HOME | DD
Durdenyr β
Nuclear Power Station
by-nd
Published: 2011-03-24 19:20:45 +0000 UTC; Views: 19880; Favourites: 695; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
The Tihange Nuclear Power Station, along with Doel Nuclear Power Station, is one of the two large-scale nuclear power plants in Belgium. It is located on the right bank of the Meuse River in the Belgian district of Tihange, part of Huy municipality in the Walloonian province of Liège. The primary stakeholder in the plant is the Belgian energy company Electrabel.[link]
Camera Canon EOS 7D
Exposure 50
Aperture f/13.0
Focal Length 126 mm
ISO Speed 100
Screwed-on : ND500+ND8+CPL
[link]
Related content
Comments: 84
π: 0 β©: 0
I want to try something similiar, your shot is gorgeous!
Your EXIF says 1/50 exposure time... but if that's true, how did the fog get so ... blurry and flatened out?
π: 0 β©: 1
Hi,
EXIF says 50/1 not 1/50 so 50 seconds exposure not a 50th of a second
Neutral density filters are the best way to get long exposures during the day.
++
G
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, thanks for the mention.
That explains it.
I think there is then no way around a ND filter or two ...
Take care!
π: 0 β©: 0
Hi!
I featured your beautiful picture(s) in my newest News Article about Square photography!
Please look at it and give it a fave, so that it'll become more popular.
Thank you!
Have a nice day
π: 0 β©: 0
Beautiful work. Congratulations on the DD.
π: 0 β©: 1
My pleasure. You're always very welcome!
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm in already, THX
π: 0 β©: 1
Not quite as convex as our towers, but makes me feel like Im right back at work
Personally, I love nuclear. Would be stoked to see some of the newer Candu reactors and such. Probably only a fraction of guarded perimeter.
π: 0 β©: 1
This picture is beautiful in a haunting way. The look of power plants seem to stand out against the sky, and to me the shape of the power plants give it a futuristic look that seem to spell out "uncertainty" because we do not know what we will do if they become another Chernobyl.
π: 0 β©: 2
What happened at Chernobyl was the result of poor design, terrible reactor and poor quality management.
The one reactor type I'd endorse today; that can be built using present technology that offers the advantage of passive safety and over ease of use, Lead Cooled fast reactors. The soviets built similar units to power subs and they worked. They're safer, simple and offer numerous advantages.
- They don't need water as a coolant
- They DON'T need water in the Core!
- NO pressurization of the reactor vessel
these three things alone Eliminate SO MUCH of the problems inherent in current reactor design. Of the most infamous nuclear disasters (Three Mile, Chernobyl, Fukushima) all their accidents were water related.
- No electricity is required for cooling after shutdown
- Because the reactor is not pressurized the contents don't violently eject in the likelihood of a vessel breech.
- Lead's density makes it the perfect radiation shield.
- Lead's nuclear properties eliminate the circumstance of positive void co-efficients, the very matter that exacerbates nuclear problems in the first place.
- They're thermodynamically more efficient because they can operate at higher temperatures safely.
-Unlike salts which corrode or sodium which is explosive in contact with water or air. Lead is one of the most stable metals and doesn't significantly react with anything.
- they can operate for years at a time, ideal for power applications for countries that don't have nuclear infrastructure; the units can be sold on a battery mindset; you rent the unit and sell the electricity
- Lead being the ideal radiation shield allows humans to work in close proximity without radiation exposure in event of accident.
- Lead melts at 327 degrees celsius but it doesn't boil until 1750 degrees, 1000 degrees hotter than the typical core coolant temperature rendering pressurization by overheating virtually impossible
- The elimination of water in the core may also eliminate the need for water as accessory coolant and open avenues for the reactor to power gas turbines instead of steam and introduce air cooling as opposed to water cooling making LFR's ideal for dry climate regions.
π: 0 β©: 0
Chernobyl was entirely preventable, and a different design than this reactor.
π: 0 β©: 0
Did you stopped your treatment?
It's just a picture..sorry i don't shoot lolcats
π: 0 β©: 0
I work nuclear. I can tell you that easily %95 of peoples fear is based upon ignorance. Anti-nuclear propaganda is vastly more prevalent due to this ignorance. The accidents that have occurred are extreme examples. Chernobyl was due to a lack of sensory equipment at the bottom of the reactor and Soviet ego. Japan was due to a nearly unprecedented catastrophic natural event that is easy to make a point of... merely after the fact...
