Nuclear Tug of War between Iran, Israel and US; and Sovereign worthiness of Iranian Regime? Part I

 The world witnessed the immoral right of America to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, the rationale “Iran cannot have nuclear energy” be it for civil or military purpose. Before dwelling on the question Why Iran cannot have nuclear energy or moral right of US, Israel or EU to ignore sovereign rights of Iran and assume Israel, US and EU can make the final call on who can or cannot have military equipment innovation access or nuclear energy access, it may be interesting to focus briefly on status of nuclear energy in the world today.

I.                 Nuclear Energy access across the globe and its implications

Unlike after second world war, possession of nuclear weapon is not an exclusive reality of a few, at present nine countries have their own nuclear war heads and six other countries are hosting nuclear weapons. In total in the global there are 12,331 nuclear war and out of which heads 9600 are in active military stockpile. The nuclear war heads are distributed among Member States as follows: Russia (5,500), US (5044), China (600), France (295), United Kingdom (225), Pakistan (180), India (170), Israel (90), and North Korea (50). Countries hosting warhead across the globe have in Turkey (35), Italy (20), Belgium (15), Germany (15), Netherland (15) and Belarus (unclear) [1].

Now the globe has sufficient war heads to destroy the human race more than once, yet world and human race is far from safe. Will Iran move towards nuclear energy for civil or military purposes make the world less safe, it does not seem so, and will move make world more secure, it does not seem so either. What the United States managed by bombing nuclear sites in Iran is to assert United States, Israel and EU’s apartheid perception of sovereignty of nations, including right to pursue nuclear energy development by other Members States without paying obeisance to the West. It is just, that Iran decides whether it wants nuclear energy and what is useful for Iran as a country.

Another the question to be asked is Middle east safe with Israel having nuclear energy and enjoying the luxury of not adhering to any red line through its association with US and EU. No, Middle East isn’t safe and never will be. Israel’s sense of impunity is evident, when with nuclear energy under its arsenal, it goes around carrying out pre-emptive strikes on Egypt, Syria, and Iran (one of the reasons given is the threat of nuclear energy in Iran’s hands). The question to be asked why this false narrative of Israel being a non-aggressor that focuses on defence and not its attack strategies that is not being highlighted and why false narrative is spread by US, EU and western media.

Does the globe need nuclear war heads or energy, personally of the opinion it does not for while nuclear scientists claim its one among environmentally safe form of energies, no country till date has come up with a method to deal with nuclear waste, other than store it for centuries in isolated underground areas and hope for the best or partition it into smaller portion under pools and it in dry caskets for further planned disposal at long-term disposal sites that never materialises.

Nuclear energy is seen as an alternate to address issues related to climate change and accounts for 10 percent of electricity produced globally (BBC) [2]. The main issues of concerns have been safety of nuclear reactors especially during natural disasters and the mounting nuclear waste.

Globally nuclear reactors produce 8,000 tonnes of nuclear waste annually [3], while majority of waste produced is low-level waste (LLW) accounts for 95 percent of waste, Intermediate-level waste (ILW) accounts for 4 percent of waste, and the high-level waste (HLW) is only 1 percent of the waste. At the same time from 1954 to the end of 2016, according to IAEA there is 390,000 tonnes of spent fuel [4] or high-level waste have been accumulated globally, which can be reprocessed but still waste continues to exist and requires long term management.

From 2016, the annual nuclear waste continued to accumulate and a single long-term repository has been completed and is being used in Finland, and in Sweden its completion and use is in the process. All other countries are opting for temporary solution though geological sites have been identified.

 Storing HLW is a challenge and expensive. The challenge is not just to find suitable site but also get public acceptance or approval for nuclear waste management. The steps taken by different countries is interesting:

a)      Sweden gets 40% of its energy from nuclear power reactors [5]. Policy towards nuclear energy has not been smooth, in 2015 the decision was to close four older reactors by 2020, this policy changed when priority shifted from 100% renewable energy to 100 % fossil free electricity. As a result in 2023, the government announced plans to construct two large scale reactors by 2035, including a small modular reactor by 2045[ibid].

