| Prev | Table of Contents | Next |
| Basic Infrastructure | Recent comments: day, week, month (about commenting) | The Market |
A government is the social infrastructure for a nation. Since
one of the main purposes of seasteading is to allow people to
experiment with novel forms of social organization, we can't
exactly list all the possibilities. Residents can try whatever
floats their boat. Instead, we'll try to focus on the unique
aspects of seasteading which will affect the design and function
of its government. These include:
The most consistent result of these factors is simply that we
can expect a great variety of forms of governance. For example,
homogeneity of viewpoints allows for more extreme or experimental
systems that a diverse group would never agree to.
Environmentalists could adopt strict regulations on the emission
of greenhouse gases. Libertarians could have an extremely
minimal government. Religions could enshrine their beliefs as
law. Because the group is like-minded, they can agree to these
unusual policies.
Having the autonomy to pick a new system has the same effect.
No longer are residents bound by some previous constitution.
Same with the "from scratch" nature of seasteads. Since each new
platform is potentially a sovereign entity, each new set of
residents, if they want, can design an entirely new system. The
thesis of dynamic geography points the same way. Having a lower
barrier to entry in the governance market will result in a much
greater variety of products.
The rest of the world may see these systems as strange or
idealistic. But as long as residents joined voluntarily and are
free to leave, we say more power to them. Time will separate the
foolish from the innovative.
As the number of platforms and multi-platform cities grows, we
can expect competitive pressure to improve the quality of
government at all levels. Good ideas will be imitated and bad
ones discarded, since new residents will be more attracted to
systems that have proven effective.
The government of multi-platform communities is likely to be
much more limited than that of individual platforms. It will
tend to focus on intra-platform issues such as infrastructure,
easements, local pollution, legal arbitration between different
legal systems, and interactions with the outside world. If it
grows more intrusive than individual platforms desire, they'll
break off and start a new group.
Because initial communities will be small, they will not be
able to afford many full-time personnel. This means that many
public-sector jobs such as militia, police, emergency response
(first aid) will be done as secondary professions by members of
the community. This encourages a community of peers, rather than
one which supports a special class of public servants.
{ Talk about who owns the seastead? ie residents equally,
residents inequally, some development company, etc. Proprietary
community, democratic community, CIC...}
{ I'm not sure of the best title for this, Transportation is
pithy but its about staying still as well as moving. Its really
more about "location control", but thats kinda awkward.}
Is the seastead a boat or an island?
If its an island, then it should be attached to the ocean
floor to prevent it from moving around. Since the ocean floor is
typically miles from the ocean surface, this is actually quite
challenging. Seamounts and shallower areas present less
difficulty, but using them greatly reduces the number of
potential locations.
Our preference is to treat the seastead as a boat. For one
thing, this means that all of the international law that applies
to boats can be applied to a seastead. In addition, the seastead
may be able to avoid bad weather (by season at least, even if its
not nimble enough to dodge individual storms). Also when
supplies are low, the seastead can find a port and resupply
itself.
Once the first few mobile seasteads have been deployed, they
can aggregate by simply rendezvousing at a agreed upon location
and lashing together into one bigger sea village. Over time the
sea communities will evolve to sea cities. Whenever someone
becomes annoyed with the current state of a seastead community,
it is possible to just disconnect and take their seastead
someplace else.
Mooring equipment is very expensive, especially the lines.
Unfortunately the lines limit what depth water one can anchor in.
For example, a set of High Molecular Density Poly Ethelyne
(HMDPE) lines for anchoring in 2500m of water costs approximately
six million dollars - without the attachment hardware or anchors.
These and other synthetic lines are the only real acceptable
solution for deep water anchorages, as braided steel lines are
too heavy and can corrode. In shallower water, however, the
lines become proportionally cheaper.
The anchors themselves are fairly simple suction devices,
basically a hollow tube with a cap on one end and a pump in /pump
out valve. You drop the anchor to the bottom, pump out all the
water, and it sucks itself into the sea floor. To retrieve the
anchor you pump it full of water and it pops out of the sea
floor. The sea floor for the most part is covered with about 50'
of sludge and muck which actually makes for a pretty good
hold.
Because of the high cost of lines, potential anchoring
locations are limited to areas of relatively shallow water, such
as seas and coastal areas. In the deep ocean, seasteads will
just have to drift, unless they anchor on a convenient seamount.
Still, an anchoring system will be quite useful and is likely to
be one method for location control.
An other alternative for station-keeping is to have steerable
propellers connected to a GPS (Global Positioning System). The
system would push the the seastead to its desired location
whenever it starts to drift off location. However, this would
continually use fuel, so is most likely to be feasible when
drifting forces are quite low.
Newton's first law of motion tells us that a seastead will
happily sit still unless external forces act on it. The main
external force moving a seastead is the action of ocean currents. This suggests an
additional strategy for keeping still, which is to go someplace
where there is not much current. The equatorial doldrums are one
such place. Another is the center of the circular current gyres,
where millions of tons of trash has accumulated [NaturalHistory2003]. This
"do-nothing" strategy has the wonderful advantage of being cheap.
However it had best be accompanied by a plan to deal with the
possibility of being pushed around by an unexpected storm or
current.
The submerged flotation gives seasteads a lot of drag.
However, friction from drag is proportional to velocity
squared, so as long as we move slowly its still
manageable. Renewable energy could be used to directly power a
propeller. For example, simple vertical-axis wind turbines could
be connected directly to propellers, or the up-and-down motion of
waves could be converted to rotation. Or we can use our standard
methods of electricity generation to power electric trolling
motors. These methods will appeal to the environmentally
conscious, since they do not require burning fossil fuels, and
may even prove to be cost-efficient. However, they are unlikely
to generate much speed.
The simplest method is probably for a separate, diesel-fueld
tugboat to pull the platform. Used tugs can be had for anywhere
from $50K to millions [Tassins
Marine Transportation], depending on their age and the power
of their motors. One advantage of a tug is that it could be used
to lug barges of supplies back and forth when the seastead
doesn't need pulling. Diesel engines could also be built into
the structure. A powered seastead could potentially be connected
to an unpowered one and used as a tug itself.
Active propulsion will clearly work for small course
adjustments, or occasional location changes. It is unclear
whether it will be feasible to use continuously. Even though our
speed is slow, we are moving a large object, and currents will
constantly be pushing us. So relying on active propulsion will
add to the operating expenses of a seastead, as well as reducing
its self-sufficiency due to the huge energy drain. Under the
tourist business model, however, it may be practical. Cruise
ships move around constantly, at fairly high speeds, and are
profitable while doing so. A more permanent population, however,
has less reason to move and more reason to cut daily
expenses.
