining still nascent; battery plants not yet scaled (⚠️). |
| 4.0 | Global Positioning | MSP membership, LFP battery potential (✔️). | Competition from Morocco, Indonesia (❌). |
Conclusion:
Tanzania is “actively resisting raw-material dependency” through export bans and processing investments. However, avoiding “shortchanging” requires:
1. Accelerating infrastructure:
Prioritize grid upgrades and renewable energy for refineries.
2. Streamlining bureaucracy:
Create a “One-Stop Center” for mining permits.
3. Skill development:
Partner with institutions like UNIDO for battery manufacturing training.
4. Balanced partnerships:
Leverage Western/EU tech while retaining local equity stakes.
> *”The future of mining must be inclusive and sustainable—empowering our people while securing national prosperity.”* — Lightness Salema, CEO of Women in Mining Tanzania.
Tanzania’s success hinges on executing its industrial vision faster than global pressures can undermine it. If realized, it could become Africa’s first integrated battery hub—transforming minerals into mobility. 🔋🚀
Read more analysis by Rutashubanyuma Nestory
