Spectacular drone work and editing. Really great framing and setup shots. Near the end - the zoom out created by the drone’s flying through the frame of a window was a superb shot that captured the state of the site after the implosion. Just all ‘round great piece of work.
When I worked there, I appreciated the main turbine room at the unit 1 - 5 building. It was clean, well lit from the huge windows, and exuded a wonderful 1950s feel.
FYI, this is Plant Yates Units 1-5 of Georgia Power Company located between Newnan and Carrollton GA. You can see Units 6-7 in the background, which has since been converted from coal to natural gas.
You guys and girls are amazing. that is a dangerous job and you do it with perfection and you make a big pile of rubble to just take and cleanup a great way to get rid of a large structure!
I am surprised there was no fire caused by coal dust remaining on the site! Video is great, from a Professional Production company...of a Professional Demo Company's expertise!!
So tell me something please...just asking....I've watched many videos just like this one. Tell me, how do you 101% KNOW that after you start the shot, that all shots go off and not one misfired?? Always wondered about that for safety reasons!
Professional footage of professional blasting, TheLoizeauxGroup can take this vid as an example of that ... well .... at least concerning the camera work ;-)
With all of that coal dust that is lofted during these demolitions I am surprised that there is not a secondary explosion. I would think that the dust would ignite, but obviously it never does despite being dense enough to flash, I wonder why?
Possibly not as dense as it appears, and it's mixed with other dust - every demo vid I've seen has a lot of dust. Also, no ignition source. The detonations are over by the time the building collapses far enough to produce the large amounts of dust.
Doesn't ignite because there is very little coal dust as the buildings and equipment are washed down prior to demolition. Most likely, the dust is from refractory, a cement like insulation material that is present in the ash pits and boiler. Also, there is probably a good bit of fly ash present in many of the nooks and cranny's of the building such as underneath the sheet metal "skin" of the boiler.
@@samuelwoolwineiv7886 Asbestosis, Black Lung Disease, lung cancer, and lung transplants are expensive also, unless you're dead. Now pat yourself on the back for the dumbest comment ever...
Hessel you should check out the documentaries on implosions that’s last an hour. Prep, cleanup and showing the communities and surrounding areas is vital to telling this story.
@Geo Thomas Nothing to get puckered-up about there. It's not just about energy, which we happen to waste huge amounts of. You seem to neglect the health of the planet, seriously threatened by the various by-products of coal-burning. We can do so much better.
@@jacquesblaque7728 Currently, we do not have a reliable replacement for coal that satisfies everyone. Here in France, some 73% of our power is nuclear with 17% renewable and 9% fossil fuel. There are just two coal-fired stations in France. We export electricity to the UK, Spain, Switzerland, and Germany. Then again, EU countries have a power-sharing grid that permits the import/export of power across borders. So, yes, France also imports when the need arises. As do all the others. As for the burning of coal, yes it is dirty and wasteful. The technology to clean those emissions of immediately-toxic materials has existed since the 1970s but is expensive. That does not include the removal of CO2. Coal is far more useful for the multitude of chemicals we can derive from it. It remains abundant yet finite. Compared with the UK (same population) that runs 14 coal-powered stations and 32 gas-fired. Despite that, it still imports up to 60% of its power while claiming to have significantly reduced its carbon footprint. That 60% figure varies according to the source. Official government sources work hard to downplay the role of fossil fuel while emphasising the role of wind, solar (in the UK!) and nuclear. The UK would do well to look at harnessing the power of rain. The point is that despite the power-sharing grid we have in Europe, there are not sufficient renewable sources in place to meet demand. Countries don't like the idea of being dependent on others for energy (too late for that), and they don't want wind farms and acres of solar panels to look at. Nuclear seems to scare everyone.
@@PhilJonesIII It seems you focus unduly on "currently" and "satisfies everyone" IMHO. One huge problem with coal is the steam cycle, because of the enormous heat of vaporization, 970 times per pound that of raising liquid temp one deg. F. Better IMO we plan for the future, like with renewables, solar, wind, hydro with help of "smart" grid, micro-generating, diesels, gas turbines, energy recovery with Stirling engines. Much can be accomplished by efficiency improvement. Who knows what developments are over the horizon? Consider, for one, exploiting seabed methane hydrate.
