Forum Replies Created
September 9, 2009 at 5:36 am #7688
Could you please provide a bit more information? I don’t need brand names or spec sheets, but what size are the panels and wind generators (dimensions and rated power generation)?
I’m assuming that by 100′ seastead, you’re talking about your kite design. I have no problem with that, since I usually find myself thinking in terms of my own design all the time. However, a 100′ seastead, depending on the design, could have quite a bit of variation in energy needs. It could be a casino-hotel-stead or condo-stead with 100+ passengers (multiple decks & cramped quarters) or just a single family. Maybe everything is stored in cans and all you use are a few lights or perhaps there are watermakers, pumps, electronics, etc. It does sound like plenty of power for your design and mine but it would be nice to know more about what we’re dealing with. That’s what I was getting at earlier with my research idea. We all need to be on the same page with what you get for that $25K and how best to compare that to alternative systems. Once we know the kW output of the system you gave the estimate on, we can look up the price for a deisel generator system with the same output and find out how much fuel we could buy with the leftover money (and how long that fuel would last) to help us wrap our heads around the problem.
There’s also the whole comparison between 4 smaller wind turbines and 1 larger one at the same price point. Redundancy and lack of downtime are important but it may be possible to get more power per dollar with a larger single turbine instead. That’s a technical discussion for another board, though.
In any case, it’s a useful rough estimate.September 1, 2009 at 4:18 am #7646Carl wrote:
….Just as a perspective on the price, in Sweden we pay around 6 dollars per gallon (11SEK/litre) for diesel or heating oil. So 3.50 would be a great improvement for me. To be fair though, not a whole lot of houses use oil for heating here anymore. The difference is taxes, around 200% or so on the oil price :-/….
Well, a perspective on price was my point, I just used an example that was most familiar to me. At $6.00/gal. (11SEK/litre) the cost would go up to $8.40/gal. (15.4SEK/litre). It’s no trivial increase in cost to have to deal with. I know it’s late, but I’ve been out of town.
On the tax issue, I wonder at which point the taxes are applied to the system. I know that they are inevitably passed on to the consumer at the pump but do they start there, at the refinery, or at the well? In other words, if oil is pumped out of the ground in the Gulf of Mexico, sent to Texas for processing, then shipped back out to sea for use on a seastead, would we gain any tax benefit? If not, an off-shore refinery would be the only way to avoid (most) outside taxation on the supply. This wouldn’t be very efficient for any of the processed oil that is still shipped to land for sale but might be useful (in the distant future) when there are enough seasteads (and/or regular ships) to constitute a viable market. I’ve always wondered what the smallest size refinery might be. Usually, the larger, the more efficient and profitable but for seasteading and other odd applications I’ve wondered how small one could scale such an opperation.OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
Yes a tanker can carry 600 tons of diesel, but a seastead wont be able to take more than 80-90 tons @ a time. (because,..its not a tanker, but more like a passenger ship where most of the space is living quarters instead of tankage). So, it will take 2 trips to refill. And yes the air is much cleaner even 10nm offshore:-).
The point I was trying to make it has to do actually with the notion of seastead being autonomous ocean communities and as self-sufficient as possible. Power is vital. If a shipment is late, or is to rough out there to transfer fuel for a week, that seastead better be @ the tropics, not in the middle of January @ 45 degree of latitude, because everybody will freeze their butt off and eat peanut butter sandwiches, or worst. Why be so dependent on oil when alternative sources of energy exists? If this conversation is about finding best ways for a ocean going community to survive and prosper, then lets put 10 wind generators on that seastead and 100 solar panels because for sure, one day, we might need them badly. Just the fact that on land wind and solar are not used to a greater extent it doesnt mean they are not economical. In fact, in the long run they are. But the real reason that every house in America doesnt have the roof covered w/ solar panel and a couple of wind generators is Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Utilities, Big Goverment and other thousand of Small Interest Groups feeding off the leftovers of the Big one’s feast. Why would any of those want alternative enegies? To lose money?
If we want innovations with new political and social systems we shud start looking into alternative technologies, because they are all inevitabelly interrelated.
The design of a seastead can be made to accommodate additional oil storage, if that’s the route you choose. Oil is less dense than water, which means it would only add to a structure’s buoyancy (as long as the holding tank doesn’t completely negate the benefit) to store more fuel. As long as you fill the tank with something more buoyant than the fuel as you burn it off, it also wouldn’t negatively impact the structure as you use more and more of the fuel you’re storing between shipments.
