A big thanks to all of our contributors for helping us surge past the $20,000 goal with more than a week remaining in our Indiegogo campaign. With matching funds from the Thiel Foundation, the design and feasibility component of our Floating City Project is fully funded! We are grateful for your support and look forward to sharing DeltaSync’s design and report with all of you.
There are two primary reasons to still donate if you haven’t already – each as important as raising funds for the design. 1) We have all seen ultra-successful crowdfunding campaigns – our community has the opportunity to signal our combined strength and market demand to those who will invest in the development of the seastead. 2) Additional donations will be allocated to the diplomatic component of our Floating City Project (see below), seeking a host nation for our floating city.
Please keep sharing this campaign with your network and encourage your contacts to give.
Floating City Project: Diplomacy
We are seeking meetings with influential people in governments of coastal nations across the globe. We have identified 20 countries we believe would consider hosting a seastead within their territorial waters, while still granting the city substantial autonomy. Our list of countries is being kept confidential for the time being, to prevent media and other second-hand sources from misrepresenting our intent or presuming we have secured a deal with one of the nations.
There are several reasons for seeking a host country for the first floating city. 1) It will be less expensive to build a seastead engineered for relatively shallow and calm waters, 2) it will be easier for residents to travel to and from the seastead, as well as to acquire goods and services from existing supply chains, and 3) a host nation will be able to protect a city within its territorial waters from interference by other nations.
If you are able to connect us with influential people in a coastal nation as a foot-in-the-door for more formal meetings with government officials, please contact Randolph Hencken at .
Onward to a floating city!
When we complete the first phase the Floating City Project we will work with a partnership of investors and developers to further our plans and ultimately begin building the world’s first floating city before the end of the decade.
Thanks again everyone! We are thrilled by the show of support.
I can’t wait for you guys to try a technocracy style of government, once we have a technocracy nation, you’ll get google and other big tech giants coming over to a place where your rules and regulations for experimentation are less (all scientists agree that the rules are too strict in most 1st world countries) hurray for elected officials who are technocrats!
Seasteading city names:
Mare Pacifica Pacifica 2 New Atlantis Venice 2. Ch Island 2 ( sited near UK). Leumeria 2. New World 3.
& tourist income from cruise ships enroute for supplies or day off for passengers to sample floating static sealife. Be huge Income source alone.
Link to World Affairs Council for VIP types to aid project.
There are pros and cons to formally going under some existing state jurisdiction. The obvious downside is that the seastead will be dependent upon the patron country’s politics and its laws can be extended to the stead at any time. This neglects the whole point of having an autonomous community for personal freedom and new types of governance.
Hi guys. I have few questions, if I may.
Let’s be honest about what this is really about.
This is not about people trying to go against the laws of nations in general, this is about Americans trying to escape from what is becoming an increasingly oppressive regime.
And the regime isn’t going to be too happy about this either. They won’t tolerate an alternative to what they’re offering.
Fortunately, TSI is smart enough to know that they are going to need the backing of another state to keep the Imperial USA off its back.
LOL, I am still trying to figure out what ANY government has to offer,….Somehow, it seems that we’ll have to pay the piper no matter what if a coastal seastead is envisioned. What I really don’t understand is why aren’t some of the Silicone Valley’s “big shots” getting into the action so this thing will be done right from the start, which is offshore on the high seas. It will only cost half a billion,…
There will certainly be a variety of SeaSteads start up: friendly competition will help all of us I hope.
Sea Gypsy Steading has advantages in being able to move to escape the worst of weather changes; political changes; changes in general: tsunamis and many kinds of possible challenges. Simple SeaSteading will have its own set of rules to cope.
The greatest test is likely to be in becoming Buddah like enough to accept the often superior societies we would live amongst while figuring out how these primitive neighbours always seem to do so well with life and nature’s challenges.
Ok, does anyone else think it would be badass to name the city Rapture?
The Breakout Labs test of the Atmospheric Vortex Engine physics model against a physical model is happening. If the physical model turns out to support the physics model, the consequences are huge.
When deployed there will be a potential supply of a petawatt of baseload electricity available in the tropical doldrums.
The question then arises:
What are the markets for a petawatt of baseload electricity located in the tropical doldrums?
One possibility is synthetic limestone produced by the Calera process (http://www.calera.com/), which fixes CO2 as CaCO3. If the AVE were constructed of concrete, a rough calculation shows that a 200MW AVE could reproduce itself with about one year’s electrical output using NaCl electrolysis to produce the NaOH for the Calera process, drawing CO2 from the environment.
Moreover, the flotation collar of the AVE’s arena would provide what amounts to half kilometer in diameter concrete structure, most of which would be a deck. The AVE’s arena being 100m high and 200m in diameter would provide the superstructure of a high rise overlooking the deck.
A problem then becomes what to do with all that chlorine.
One use of all that chlorine is to recombine it from the hydrogen gas evolving from the production of NaOH, to form HCl. The problem is then what to do with all that hydrochloric acid?
Fortunately, there are a lot more uses for hydrochloric acid than there are uses for chlorine. Unfortunately, unless an in situ use can be found, they require shipping the hydrochloric acid great distances.
One possible in situ use for hydrochloric acid would be in the hydrolysis of algae biomass grown in photobioreactors associated with the seastead. For example, one problem with algae biomass as the base of the agricultural food chain, is the large proportion of DNA in the biomass. DNA, if consumed directly by animals not adapted to algae consumption (such as humans), causes gout. Acid hydrolysis of DNA provides sugars, phosphorus compounds (in an increasingly phosphorus limited global economy) and a variety of organic compounds, some of which are precursors to resins and plastics. Hydrolysis of vegetable protein, such as that found in algae, breaks them up into constituent amino acids, which, if separated, renders them more amenable to composing optimal nutrients for different target species.
The main problem then becomes how to economically construct the and operate the photobioreactors.
As part of my work a a research analyst for the Diogenes Institute on a comprehensive plan for energy independence and the environment, I investigated photobioreactor technologies as a means of creating a market for food-grade CO2 produced by fossil fuel (primarily coal) electric generation plants. The profits from CO2 sales would pay for the reengineering of those plants to clean up the CO2 and capture all emissions for use or shipment back to burial in the mine of origin. See
Large amounts of capital for photobioreactor technology have been wasted on pipe-dreams. This was primarily due to the fact that areal capital expense was far to great for the technologies pursued. This has been addressed primarily by going to open ponds. Open ponds are generally cheaper per area but the loss of productivity — primarily from contamination and invasive species — is so great as to render that approach unworkable.
After a years of frustration, I finally decided to try designing, myself, a photobioreactor that would be rendered low-cost per area by the huge number of units required to photosynthesize all of the US CO2 emissions from elex plants. While I came close enough to the economic threshold required for a ‘go’ decision on more serious investment in feasibility studies, I just may be able to discard that work as I believe I’ve found a PBR technology that is economic at ordinary scales of agriculture. It requires additional validation but it would be economic even if deployed in the desert southwest of the US, as shown in the aforelinked Diogenes Institute economic model. Since this PBR technology is optimized for oceanic deployment I had included an option in that model for “EquatorialOcean” which is currently set to “0” which means the numbers currently shown do not represent the numbers achievable from the deployment in the equatorial ocean. If I set “EquatorialOcean=1” the model will recompute and display those numbers.