Comparing concentrating solar and nuclear power as baseload providers using the example of South Africa

• We compare nuclear and CSP (concentrating solar power) as baseload generators.
• CSP could be competitive with nuclear by 2030 on providing baseload.
• CSP plants producing above baseload when possible are more competitive.
• On environmental and investment risks, CSP compares favorably.
• Both options may have a role in different parts of the world.

Despite the increasing importance of variable renewable power generation, baseload, that is stable and predictable power generators, remain the backbone of many countries’ power systems. We here compare CSP (concentrating solar power) and nuclear power as baseload electricity providers for the case of South Africa, which is adding significant new generation capacity, has an abundant solar resource, but also one existing and additional planned nuclear power plants. Both of these technologies are considered baseload-capable with sufficient available fuel (sunlight or fissible material) to provide large amounts of nearly emissions-free electricity. We find that under a range of technological learning assumptions, CSP compares favorably against nuclear on costs in the period to 2030, and has lower investment and environmental risks. The results suggest that while nuclear power may be an important low-emissions power technology in regions with little sun, in the case of South Africa, CSP could be capable of providing a stable baseload supply at lower cost than nuclear power, and may have other non-cost benefits.