I agree completely, though, that relying primarily on oil is a rather short-sighted approach based mostly on current conditions. Even if these systems are not economically viable on land, they may yet be useful at sea. There is no competing energy supplier on the open ocean. There’s no ultra-cheap grid to tap into. Power companies generally buy what they need in bulk, at reduced cost, or have direct access to resources (coal, oil, etc.) which is part of how they can stay competitive. [Not to mention the fact that many of those companies paid all their 'start-up costs' a century ago.] Between a large initial investment (wind/solar) and low but perpetual fuel costs (oil/deisel) I’d choose the higher initial investment simply due to the uncertainty of future prices, supplies, and potential for service interruptions in bad weather or political unrest. A Blockade or an embargo could do serious harm to an oil-stead but have little effect (at least in regard to power) on a seastead that relies much less on regular deliveries from the outside.
I’m not against having deisel generators, I’m just resistant to relying on outside ‘help’ (even if that help would be considered a normal or unavoidable transaction in my current life) any more than necessary. It would be nice to consider ongoing trade a convenience and a luxury rather than the other way around.August 28, 2009 at 3:03 am #7610
You’re both talking about the same ton… almost. You can ship more than a ton of fuel on a 150 foot tanker. 1 ton per day @ $1000 per ton = $1000 per day to run a ship that size. I don’t think I found the exact size ship Oceanopolis was talking about, but a few tankers of similar size seem to carry around 450-650 tons of oil. If you want to cut the example to 200nm it would be $3000 to get the oil to you from shore but they would also charge at least enough to pay for the return trip, so double it. [and that's if they only charge you 'at-cost' for the shipping] So, $6000 in shipping for $450,000-$650,000 worth of deisel comes out to 1.33%-0.92% extra for shipping. (but only if you’re buying a tanker-full. If you buy less, the shipping cost doesn’t decrease and eats up a larger percentage of the total cost)
I have to admit that I was expecting the numbers to be a lot worse than what I came up with, here. 2% isn’t too bad, really. A 40% markup would have seemed too rich for my blood. Everyone on land paying $2.50/gal and we pay $3.50/gal because of shipping. That would suck… though I guess that’s part of life in the middle of nowhere.
Becoming a brief stop along an existing tanker route would only help if you have your own refinery, since they generally only ship crude oil in those supertankers.
Someone should do a life-cycle cost comparison between the various options. It’s the only way to know what we’re getting into. I imagine it would be a chart of potential estimate ranges of cost per kWh with columns for various size systems (5kW, 7.5kW, 10kW, 15kW, 20kW, 50kW, 100kW, 200kW, etc.) and rows for systems (Deisel generator, Wind Turbine, Solar, etc.). The problem is that local conditions effect these things quite a bit. Amount of solar or wind available, distance to ship fuel. For deisel, you’d also have to have more than one row for variations in storage capacity (weekly shipments, monthly shipments, biannual shipments), since such a factor can effect price considerably. You’d also want to have multiple rows for each of the above based on the current average price of oil remaining steady, growing slightly, and growing drastically over the period of time in question.
That would take a lot of research to get decent and fair/comparable data but the information would be useful… sounds like a scientific paper, actually. Yeah, there are several ‘similar’ articles out there but not for free and likely pretty limited in scope. I’d probably actually enjoy crunching the numbers and setting up the charts and graphs for such a study but I’d find the data collection boring and difficult. On top of it all, there’s no way I have time to do anything for the next month and a half in the face of my impending marriage. If anyone actually likes researching things like the average cost of deisel generators of various sizes, construction costs for fuel storage tanks, how often you’d need to replace the typical battery, etc, etc, etc,… let me know. Maybe when I’m back in action we could get something started.
Eelco, you’ve mentioned more than once now, that wind power isn’t economical. Your data sources could help in the calculations above. I’m wondering, though, how, exactly, you came to that conclusion. Part of your argument seems to involve “deep water” wind turbines. If we’re talking about a single family seastead with a smaller power system 15kW+/-, then it’s only a matter of installing a regular off-grid turbine right on the seastead structure, since you have to get your seastead to float safely anyways. That doesn’t mean it is or is not economically viable, just that there’s onle less factor running against it.
