Forum Replies Created
June 10, 2013 at 2:02 pm #22028
>There’s other reasons for a balloon to fall down,
>But if the wind stops, i hope the generator up there doesn’t land in the ocean!
>It would have to be reeled in if the winds die down
I was responding to both of you discussing what to do if the winds die down, not any kind of failure situation.
Bird hits aren’t going to do anything, because even if a bird runs into the wind turbine and damages it, the aerostat stays aloft. You can just reel in the aerostat, repair/replace the turbine, and then let the aerostat back up to production height.
You certainly don’t have to worry about deterioration. Aerostats do not use plastic, the envelope is usually a treated fabric (like coated ripstop nylon) or some other treated material such as the High Strength Laminated Aerostat Material (HSLAM) used by Raven Industries. The HSLAM has been tested in extreme situations like severe summer thunderstorms and extreme high temperatures, and nylon is incredibly weather resistant. They will most certainly not break down from “being out in the sun all day”.
You also don’t have to worry about lightning strikes, as most aerostats are designed to survive them by using hardened tethers and other methods. It’s possible the turbines attached to the aerostat could be damaged, but again you just reel in the aerostat, repair/replace the turbine, and then send it back up.
Hits by aircraft are easily avoided as well by notifying all surrounding air traffic about the location of the aerostats. Plus, your seastead is probably not going to be anywhere near where low-flying planes are travelling. There are plenty of methods, from radio signals to beacon lights, to protect from the odd low-flying plane.
And if you are worried about meteor strikes then your risk-benefit analysis is WAY too detailed.June 10, 2013 at 1:41 pm #22027
There are plenty of groups experimenting with large-scale concrete 3D printing, for applications in the housing industry. This is both high-throughput printing of modules and components that are assembled on-site, all the way up to large-scale printing of entire structures.
Future of Construction Process: 3D Concrete Printing
There is no reason why you couldn’t design a large-scale concrete 3D printer that can create entire single-family seasteads…or modules for creating large modular concrete structures.
Seacrete is a non-starter. Never going to happen.June 7, 2013 at 9:10 am #22024
First of all, the point of using an airborne wind turbine is that the turbine is at a height where the wind never dies down. You raise the turbine up into the high wind streams that are constantly circulating the globe. You’re never going to get as high as the jet stream, but there are constant winds at 800-1000m that never stop. So you get constant power generation.
Secondly, most airborne turbines don’t actually use the wind to stay aloft. You use aerostats or large balloons that have their own lifting force, with large wind turbines attached. You let the balloons go up to a high altitude, where the wind turbines generate power. So if for some reason the wind dies down the turbines stop producing power, but the balloon stays in the air.
An airborne turbine would definately put a larger force on a seastead than a tower turbine, but that is because it is generating MORE power due to 1) the higher wind speeds at higher altitudes, and 2) the constant wind as opposed to intermittent wind at lower altitudes. Also the aerostat itself will be affected by the wind, and the drag will be felt by the seastead. So you’ll have to design your station-keeping system to handle the higher loads…June 7, 2013 at 8:54 am #22023
Well they made $345 just for shooting a video with their iphone and editing it with MSPaint so it wasn’t a total bust. ”A sucker born every minute” is underestimating the number of suckers and the rate at which they are born…May 22, 2013 at 8:47 am #21984
1) Build where there aren’t any of those things
2) Utilize breakwater structures to protect the main seastead
3) Build big, so there is less impact on the structureApril 24, 2013 at 3:31 pm #21921
Very few details available.
The video talks about using sodium, but the flyer shows lithium. He does mention lithium in the video, but there is no other information available. What is the organic liquid electrolyte? What output levels do the lab-scale demos produce (kg of gas, liter of water, etc) for various currents? What type of flow rates are required to replenish the sodium in the seawater electrolyte?
It’s possible that details were in the Apr10 meeting, but as far as I can see there aren’t any minutes, slides, or video of the event. So, this is vaporware in my opinion…March 14, 2013 at 2:54 pm #21830
I can confirm you can neither edit nor delete a post, even right after you have posted it.
POS software. TSI sure wanted to kill these forums and they did a bang-up job…March 14, 2013 at 2:53 pm #21829
Ugh, garbage WordPress. Sorry, all my indentations and formatting weren’t carried over when I clicked submit. Much of my post was taken from the books, and were indented as quotes. Sorry if it’s hard to follow. And you can’t edit or delete a post, even right after you submit it.