The easiest method of unpowered movement is drifting. This is
not so disastrous as you might think, because ocean currents are
roughly circular, as can be seen in the currents section. With some
fine-tuning, a seastead could be pulled by them forever, circling
towards a pole and then back to the equator. Moving radially
will change the cycle's period, which may be desirable to avoid
seasonal storms. Active propulsion can be used to transition
between current formations. A Deep-Seastead could potentially
enjoy endless summer by switching hemispheres twice a year when
the current brought it close to the equator. Another option is
to go someplace like the equatorial doldrums where there is
little current, and drifting basically means staying still.
Sails are an interesting propulsion option. They could be
deployed in the space below the platform and above the waves,
with the spar itself acting as a mast. A keel would of course be
necessary, perhaps by making the submerged flotation oblong in
shape. Because water is much denser than air, it takes a high
ratio of sail area to wetted area to propel a boat. Seasteads
have a lot of wetted area, so they'd need a lot of sail. Large
sails are quite expensive, movement would be slow, and a
square-rigged seastead would be unable to head much into the
wind. The fact that the wind is a powerful sustainable energy
source may turn out to compensate for these disadvantages, or it
may prove to be an impractical option.
An even more interesting and difficult idea, suggested by
Corwyn, is to use a submerged wing to "sail" the ocean
currents. Wings work by converting the flow of a fluid into
sideways motion via Bernoulli's principle. Sails are one example
of this, using air as the fluid. Water is also a fluid, and
hydrofoils use this to lift their hulls out of the water with
force from submerged wings.
Because fluid must flow past the wing, one uniform current
would not be enough. The seastead would drift with it, and the
water would appear still. In order to sail, we need a varying
current, so that we can use the differences to generate motion in
other directions. Fortunately, it is not uncommon for the
currents at the very surface of the ocean to be different than
deeper currents. The thermocline, a region of rapid temperature
change, is usually 10-200m down, and it seperates the surface
"mixed layer" from deeper waters. Currents are often different
above and below the thermocline.
There are substantial problems with this method, of course.
Current differences are likely to be small and variable, thus
imparting little speed and requiring re-adjustment of the angle
of the wing. Transmitting the forces along masts long enough to
reach into regions of varying current is difficult as well. It
may not be feasible. However, there is a certain elegance to
this method of propulsion, and it would be truly magnificent for
a seastead to sail, not drift, in the ocean's currents.
Besides moving around the entire seastead, we'll need various
methods of bringing people and goods there and back again.
Obviously the size of this cargo stream depends on how much the
seastead is importing (its self-sufficiency), how much it is
exporting to the world, and the size of its tourist industry. If
the seastead is functioning as a resort, it is crucial to have
good ways of getting passengers there and back again. The closer
to land, of course, the cheaper this transportation will be.
There are two basic methods of moving over water:
The slowest and cheapest method is floating, whether on a
sailboat, rowboat, motorboat, or experimental rocket-powered
hydrofoil. Boats typically have speeds of around 10-30 knots.
Thus a seastead just outside the 12 or 24 n.m. territorial water
limit could be reached in 0.5 - 2 hours. Getting to a seastead
outside the 200 n.m. EEZ would take around 10 hours. More
distant seasteads would require days of travel.
For the renewable energy advocates, there is an appropriate
boat propulsion technology which is extremely mature, namely
sails. The backup diesel motor can be replaced with an
electrical motor. Several manufacturers already make electric
boats, though they tend to be small, and it is not difficult to
convert existing boats [ElectricBoats]. Still, the
juice has to come from somewhere, and it does take a fair amount
of energy to travel long distances.
Boats have a number of advantages. They are relatively
inexpensive to operate, and reasonably quick for short distances.
They can take many people or a large amount of cargo. However,
riding in them becomes rather unpleasant when the weather is bad,
and sometimes even dangerous. For long distances, they are a bit
slow. Boats are the clear choice for cargo, and for transporting
passengers over short distances. In good weather, for passengers
who don't mind a slow trip, they are suitable for longer
distances as well.
As we mention when discussing the dock, transferring cargo between a
ship and seastead may be a dicey proposition. Solving this
problem will be a big factor in whether we can ship goods to a
seastead, which is a big factor in how much it costs to import
and export goods.
More distant seasteads may wish to fly people in and out using
planes or helicopters. A several hundred mile trip would only
take an hour or two of flight time, and even a seastead in the
middle of the ocean should be reachable in half a day or less.
While this method is much quicker, its also more expensive and
requires more infrastructure. Seaplanes can land on the ocean,
but only in very calm or protected waters. Regular planes
require a long runway. Helicopters only need a small landing
deck, however they are more expensive and dangerous than
airplanes.
There are special STOL (Short Takeoff and Landing) airplanes
which need less runway length (as short as a couple hundred
feet). Our initial Seastead Lite design is large enough for one
of these. However, STOL planes tend to have relatively low
cruising speeds (120mph) and low passenger capacity (a few
people). This makes it difficult to use these planes to
transport resort visitors, unless the distance is short enough to
allow many trips per day. Helicopters may be superior to STOL
aircraft for this reason - the same amount of area as an STOL
runway could be used to land many helicopters.
Groups of multiple seasteads make longer runways possible, at
which point planes are an excellent option. Groups large enough
to have a breakwater can
have seaplanes land in their harbor, or have long runways.
Before then, either helicopters or STOL aircraft can serve to
transport passengers willing to pay extra for a quick ride, as
well as for medical emergencies. Seasteads with protected waters
can be serviced by seaplanes. Individual seasteads, far from
land, without protected waters, will have to use expensive
helicopters if they want to move many people.
Early, smaller steads will probably be towed into place and
anchored, as that is the cheapest and simplest technology.
Deepseasteads will likely use a combination of these methods,
spending some time at anchor, some time drifting, and
occasionally using active propulsion. They may also try being
set adrift in the doldrums.
{Wayne & Andy}
There is not much that we would like to say about shelter.
The shelter can be as simple as a tent or as complicated as a
multilevel house. For small initial prototypes, an option is to
simply get some sort of inexpensive RV (recreational vehical)
trailer and simply park it on one end of the seastead. An RV
trailer provides sleeping accomedations, a small kitchen, a small
bathroom, a place hang out, etc Since most RV trailers already
have separate grey and black water tanks, it sould be very easy
to integrate the trailer into the fresh water management
system.
