I've looked at solar thermal a number of times and it is not competitive with nuclear power on a watt for watt basis. No doubt it is less controversial and that has to be a point in its favour. Even though generation 3+ nuclear power plants are designed with low proliferation potential and are safer than generation two designs by orders of magnitude, there is a perception in Australia that nuclear is a no go zone. Rudd certainly isn't interested and judging by recent performance, Abbott is staying away as well. Pity.
I checked the reference sierra posted. Couldn't see much in the way of technical detail in what looks like an online brochure. There are a few links though and I didn't have time to check them all. Would be interested in the salt mixture under consideration. Sodium nitrate was mentioned which surprised me. The chemical is an oxidizing agent and could be expected to be corrosive at high temperatures. Temperature of operation wasn't quoted either. Pity as in theory solar thermal can operate at high temperatures and high efficiency. Spain appears to be building substantial capacity but only one or two pilot plants are operational now. Cost per kwh, even projected cost would have given the presentation more credibility.
If solar thermal is going to have a future, it needs to survive on its own without ongoing government subsidy. We are not there yet. It appears Spain isn't there yet either.
I was able to glean from the brochure that the system could store power for 16 hours. That is enough to keep it running day and night 8 months of the year provided days are sunny. Storage is not anywhere near baseload power requirements. If we are going to replace coal fired power stations we need 24/7 reliability.
Solar power is not yet up to that task.
Nuclear power is.
Nuclear power can provide cheap zero emission electricity. Australian politicians don't seem to be interested.