In spite of this, nuclear has become shackled by a draconian mentality. It isnt really allowed to develop into a more efficient tech due to federal mandate in the US, but at the same time, its lashed for being the creature it is. Other countries have plants that produce clean waste and are much smaller and technically have less room for error. If we'd EMBRACE nuclear, instead of almost trying to get a punchline out of it... well... it would speak for itself...
All this and the fact that VERY few people understand radiation. I get more dose outside in the sun than in containment. I literally wear a Merlin-Gershwin device that informs me as such real-time.
And trust me, I think the wind turbines are awesome. Lincoln Electric has a massive one down the highway, but they put out a spark in comparison. A city would need literally a hundred acres of them, whereas we take up... hmm... probably 10 and have quite a surplus to inject into the grid... The turbines kill avian wildlife notoriously well, are difficult to maintain, and are at the mercy of the sky naturally. If youve ever been to a nuclear facility, youd see that for quite a ways beyond the chain-link, its a veritable nature-preserve. Everyday, I see turkies, deer, raccoons, a coyote that likes to play on top the vehicle barriers, and even a den of foxes with - at my last count - 6 new kits. Outside of that, the plant could really run itself if we were to vanish and safely shutdown autonomously as well.
π: 0 β©: 2
You do realize that a nuclear power plant can not explode atomically. It's impossible.
And, halftrak is being factual, and your arguments are emotional and ignorant. If you have factual,accurate arguments against nuclear power, feel free to point them out to me.
π: 0 β©: 0
Hidden by Commenter
π: 0 β©: 2
I got news for you every industry pollutes. You wanna live high up on the totem pole... you're gonna be killing something. Lot of people don't realize it, but fossil fuels despite all their externalities, keep the earth green. Before coal became widely available, wood was used not just for heating homes but for cooking, illumination, sterilitzation and also for industrial processes; it was the predominant energy source for humanity. Even if half the land surface of Britain had been covered with woodland it could have made 1.25 million tonnes of bar iron a year (a fraction of current consumption) and nothing else, failing wood fuel for heating homes and cooking. Manufactured goods in the land-based economy were the preserve of the elite who lived in castles and estates. Deep green energy production β decentralised, based on the products of the land β is far more damaging to humanity than nuclear meltdown. When we unleashed fossil fuels, it eliminated the need for wood fuel and pasture land for animal power. You could mine coal and extract solely the rare earth elements and the uranium from it and get more energy from the uranium than the coal. And the ingredients to so called green technology are anything but environmentally friendly. What we've done is transfer the enormous waste profile of renewables onto the backs of the third world. Renewable energy is racist energy; we've basically made the Chinese you take your tellurium and heavy metal poisoning for solar cells and your filthy toxic methods for extracting rare earths to build our magnets and solar cells and cell phones and send them to the west so we can have clean air and clear skies and you live in filth and toxic wastewater. They have solar riots in China because manufacturers who normally made fridges and dishwashers are now making solar cells despite the enormous toxic metals used in their manufacture and the factories are in direct proximity to the residents. For every Ton of rare earth metals, you produce 2000 tons of toxic waste and the mines are visible from space.
π: 0 β©: 0
I dont wear a banana suit. Those are to prevent internal contamination with the fuel pool and the rods themselves, which is different from dose radiation. Those suits do nothing to stop most forms of radiation. There are X-ray, Gamma, Alpha and Beta. Alpha and Beta generally aren't harmful, but the sun emits plenty of X and Gamma which pierce through your cells like a knife through butter. And not in a good way. What you're thinking of is actually vitamin D, and the assisted production of other vitamins thanks to our solar furnace; Sol.
To refer to explosions and an atom bomb is to convey the idea that the fuel has the capacity to produce a mushroom cloud effect. This is simply impossible, or half the Middle East would have nuclear weapons, as most of those nations are already working with nuclear power. The fuel is comprised of pellets that are specifically made to slowly release their energy over the course of 6 years. Any reference you may have heard in regards to explosions is about the possibility of a buildup of hydrogen in the upper containment. Due to that, a network of essentially spark plugs constantly flicks on and off to dissipate any gases that collect there before it builds up.
The input to output of comparable tech isn't nearly as high. Magnetic generation is extremely weak. A generator the size of a desk would need to spend several hours running to charge a car battery. Power companies make money based upon the megawatt, and if there's something honestly better out there, theyd dive on it.
And if theres an event that causes a plant to release, like Japan. Theres bigger problems on your plate than a 2 millirem dose for most people. 25,000 millirem, or 25 rem is the first sign of adverse health changes. Fukushima, btw, only happened because it was in the middle of an outage and had exposed fuel being switched out. Something that rarely occurs, and would have otherwise been just as fine as the other Japanese reactors. The news sensationalized the event exponentially because, hey, its nuclear. How often do they get to smack a story like that on the cover?