How did we end up here, anyways? Oh, right. Harvesting renewable energy in existing EEZs. If you’re beyond the horizon (out of sight from grouchy, landlubbin’ NIMBYs) and not ‘blocking’ another wind farm or access to other resources, it might not be much of an issue. Personally, I’d want to steer clear of any EEZs whenever possible but using nothing but wind and solar is about as harmless/innocent as you could be with regards to ‘harvesting resources’ , which should help you avoid some of the unwanted attention. The light and air is just as good 300nm out as it is 100nm out (if not better) so why tempt Big Brother to push you around so soon?August 28, 2009 at 1:55 am #7608
My first thought was that these thousands of rich people represent a potential market (except for the fact that they already have mega-yachts) or even future allies. The problem, of course, is that they’re essentially outlaws in a way. Grouping them together in a single community and slowing them to a snails pace would make them pretty easy to find. On the other hand, I guess if they’re living on the high seas, they’re legally out of reach and ‘hiding’ in the truest sense of the word isn’t necessary. So, they may want to ‘join the club’ someday but maybe not until we’ve done all the hard work to earn benefits like international recognition (in order to avoid taxes on a stateless person fleeing their former state) of one or more seasteading citizenships, for example.
Luxury and mobility are what these rich folks are after, not sustainability or permenance. We share interests and goals, of course, but it’s a different market all together.August 13, 2009 at 9:45 pm #7409
I think we’re finally both on the same page, then. …or close enough, anyways.
As I said, I feel that it’s pretty clear that we meet the four requirements for the Montevideo Convention. We should technically have no problem becoming a legitimate nation under those requirements. So, I don’t think we’d be wasting our time, since legitimate statehood is within our reach. However, under UNCLOS, we would have a hard time getting around all those references to artificial islands and platforms. It wouldn’t prevent statehood but it would make arguing for our fair share of territorial waters quite a bit more difficult. We’d essentially be treated much more like a landlocked country with a massive shipping fleet than a small island nation. It’s not ideal by any means but still well worth the effort, in my opinion.
I desperately hope that an argument such as yours could be used to claim that 12nm and even the 200nm but it really seems to be strongly worded out of our favor.
I also agree that “artificial island” is pretty vague terminology with quite a wide range of possibilities between natural and artificial. Natural stone or sand piled up; a sea wall built to block currents and ‘naturally’ build up sediment over time; a ‘natural’ volcanic island triggered by man-made events; etc. They’re all gray area. It seems to me that the intent of the wording was to imply permenance, not necessarily strictly natural processes.
Aha! A great example to look into would be Holland. They must have a 12nm zone, yet a large portion of their land was reclaimed from the sea. If their territory doesn’t begin at the old, natural coastline, then we have a foothold to help our argument that ‘artificial land’ has been used in the past to determine the 12nm boundary. That’s certainly worth looking into.August 12, 2009 at 11:01 pm #7397
Intentionally leaving out safety systems, resulting in thousands of deaths is an interesting example. I’d like to see how it might be handled by each legal system.
On the other hand, it’s a bit of an extreme example, making some aspects easier to determine than usual. What if all safety protocols were in place and it truly was an accident? What if only 3 people died as a result of a smaller accident (both with and without the safety protocols)? Would you still execute everyone and take over the business until all debts are paid (or the business has been run into the ground by bureaucracy, whichever comes first)?
You should check out “The Top 100 Things I’d Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord” before you rise to power. It could come in handy.August 12, 2009 at 10:43 pm #7396i_is_j_smith wrote:
invalid claim of soveragnity on the high seas.
Again, I am not claiming to have sovereignty over the high seas. I am only claiming sovereignty over the 12nm given to all coastal states in UNCLOS. My seastead is a state, meeting all four requirements under the Montevideo Convention. I am coastal, having an “adjacent belt of sea”. So therefore, under UNCLOS, I can claim a 12nm territorial sea. That 452 sq nm circle around my seastead is no more the high seas than any other piece of water less than 12nm from any other nation’s coast.
The coast is defined as where the land meets the sea. The term “coastal zone” is a spatial zone where interaction of the sea and land processes occurs. Since an artificial structure, even if anchored securely or built solidly on the ocen floor, is not land. This is why I’ve mentioned repeatedly that artificial structures, even artificial islands have no effect on maritime boundaries. If you don’t have naturally formed land, you don’t have a coast and therefore are not a costal state. You may easily have met all 4 of the requirements for statehood but not the requirements of a natural landmass adjacent to the ocean.
