Biofouling

Syndicate replies to “Biofouling” topic Mon, 05/12/2008 - 13:54 — thebastidge

Reading the book online, it occurs to me that while biofouling is often considered a maintenance problem, but in some circumstances might be turned into a positive. In the case of an artificial island as opposed to a floating structure, coral and other marine growth could eventually add real estate.

 

Does anyone have resources on culturing coral, particularly fast-growing species?

 

On the other hand, for floating structures, ceramics could be a good way to create a lasting coating that is not harmful to the environment. It would not only present a less attractive surface, it would be more durable and corrosion resistant.

‹ Design requirements Mechanics of the spar design ›

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 05/13/2008 - 13:25 — jurisimprudent

At first I scoffed . ..

 . . . at the idea of using coral to add real estate. But then I read this. The Japanese are already on this. But it's probably worthy of note that they've already incensed China in the process.

 

Of course, this probably goes to show what Captain Patri et al. have argued rather well in their webbed book - that on-shore sovereigns are very particular about the addition of new land to the globe and the accompanying claims over it.

Tue, 05/13/2008 - 14:45 — thebastidge

True, but the point would be

  • True, but the point would be to find someplace that wasn't above water, just nearly so, then drop something solid overboard for coral to attach to, much like the Maunsell forts (like Sealand.) it might take years to add to it, but a shallow enough seamount could first have a breakwater built by the simple and relatively cheap expedient of dispoal of waste concrete in a ring around the top, and floating seastead would merely use it as a convenient, but essentially temporary moorage. With a little planning, decommissioned ships like the artifical reef projects along the American coasts could be placed to allow seasteads to come and go.
  • Other individuals or groups, more inclined towards permanency, would be responsible for maintenance of break water and culturing of the new "land". Seasteads interested in such a facility but unwilling to invest the relatively larger capital cost as well as the time, would merely lease services from the atoll-builders.
  • It could also be beneficial to an rea otherwise barren of interesting features for seasteaders to create artificial reefs.
  • Not only true seasteaders, but other shipping vessels might be enticed to use services here, given a moorage facility in deep enough water for some, and shallower, more protected water for others. Any Seastead design and sociological vision should include a place for traditional shipping.

 

Thu, 05/22/2008 - 07:46 — Saeble

concrete is a waste of time

concrete is a waste of time and resources

bio-rock solves all your problems :

http://www.globalcoral.org/Biorock%20%20Mineral%20Accretion%20Technology...

Thu, 05/22/2008 - 09:25 — Jesrad

Biorock is nothing more than

Biorock is nothing more than seament / seacrete. It's already been considered and dismissed, as is explained in the book.

Wed, 05/28/2008 - 20:08 — Sundiver

coral

 The problem a seastead would encounter with biofouling is weight and inspectablility. Biofouling can quickly increase the weight of a structure, but more important is inspection. You have to be able to look at the hull to inspect it so SOP would be a regular cleaning and inspection. Steel would require mag particle inspection (not tough), concrete generally visual.

Most biofouling is not coral. Coral doesn't offer the advantages of some other crops such as shellfish which can be grown on hanging media.

Here's a coral growing material- www.ecoreefs.com

A problem with shallow water is that someone owns it.