Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×
  • Photo




Details

Submitted on
March 24, 2011
Image Size
791 KB
Resolution
1200×1200
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
15,412
Favourites
770 (who?)
Comments
87

Camera Data

Make
Canon
Model
Canon EOS 7D
Shutter Speed
50/1 second
Aperture
F/13.0
Focal Length
126 mm
ISO Speed
100
Date Taken
Mar 24, 2011, 12:37:16 PM
Software
Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Sensor Size
5mm

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
×
Nuclear Power Station by Durdenyr Nuclear Power Station by Durdenyr
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]
Add a Comment:
 

Daily Deviation

Given 2011-09-13
Suggester says; Such a calm, mysterious and serene alsmost abstract like work, I just fell in love with it.
Nuclear Power Station by ~Durdenyr ( Suggested by MayaVogrin and Featured by ScENeYmE )
:iconkonzty:
Konzty Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
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?
Reply
:icondurdenyr:
Durdenyr Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
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
Reply
:iconkonzty:
Konzty Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Oh, thanks for the mention.
That explains it.

I think there is then no way around a ND filter or two ...

Take care!
Reply
:iconbojkovski:
Bojkovski Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
great shot
Reply
:iconmist-stavi:
MiSt-Stavi Featured By Owner Jun 14, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Feature [link]
Reply
:icondragonfly-oli:
dragonfly-oli Featured By Owner Sep 16, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
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! :sun:
Have a nice day :huggle:
Reply
:iconangie-pictures:
Angie-Pictures Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2011
Beautiful work. Congratulations on the DD. :iconflowerheartplz:
Reply
:icondurdenyr:
Durdenyr Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
THX ;-)
Reply
:iconangie-pictures:
Angie-Pictures Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2011
My pleasure. You're always very welcome! :hug:
Reply
:iconpqphotography:
pqphotography Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
Pls join :icondd-elite: great image :D
Reply
:icondurdenyr:
Durdenyr Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
I'm in already, THX ;-)
Reply
:iconpqphotography:
pqphotography Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
Ha cheers ;)
Reply
:iconneven1:
neven1 Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011  Professional Interface Designer
i like it thnx
Reply
:iconlluminus:
Lluminus Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011  Student General Artist
gabeN
Reply
:iconhalftrak:
Halftrak Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Not quite as convex as our towers, but makes me feel like Im right back at work :P
Personally, I love nuclear. Would be stoked to see some of the newer Candu reactors and such. Probably only a fraction of guarded perimeter.
Reply
:icondurdenyr:
Durdenyr Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
THX ;-)
Reply
:iconteapottritium:
TeapotTritium Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
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.
Reply
:iconrmsparkle:
RMsparkle Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012
Chernobyl was entirely preventable, and a different design than this reactor.
Reply
:iconcaramelkarma:
caramelkarma Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011
if this daily deviation's aim is to support nuclear power plants by normalizing them to the public, then i am thoroughly disgusted. If it is to evoke images of the dangers it presents, including factual and extremely deadly dangers.. then i support the intentions of dA, and this artist (..gotta love Rage Against The Machine). but as a majority rule i do not see many positively oriented deviations in Daily Deviations, they are usually dark and evoke images and emotions that are not on the bright side of life.. for the most part.. which leads me to believe i'm a member of a site that is truly devious.. and not in the fun way. i make no final judgements from mere speculation though.

"Such a calm, mysterious and serene alsmost abstract like work"... WHAT?! nuclear is not calm, mysterious OR Serene one tiny little iddy bitty bit. :puke:

i, for one, take this very seriously. i don't mean to be an annoyance, but i am aware of remedies to not only fix the issues of energy, but to completely do away with nuclear and oil and coal.. something far beyond the capabilities of solar, wind and water. the info is out there, even though you have to dig into very deep holes(intentionally made so, as oil and nuclear monetary interests would not like these things to be out in the open) to find it. the research has been, and still continues somewhat in secret from the nefarious ones, of such beneficial and harmless technology and there are practical solutions if only the sea of retards would only wake up and think outside of their entrapping realities. it appalls me to see people take things in such short sight and allow shit to happen. the wool has been pulled over your eyes, after they rubbed dirt in them.

and yet i'm not surprised that some loon will have some sort of weak rebuttal. i am expecting some dissatisfying, slandering repl(y/ies) actually. "if you are not one of us, you are one of them." it's such a shame i'm probably writing this comment to be read entirely only by "them".. :stupidme:
Reply
:icondurdenyr:
Durdenyr Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
Did you stopped your treatment?
It's just a picture..sorry i don't shoot lolcats ;-)
Reply
:iconcaramelkarma:
caramelkarma Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2011
lmao. ok.
Reply
:iconhalftrak:
Halftrak Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
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.
Reply
:iconcanona2200:
canona2200 Featured By Owner Jun 27, 2013
I agree
Reply
:iconcaramelkarma:
caramelkarma Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011
i agree with your take on wind turbines. there is technology out that that could replace these hazardous fuels. for one people need to learn who Tesla was. And too bad the gov't snatched his notes and work before the world could see. but there are other people as well. I don't think any more nuclear explosions on the many fault lines they lay on is a risk i'm willing to be a part of.
Reply
:iconrmsparkle:
RMsparkle Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012
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.
Reply
:iconcaramelkarma:
caramelkarma Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011
Radiant Energy patents, hydrogen fuel cells, permanent magnet generators with use of iron yokes to prevent pushing both ways, solid state generators, high frequency motors and devices equals incredibly more efficient usage. there are so many things. the list is enormous. and it's a list hardly anyone is aware of.

i think people's engineered fear is well placed. there are also many types of radiation in very differing frequencies. The sun's radiation is beneficial. all living creatures give off a bio-radiation frequency, which can be measured with instrumentation. nuclear radiation has a proven track record of being dangerous. an atomic bomb in a cage. if the radiation in there is truly safer than vacationing on the beach, then why do you wear the suits?
Reply
:iconhalftrak:
Halftrak Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
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?
Reply
:iconorange-manifesto:
orange-manifesto Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011  Student General Artist
"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.
Reply
:iconrmsparkle:
RMsparkle Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012
I agree. The photo really is beautiful.
Reply
:icondurdenyr:
Durdenyr Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
Thank you for this very enlightening comment...at least some sense.
Thanks to Andy Warhol by the way ;-)
Reply
:iconorange-manifesto:
orange-manifesto Featured By Owner Sep 17, 2011  Student General Artist
You're welcome.