 At present are six functional reactors in Sweden and its to be functional till 2040. Sweden has been using nuclear energy from 1970’s and in the process collected a total of 11,000 tonnes of nuclear waste in form of spent fuel from all the reactor and the same is stored in CLAB the interim repository.  The used fuel is stored under water in an underground rock cavern for 40-50 years, after which it will be encapsulated in 6000 cannisters, each is 25 tonne copper canisters, each of which will hold 2 tonnes of the used fuel. Each cannister would be surrounded by clay to absorb any leakage. The entire structure for final placement of spent fuel is at a 500-meter-deep repository in granite [ibid].

 While Sweden and Finland are credited with taking the step for constructing the final repository, there is an unanswered aspect. Sweden has functional repository for intermediate radioactive waste, but final long-term repository is only in the process with ground work set to start as of January 2025 [ibid], by then already there would be 12,000 tonnes to be placed within the final repository.  As Sweden is planning for bigger reactors and intents to expand, the annual fuel waste collected would soon be more than the previous collected waste that would mean another final repository would need to be planned. How long can such a process be sustainable?

 b)     Finland has been using nuclear energy from later 1970’s [6] and now gets 33 to 35 percent of its electricity from five operating nuclear reactors and two power plants [6], and it has opted for long term repository, it began construction in 2005 and completed it by 2020, and trials began in 2024. The country produces annually 70 tonnes of spent fuel and as of 2022 Findland had 2,400 tonnes of spent fuel waste which is kept in 16,100 bundles. The final disposal site is called Onkalo or cave and it based in mountains that’s around 2 billion years old and very stable. At Onkalo 6,500 tonnes of spent fuel in 3,250 copper canisters. The locals were receptive for the long- term repository as the nuclear plant is close by. It cost $1.07 billion to construct Onkalo as the final repository. [7] [8]

c)      America has 94 nuclear reactors operating at 54 power plants and it is the largest producer of nuclear waste; it has around 90,0000 spent nuclear fuel (high-level waste) as of 2025 and all of it is stored across 39 States in 100 sites [9] either in pools and dry cask. These are temporary storage option that could be viable for 40 years or a bit more, they are not long-term solution.

 Every year nuclear waste in America increases by 2000 tonnes [10], and yet there has been no effort move towards geological repository. The only effort in long term solution in America has been a site in Yucca Mountain, which has halted for lack of funds and opposition from local communities in use of the location for disposing off nuclear waste. There is a dispute going on with regard to right over the land where Yucca Mountain is, between Federal government and Shoshone tribes. There has been always concerns about radiation and risk involved especially as Nevada is not recipient of nuclear energy [10,11],[12].                                                                                                         

In addition to waste from nuclear plants and reactors, US also has 90 million gallons of nuclear waste from the nation’s nuclear weapon’s program. As per Federal law, certain high-level mixed waste must be vitrified- a process by which waste is immobilized in glass and then disposed of in a deep geologic repository. At present these wastes are stored in tanks in three sites and as only 10 percent is supposed to high level nuclear waste, the hope is this waste may not require long-term repository [13]. 

Besides the planned long-term repository at Yucca Mountain, United States disposes of its transuranic waste from nuclear weapon production at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant at New Mexico which is situated 2,150 feet below the surface. It was started in 1999 and cost $19 billion; it can store nuclear waste up to 10,000 years. In 2014 there was a costly nuclear accident at this site [14] subsequently research was done on safety issues and same released to the public which quietened protest about safety. But the accident reduced public interest in having a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountains.

d)     Annual production of nuclear waste in other countries, France produces 1,000 tonnes of spent fuel each year [16] and UK produces 1000 tonnes (17), China produces 3,500 tonnes [17], Russia 700 tonnes of spent fuel [18], and Europe as a whole produces 882,866 metric tonnes of low level and intermediate level of nuclear waste.  France, United Kingdom, and Russia do reprocess its nuclear waste, India [19] and Japan have the know how for reprocessing nuclear waste, while reprocessing does reduce the quantity of high-level nuclear waste, it does not eliminate it and is expensive. United State has stood against nuclear reprocessing stating it would make plutonium easily accessible to terrorist to make nuclear warheads.

 Internet presents, different views about nuclear energy use, while often restrictive view is taken by many countries including ones that use nuclear energy, there is another group that state negative aspects of nuclear energy is exaggerated, as when packed in appropriate container nuclear waste can be transported and is transported. They also point out many substances are more lethal than plutonium such as arsenic and that many waste other than nuclear waste are harmful and take very long time to degrade. But what ever the debate, it is important to remember, at present nuclear energy accounts for 10 percent of electricity used globally and it led to accumulation of 250,000 tonnes of nuclear waste across 14 countries, and except for Sweden and Finland there is no clear plans to implement long-term repository to hold nuclear waste. The above global figure is not an exaggeration for as per World Nuclear Report (2019), Focus Europe, the European countries have collected over 60,000 spent fuel [20] and it excludes data from Russia and Slovakia. At present the globe has long term repository that can address need of 18,500 tonnes of spent fuel and the rest continues to be in limbo.

United States is planning a game changer and has been at it for some time and probably would like to have a say in how nuclear energy creation and use evolves. It is planning to produce large scale small modular nuclear reactors that can be manufactured and then sent across to be assembled and be used. This is aimed at catering to the need of data centres and manufacturing units. It can produce half the amount of electricity produced by traditional nuclear plant at a fraction of its size. The focus is to package them in a way that will be reliable, affordable and quick to deploy. But available literature indicates the small modular reactors are very expensive compared to traditional option and produce as much or more nuclear waste [21] [22].  

Though small in size the small modular reactors are said to produce more high-level nuclear waste in comparison to tradition method of production. As a result of water, molten salt and sodium cooled SMR design will increase the volume of nuclear waste by 2 to 30 times. It is not just about volume of nuclear waste, it also complicates management of high-level nuclear waste, SMR spent fuel will contain relatively high concentration of fissile nuclides and will demand novel approached to storage and disposal [23].

The planned production of small modular reactors may explain the emphasis to market nuclear energy as safe option. At times the point is stretched a bit too far as in stance when comparison is made how zero deaths occurred as result of Fukushima melt down or in case of Three Mile Island and death of only 28 persons in Chernobyl incident in Russia. This is compared with W.H.O statement that fossil fuel is responsible for 6.7 million premature death per year. It is also pointed out that land mass needed for nuclear power is far lower, for comparison the land required for solar and wind power would be 100 to 1000 times higher [24].  At the same time studies indicate uranium exposure can induce multifarious health problems because of its chemotoxicity and radiotoxicity. The former is thought to play a more significant role with regard to natural uranium exposure and latter is more relevant to enriched uranium exposure. Environmental exposure led to nephrotoxicity, bone toxicity, reproductive toxicity, hepatotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and pulmonary toxicity. There has been less attention in carcinogenicity, one study indicated colorectal, breast, kidney and total cancer in South Carolina through uranium contaminated ground water [25]. In case of Chernobyl, statements on 28 persons death in Chernobyl does not give the whole picture for studies have shown increase instances of leukaemia, CVD (Cardio Vascular Diseases), thyroid, cataracts and mental health concerns among the workers at the nuclear site or those close by [26]. Besides, it’s not just that tens of thousands of metric tons of radioactive waste has accumulated across the planet, also the time needed for disposal high-level nuclear waste, which is slated to be 100,000,000 years and options for safe storage without scope for leak leading to corrosion (as often power plants close to water) till then is limited.