I understand your point that the water around a nation is not high seas but rather territorial water… but the point I’ve yet been unable to explain to my own satisfaction is that you still haven’t met the requirement of claiming and occupying a natural landmass above sea level at high tide. Maybe you’ve already understood this point of mine and have likewise been unable to explain your counter-argument in a way that I fully grasp. If so, I look forward to that moment of realization. It’s not great news and I don’t really like it, myself, but that doesn’t change the facts of the matter as I understand them right now.
Perhaps, after establishing statehood, it could be argued that our special circumstances are preventing us from claiming all the rights granted to all other nations with access to the ocean. Whether we get a 12nm ‘safety zone’ instead or a full declaration of ‘territorial waters’ (perhaps including a size compromise), I do hope we’ll get the space required for proper defense at some point.
A highly unlikey solution to this lack of landmass, which someone should probably post in the “Dreaming / Crazy Ideas / Speculation” section, might be to find a way to drill, blast, or in some other way trigger the formation of a new volcano. You know, get the kind of fantasy drilling device that lets sci-fi movie heros drill to the center of the earth and plant nukes to help restart a dying world. It may take a while, but several years of continuous lava flow (maybe even controlled for maximum steepness) might be able to send a shaft of rock up to poke up above the surface on our behalf. Hopefully, the unnaturally rapid loss of heat in the mantle wouldn’t trigger unforeseen techtonic shifts that threaten to destroy the planet. Hmmm… I bet Sci-Fi… ahem, I mean “SyFy Channel” would buy that script. Seasteaders, desperate for soverignty, accidentally threaten the world. I just need a cheezy title and the script will be half written.
Good Marketing and Public Relations efforts will certainly help to keep you from being blown out of the water without a very good excuse. As long as your PR people are good enough, you should be safe for a while. Then again, the “War for Oil”… I mean, “On Terror” has gone on quite a while with a great marketing campaign of its own. They could always claim we’re dangerous, blow us out of the water, and then claim that they honestly thought we were dangerous. Haha. I’m only half joking on that, unfortunately. It’s going to take quite a balancing act to find our place in the world without major casualties. Public Relations and being a benefit to those around us will be important tools along the way.August 12, 2009 at 2:47 am #7385
That is an important distinction. A SFS with a dozen or so people is a vastly different situation than several thousand people. My thinking was along the lines of the first-wave seasteaders, which I thought would probably be Single Family Seasteads or Clubstead sized communities of no more than a couple hundred people. I still have serious doubts about the status of artificial islands in relation to ‘territorial waters’, given the strictly defined bias against artificial islands. Blasting a pile of rocks below the high tide level probably still takes more power and effort than sinking or moving a floating clubstead-size ‘island’, no matter how well you design the steel cables, concrete piers, etc. …obviously without knowing the actual design of such yet. National borders change often enough, sure. Every several years a few readjustments might take place. As you said, it could be more often than I imagine but I’m fairly certain the likelyhood of national boundaries moving hundreds of miles in a matter of hours under the current system isn’t at all likely.
Calling it a 12nm (or even 6nm as an arbitrary example of a potential compromise) “safety zone” might be preferable to using the traditional terms. While we don’t want to distance ourselves too much from all the rights and priveledges of full statehood, effectively labeling ourselves in some way inferior or less-complete than a land-based nation, we will have to do a certain amount of maneuvering to maximize our chances of success. Directly granting exclusive rights to any resource is an extremely unfavorable precedent for any existing nation(s) to allow to be set. Allowing a vessel (assuming we’re not building a pile of rocks here) governmental autonomy and safe passage or safe immobile existence would be much easier for them to swallow than the beginning of the end of the ‘high seas’ as they exist today, with regard to travel and natural resources.
As it is now, the early bird gets the worm on the open ocean. Once a ship is harvestng fish or an oil rig has set up shop, most competitors would refrain from foribly “bumping” someone out of the way to take over, they just keep looking or set up shop nearby without a direct conflict, I think. On the other hand, if the exact same activity was going on in similar circimstances but the first vessel declared exclusive rights over the area a major conflic would spring up. Both captains know that it would be pointless to fight over the same school of fish… but declaring ownership sets a dangerous precedent and must be quickly settled. [These examples come exclusively out of my own mind, so maybe I'm wrong on realism of one or both of the examples but I hope you get a clearer picture of what I mean by all this.]
The right of soverignty over vessels and individuals plus the right to keep outside vessels at a safe distance should give the same level of autonomy without the threat of directly eroding existing authority or setting a bad example (unwanted precedent) for the rest of the world.
