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

被引:25
作者
Pfenninger, Stefan [1 ,2 ]
Keirstead, James [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ London Imperial Coll Sci Technol & Med, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, London SW7 2AZ, England
[2] Univ London Imperial Coll Sci Technol & Med, Grantham Inst Climate Change & Environm, London SW7 2AZ, England
关键词
Nuclear power; Solar power; Base load; Low-emissions electricity; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; COST DEVELOPMENT; ENERGY; FUTURE; GENERATION; SCENARIOS; SATELLITE; STORAGE; HEALTH; WIND;
D O I
10.1016/j.energy.2015.04.077
中图分类号
O414.1 [热力学];
学科分类号
摘要
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. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:303 / 314
页数:12
相关论文
共 81 条
[61]   Nuclear Power: Economic, Safety, Health, and Environmental Issues of Near-Term Technologies [J].
Ramana, M. V. .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES, 2009, 34 :127-152
[62]   Public preference of electricity options before and after Fukushima [J].
Rudolf, Michael ;
Seidl, Roman ;
Moser, Corinne ;
Kruetli, Pius ;
Stauffacher, Michael .
JOURNAL OF INTEGRATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, 2014, 11 (01) :1-15
[63]   Abundant thorium as an alternative nuclear fuel Important waste disposal and weapon proliferation advantages [J].
Schaffer, Marvin Baker .
ENERGY POLICY, 2013, 60 :4-12
[64]   A top-down assessment of energy, water and land use in uranium mining, milling, and refining [J].
Schneider, E. ;
Carlsen, B. ;
Tavrides, E. ;
van der Hoeven, C. ;
Phathanapirom, U. .
ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2013, 40 :911-926
[65]  
Schneider Mycle., 2014, WORLD NUCL IND STATU
[66]   Scenarios for a South African CSP peaking system in the short term [J].
Silinga, C. ;
Gauche, P. .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOLARPACES 2013 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, 2014, 49 :1543-1552
[67]  
Sjoberg L., 2009, International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, V11, P264, DOI [10.1504/IJRAM.2009.023156, DOI 10.1504/IJRAM.2009.023156, 10.1504/ijram.2009.023156]
[68]  
South African Department of Energy, 2011, INT RES PLAN EL 2010
[69]   Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey [J].
Sovacool, Benjamin K. .
ENERGY POLICY, 2008, 36 (08) :2950-2963
[70]   Risk, innovation, electricity infrastructure and construction cost overruns: Testing six hypotheses [J].
Sovacool, Benjamin K. ;
Gilbert, Alex ;
Nugent, Daniel .
ENERGY, 2014, 74 :906-917