South Africa’s state-owned power company, Eskom, has identified Thyspunt on the Eastern Cape coast as the preferred site for a proposed 5,200 MWe NPP, according to a draft environmental scoping report prepared by WSP Group Africa.
In December 2025, Eskom, started an environmental impact assessment EIA for a third NPP at either Thyspunt on the Eastern Cape coast or Bantamsklip on the Overberg coast. The previous August, a final environmental authorisation was given for the construction of a 4,000 MWe second NPP for South Africa at Duynefontein, which already hosts the current 1,940 MWe Koeberg nuclear facility.
The Koeberg NPP provides around 5% of South Africa’s electricity. It is the only commercially operating nuclear power station on the African continent. Koeberg is equipped with two pressurised water reactors with a combined capacity of 1934 MWe. Koeberg 1&2 started commercial operation in 1984 and 1985. Koeberg 1 received a licence to continue operating until 2044 in July 2024, and Eskom is planning to extend operation of unit 2 until 2045.
Eskom proposes to build the third 5,200 MWe NPP at either Thyspunt, on the Eastern Cape coast between Cape St Francis and Oyster Bay, or at Bantamsklip, between Pearly Beach and Kleinbaai on the Overberg coast adjacent to Dyer Island.
Both were previously shortlisted as possible sites for the second plant, but Duynefontein was finally selected in 2017. In earlier Eskom impact assessments, there was strong opposition to the use of the sites on environmental, social and heritage grounds. The Thyspunt site is in the Kouga Local Municipality and Bantamsklip falls under the Overstrand Municipality.
Government’s Integrated Resource Plan 2025 calls for the addition of more than 105 GWe of new generation capacity by 2039. This includes government’s Nuclear Industrial Plan, which “aims to resuscitate and localise nuclear energy expertise that has gradually been eroded”.
The WSP scoping report recommends that further environmental and technical studies should be focused on Thyspunt as the site offers advantages in grid access and existing infrastructure compared with Bantamsklip. Thyspunt is already owned by Eskom and lies relatively close to existing transmission infrastructure and load centres. The report notes that wind farm development in the area has expanded the transmission network, reducing the need for additional grid investment.
“From a spatial, technical, and infrastructure perspective, [Thyspunt offers] clear advantages,” the report states, while specialist screening “has not identified any unmitigable environmental constraints” at the site.
Bantamsklip is described in the report as remote, with limited nearby load centres and transmission infrastructure and would require extensive new grid connections and could have a more pronounced spatial and environmental impact.
Under South Africa’s National Environmental Management Act, the project must undergo a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), with the current scoping phase serving as the initial step. The WSP report is open for public comment until 5 May. If the scoping report is accepted by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Eskom will proceed to detailed EIA studies covering biodiversity, water resources, air quality, land use, human health and socio-economic impacts.
However, the report highlights a regulatory risk linked to heritage protection. In January 2025, the South African Heritage Resources Agency SAHRA) declared the Thyspunt area a Grade I Cultural Landscape, provisionally granting it national heritage protection until at least February 2027. The report notes that unresolved legal issues linked to the provisional protection could affect project timelines, approvals, or site development parameters depending on the outcome of the designation process.
While Bantamsklip is not being prioritised in the current assessment phase, the report said it is not “fatally flawed” and could remain under consideration for future nuclear development.
