Biorock sea water mineral accretion technology
June 7, 2008 at 10:16 pm #3108
True, it was unattributed, and something of an opinion. But it’s not completely illegal to commit that heresy. Yet. This is not the forum to argue AGW, but when it comes up, it is unattributed on the Pro-AGW side more often than not. I too have diligently attempted to determine if it is real, and I have come to a fairly solid preliminary conclusion. On the other point, I think Sundiver is right: Carbon TRADING is all about money, and not at all about AGW, and therefore a valid topic for economic discussion.June 8, 2008 at 5:51 am #3112
There is nothing wrong with having opinions. Indeed, they are to be encouraged. What I was trying to say, and did a pretty poor job of saying, is that when AGW is discussed, attributed opinions work better than non-attributed ones. AGW is a real emotional issue. I was not jumping on you. Honest.
I will not buy into the statement “Carbon TRADING is all about money, and not about AGW”. The only reason for carbon trading is to mitigate AGW; otherwise nobody would even remotely consider doing it.
I, personally, think carbon trading is a lousy idea, but my opinion does not really change whether it happens or not. If carbon trading happens, it will change the cost of raw materials. The cost of raw materials will effect the various design trade-offs that go into a seastead.June 8, 2008 at 8:07 am #3123
I wasn’t upset, I was being tongue in cheek, I’m pretty thick-skinned, just didn’t get the humour injected into the text well enough. But enough about AGW- won’t beat a dead horse until the zombie bastard comes after me.September 20, 2008 at 10:42 am #3879
Is your name Simon from the top post? How can I get in touch with you? Cheers, LloydNovember 18, 2009 at 2:33 am #8700
This discusion is a year old. Would like to wake it up asking, what about the cost of renting the boat yard or dry dock to make an enourmous Cement structure?November 18, 2009 at 4:17 pm #8705
Ferrocement is labor intensive. Still, the prices from concrete submarines guys are decent and it looks that they have a good facility. It all depends how “enourmous” enourmous is,…November 18, 2009 at 5:03 pm #8707
The research I have been doing leads me to believe that construction with concrete is very possible in marine environments.
Initial costs for the structures will be comparable to steal structures and will take just as long, if not longer, to construct.
One of the huge attractions is the maintainence and durabiity aspects of working with concrete. Yes it does degrade, though this research is sketchy… it seems to do so at very slow rates with minimum corrosion to steel superstructure. If steel is replaced with aluminum and marine paint is used as sealant, with proper curetimes and maintainence performed for it all, then these structures would pay (and then some) for themselves over the 50-200+ year life expenctancy just by providing shelter…
Find a suitable design that is modular and able to be “fixed” while at sea, and you would be standing on the door step of Seasteading.
Just a thought
Thank youNovember 18, 2009 at 9:03 pm #8714
Well I want to say anything smaler than florida is a waste of time… thats extreeme but florida is coral. I think scale is important here how much would it cost to make a ferro cement florida? One of the important roles of Seasteading is a reason for tech develppment. To so quickly say seacreat is unecinomical is a strange thing to do in a world being floded with semiconductors and film, lunar and solar power including its natural mecanical conversions (wind wave) industrys that in my opinion could unlock the key to artificial coral construction.
POLL. Who would for cement, bake earth with fosil fules suporting fosil fules and ignore how sea creatures make structures in the water?
Hey here is a far out idea I came up with this for this novel im working on. It is scientificaly plasible to geneticaly engenere a super molusk. Take out the growth limiting genetic atributes? eat it when its huge then you have a great boat….. or island depending on how much you feed it. It might even dig eating on human waste???? two birds with one stone.
Spelling appologiesNovember 18, 2009 at 9:56 pm #8715
While I respect your ambition and dreaming spirit…
The cost of creating a 50,000 sq mile, Floating structure from any substance (even plain dirt, assuming you could get it to float) would be unbelievably high.
1000 square miles is 27,878,400,000 sq feet. Multiply that by 50. 1,393,920,000,000 sq feet in 50,000 sq miles (if my math is correct). Now lets say that you are able to construct one square foot of concrete for $2 (which would be unbeilevably low, sort of in the slave labor range, and I would actually expect it to be some where closer to 10/sq ft) you would be looking at a cost of some where around 2.75 trillion US dollars or roughly 25 percent of the current US deficiet (if you take the 10/sq ft estimate you are looking at 14 trillion US dollars).
Now at this median cost of 8.25 trillion US dollars to either build your “florida sized” steading… or (to put this in humanitarian terms) feed all the people on the planet for the next 10 years (even with the sky rocketing populations)… even I (a full believer in the seasteading movement) would have to say this is not a good plan. Sorry
And for all you who will pick apart my math and construction estimates… I did the research for this in about ten minutes so give me a break.
Thank youNovember 19, 2009 at 12:27 am #8717
I like your math no need to pick it apart it serves its purpous well.
