Skip to main content

Plant Vogtle Crane One of Largest in the World

The 560-foot tall lift derrick at Plant Vogtle (Southern Company).
That is one mighty big crane. Here are all the details from Southern Company:
Testing has begun on a major component in the construction of two new nuclear units at Plant Vogtle 3 and 4 – a 560-foot tall heavy lift derrick, one of the biggest cranes in the world.

The derrick, which will be used to move large pieces at the site of the first new nuclear units built in the United States in 30 years, has the capacity to move the equivalent of five 747 jets across the distance of more than three-and-a-half football fields in a single lift.

In addition, major components will begin arriving to the site later this year and early 2013, the first of which will be the reactor vessel for Unit 3. The Unit 3 condensers have arrived from South Korea, where they were manufactured. Unit 3 is scheduled to go online in 2016, and Unit 4 will follow in 2017.

Also at the site, significant work has been done on turbine islands, cooling towers and nuclear islands. Over the next several months, progress will continue to be made in the nuclear island, turbine building and module assemblies.

"The project is progressing extremely well, especially when compared to other large-scale infrastructure projects worldwide," said Joseph A. "Buzz" Miller, Executive Vice President of Nuclear Development for Georgia Power and Southern Nuclear. "The Vogtle 3 and 4 project provides at least $2.2 billion more value to customers than the next best available technology, according to Georgia Public Service Commission staff."
For more photos and videos from the construction site, click here.

Comments

Bill said…
Have they got the rebar issue sorted out? When are they scheduled to start pouring concrete?
jim said…
I'd like to know the economic breakdowns of building plants above and underground. Surely digging out a big hole would cost much less than sourcing out for trucking in and operating these monster cranes, not to mention the built-in additional environmental containment and safety issues going underground. Indeed, are there ANY nuclear plants underground??

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Samu said…
"has the capacity to move the equivalent of five 747 jets across the distance of more than three-and-a-half football fields in a single lift".Wow this crane seems to be a really strong one.I bet it can easily move huge blocks like these over long distances.
Samu said…
"has the capacity to move the equivalent of five 747 jets across the distance of more than three-and-a-half football fields in a single lift".Wow this crane seems to be a really strong one.I bet it can easily move huge blocks like these over long distances.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…