POS forum software…March 14, 2013 at 2:50 pm #21828
I’ve been working on this question a lot: is there even such a thing as “artificial natural land”? There is very little, if any, legal precedent regarding this issue. Mostly what I can determine is that UNCLOS considers anything manmade as “artificial”. So if you dump a bunch of boulders on a seamount, dredge a bunch of sand onto a sandbar, or build a condeep structure…those are all “artificial islands” in regards to UNCLOS, which means no territorial waters or sovereignty.
This is generally considered different from artificial efforts to prevent the loss of existing territorial land or waters. So, for instance, building an artificial island 30km from your shore in the attempt to extend your territorial waters or EEZ is generally condemned and prevented. However, constantly working to prevent a small islet from being worn down by erosion by constantly adding new materials is permissible, because you are preventing the loss of existing territory. A great read is “Artificial Islands and Structures as a Means of Safeguarding State Sovereignty Against Sea Level Rise”:
Upgrading the status of a rock and preventing its diminution follow a totally different mindset. While prevention is considered to be permissible, as it is an action that does not intent to expand land and maritime sovereignty, upgrading is an act that is being condemned as abusive and expansionist. In most cases, it is really hard to distinguish which of the two practices take place, as well as to find liable scientific data in order to support one or the other position. The case of Okinotorishima is highly illustrative of the controversies that can stem up by this category.
The Okinotorishima case they refer to is a dispute between China and Japan over some small islets in the Philippine Sea. China claims they are rocks, which under UNCLOS would not allow Japan to use them to extend its EEZ. Japan claims they are islands and has spent a considerable amount of money and effort and materials to keep them above water. So are they rocks? Are they islands? Are they “artificial islands” because of all the manmade structures and materials that have been added? Again, it would seem that since Japan is working to prevent the loss of territory it already claimed then the judgement is in its favor. If it were building up an area that was never above water in the first place, in an effort to artificially claim more territory, it would be the opposite. Since this is what we plan with establishing an “artificial natural land” seastead we can only envision the same type of judgement.
However all hope is not lost. A great resource for these issues is “The International Legal Regime of Artifical Islands” by Nikos Papadakis. In it he talks a lot about the legal status of artificial islands, and makes a distinction between “artificial structures, platforms, and floating or fixed installations in general” and what he calls “Sea-Cities…artificial islands erected and used for urban purposes”.
In terms of legal status, the paramount feature of a Sea-City is that it must have a territorial sea in the same way that a natural island has one…It is further submitted that the following considerations have to be taken into account in attributing the legal status of a Sea-City to an artificial island. First, the artificial island in question must essentially be an island in the same sense that a natural island is an island; that means that is must (a) be ‘surrounded by water’, and (b) show permanently above water at high tide. Secondly, in so far as it is an artificial island, as opposed to a natural one, it must, nevertheless, be ‘of the nature of territory’. This last qualification is not intended to mean that the artificial island must literally be a ‘portion of territory’ or a ‘true tract of land’, as a natural island is, but that it must have the essential characteristics of a portion of territory. Its capability of being subjected to the sovereignty of a State as ‘territory’, and a degree of permanence similar to that possessed by a natural island appear to be the essential characteristics required…….Finally, the foremost criterion is that the artificial island in question must be inhabited and, for all practical purposes, form a self-sufficient community….It would thus appear that this criterion is satisfied only by an artificial island erected, and in fact used, for urban purposes, that is a Sea-City.
His major proposal is that a Sea-City requires a territorial sea, rather than the safety zone granted to artificial islands and installations by UNCLOS.
The rationale behind this proposal becomes clear if it is considered why a coastal State extends its sovereignty outside the limits of its land territory over a sea-belt around its coast. The reasons for the establishment of a territorial sea zone have been stated aptly as follows:
“The reasons which justify the extension of the sovereignty of a State outside the limits of its land territory are always the same. They may be summarized under the following heads:
(i) the security of the State demands that it should have exclusive possession of its shores and that it should be able to protect its approaches;
(ii) for the purpose of furthering its commercial, fiscal and political interests, a State must be able to supervise all ships entering, leaving or anchoring in its territorial waters;
(iii) the exclusive exploitation and enjoyment of the products of the sea within a State’s territorial waters is necessary for the existence and welfare of the people on its coasts. Hall upholds the necessity of the maritime belt on the ground that unless the right to exercise control were admitted, no sufficient security would exist for the lives and property of the subjects of the State upon land”.