My point is florida dident cost anything to make, and if coral is put to work to build somthing of homosapien vision the start up cost for reserch for this system of construction would disapear long before its full potential was realized.
Its all crazy person talk now but it realy is the ultamate form of construction. We should come to realize that hourds of tiny organisims working for a single goal is far more eficent than giant buldozers sluging around piles of clay in gross blobs. “There is plenty of room at the botom” Richard Feiman
All I am saying is…. Coral already builds like micro robots of the future will.
Someone out there is most likely already hacking Coral or molusks to make pretty art (pearls?) Work smarter not harder, we dont need slave labor to make cheap cement we can pay coral to do it for a few amps.
Am a being a crazy person or just looking to far ahead?November 19, 2009 at 8:54 am #8718
Yes you are,…or maybe not or both. Only your shrink can say… Seacreation can build “Florida”…no doubt about it, few generations from here on, LOTS of cash and hard work. Is that crazy,…well, more like weird if you are poor and eccentric if you have the cash. “…looking to far ahead?”,…Who can judge for you?November 19, 2009 at 8:54 am #8719
Yes you are,…or maybe not or both. Only your shrink can say… Seacreation can build “Florida”…no doubt about it, few generations from here on, LOTS of cash and hard work. Is that crazy,…well, more like weird if you are poor and eccentric if you have the cash. “…looking to far ahead?”,…Who can judge for you?January 5, 2010 at 9:54 pm #9087
Instead of hand-applied cement, use shot-crete… Build the forms, apply the grid and mesh, shoot the cement into place, trowel it smooth(if you want) . Not as labor intensive, costs less than including labor to a DIY project… As a hull, you still need to seal both, after curing…
Not that DIY isn’t do-able. Ferrocement boats are still around. The resources are out there, with how-to guides, reports on long-term performance, etc.
DIY cuts costs by not charging for labor… Meaning it’s labor intensive. Size and materials are the problem with all three types of structures(Seacrete, Ferrocement and Shot-crete).
Steel reinforced concrete is hard to beat, when done right, otherwise it wouldn’t be in such wide-spread use. There are as many pro’s as there are con’s, to each of these.
Best bet, in my book, is to start with a shot-crete structure and build a floating break-water of steel mesh and use the sea-crete method to finish it. As the minerals acrue, so will corals, attracting other life… Once it gets too heavy, make another and drop the first one somewhere useful…January 5, 2010 at 11:08 pm #9088
ellmer – http://yook3.comParticipant
The 53,927 sq miles of concrete is not doable when you think in a solid piece of closed concrete structure like a barge – what if you only make a floating GRID – close the waterspaces by floating vegetation patches, plastic bottle refill, pumice fill, mangrove growth, and similar techniques. That leaves you with very little structural concrete per square mile – just enough to hold it together, let mother nature do the large scale work – assist with structure where strictly necessary – more landscaping than structure building. It would be too much for florida size but maybe doable for city size.
WilMarch 14, 2010 at 6:22 pm #9850
The number of 4.2 lbs / kWhr (1.9 kg/kWhr) cited for seacrete energy requirements in places like [Savage1992], if correct, would make it quite efficient. Unfortunately, this figure has two serious flaws. First, it is based on a single experiment [Hilbertz1979]. Second, it is off by a factor of 42 due to a computation error, as Eric Lee has demonstrated. Rather than integrating power over time to get energy, the power used was taken as the energy. The process took 42 hours, hence the error. In fact, at maximum theoretical efficiency the rate is only 1 kg/kWh, and practical efficiences are much less than this. Hilbertz’s published experiment produced only 0.046 kg/kWhr. At this rate, the energy alone costs well over an order of magnitude more than just buying cement.
I do not dispute the original error, or challenge the new deposition figures. What I challenge is the cost figures presented. Upon what were they based? Commercial electrical production?
If we chose to build a seastead using seacrete, we will not be running an extension cord hundreds of kilometers to the nearest country to plug in. No, we will be producing our own electrical power, probably through wind and/or solar energy. We would be foolish to use either coal or petroleum based power generation. Thus, the kWh cost to us will be the cost of the generating equipment divided kWh of electricity produced for the project. This cost is further reduced considering that the generating equipment will still probably be servicable after the project. Thus, the real cost of the power we would use would actually be the maintenance costs plus the wear-and-tear depreciation divided by the kWh produced for the project.
One thing that is required as a huge investment with seacrete is time. It takes time to grow a structure. Ferrocement and steel construction are much faster. A seacrete seastead may take one to two years to grow. In fact, the longer it takes, the better. Apparently the longer is takes to grow seacrete the denser and stronger it is. But, I think that seacrete can be grown in a shorter time by using engineering and construction principles to reinforce the hull. Further, after the seastead has been built and floated, power can continued to be applied to the reinforcing grid to increase the hull thickness, and to make the structure self-repairing. Ferrocement is NOT a self-repairing material.
The forum ‘Structure Designs’ is closed to new topics and replies.
Posted on at