FatherofGod's avatar

Nuclear Warming

By FatherofGod
334 Favourites
There have been changes amongst our world. The pollution, the decay, the beauty in life that is being washed away.

Been learning a lot about global warming lately....although nuclear power plants don't cause global warming it's actually plants that make use of fossil fuels....but couldn't think of a more literal attractive title...still gets the point across. Nuclear power plants can be even more dangerous if something goes wrong...not a nuclear explosion but radioactive waste can get dispersed and cause an evacuation and massive panic.

Credit Given to:
Image size
750x857px 558.64 KB
Shutter Speed
10/3500 second
Focal Length
10 mm
ISO Speed
Date Taken
Dec 10, 2006, 2:20:36 PM
© 2008 - 2021 FatherofGod
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
spikedpsycho's avatar
Nuclear plants don't produce smoke cause they don't burn anything.
spikedpsycho's avatar
Actually I've visited a nuclear power plant and I can say compared to any fossil powered place it's nothing short of antiseptic in terms of cleanliness. It also pales in comparison to the radiation people get exposed to in nature.

dragonkingofthestars's avatar
not entirely fair, but i do understand you point. a very well composed piece.
Dzhulyet's avatar
josharts529's avatar
the steam that comes out of the chimneys is actually pressurized water, so its harmless to the atmosphere
anthony-g's avatar
lol this became some dumbass argument about nuclear reactors and smoke
Nod3rator's avatar
Okay, first of all, nuclear power plants don't make smoke. At all. Also, those large fat cooling towers aren't only used in nukers. Radioactive waste is not stored in metal barrels, and is not just dumped anywhere. And those tall, slender towers are typically found in coal plants, not nuclear power plants.
ramaeschlimann's avatar
Well, nuclear power is a very clean process in deed. I disagree with those dark clouds plume over the cooling towers.

BTW this is just a comment about the deviation. I do not support the Nuclear Power.
Nod3rator's avatar
Why is everyone so against nuclear power?
ramaeschlimann's avatar
Because radioactive waste. That's the unique problem.
DeviantART789789's avatar
France actually recycles Nuclear Waste. Interesting right?
ramaeschlimann's avatar
Absolutely interesting! If that occurs with success, nuclear power will be the future!
Nod3rator's avatar
How bloody hard is it to dig a massive hole, line it with concrete, and fill it with depleted uranium?
ramaeschlimann's avatar
It's hard, because it's impossible to prevent things like earthquakes, materials stress and fails, that produces fails on that kind of structures during time.

It is dangerous when you have a leak, and leaks happend when you do that kind of "holes".

So, to avoid that dangerous leakages, many people is against nuclear power, but good news are coming with the french people that is building the new fission reactor, that is more powerful nuclear power plant than the older ones that works with fusion and without the problem of the radioactive waste.
Nod3rator's avatar
(Just a note, it's not a fission reactor if it operates with fusion, but I get what you mean)

And yes, the fusion reactors are very good, they don't make waste, they're clean, and, here's the best bit: You get more then what you put in.

You know what a perpetual machine is? Those machines that run forever. Well, that's sort of like a fusion reactor. It could be dangerous if it's not powered properly (an explosion is 1000 times stronger then a standard bomb) but if you avoid building it near earthquake zones, like in the desert, you should be good to go!
FatherofGod's avatar
Yea I made this a few years ago without knowing.
cannibol's avatar
good work! i posted thjis in my facebook group, earthart fukushima 3/11.
Afterskies's avatar
If the Cooling towers are spewing black smoke like that, something is insanely wrong. As in, impossibly wrong.

Nuclear reactors are INSANELY safe, so long as all the old ones (like the ones you see in the news) are actually updated like they should be.
That, and any new nuclear reactors built these days will actually be reducing the gross human-carbon footprint, as their cooling towers will be built with CO2 scrubbers inside, making them unarguably the cleanest form of energy, because they'll be making up for far more CO2 than is produced in their construction...

... So please do research on a topic before you start arguing against it.
I appreciate the art, it's wonderfully done, but I fail to see the metaphor when they're actually counter the argument you're trying to display. It gets to the point of fear-mongering, and is actually somewhat unnecessarily offensive to anyone who works in the nuclear field.
Nod3rator's avatar
They don't need CO2 scrubbers. They don't make CO2. They take uranium-235 and/or plutonium-239 and fission it. The heat produced spins turbines with water. It also spits out steam used in the cooling of the reactors.
Afterskies's avatar
Very true. However, cars, coal and natural gas plants, cattle, people, et cetera, do. The CO2 scrubbers are not a part of the reactor plant, rather, they are placed in the signature cooling towers, so as air is drawn over the tertiary coolant, the air is also scrubbed for CO2, helping to make our overall gross emissions, as a people, zero.
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In