It is only too clear that these reasons hold true for the projected Sea-Cities. The security, economic, fiscal, political and other interests of the population of the Sea-City have to be protected in the same way that the interests of any other population living on a naturally formed land are protected according to the principles sanctioned by international law. It should make no difference in law the formation of ‘land’ upon which a population is living. The paramount feature is the protection of the interests and welfare of the people, and the establishment of a mere safety zone around a Sea-City, however extensive, is not sufficient to safeguard the interests of the local population.
So we shouldn’t be overly concerned with the materials or methods we use to create our seastead. Whether we pile up garbage on a seamount or build a tower attached to the sea floor, it’s not the form that matters. What matters is that:
1) The seastead be built up from the seafloor, either resting on permanent supports or built up directly using aggregated materials. A floating seastead, even one permanently moored, would have a more difficult time pretending to be “territory”.
2) The seastead be very large and have a very large, permanent population as well as the infrastructure required to support that population in a highly self-sufficient manner.
So I would go with whatever method allowed for both those criteria, regardless of whether you are using “natural land” or just concrete supports. But, as Papadakis writes:
It is true that this is not a principle of lex lata. The problem of the Sea-City has not been faced yet in a practical way and probably it will not have to be faced for quite a number of years to come.March 12, 2013 at 10:39 pm #21822
This is a very interesting idea. It kinda fits under my “Viva la revolution!” post from several years back (http://www.seasteading.org/forum-list/topic/viva-la-revolution/).
The idea is you don’t use this land-based nation as your actual seastead. It is just a seastead incubator. You create your land-based nation, and then you use it as a flag registry for all your seasteads.
It’s pretty much accepted that any floating seasteads will need to fly a flag of convenience, the the goal has been to find a flag registry country that will allow as much freedom as possible on the flagged seastead. Well, what more freedom can we get than from a country which is founded with the sole purpose of providing a flag of convenience to seasteads that allow them to do whatever they want?
My plan called for the violent takeover of an existing nation (which I still think is the better plan) but I definitely agree that a peaceful purchase or political takeover would be a viable option.
This is pretty awesome too because the Falkland Islands already has it’s own Registrar of Ships! While it looks limited to only small ships, I’m sure a seastead-minded Governor could make whatever changes they wanted…
Unfortunately it seems 1515 of the 1650 registered voters want to stay British:
So while we could get another referendum on the docket, and we could get 1600 or so seasteaders to move there and take over, it might be pretty messy if everyone else there doesn’t want to switch. It would be much better if there was a more balanced amount of the population that preferred independence, although I’m sure a slick PR campaign could sway many to our side if we really tried…
Kudos on a good idea, though. Never even thought about the Falklands for this project…March 12, 2013 at 10:20 pm #21818
It’s been tried, recently, dumping sand/dirt on an unclaimed sandbar to raise it above water at high tide (the definition of an island). An existing island nation promptly sent in military and confiscated it, 100′s of miles outside their previous 200mile EEZ
If you are referring to the Republic of Minerva, that wasn’t exactly “recently”. And Tonga didn’t send the “military” as much as they sent a boat full of convicts with wooden clubs. If Michael Oliver hadn’t abandoned the reef and just had a few people with rifles we might be referring to a Republic of Minerva today. Raising an existing landmass above the waves is a viable seasteading option, but I’m not sure if any of the existing methods are any easier…or cheaper…than building a floating city or a Troll A or Draugen Condeep structure.
It’s been tried in Miami bay….
And failed because it was within sight of the US shore. Again, seasteading is not possible within an existing nation’s EEZ. That goes for floating barges, seafloor habitats, artificial islands…anything. So it’s not an issue with the method, it’s an issue with the location.
There was once a loophole that amounted to this…
I’d like to see some information on this loophole. That sounds like an interesting method that I had not thought of. Build a 100m concrete cylinder, put it on the top of a high seamount, fill it with dirt and rock, and you have a 100m island. Interesting. Any links or sources for this?March 12, 2013 at 9:59 pm #21816
I have serious doubts that you’ll be able to grow anything topsides. The salt air and spray is going to cause all manner of problems, plus it’s a very inefficient use of space. Aeroponics is going to be the only way to grow sufficient amounts of food plants for a decent-sized seastead community.