π: 0 β©: 0
"It's such a shame I'm probably writing this comment to be read entirely only by 'them'"
Yeah, I don't matter.
Who said it was promoting nuclear power? It depends on how you interpret the art. If I took a picture of a person and scribbled a big "FU" over the top of it, would that mean I still liked that person? Probably not.
Since the picture is well done and has neutral tones, I can't say whether or not it promotes or demotes nuclear technology. Perhaps it is neutral. That happens, you know.
Andy Warhol described his art as "Capturing american life." Not necessarily saying anything about it.
π: 0 β©: 3
I agree. The photo really is beautiful.
π: 0 β©: 0
Thank you for this very enlightening comment...at least some sense.
Thanks to Andy Warhol by the way
π: 0 β©: 1
You're welcome.
If you find him in heaven, you can thank Andy Warhol yourself.
π: 0 β©: 0
Hidden by Commenter
π: 0 β©: 1
The "FU" over the face thing was an example.
If we approach the subject matter with neutral emotions then the subject is neutral. When arguing logic, emotion doesn't convince anyone.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hidden by Commenter
π: 0 β©: 1
Here's the deal. I'm an engineering major. To me, your original comment sounded like "Nobody should have this picture up because nuclear power is bad." From an engineers perspective, this isn't necessarily true. That's where the logic comes from. We don't know enough to say if coal powered electricity or nuclear powered electricity is worse. If we did, we'd be publishing long, convincing articles about whether or not it is. Since we're the people who set up your power systems, we care quite a lot about the subject. That's where the emotion comes in. Even then, we have been taught to control our emotions to make rational decisions that will hurt the least amount of people (or help the most; you decide).
Sorry about the use of "killing" for emotions though. That is a little strong, but it's what it feels like sometimes when you're trying to make a logical decision.
π: 0 β©: 0
PM me if you want i got prints available
π: 0 β©: 1
If the opportunity arises, I will.
Also, this would make a very cool album cover.
π: 0 β©: 0
This is just awesome.
I seriously don't understand those people who are against nuclear power plants... they don't even emit that CO2 stuff
π: 0 β©: 2
I'm afraid I didn't post the links correctly in the previous post. Here goes:
[link]
[link]
π: 0 β©: 0
"Nuclear waste is produced in many different ways. There are wastes produced in the reactor core, wastes created as a result of radioactive contamination, and wastes produced as a byproduct of uranium mining, refining, and enrichment. The vast majority of radiation in nuclear waste is given off from spent fuel rods.
A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive until it naturally decays.
The rate of decay of a radioactive isotope is called its half-life, the time in which half the initial amount of atoms present takes to decay. The half-life of Plutonium-239, one particularly lethal component of nuclear waste, is 24,000 years."
[[link]
The waste from nuclear power plants is a very dangerous hazard in the long run. There's also the risk of accident (low, but devastating when it happens - never forget there's no such thing as 100% reliability). And these power plants do produce CO2, since they use electricity as well. Granted, it's lower than other types of energy production...
"Figures published in 2006 for Japan show 13 g/kWh for nuclear power, with prospects of this halving in future.
The UK Sustainable Development Commission report in 2006 gave a figure of 16 g/kWh for nuclear, compared with 891 g/kWh for coal and 356 g/kWh for gas."
[[link]
... but you have to factor in the nuclear waste as well to truly get an idea of its environmental impact.
I am not contesting the usefulness of nuclear power plants, however, since we face a lack of viable alternatives. I think we will have to wait some time, until the maturity of renewable energy production and serious descent of energy consumption, to consider replacing them completely.
Sorry for the long reply.
π: 0 β©: 1
Your "20-30 tons" statement is a fallacy of scale.
It's 20-30 tons of *solid* waste. Do you know how dense nuclear fuel is? Or even worn out metal reactor parts? 20-30 tons of coal waste is a lot of gas. 20-30 tons of heavy metal waste is... not really that much volume. And unlike gas, its volume is a set amount, not naturally prone to disperse.
And 20-30 tons of gaseous waste out of a coal plant is a drop in the bucket. Annual gaseous waste tonnage out of a typical coal-burner plant is measured in seven figures. ([link] )
Unless solar power (subject to whims of weather and seasonal variance in incoming solar radiation) and wind power (subject again to the whims of weather) can ever reliably shoulder the burden of Base Load, nuclear power is the cleanest way to do it, regardless of whatever nuclearphobic (phobia = irrational fear) FUD is spread about it.
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm impressed they were all working during the time you took this. Though, not as impressed at the lack of arguing going on here lol
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>