Just for the fun of it and as a reference… here’s some math for you:
3.04 nautical miles = 3.5 miles = distance to the horizon from a vantage point 8 feet above mean sea level.
6 nautical miles = 6.9 miles = dist. to horizon from 32 feet A.M.S.L
11.9 nautical miles = 13.7 miles = D2H from 125ft AMSL
So, if you are granted a 12nm territory (whatever it may legally labeled in the end), you can sit in a 125 foot crow’s nest with binauculars and you’ll know someone is in your territory if you can see the place where ship meets sea.August 12, 2009 at 12:41 am #7383
That gapminder link was great. That’s the kind of complexity I’m talking about. It’s always nice when a good visual can help you get a better grasp on information. There’s obviously much more to it than just that but it’s a nice glimpse.
Hmm. Now where were we?August 11, 2009 at 4:46 am #7371
If you become a citizen of an unrecognized nation, your new citizenship will likewise be unrecognized. That’s part of why I was asking if there is still such a concept as a stateless individual and what rights still remain for them. An unflagged (stateless) ship is automatically considered a pirate vessel and the right of free passage and privacy is apparently lost.
Unless there is an alternative way to gain the right mix of rights and freedoms of citizenship without too many of the restrictions of existing governments, we’ll need to know and understand our options as stateless individuals until new nations can be properly recognized. If you don’t know what rights you’ll have, how can you decide if that route will be worth it?
My guess is that without a citizenship with an existing state we would be unable to enter most existing nations, legally. I’m sure there are lax ports in the world where you can gain access in order to trade. Beyond that, I have no idea what to expect. Except for interacting with ports for trade and encountering military vehicles at sea, maybe the lack of recognized citizenship won’t affect us much… as long as we’re dedicated enough to willingly forego the possibility of ever returning to our former countries for a visit.August 11, 2009 at 4:34 am #7370
To be more specific, “Every nation that has territorial waters” adjacent to the naturally-formed landmass they control “already claims some part of the ocean for itself.” To make a much shorter version of what I just posted in the other thread, the two concepts are covered in a different set of laws. Control over a stationary artificial structure may help to grant you status as a nation but artificial islands and structures won’t grant you the territorial waters nor the EEZ.
There’s no use in re-hashing it in both threads. I just thought I’d post a brief mention here to either close things out, or move the rest of the discussion there.
Is life better than it was? That’s too broad a question, really. Compared to the 1950s, the 1500s, the stone age? Just in the US, Asia, Africa, the world as a whole? Are we talking about life expectancy, quality of life, or the idea of civilization? Even after you narrow down the time, place, and focus for what we’re comparing, there are still myriad factors to consider and opinions will likely vary a bit. That’s not really the point of this particular discussion. Some things get better and other things get worse. Technology can’t effect change independant of the social climate of the day.
I agree that it’s a bit annoying to hear the attitude that everything was better in the past. It wasn’t… at least not everything. Failed promises of flying cars and utopian existence isn’t proof that the world is worse off than it was before. We’re in a bit of a slump here (in the “developed world”) but it remains to be seen whether it’s just a larger than average dip in the unending cycle or the begining of the end of the world. Which do you really think it is?
In any case, it doesn’t matter if we’re better off or worse off and if it’s technology’s fault or society’s fault. We’re all here using both technological and societal methods to make things better than they are now. Until the world is perfect (in other words, forever) all we can do is keep trying to improve things.August 11, 2009 at 4:06 am #7369
Having physical ‘territory’ (ie. the physical structure of a “seastead”) will probably qualify you for “(b) a defined territory;” under Montevideo Convention. The 12nm/200nm isn’t part of Montevedio, though, is it? These are multiple applications of international law. It’s been made quite clear that artificial islands, floating or not, cannot in any way affect maritime boundaries such as the 12nm territorial waters and the 200nm EEZ. Once you’re officially recognized as a nation, that doesn’t allow you to bypass the law against claiming soverignty over the high seas, it merely proves that it now officially applies to you as an ‘existing state’. Without a natural, immovable landmass with a shoreline to soilidly anchor your claims, you cannot have territorial seas or an EEZ. That’s what the 3nm (or “3/0″) is all about. Not all countries have an EEZ. While this is usually the case only for landlocked countries, it does imply that a free-floating nation may lack any special claim to anything above and beyond what is permitted by the rules that already exist.