There are newer vertical aeroponic systems that can grow over a hundred medium-sized plants in a 4′x4′ area. Grow rates are enormous when you are controlling the lighting and nutrient flow. Water use is a tiny fraction of what you use in conventional farming. 5 gallons every other day! Try 5 gallons and that’s it…forever recycled for over 100 plants!
Leave the roof for ornamental stuff and grow your food in highly-controlled closed environments belowdecks.March 12, 2013 at 9:43 pm #21815
These two sites have plenty of information on the space and welfare requirements for various farm livestock:
The problem with any kind of terrestrial animal on a seastead will be space requirements. You are usually looking at around 10-20 broiler chickens per m^2 and around 2-3 100kg pigs per 2m^2 depending on size. You get fewer animals per a given space for “organic” ones, higher for us heathens who like more meat and care less about the animals’s feelings.
You won’t have to worry about setting aside space topside, nearly all industrial livestock farming is done completely indoors so you won’t have to worry about salt spray, animals going overboard, etc. Just set aside enough internal hull space for the number of animals you need to grow.
As for docking, there are actually only a few countries that require you to worry about animals that will remain on the vessel. They care more about animals that are going ashore. Hawaii is a total pain, requiring you to quarantine the animals ashore even if you had no plans of taking them off the boat. But plenty of countries don’t care about the animals as long as they remain on board (and sometimes require you to post a small bond). This page has some examples:
<A href=”http://books.google.com/books?id=CjIg5FgUUW8C&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=boat+docking+animal+quarantine&source=bl&ots=77x3pNtCGj&sig=Fy-UC0b52eG56jtR1oZykwNY4a8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Cv8_UePSFtXi4AOLmYCAAg&sqi=2&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=boat%20docking%20animal%20quarantine&f=false”>Landfalls of paradise</A>
So as long as you keep your farm animals onboard, and hopefully belowdecks, you shouldn’t have any issues in many ports around the world.January 11, 2013 at 11:49 am #21645
It means we can’t harvest fish, plant or harvest a crop,
Only if those resources come from the waters in the EEZ. There is no rule about planting crops in soil sitting ON the seastead, or farming fish in pools located ON the seastead. You simply cannot exploit “the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;”
So if your seastead is free floating and designated a vessel, not permanently attached to the sea floor, and able to supply all of its food needs by harvesting resources grown solely ONBOARD the seastead itself, while producing energy from solar systems, and able to dispose of all waste products onboard without dumping them overboard, then you could be in an existing nation’s EEZ without concern.
This leaves the question of what venues of lobby or petition might be pursued for added protections under international law for the rights of seasteaders to the free and unfettered use of the world’s oceans and it’s resources,
We have “free and unfettered use of the world’s oceans and it’s resources”…just not in any existing nation’s EEZ. That still leaves a hell of a lot of water for us to use…
as well as to establish recognition of their rights to maintain sovereign states and to define territory at sea,
It’s not going to happen. As I said above, the existing nations have a vested interest in not allowing floating habitats (or any other kind of habitat) to have any claim over the high seas such as those existing nations enjoy.
The recognition will have to come slowly. Once you have a massive seastead housing a few tens of thousands of people, growing your own food and manufacturing your own goods, building an infrastructure, you can begin to engage other nations in diplomacy or trade. But you need to get to that stage first before you can start worrying about those kinds of issues…January 11, 2013 at 11:48 am #21644
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions
I am now left to wonder how these modern provisions of admiralty law impact the concept of the seastead in statehood…maintaining a defined territory…
I don’t believe a permanent seastead will gain statehood until it has grown to sufficient size and had enough impact on the global stage to gain some political leeway. Palestine cannot even get statehood recognition, and it has land. I believe statehood is possible, but not for a long time. The bottleneck will always be the territory issue…and if I cannot be convinced that a floating cement block in the ocean is territory then you most certainly won’t convince existing nations.
is it safe to say that under present standards of international law, a seastead cannot lawfully define a territory in it’s own plenary capacity, and thus, cannot qualify for recognition under such articles as make provisions for statehood?
Is it safe to assume, then, that the present standards of international law are unprepared to recognize a seastead as a sovereign state,
Yes. This is, in my opinion, by design. If you could build a floating block of cement and call it a state, thus granting it territorial waters and an EEZ, then you would have existing nations simply building “seasteads” everywhere to expand their territorial waters and EEZs. All the US would have to do is drop a string of these and pretty soon their EEZ is extending out 400nm from their shores.
I would say that the existing nations have a vested interest in NOT allowing seasteads to be recognized as “states” for this reason.