Bermuda is almost totally reliant on oil for its power, for homes, businesses, cars, buses and bikes, but with its price soaring, could nuclear energy offer an alternative?

By global accounts, Bermuda can no longer exclusively rely on traditional energy sources to sustain modern life. As the Island soars into the future — some say it's time to go nuclear.

Belco, the Island's only power company, is struggling to keep up with the electricity demand.

Perhaps the biggest wake-up call came in 2005, when the Island suffered a national power outage. The cause: a fire at the power station.

More recently, the company sought permission to build two new oil-based power stations at its Serpentine Road, Pembroke, site. Area residents oppose the plans.

Today, a forum on a nuclear energy solution for Bermuda will take place from 2 to 5 p.m. at the Bermuda Underwater Exploration Institute (BUEI). It's titled, 'Nuclear Energy for Bermuda?'

Organised by alternative energy enthusiast Mike Hardy, a Bermuda resident for 30 years, the main speaker will be Gert Claasen from South African power company Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (Pty) Limited (PBMR).

PBMR, located near Pretoria, was established in 1999 with the intention to develop and market small-scale, high-temperature reactors both in South Africa and internationally. Mr. Claasen oversees international marketing for PBMR.

Mr. Claasen said about nuclear energy: "(It has) now become the cheapest form of electricity generation based on Levelised Unit Electricity Cost (LUEC) calculations.

He emphasised that his company focuses on developing smaller capacity reactors, 165 megawatts or less, which he describes as "very safe". But the safety record of nuclear power plants is controversial.

In 1986 the world witnessed the Chernobyl disaster, at the Chernobyl power plant in the Soviet Union. According to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) the catastrophe came after one of four nuclear reactors exploded.

The disaster released at least 100 times more radiation than the atom bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

After the accident, traces of radioactive deposits were found in nearly every country in the northern hemisphere. More than 336,000 people were forced to evacuate and resettle.

The number of people who could eventually die as a result of the Chernobyl accident is highly controversial. It is said that around 70 people died directly from the explosion, but campaign group Greenpeace has predicted nearly 100,000 cancer deaths relating to the original exposure.

When confronted with these risks, Mr. Claasen puts it in the most rarest of incidents: "Look at the track record. "There are 441 nuclear power stations operating currently.

"Only one nuclear power accident has occurred that caused loss of life and that was at Chernobyl. It was caused by an operational mistake and a poor design.

"Even the Three Mile Island accident (which happened in 1979 in the state of Pennsylvania, USA) caused no loss of life and no external radiation because the safe containment structure did its job."

However, environmentalist Stuart Hayward believes nuclear energy presented too high of a risk for Bermuda to take. He cautioned: "I am wary of any technology with such unforgiving risks as have been attached to nuclear energy production.

"Given the improvements that are being made, nuclear does seem on the path to becoming reliably safe, but I am not convinced it's there yet.

"The PBMR technology does suggest they are safer during operation than previous designs. However, they still leave us with the perennial problem of how and where to store spent fuel.

"Our record of dealing with troublesome wastes (e.g. asbestos; fuel and bunker oil at Morgan's Point) should give us little confidence, as should our record of public (Government) oversight of private utilities like telecommunications and energy.

"I am so far unconvinced that we can afford the known risks of nuclear technology in Bermuda's fragile environment, particularly with the Island's lax regulatory and enforcement mechanisms."

Mr. Hayward, also the head of the Bermuda Environmental and Sustainability Taskforce (BEST), emphasised he was speaking on behalf of himself and not BEST, which will comment on the issue later.

Asked if he would support a nuclear solution for Bermuda in the future after it is proven safe, he remained wary. "The safety of the technology has improved and will most likely continue to do so.

"I would not want to be absolutely close-minded about the possibility, but we have been assured in the past that nuclear reactors were safe when that was not the case."

Meanwhile sustainable lifestyle group Greenrock has said repeatedly that Bermuda must first develop a comprehensive energy plan that provides short and long term guidance for Bermuda's energy needs while balancing environmental, economic and social perspectives.

Reacting to this article on nuclear power, a statement from the group suggested: "This plan might focus on conservation by providing economic incentives and guidelines to those customers who conserve energy by installing certified energy saving technologies or micro-renewables.

"Within this short period, this plan should separately address the cost of energy used by residential versus commercial customers, thus lessening the socio-economic division occurring in our community.

"Under a new plan, residential customers that are energy conscious would see bigger savings and finally have some limited control over one source of Bermuda's high cost of living, namely that monthly electric bill."

Moving forward, Greenrock says it's about multiple solutions: "In the long-term, an energy plan must ultimately address our reliance on diesel-fired generators.

"This fact is not unique to Bermuda. When it comes to looking at alternative sources of energy, nuclear is just one possible source, with wind turbines, tidal motion turbines, current turbines, photovoltaic solar energy, geothermal, hydrogen, biofuels, to name some others.

"Many of these alternative sources are only capable of providing low amounts of energy and, in some cases, are only partially sustainable.

"Therefore Greenrock doesn't believe that there is necessarily one overall solution, but that we must consider multiple solutions for different applications.

"(Nuclear power plants) do not directly emit carbon into the atmosphere like coal or fossil fuels. France, for example, has had much success utilising nuclear power and even supplies surplus energy to surrounding countries, thus adding revenue to its GDP."

Instead, Greenrock believes that nuclear energy, in its current form is better-suited for large developed countries or those countries that are becoming increasingly industrialised.

While it's agreed that PBMR's nuclear technology represents the new generation of nuclear power sources, Greenrock warned there is not enough evidence to deem its technology absolutely safe.

"Greenrock's state of knowledge on PBMR is that there is a struggle between industrialists, who see this new generation of reactor as a good commodity to be sold to those developing countries who can't afford the large scale nuclear reactors, and futurists, who see the potential in a source of clean energy that can meet long-term energy demands."

Vince Ingham, the new CEO of BELCO, last year spoke about the security, reliability and sustainability of the Island's energy before fielding questions on solar, wind and nuclear power at the Hamilton Rotary Club.

He said Belco had just completed a pilot project in Warwick looking at solar hot water heating and he claimed Belco had not discounted the possibility of nuclear power and is currently monitoring the technology, but would need to set aside space now to accommodate it.

A more viable option, however, is the use of submersible turbines, according to Mr. Ingham.