I can understand wanting to grab everything you’re possibly entitled to. It would be unwise to forego something you might otherwise be able to attain, simply because there are good reasons why you might be denied. However, the idea that ‘the worst they can do is say no’ isn’t something I would be willing to bet on in this situation. It would probably be better to understand the various laws completely and only defend what is already justifiable within the current system.
Also, I think a 12/200 might be somewhat detrimental to many of our goals anyways. Instead of having limitless opportunities for dynamic nation forming and socio-political experimentation, only the first X-number of nations to successfully found their countries will be able to make a claim at all. If every 1-man nation has full rights to a huge chunk of the ocean provided they get there first (whether 200nm or 12nm) space will be just as limited as it is on land within a much shorter number of attempts. It also draws existing countries into a land-grab for the remaining sea floor the instant there is a loophole around the problem of making claims on formerly international territory. If all you get is soverignty over the vessel under your feet and a safety buffer in the immediate area, there’s no incentive for the US (for example) to start mass-producing artificial islands to extend their territorial waters but there is plenty of incentive for the peaceful founding of new nations, no matter how limited their external power may extend.
The main problem with establishing vast permenant territories is part of the very nature of seasteading AND part of the reason artificial platforms and islands were excluded from affecting these boundaries in the first place. How can a floating, movable, destructable object define a stationary and permenant boundary? A single bad storm or a team of Navy Seals is all it takes to either cut your moorings and force you out of position or send your structure to the bottom of the sea. Either would instantly nullify your claim to territory.
Despite the potential for real-time tracking of objects around the globe, I don’t think anyone would be able to convince the UN or any other existing state to accept a system under which a constantly moving nation could claim rights to resources no matter where they happen to travel. You can’t allow a situation where a stationary point can change hands without a moment’s notice. The whole point of these boundaries is predictability and relative stability. It currently takes quite a dramatic event to change the boundaries of a country along with many years ofnegotiation and/or paperwork and red tape.
It’s my understanding that, as a seastead nation, most of us only want the rights of: political and social autonomy, free trade, and the ability to harvest the resources necessary to sustain our own way of life peacefully. We don’t need full and exclusive rights to specific sections of sea floor, except for anchoring or local resource extraction, which is already available in international waters under current law and which should also be protected from interference by the safety zone, however large it ends up being. If you can create a zone of exclusivity around a particular region of resources then you can also be excluded from that same region of resources by some other entity. Then what?
I think it would be much better if the high seas remain essentially as they are now. Free. The only additional rights we’re looking for is the ability to control our own lives on our own seasteads without undue outside interference.
Unfortunately it sounds like the old 3nm or modern 500meter safety zone would only apply to stationary structures. Sorry, you can’t float toward something stationary and then attack ‘in self defense’ as they enter your safety zone by not moving out of your way. So, I’m guessing a mobile structure will only have a similar safety zone similar to whatever large ships are permitted. For many, this won’t be a problem, since stationary homes have benefits of their own and many followers. A broader territory might be added to that list of benefits if the legal status holds true to this line of argument. …but who knows how a new discovery of a minor subsection might affect our understanding of the factors involved here.August 10, 2009 at 10:48 pm #7364
I would mention that you can’t build anything on the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch”… but I don’t think the payday loan spammer is ever going to read this.August 10, 2009 at 2:12 am #7344
Dredging shallows for material to build an island works fine where there is plenty of shallow ground to work with. If you’ve got a small seamount or reef in the middle of otherwise deep water, you’d basically be scooping material off the sides and putting it on top. You’re reshaping, rather than adding new material, which limits how large you could grow the island and you have less control over the properties of the materials being used.
It might actually have been cheaper to just ship the sand. Much of Australia is sparsely populated desert. Using bulldozers and dump trucks to load up a few barges might have been easier and definitely would have been more predictable (materials engineering-wise) than a dredging opperation. I don’t know how much environmental factors figured into the plan (probably not much backin 1971) but dredging would also destroy a whole lot of reef, whereas dumping sand would only damage the area beign covered.
The 500 meter safety zone is a good find. A seastead that is primarily residential might not qualify for the maximum safety zone but whatever it does qualify for can be doubled by keeping the right distance from the next ‘stead to maximize coverage.August 7, 2009 at 8:22 pm #7326
Can you renounce your citizenship without claiming a new one? If so, what kind of status and rights will a non-citizen (citizen of the world?) still have? If not, maybe it would be a good idea to apply for citizenship in a country that has a very short “long-arm”.