Homes in the US average 55 m2 per resident, while
in Europe the average is 30 m2 [Chandler, p. 121]. In Beijing,
China, it is only 3.3 m2 per capita [Silvertown, p. 55]. The US has
an additional 21 m2 per capita of support space
(offices, schools, restaraunts, warehouses, etc.) [StatsUS1988, tables 1237-1239].
As with other resources, space is more expensive on a seastead
and will be conserved, allowing less usage than on land. A NASA
study on space settlements suggested 67 m2 of footprint and 1738
m2 of volume [SpaceSettlements, Ch. 3].
While their budget is higher, their self-sufficiency requirements
are higher also, and ocean provides us extra space for some
uses.
The seastead's shelter will, of course, need to be strong
enough to handle the worst
storms which may occur in the areas it is expected to
travel.
The presence of internet on a seastead will make a substantial
difference in what sort of people it appeals to and how long they
are willing to stay there. A connected seastead will be much
more attractive as a permanent residence to the techie crowd.
While there are people who don't mind being out of contact (and
some who see it as a plus), there is a growing population who
don't consider themselves isolated if they can get online.
This makes the economic situation easier because the seastead
can export technical expertise. Working professionals will be
able to visit more frequently and stay longer if they can still
keep in touch with the office. This also helps the seastead make
the transition from vacation home to permanent residence for its
inhabitants. Note that with enough bandwidth, voice-over-IP can
be used to make telephone calls, thus solving another
communications problem (although it may be a little annoying with
satellite lag).
Seasteads which are close to land can use point-to-point links
of various kinds, such as microwaves. While there are some minor
issues, it will be much cheaper to get significant bandwidth, and
have much less lag, than satellites. This is another advantage
of being close to civilization. Laying cable is incredibly
expensive and unlikely to be feasible for quite awhile. However,
there is already cable laid to connect many island nations. It
might be possible for a seastead to anchor over a junction and
connect there.
The most general and widely applicable way to have internet in
the middle of nowhere is with satellites. The technology is
currently evolving rapidly, so by the time seasteads are built
it is likely to be more advanced than it is now. Some
points:
Without the protection of a large government, defense is
obviously a necessary concern. Let's consider the possible
opponents a seastead might face in battle. They basically fall
into two categories - pirates and navies.
As described in the piracy section
, most pirate attacks are either very small-scale, preying on
unarmed ships, or very large-scale, with organized groups
stealing entire cargo ships. A seastead will be too tough for
small pirates and not financially worthwhile for big ones.
Conventional, readily-available weapons such as large-caliber
rifles and machine guns should be sufficient for defense.
Because of its platform structure, a seastead is an easily
defended against hand weapons, and being a huge mass of concrete
it will be quite tough. A few gun emplacements on the underside
of the platform would make it a hellish place to attack with a
boarding party carrying small arms. (Although these emplacements
might be a bad idea by making the seastead seem more warlike to
nearby nations - we must always keep these political factors in
mind).
Unfortunately, a seastead will still be quite vulnerable to
larger weapons. Concrete is tough but far from
indestructable, and a fight against the other kind of opponent, a
serious military force, would be hopeless. The central column
could be blown up, and the top deck's solar panels and
greenhouses make a juicy air target. A seastead cannot easily be
made strong enough to withstand naval guns, torpedoes, or missile
fire, and it cannot afford guns large enough to have a range
advantage on enemies. Slow movement makes it a sitting duck. A
real warship could sit at a distance and barrage it with
impunity. Since these new nations will start small, their
potential military budget is many orders of magnitude lower than
current nations.
Even if a seastead cannot win, it is still worth considering
the value of defense as a deterrent. The more damage a seastead
can do to its attackers, even while fighting a losing battle, the
less likely it is to be attacked. Additionally, because of the
private, competitive, and small nature of seastead government, it
is likely that defense money will be spent efficiently. As Bob
Murphy points out, we won't be paying $600 for a toilet seat, so
it may well be possible to find cost-effective defensive
deterrents [Murphy]. For example,
sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles like the Chinese Silkworm
are fairly cheap and quite effective. And a rocket engineer in
New Zealand has set out to prove that you can build a small
cruise missile for $5,000, thanks to the decreasing cost of many
of the important components [Simpson].
As independent and sometimes macho individuals, it can be
difficult to admit miliatary inferiority. But since there is
little a seastead can do to stop a real navy, they shouldn't
spend too much money to try. Seasteads should focus on the ounce
of prevention rather than the pound of cure. Other than the
ability to damage the attacking force through defensive
deterrents, most prevention is political rather than military.
Avoid angering terrestrial nations enough to provoke an attack.
Be redundant - build many floating cities in many places. Be
willing to compromise some
freedoms in order to maintain others. Be useful. If you supply
advanced medical technology to government officials, its less
likely someone will blow you up.
The economic and military inferiority of seasteads may only be
temporary. As a sea-city gets larger, it is more likely to anger
existing nations, and it will be more economically feasible to
spend money on defense. Perhaps, over time, seasteads will
become large and rich enough to join the ranks of dangerous
nations. But its going to be awhile.
Disposing of trash is yet another area which requires special
consideration onboard a seastead. Since storage volume is
limited, landfills and dumps are not viable options. As
astronauts have discovered, trash takes up a lot of room. Mir
generated a ton of trash per month [SpaceTodayFactoids], and
Skylab had around 1/3 its volume set aside for waste collection
and storage
[SkylabFirst, Ch. 2].
Because improperly handling trash imposes costs on others,
waste disposal is a political issue
as well as an engineering one. This magnifies its importance.
Strange though it may seem to ruminate about rubbish, we see this
smelly segment as being worth at least as much consideration as
food, power, or water.
There are a number of different disposal methods, which we'll
go into in some detail. However, we should not forget avoidance
and recycling as methods for reducing waste. The heirarchy of
solid waste disposal is "Avoidance -> Recycling -> Energy
Recovery -> Landfilling", as described in this environmental
engineering book:
The best option is to avoid creation of the waste material. Obviously, we cannot eliminate the generation of solid waste. However, there is ample opportunity to significantly reduce the amount of waste created...The second best option is to recycle unwanted materials rather than disposing of them...The next option is to use the waste materials for energy recovery by use of a solid waste incinerator that produces usable energy. Landfilling is the least desirable option...
[Ray1995, p. 348]
Lets take a look at some kinds of waste:
{ Check sources for correctness and better descriptions. Is a DL the right structure to use here? It looks kinda funny. - P }
Inedible vegetable material like stems, leaves, and seeds, which still contain organic nutrients.
