To effectively develop a sound, sustainable energy policy, the people developing and/or vetting the policy must understand the energy sector.

The basic forms of generation are: baseload, peaking and opportunistic. Baseload capacity is that which meets minimum demand 24 hours per day, seven days per week. As of 2023, the US baseload capacity was coal (26.2 per cent), nuclear (18.6 per cent), hydropower (5.7 per cent) and now natural gas (43.1 per cent).

Fossil fuels — coal, oil and natural gas — supply about 80 per cent of the world’s energy. The greatest provider is natural gas owing to the transition from coal plants to gas plants, or trading one fossil fuel for another. The trend was driven by environmentalists who now want to eliminate natural gas. The proper place for natural gas is as a peak producer for variation anomalies with spiking demand.

Opportunistic sources are wind and solar. If the generation capacity exists from these sources, they can be used to save on fuel consumption and provide a better environmental footprint. However, they don’t fit the bill as either baseload or peaking capacity since they are not reliable sources. Better battery capacity could change some of this dynamic, but we have been dreaming about this for decades — and it would be very expensive.

The electric vehicle market has a battery life that can propel a vehicle for up to 500 miles, similar to the distance on a fuel-efficient automobile on a tank of petrol. Refuelling for a petrol-powered vehicle is about five minutes. An EV could take between two and nine hours. If EVs are to rule the roads, and we install sufficient charging stations, we will need to add significantly to baseload-generating capacity

The simplest, rational fix is to build nuclear capacity in excess of the rate of shutdown of coal or diesel capacities. The excess nuclear capacity would also result in less natural gas usage, but it would remain as standby capacity for the periods of wind and solar droughts. Should there be an increase in peak demand, gas-fired capacity can be utilised with a minimal time lag.

The overarching fear with nuclear is twofold — safety and spent fuel disposal.

Realistically, there have been three nuclear incidents in the world — Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011).

The Three Mile Island meltdown resulted in minimal radioactive exposure equivalent to a chest X-ray and local exposure equivalent to less than a year’s background radiation. The cause was deemed to be human error, and the automated safety features shut the unit down.

Chernobyl was the result of the Soviet Union’s reluctance to properly build containment around its nuclear facilities. This resulted in massive radiation release. US technology dictates massive containment structures around its nuclear units such that a loaded commercial aircraft cannot penetrate the steel and concrete cage to damage the reactor core.

With Fukushima, the causal factor was first the designed spent fuel pools’ height at 3.1 metres above sea level in an active seismic and tsunami zone. The seismic anomaly generated a tsunami of 15 metres. This wave caused the failure of the grid to supply electricity to keep the spent fuel pools at the appropriate temperature.

What do we do with all the spent fuels in America? Historically, after up to five years in a spent fuel pool to cool them down, they would then be encased in concrete and steel casks, and kept on site. This is a temporary fix until a final repository could be completed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Bermuda, at 52 cents, has the highest energy costs of any developed nation. In relation to the following sample countries, the percentage differential is as follows: Bermuda is 12 per cent above Britain (39.5 cents), 35.8 per cent above the US (16.2 cents) and 12 per cent above the Cayman Islands

This is not sustainable, and is impacting every sector of our economy.

Bermuda generates approximately 650,000 megawatt-hours or 108 per cent of its annual consumption needs. The fuel source is primarily diesel fuel. Diesel is one of the most polluting fuels for electricity generation. The island has committed to 85 per cent renewable energy by 2035. The bulk of this is forecast to be 21MW of solar and 60MW of wind.

Multiple studies have concluded that industrial wind energy in holiday locations will reduce tourism. See here for sample studies. Bermuda also has an extremely limited land area upon which to build solar farms and site wind turbines, and offshore has numerous liabilities.

To supplement its energy production, Bermuda should give serious consideration to adding nuclear power for the following reasons:

1, Nuclear takes less land to produce power than any other self-contained power generator. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the footprint for 1,000MW of installed nuclear capacity is 1.3 square miles versus 350 times the land area, while the footprint for wind and solar would be 350 times and 75 times, respectively. (For the same installed capacity, you need x square metres to produce y units of power for nuclear versus wind and solar)

2, Nuclear is cost-effective when compared with the costs of diesel, wind and solar

3, Nuclear is reliable. It can be produced at full capacity 24/7

4, Nuclear is hurricane-resistant

5, Nuclear is safe

6, It’s a cost-effective method for producing clean, safe, potable water for the population of Bermuda

We at United Nuclear Group Inc stand ready to work with Bermuda to ensure that the island makes the right decisions regarding a reliable and sustainable energy-generation platform. We can also assist with education of the general public to prevent Nimby —not in my backyard — issues.

• Bob Percopo is the chief operating officer of United Nuclear Group Inc