 

Molly Charles                         (to be continued Part II  and Part III)

Reference

1.      https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_arsenals

ICAN.org Which Countries have nuclear weapons?

2.      Erika Benke. Features Correspondent. Finland’s plan to burry spent nuclear fuel for 100,000 years. BBC 14^th June 2023

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230613-onkalo-has-finland-found-the-answe-to-spent-nuclear-fuel-waste-by-burying-it

3.      https://carboncredits.com

Liftoff: Nuclear Energy will Accelerate the World. The World’s Shrinking Wasteline

https://carboncredits.com/nuclear-education-the-worlds-shrinking-waste-line/

4.      https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-report-presents-global-overview-of-radioactive-waste-and-spent-fuel-management

              New IAEA Report Presents Global overview of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Management. 21^st 2022,  Nicholas Watson, IAEA, Department of Nuclear Energy.   

5.      World Nuclear Association.org. Country Profile. Nuclear Power in Sweden

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/sweden

6.      World Nuclear Association.org. Country Profile. Nuclear Power in Finland.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profile/countries-a-f/finland

7.      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository

8.      https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230613-onkalo-has-finland-found-the-answe-to-spent-nuclear-fuel-waste-by-burying-it

9.      Greald Frankel. 2025. How and Where is nuclear waste stored in the US. The Conversation.com

https://theconversation.com/how-and-where-is-nuclear-waste-stored-in-the-us-252475

10.   Allison Macfarlane. Rodney. C. Ewing. Nuclear Waste is Pilling up. Does the U.S. Have a Plan?

scientificamerican.com. 6^th March 2023

https://www.scientificarmerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-is-pilling-up-does-the-u-s-have-a-plan      

11.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Shoshone

12.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

 13.    Greald Frankel. 2025. How and Where is nuclear waste stored in the US. The Conversation.com

https://theconversation.com/how-and-where-is-nuclear-waste-stored-in-the-us-252475

14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant                    

15. https://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/profiles/France_profile_web.pdf

      Radioactive waste Management Programmes in OECD/NEA Member Countries- France (2014)

16.  https://ukinventory.nda.gov.uk/data-hub/2022-uk-data/waste-forecasts/high-level-waste-hlw-forecasts/

       From site- UK Radioactive Waste and Materials Inventory. Gov.uk

  17.   China generates approximately 3,500 tones of nuclear waste each year. How do they manage it.

          https://www.cosdream.com/post/china-generates-approximately-3-500-tons-of-nuclear-waste-  each-year-how-do-they-manage-it

18.https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/under-one-roof-russias-intergated-strategy-for-spent-fuel-management

19.https://m.economics.com/news/politics-and-nation/india-generates-around-4-tonnes/gw- nuclear-waster-per-year-jitendra-singh/articleshow/45456869.cms

 20. The World Nuclear Report 2019, Focus Europe.

https://worldnuclearwastereport.org/wp-content/themes/wnwr_theme/content/World_Nuclear_Waste_Report_2019_Focus_Europe.pdf

 21. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111833119

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2111833119

Lindsay M Krall, Allison M Macfarlane, and Rodney C Ewing. (2022) Nuclear Waste from small modular reactors, May 31. Research article

22. https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-released-nuscale-small-modular-reactor

Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (2023) Eye popping new cosy estimates released for Nuscale small modular reactor. David Schlissel

 23. https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/small-modular-reactors-produce-high-levels-nuclear-waste

 24. https://www.fondapol.org/en/study/nuclear-waste-a-comprehensive-approach

     Nuclear Waste: a comprehensive approach (1)-Fondapol

25.   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412020320626

26. https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effects-chornobyl-accident

       Government of Canada. Health effects of the Chornobyl  accident.

27. https://cen.acs.org/enviornment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilescientists-seek-best/98/i12

Mitch Jacoby (2020) As Nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions. cen.acs.org (Chemical and Engineering News)