Humanure contains nutrients, but since it can contain pathogens it requires treatment to be safe.
Toxic chemicals and biohazards need to be dealt with
carefully.
Glass, plastic, metal, or anything else that can be
recycled effectively. Limited recycling may be done onboard,
with the remainder sold to land-based operations.
Trash which does not fit into the above categories.
Combustible miscellaneous waste may be useful for generating
heat.
As you can see, waste may contain positive, negative, or
neutral value. For example, organic waste contains fertilizing
nutrients we can use to grow food. The hazardous waste contains
toxic substances which we should not let into the environment to
harm others. The miscellaneous waste we just want to get rid of.
Because of these differences, the best solution is to use several
disposal methods in tandem.
The table below contains detailed data on the composition of
municipal american waste in the 1960's. While this will likely
be different than the composition of waste on a seastead, its a
start. There is also some less detailed data on municipal solid waste in 1990.
If all else fails, a seastead can ship waste to a dump on
land. After all, that's what most of the first world does with
their trash. If care is taken to avoid waste generation (ie
removing bulky packaging on land before transporting goods), this
might be effective. One may question the wisdom of piling trash
on land when it could just be piled on the ocean floor instead.
But remember that the latter seems more like polluting a common,
which we want to avoid for political reasons. Shipping is a
pretty good way to deal with hazardous waste that existing
facilities deal with, but we can't easily process ourselves.
Hazardous waste which requires long-term storage might as well be
shipped to land also - they have a lot more room. There are
better solutions for most other types of waste, but we should
keep this in mind as a safety net.
The easiest method of waste disposal on the ocean is simply to
dump the unwanted refuse over the side. This technique has been
used by humans since they first became seafarers. In fact, it
has been the standard on earth since primordial life evolved in
the oceans, and is still used daily by millions of creatures.
Fish excrete, and since their waste products are heavier than
water, they sink to the ocean floor. Natural upwellings eventually
stir it back up, and it nourishes the microscopic creatures which
form the base of the marine food pyramid.
For many types of waste, however, dumping is problematic.
Some waste contains valuable materials (ie nutrients in organic
waste). Rather than throwing them away, seasteaders can recycle
these back into their own food chain. Poisoning the ocean by
dumping hazardous waste is immoral and irresponsible. It is
possible that proper sealing could render hazardous waste safe,
but this is getting into a grey area. Waste which is lighter
than seawater would accumulate on the surface and eventually wash
to shore, which is undesirable. Bays and coastal areas,
especially close to populations, have (by necessity) strict rules
about dumping. Finally, as discussed in
more detail later, there are important political
considerations which weigh against dumping. Certain kinds of
dumping are regulated by UNLOS.
Given these caveats, dumping will probably be an appropriate
disposal method for a few types of waste, ie biodegradable /
inert and not worth recycling.
Incineration is probably the second oldest form of wate disposal, dating from the time when man found that he could warm himself by burning the things he had hitherto dumped outside his cave...Nomadic groups...have ignored the consequences of open waste dumps. Fixed communities cannot.
Municipal incineration began in England in 1874, and by the 1920's it was the only large-scale method of disposal used in the country.
[Corey1969, p. 1-3]
Incineration is used for approximately 10 to 15% of all municipal solid waste. Industry and government have accepted burning as a preferred disposal method for many solid and hazardous wastes - that is, compared to landfilling. Incineration destroys the toxic organics in waste in a matter of minutes or seconds, whereas those chemicals might lie for decades in a landfill, or, worse, migrate to groundwater...incineration presents other advantages. It uses an otherwise worthless material to produce energy and it can vastly reduce the volume required for landfilling...The biggest problem in solid waste incineration now is public opposition. Because incinerators produce small amoutns of air pollutants, a segment of the public invariably opposes them...Most municipal solid waste incinerators do not have air polution control equipment.
[Ray1995, pp. 380-381]
Incineration, which reduces waste into its base components,
has a number of advantages:
There are some drawbacks to incineration. It is important to
know what substances are being incinerated to ensure that toxic
fumes are not being released. Combustion does add to the carbon
in the earth's atmosphere. However, initial seasteads will be
miniscule producers of greenhouse gasses compared to current
cities because of their general energy-efficiency. Devices can
also be used to reduce the pollution emitted, such as filtration,
settling chambers, wet scrubbers, and electrostatic
precipitators [Corey1969,
pp. 48-66]. The pollution released by an incinerator depends
greatly on its design, and so environmentally-conscious
seasteaders can choose one which fits their desires.
Incineration will sometimes require significant energy input,
depending on the waste. Dehydration will probably be a necessary
preparation step, as vaporizing water takes a lot of power. In
fact, dehydration has been used as part of the incineration
process since at least 1901.
It may well be desirable to use a separate incinerator for
organic waste, to ensure that the nutritive ash is not
contaminated by toxic substances like heavy metals which are not
destroyed by incineration. There are several small-scale
incineration systems with specifications and prices available on
the web. While this list is by no means comprehensive, it should
give you a quick idea of what is available. (Click on an image
to go directly to the manufacturers website.)
Incineration is an excellent method of destroying many types
of hazardous waste, but has significant drawbacks for organic
material. Organic ash is high in trace elements such as metals,
which are concentrated by incineration. Plants like these in
small amounts, but they are poisonous in large amounts, so the
ash must be used cautiously. The organic matter and nitrogen -
important nutrients - are destroyed. So while incineration is
better than nothing for organic debris, it is still inferior to
our next option.
In nature, leaves fall to the forest floor and are gradually decomposed by a variety of microorganisms including fungi, bacteria, and protozoa. This degradation process returns the nutrients contained in the leaves to the soil where they become available again to the trees and other vegetation. In contrast, leaves falling in cities become a solid waste...Composting, which is the controlled aerobic partial degradation of organic wastes, produces a material that can be used for landscaping, landfill cover, or soil conditioning.
[Ray1995, p. 359]
Composting is a tried and true method of converting organic
wastes into plant food. The waste is simply left in a pile for
microbes to digest, just like in the natural world. It is
desirable to either mix or create trapped airspaces so that the
compost is exposed to oxygen. This is because anaerobic
conditions produce offensive odors and potentially dangerous
gasses (although methane rises, so it will escape). Composting
preserves more of the nutrients than incineration, and can be
used to turn even "humanure" into safe compost. The
process even breaks down many types of toxic contaminants, such
as organics (though not heavy metals) [Jenkins1999].
While effective, composting is a slow process, usually taking
months (1-2 years for humanure), and so it requires a lot of
space to store the waste during that period. Space is at a
premium on board, so this is a significant disadvantage.
(This can be partially addressed by placing the compost
area in one of the lower spar chambers, out of the way). Not all
materials are suitable for composting, depending on factors like
the carbon/nitrogen ratio.
Many seasteads are likely to favor composting over
incineration for the disposal of organic waste, and set aside the
necessary space. However, others will simply stick to
incineration.
Compressing any waste which is going to be stored or shipped
saves a lot of space. It also reduces odor, since most smells
stay trapped inside the solid block. Low-pressure compaction
results in densities of 700-1000 lb/ft3, and
high-pressure can create densities of 1600-1800
lb/ft3 [Ray1995,
p. 367]. Its an easy win.
It may be possible to recycle some materials onboard (glass,
aluminum, plastic). While it takes a high temperature to melt
metal or glass, remember that with better insulation, less energy
is required to produce a given temperature. Also, we can more
efficiently recycle bottles by washing, sterilizing, and re-using
than by using them as raw materials for new bottles [Ray1995, p. 51-352]. In large
communities on land, this is problematic because bottles may have
had toxic substances stored in them. However in a smaller and
more conscientious seastead community this method should work
well. Even if the seastead itself does not process a potential
recyclable, the material can be compacted, shipped to land, and
sold to a recycling plant.
Unfortunately recycling is often inefficient, in part because
it is kluged onto existing systems. Cradle To Cradle
[McDonough2002] suggests
that recycling is better accomplished by re-designing our
materials so as to be easily reusable. In the miniature economy
of a platform, this may be practical, and could even be the
motivating philosophy for an entire group of seasteaders. It
would certainly be an interesting experiment.
It is more likely that the production and purchase of goods
will simply be tailored with the expense of waste disposal in
mind. Bulky packaging is a response to how cheap it is for the
producer to buy the packaging and the consumer to throw it out
(or, according to some, because many of the costs are born by
others). This difference between terra aquatica and terra firma
may cause some difficulties (as when goods imported in large
quantities have a lot of packaging). Still, we are quite
confident that the seastead economy will adapt to the incentives
it faces. Vegetables from the greenhouses won't come in plastic
bags. Soda will be imported as a concentrated syrup, not in
cans. The same glass bottles will be sterilized and re-used for
each batch of homebrew.
Fossil fuels were created over a long period of time by
geothermal processes acting on organic waste. An industrial
process which mimics this has recently been developed, involving
several stages of heat and pressure changes. It is both rapid
and fairly efficient (85%). Changing World Technologies has
employed it in a pilot plant in Pennsylvania and a commercial
facility in Missouri. In the latter facility it converts waste
from a Butterball turkey plant into fuel. While the procedure is
not really suited to small-scale waste processing, it shows great
promise for dealing with large quantities of waste [ThermalDepol].
For hazardous wastes which are not destroyed by incineration,
other methods may be necessary. Precipitation, coagulation,
filtration, neutralization, oxidation, reduction, chemical
fixation, and adsorption are some of the techniques used [Ray1995, pp. 407-410]. It is
unlikely to be worthwhile to use these methods to process
occasional hazardous materials encountered in the waste stream.
However, there will eventually be manufacturing and industrial
processes onboard which will generate predictable and specialized
hazardous waste. At that point, specialized treatment facilities
are appropriate.
 |
A nation's methods of dealing with its waste are seen by
others as symbolic of its nature, at least to some degree. This
is quite reasonable. Most of the effects of most policies are
internal to a nation (ie crime laws), or positive for the rest of
the world (ie production and trade). Pollution is external and
negative. An example of the importance of waste disposal
policies is the international outrage over the US refusal to sign
the Kyoto Protocol. However one feels about the merits of the
proposal, it is noteworthy that it has prompted more indignation
than some of America's bloodier and more objectively tyrannical
actions.
Thus dirty disposal methods like dumping, while cheap and
easy, are problematic. The argument that seasteaders should be
left alone to pursue their unique lifestyle in peace, while
harming nobody, is a good one. But it does not hold up
when costs are being imposed on the rest of the world (what
economists call externalities). While seasteaders and terrestrial
nations are likely to quibble endlessly about exactly what
constitutes an externality, pollution is a clear faux pas.
Seasteads will start with a tenuous position in world
politics, so it behooves them to be good global citizens. In the
twenty-first century, this means clean waste disposal practices.
While many corporations and governments get away with pollution,
they are the world's elite. The oceans are seen as the common
property of humanity - occupation may be tolerated,
but befoulment will not.
Considering the opinions of customers rather than nations, we
get the same result. Greenness is part of the appeal of
seasteading, and avoiding negative externalities (not polluting)
is a core part of the green philosophy. Serving a niche market
can be good business, but alienating the majority of your
customers is a recipe for failure.
These considerations make waste disposal a surprisingly
crucial part of a seastead's infrastructure.
The problem, however, will not go away so easily. Later
seasteads will be in a less tenuous political position and,
facing competition with other platforms, may have a stronger
desire to cut costs. Once there are enough platforms for
populations to segregate, there will be seasteads without strong
sentiments against pollution. However, the difficulty of getting
caught polluting the oceans will prove an irresistible temptation
to some. It is inevitable that a stead will pollute, and
eventually be caught doing so. This will reflect poorly on the
entire movement.
Unless the rest of the world has changed dramatically by then (which seems unlikely), the simplest response will be to point out that land has its share of polluters as well. As one source points out:
It is really quite easy to get carried away with the environmental security issue. It has immense popular appeal, it has a sense of urgency that can be exploited, and touches the consciences of those who enjoy a high standard of living. However, it should be borne in mind that 80 percent of marine pollution stems from land-based sources, including run-off, air pollution, and coastal development.As always, utopia is not an option, and it is unfair to compare this (or any) way of life with an impossible ideal. The important question will be: how do seasteads compare with the rest of the world in the pollution department? We expect that clean power generation, the need for efficiency, and the influence of green philosophy will render a satisfactory answer for the majority, though not all. Any malfeasors must face the consequences of their actions.
Some seasteads, to demonstrate their cooperative membership in
the global community, may become parties to environmental
treaties. Even if these seasteads do not have the status of
nations, such accords are statements of intent, and so there is
little reason to exclude private entities. The outside world may
impose regulations on seasteads, acting in lieu of their
nonexistent central governments. Groups of connected platforms
will certainly have environmental agreements as part of their
contracts, since they share air and water. Geographically
disparate platforms may have agreements as well, to demonstrate a
shared philosophy to themselves and to the rest of the world.
They might even contribute to investigations for rogue polluters,
who besmirch the reputation of the movement.
This is a good example of how, just as with many other aspects
of the seasteading lifestyle, there will be rules and
compromises. Don't extrapolate from that and think this new way
of life offers no improvements on the old. Rules and compromises
are part of reality, and anyone who thinks you can get along
without them is a crackpot. We still think there are plenty of
incremental improvements available on this side of la-la
land. { is this funny or a stretch? - P }
Here are a few examples of waste disposal systems used on
similar facilities: { Other good examples? }
This cruising condominium apparently uses the following
method: "Contributing to the success of The World's recent
ratings is its unique Scandinavian waste water cleaning system,
whereby wastes are filtered by a flotation system. Solid wastes
are dried and incinerated, and the ash is properly disposed of on
land. The remaining liquid waste goes through an ultraviolet
filtration process, and the resulting water is as pure as
technical water. The World also burns marine diesel..." [Residensea]
A good waste disposal system will use a variety of techniques,
cause little pollution, and recover materials and energy from
waste when possible. Incineration is the preferred method of
disposal for hazardous wastes, organic wastes, and combustible
miscellaneous waste. The ash from organic waste will be used for
nutrients. Some steads will choose to use composting for organic
waste instead, feeling that it is worth the extra space in order
to preserve more nutrients. Recyclables should be re-used intact
if possible (ie sterilizing bottles), processed onboard if that
is cost-effective, or compacted and shipped to recycling plants
on land otherwise. Hazardous waste which cannot be incinerated
will likely be shipped to appropriate storage or treatment
facilities on land. It may be processed onboard in some
circumstances, particularly when it is consistently generated by
some onboard process. Some very special kinds of waste
(non-combustible, non-toxic, non-floating, non-recyclable,
non-nutritive) may be simply dumped into the ocean, although its
hard to think of much which meets these requirements (big
rocks?).
Because of the limited resources available to a seastead,
special consideration is needed when choosing appliances. While
the below is neither an exhaustive set of appliance types nor of
possibilities for each appliance, we believe that it demonstrates
the widespread availability of power and water efficient
solutions. Similar choices can be made for other "modern
necessities". Note that we've chosen to structure this as a
discussion of appliances and their replacements (ie "hot water
heater" rather than "hot water"), rather than a provision of
services.
Because the seastead has a huge thermal mass and floats on the
water, temperature extremes will be moderated. Some heating may
still be required, depending on season and location. We have a variety of possible heat sources.
We can burn fuel, such as diesel, hydrogen, alcohol, or propane,
or we can directly convert electricity that we have stored or
generated into heat. While getting heat from the sun is a
technology as old as the earth, being able to turn wind into heat
is a nice improvement.
We can also use the traditional techniques for energy
efficient heating to reduce energy costs. Have a lot of
insulation, use efficient windows, face them south, store heat
during the day, and trap it at night. The environments that a
seastead expects to be in, the cost of energy, and the cost of
such techniques will dictate whether they are used.
An additional source of seastead heat is waste heat from
diesel generators, inverters, batteries, anything else that
generates heat as power-loss. Heat exchangers can be used to
scavenge this, which increases the effective efficiency of the
appliance.
Cooling is unlikely to be a big problem on a seastead for the
same reasons as heating: temperatures will be moderated by the
thermal mass of the ocean and the seastead. There are a lot of
ways to cool seasteads without using power-hungry air
conditioners.
Cooling is easier than heating because we can tap a large
source of available coolness. We're not talking about our
nation's teenagers, but about ocean water several hundred feet
below the surface. An intake can be placed on the submerged
buoyancy portion of the structure, and the only power cost is for
pumping. The energy can be partly recovered by running it
through a small turbine on the way back down. Its probably
worthwhile having this turbine because there are a number of
other circumstances under which we'll be draining water from the
platform, and we might as well get some energy out of it.
Evaporative cooling with a device called a swamp coolers is
another interesting low-energy method. Air is sucked through wet
pads, causing the water to evaporate and the temperature of the
air to drop. The result is a breeze cooler than ambient air
temperature which only requires electricity for the fan and a
supply of water.
The process is depicted in the flash animation below:
If saltwater is used, minerals will quickly build up on the
pads (scaling). Frequent rinsing in fresh water may alleviate
this, and it may or may not be worth using salt depending on how
much fresh water is available. Another potential difficulty is
that swamp coolers work poorly when humidity is high, which is
usually the case over the ocean. Despite these disadvantages,
the efficiency of evaporative cooling makes it a strong
contender when conditions are appropriate.
{Swamp Coolers are really neat, but humidity over the ocean is
always very high so I think they are no good for us. This
section will be removed unless I hear a good reason not too.}
There are a number of possibilities for refrigeration. It is
important to do a good job, since the refrigerator must keep food
cold 24 hours a day. In a standard kitchen, it uses more energy
than any other kitchen appliance - around 5 kWhrs/day.
Conventional refrigerators are extremely inefficient. Since
electricity is cheap, most people buy a refrigerator based on its
color and shelf arrangement rather than its efficiency. Some
fridges actually have heaters in the frames to prevent moisture
from collecting on the seals and generating mildew. The
"frost-free" systems are basically heaters that briefly bring the
air in the freezer compartment above freezing to remove the
frost. The heat from the compressor and condensor flows past the
refrigerator as it escapes. Convenient, yes. Efficient, no.
While some of the commercially available energy-efficient
refrigerators are not much better, others like the Sun Frost line
use less than 1 kWhr per day. Its hardware is on top, so the
heat produced escapes away from the fridge. Good insulation is
also very important to reducing the energy requirements.
Strange though it sounds, solar heat can actually be used
directly for refrigeration. The secret is an absorption
refrigeration cycle discovered in the mid 1800s. A mixture of
ammonia and water is heated in one area, and the ammonia
evaporates, moves to another area, where it is cooled and
condenses. When the liquid ammonia evaporates, it cools the
surrounding area. This is an external-combustion system which
can use any heat source for power.
The method was used in an icebox cooler called the Crosley
Icyball sold in the 1930's [IcyBall]. The same principle was
behind a recently-built solar icemaker, described in Home
Power magazine. It used a parabolic trough reflector to focus
sunlight onto a tube filled with ammonia. During the day, it
charges, and at night, it produces cold which can be used to make
ice [SolarIce].
Like many renewable energy systems, this method has the
advantage that it requires almost no maintenance and will work
forever. 70-year old Crosley's found in antique stores are often
still functional. It uses the sun directly, and fairly
inexpensively, both of which are useful. Other heat sources
(like stored fuel) can be used on cloudy days. One drawback is
that ammonia is a nasty gas, but a well-designed system should be
safe.
We can heat our water through a number of means, including
passive solar heating, burning fuels, electric heating, and
capturing waste heat when it is available. Passive solar heating
is likely to be the most efficient method, supplemented by other
energy sources when necessary. Being a direct solar method, this
is a great way to use solar power. If space onboard is at a
premium, floating passive solar water heaters can be deployed.
The disadvantage is pumping costs, however it may be possible to
transfer heat through convection.
An important part of the hot water system is insulation.
The tank itself should be very well insulated, as should the
pipes. A significant amount of the energy in a conventional hot
water system goes into warming up the metal pipes, which is
inefficient and wcan be avoided.
Cooking is a very energy intensive activity - 1000-3000 watts
for a burner, 2500-5000 for an oven, and one which is often done
by many people at the same time. Thus it represents the toughest
kind of load for an energy system. Indeed, many home power
systems find that food preparation is their heaviest load of the
day. As is often the case, we have a variety of energy sources
to choose from, solar, electric, fuel (hydrogen, propane, alcohol). Because its such a high
load, we may wish to cook with stored fuel rather than
electricity. This fuel can be imported or generated by our power
system (hydrogen through electrolysis).
A disadvantage to traditional stoves is that they lose a lot
of heat (think about how hot a kitchen gets). Not only does the
air carry away energy, but you're heating up a big metal pan
along with your food. Microwave ovens waste much less energy,
since the radiation bounces around until its absorbed by the
food. For slow cooking, crock pots (which are well-insulated)
lose less heat than a big pot on the stove. Unfortunately, these
methods of cooking are not suited to nice meals, so we still
expect seastead kitchens to be warm on occasion.
Second, cooking requires a very large amount of power and many
people tend to do it at the same time. Thus it represents a
difficult drain on any energy system. Our proposed solution is
to generate hydrogen through electrolysis, which can be done
efficiently with commercially available units when there is
excess electricity. The hydrogen is then burned in a stove. As
discussed in the fuels section, hydrogen
is quite safe. This gives us an alternative method of energy
storage, which is useful.
An oven is a box for holding heat. Modern ovens do a poor job
of this (warm kitchens again), and thus need heat constantly
poured into them. If we just iinfra.html#Hydrogen">nsulate the oven, it will require
a lot less energy. Any method can be used to provide the needed
heat. Conventional ovens only have the heating element on 20% of the time
As usual, there is the conventional way and the
energy-efficient way. Conventional washing machines use 100-230
liters of water per load. When this is hot water, heating costs
are a large part of the total energy use. The Staber washing
machine uses only 110 to 150 watt-hours and 45 L water per load
[Staber]. This is a little high,
but not too bad. The reduced water use has a big impact on
energy because it means reduced hot-water use. 2 loads / person
/ week would be a negligible increase in energy expenditure
(+0.04 kwhrs/day) but a significant increase in water use (+13
L/day). We can generate that water from Reverse Osmosis with
0.17 kWh/p/day of electricity. So a total of 0.21
kwhrs/person/day does 2 loads a week (not counting water heating
energy). That's well in line w/ our power figures. Another
interesting technology is ozone injection. Ozone serves as a
better replacement for bleach, works well in cold water, and
leaves no chlorine residue. Seasteaders probably won't do
laundry as often as on land, this goes with being a pioneer.
There are extremely energy-efficient dryers, such as the
Spin-X, which works by spinning clothes very quickly to extract
water with centrifugal force. The manufacturer claims that 2
minutes in it is equiv. to 30 minutes in a normal drier. Uses 25
watts for a 3 minute load - not sure if this means 25 watt-hours,
or 25 continuous watts which is 1.25 watt-hours, but either way
its negligible. The Spin-X does not get clothes dry enough to
replace a traditional dryer, but a much shorter dryer run is then
needed [CET].
Alternatively, clothes can be dried the old-fashioned way, by
being hung out on lines. One potential worry on a seastead is
that they could potentially pick up a little salt spray. Also,
they'll dry very slowly because of the high humidity. Given the
low energy costs of the spin dryer plus a short heated drying
cycle, line drying will probably not be necessarily.
High-efficiency dishwashers such as the Fisher & Paykel
Dual DishDrawer use about 20 L/load, while normal dishwashers use
about 40L. As energy-efficient appliances go, this is a pretty
small improvement, but its still not that much water. Much of
this water much be hot, which uses additional resources, but we
can get hot water with reasonable efficiency through passive
solar installations. Another problem is that one way that
efficient dishwashers save energy is by using air drying instead
of a heat drying cycle. Unfortunately in our humid environment,
air drying may not work very well - seasteaders may need to get
out the hand towels and dry dishes the old-fashioned way. A
clever dehumidification technique would also help - perhaps a
solar dehydrator which converts humid air into water and dry air.
The humid air could simply be run through a condenser using ocean
water for cooling.
A vacuum cleaner is a good example of an appliance with an
extremely low duty cycle. It may not be very energy efficent,
but that doesn't matter. Portable floor vacuums use about
500-1000 watts. If each person vacuums for an hour a week,
that's a negligible 0.1 kWhs/week. Similar appliances
include power tools (drills, sanders, lathes, saws), ???
There is a large range of energy efficiency for lighting.
Three technologies worth mentioning are incandescent lights,
fluorescent lights, and Light Emitting Diodes (LED's). Fiber
optic light distribution systems are interesting as well.
Incandescence was the first
electrical lighting technique invented. It is so inefficient
that an incandescent bulb is basically an electrical heater which
as a byproduct happens to make a little light. The efficiency is
about 10%, and they last about 1,000 hours. Halogen bulbs are a
more efficient, longer-lasting type, but they still produce a lot
of heat.
Fluorescent bulbs have been used for awhile, although only
recently in the home market due to the arrival of the compact
fluorescent form factor. They are 4-5 times more energy
efficient and last 10,000 - 20,000 hours. While they are more
expensive, but their cost is well worth the gains - especially on
a seastead where energy is expensive. Unfortunately, these bulbs
contain lead and mercury, and thus must be treated as hazardous
waste or they will pollute the environment.
LED's are a newer technology from the solid-state
electronics field, which have only gotten cheap and bright enough
to be used for large-scale lighting in the past decade. Large
numbers of traffic lights, for example, have switched to LED's in
the past few years. Because they last so long (100,000 hours),
they are the clear choice for locations where replacing bulbs is
very difficult. Colored LED's are about as efficient as
fluorescent bulbs, but white ones are only half as efficient.
Still, future LED's will be more efficient that fluorescents.
Unlike fluorescents, LED's do not contain poisonous chemicals.
In the table below we can see the
efficiency of each type in terms of how many lumens per watt it
produces, as well as the lifetime of the bulb. Cost for the bulb
is given per kilo-lumen-year, and electricity cost for the same
period, assuming $0.20/kWh. In general, electricity cost dwarfs
bulb cost, so efficiency is quite important.
| Lumens/Watt | Lifetime (hrs) | Bulb cost/k-lumen-yr | Electricity/k-lumen-yr | Total cost/k-lumen-yr | |
| Incandescent | 15 | 750-1,000 | $7 | 571 kWh | $121 |
| Fluorescent | 60 | 10,000-20,000 | $14 | 143 kWh | $43 |
| LED (white) | 25 | 100,000 | $500 | 350 kWh | $570 |
As you can see, the inefficiency of incandescents and the high
cost of LEDs make fluourescents the clear choice. LEDs work well
in places where only small points need to be lit, such as
emergency lighting strips. They are also better when colored
lighting is acceptable, as colored LEDs are cheaper and more
efficient.
A neat technology being developed for lighting is the use of
fiber optic cables to move light around. These cables are like
wires, except they transmit light. One method for using them is
a system like the Himawari, which gathers sunlight with lenses,
then transmits it via fiber optic cable to wherever needs
lighting [Himawari]. This lets
us transmit natural sunlight (with UV conveniently attenuated by
the system) to deep interior area of the seastead. Another
method is to have a main central lamp, and fiber optic cables
running to "power" other lamps. So fewer bulbs are
needed, and they can be very efficient ones. The main advantage
is the elimination of a lot of electrical wiring. This reduces
the possibility of fire or electrical accidents as well as
requiring less labor to install. Its especially convenient
ferro-cement structures which don't have hollow walls to put
utilities in. However, this is a new technology and it may not
be suitable for seastead use.
It is worth discussing what facilities are needed and or
desirable on a seastead, as well as what special problems these
facilities may pose.
Being an isolated environment, a seastead will need some
facilities for medical care. The larger the seastead, the larger
these facilities can be. Elaborate trauma, burn, or IC units and
surgical facilities will not be possible on smaller seasteads.
Serious injuries will have to be transported to land by airplane
or helicopter, which may be dozens to thousands of miles away.
Contrary to popular impressions, while quick medical care at the
paramedic level is certainly important, the need for quick
medical care at the surgical level is rare. People rarely die
quickly in ways that could have been saved by surgical
facilities, and even serious accidents usually allow enough time
for transportation. Paramedic level facilities can easily be
incorporated in Seastead Lite, and perhaps a minimal ER.
One way of looking at medical emergencies on a seastead is
that it is similar to life in rural or remote areas. While urban
dwellers may be accustomed to a high concentration of hospitals,
many people, even in the first world, are presented with the same
set of options. Deal with it yourself, go to someplace nearby
with poor facilities, or face a long drive or expensive chopper
ride to a real hospital. Seasteads will have advantages over
rural dwellers in that they can guarantee that trained personnel
and lower-levels of care are much more accessible than places
where the nearest doctor might be dozens of miles away. And
seasteads can have airplanes and/or choppers ready, where rural
dwellers must wait for them to be dispatched.
If drug laws are lax on seasteads, and especially if drug use
is one of the selling points, the infirmary will wish to be
prepared for drug-related emergencies, and the staff trained in
handling them.
The infirmary will not need much additional infrastructure.
It will need oxygen hookups or simply oxygen tanks, which may be
able to be refilled during electrolysis. { ?? pressurizing issues
?? }. It will need sterilizing facilities such as an autoclave,
and distilled water rather than R/O or rainwater.
Part of being self-sufficient is the ability to fix things
which break and make new things yourself. Thus a good shop will
be necessary. We'll need a small machine shop (lathe + mill +
bandsaw + drill press), some welding capability (both arc
welding, oxy-acetelyne, and probably TIG (Tungsen Inert Gas), and
probably some wood shop tools (table saw, radial saw, belt
sander). Lastly, we'll need compressed air for a bunch of
compressed air tools.
Shops tend to be noisy and sometimes smelly, and they should
be located with that in mind. We'll also need to conserve space,
so we may want put the tools on wheels, they can be stored in a
compressed format when not being used. There will not be enough
room to have all the tools out in a static layout. Instead, they
will be moveable, and we can deploy whatever set is necessary for
the current job.
It may be useful to have a small foundry as part of the shop.
Whenever some tool is needed, it can be rough cast out of
aluminum, and machined to final form. When the tool is no longer
needed or breaks, it can be thrown back into the scrap heap,
melted down and reused. All hand tools such as shovels, rakes,
screw drivers, etc. would be candidates for this level of reuse.
This allows a modest amount of metal to be reused over and over
again.
Anything to say? Energy efficient appliances (if frequently
used), small space, efficient storage.
{ Does this seem like a good place to have a discussion of "community"? - P}
A seastead will consist of like-minded individuals sharing a
small space, thus it will be a community. Having many facilities
be communal reduces their cost and the space used. The
land-based pattern where everyone has their own kitchen, their
own tool shop in the garage, their own TV/movie setup, their own
boat and so forth is just not suited to seastead life.
Fortunately, as with many of the problems we face, we can draw
from solutions which other groups are finding in other
contexts.
The Cohousing and Intentional Communities movements have been
experiencing a resurgence in the past few decades. Cohousing
started in europe and has been spreading to the US. ?? The FIC
listing has hundreds of communities in the US??. This movement
has experience in architectural designs which provide reasonable
and efficient combinations of private and public space. The
CoHousing Company [ref], located in Berkeley, CA, USA, offers
advice on all stages of community creation. We feel that it
would be desirable to hire them as consultants on the interior
layouts and designs of the seastead. They are used to working
alongside traditional architects and engineers, although working
with marine engineers may be a new experience.
Seasteads whose residents are paying first-world prices will
certainly be able to have private space for individuals. (If
poorer people wish to seastead, they may not get private space,
which is a sacrifice that they will need to make, and may be used
to making in their land-based life.) However, especially with
early seasteads, most facilities will be shared. Kitchens,
lounges, workshops, gardens, and so forth will all be common.
This has some definite advantages. It should be easy for a
seastead to amass quite a large library of movies and music, for
example.
| Prev | Table of Contents | Next |
| Basic Infrastructure | The Market |