If you find him in heaven, you can thank Andy Warhol yourself. ;)
Reply
:iconcaramelkarma:
caramelkarma Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011
true.. i guess my mind is in more of a passionate state, and neutral objectivity is a stale lifeless option in my opinionated point of view. too radical mayhaps. but the comment of the suggester is ignorant. calm and serene neutral color scheme perhaps, but the subject matter is anything but.

I never said you didn't matter. i don't see the relevance of writing a big FU over someone's face either.

Also i think the suggester doesn't realize my interpreted read on Durdenyr's intentions, spoken clearly with the well used Rage Against the Machine link. I hope i'm interpreting him correctly in this..
Reply
:iconorange-manifesto:
orange-manifesto Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011  Student General Artist
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.
Reply
:iconcaramelkarma:
caramelkarma Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011
That was a poor example if your were trying to create a similar analogy.

I went to college. I took art history courses. I've majored in art. I've critiqued and been critiqued on my art. I understand the platform you speak of. I'm simply taking advantage of the situation this Daily Deviation has given me by remarking on the suggester's comment and all that I intended to convey. You're trying to turn my comment on this deviation into something it isn't. Quit trying to create dissension of my comment with your passive aggressive rhetoric that makes no sense.

Who's to say emotion doesn't convince anyone? in fact emotions are in the roots of society, especially in the foundation of America. Emotions ARE the decisive factor. To deny emotions is to deny what makes you human, making you virtually soulless and a perpetuating drone of the system trying hard to break your soul. Nothing ever changed, or was ever created with a lack of emotion. And also- to control emotions is different than killing emotions... what a random tangent.
Reply
:iconorange-manifesto:
orange-manifesto Featured By Owner Sep 17, 2011  Student General Artist
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.
Reply
:iconcaramelkarma:
caramelkarma Featured By Owner Sep 17, 2011
well the entire comment was spurred by the suggester's comment. and raising some opinions on the why it was promoted. how come nobody acknowledges this?! and then be promoted to daily deviation from that suggester's comment on such a calm image. so easy to pin-point items in my comments to attack. that was a mistake. i try to understand the intentions of everything. including the intentions of making this a daily deviation. i said, nor implied, in any way that nobody should have this picture up. i think it should be. make people think. but it's sad that people are normalized by way of "bending the truth" to things that aren't very healthy at all. fast food(needs no explanation), artificial sweeteners(made from highly volatile bi-products, carcinogenic), fluoride(studied by Nazi's as a crowd tamer, also stupifies the masses. as deadly, or more so, than rat poison AKA Arsenic), shots(the latest Gardasil shot is all the rage now, sad to hear young girls getting ill and some dying from such a massively profitable drug accepted by the FDA [link] cell phones(research on why all the bees are dying-the gardeners of our planet of which we are unknowingly highly dependent on- shows cell towers to blame and electronic frequencies of this nature in general, nuclear power(do i even need to explain? what happened recently? "natural" disasters can't be controlled, the risks are high)... the facts are out there. the testing results are there. search it yourself.

i do agree about emotions. if at least one thing to agree upon, somewhat. emotions can get out of control and rash, dumb decisions can be made. but to understand them and to realize what is going on with these emotions and manipulate them consciously would then be the Spock way. yep, a Star Trek reference. i understand that your working for a nuclear company gives a bit of a subjective stand-point. and it's futile to argue with an agent of something i'm arguing against. sorry.
Reply
:iconiz-person:
IZ-Person Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011
I want a movie sized print of this.
Reply
:icondurdenyr:
Durdenyr Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
PM me if you want i got prints available ;-)
Reply
:iconiz-person:
IZ-Person Featured By Owner Sep 16, 2011
If the opportunity arises, I will. :)
Also, this would make a very cool album cover.
Reply
:iconda-parrot-masta:
da-parrot-masta Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
such a powerful image.
Reply
:iconfreefaces:
freefaces Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011
this is sad but ture
Reply
:iconkillmariolovebowser:
KillMarioLoveBowser Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011  Student Writer
This is just awesome. :iconiluplz:

I seriously don't understand those people who are against nuclear power plants... they don't even emit that CO2 stuff :no:
Reply
:iconanknara:
Anknara Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011
I'm afraid I didn't post the links correctly in the previous post. Here goes:
[link]
[link]
Reply
:iconanknara:
Anknara Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011
"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.
Reply
:iconmadcat221:
MadCat221 Featured By Owner Dec 7, 2012
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.
Reply
:iconmetamolecola:
MetaMolecola Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Wow, amazing...
Reply
:iconleppakakaklifoth:
leppakakaklifoth Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Super foto
Reply
:iconmousedenton:
MouseDenton Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011
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
Reply
:icondurdenyr:
Durdenyr Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
THX ;-)
Reply
:iconkokinomala:
kokinomala Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2011
great shot:)
Reply
Add a Comment: