From: mike regan (make-r_at_webtv.net)
Date: 11/21/98
From: make-r_at_webtv.net (mike regan) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 09:30:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Recipe' for Sea-foam Housing (reality) Message-ID: <17412-3656F8CA-1020@mailtod-162.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Appreciate your latest comments, and research into global warming
meetings, etc.
Advantages of floating city platfoms are well outlined there (nos
1-5).
I think we need not only a vague but spiritually stong statement of
intent, but some rather concrete proposals, cost estimates, etc.
Another interesting item would the amount of fossil fuel burned as a
result of our construction effort itself. I think it will be shown to be
amazingly cheap in this regard, because of the self-powering of the
accretion process.
The replacement of coral reefs: I have some familiarity with the
problem, having worked on a project for reefs in the Phillipines. They
were making cement modules which were carried out on outrigger canoes,
dumped overboard, and assembled on the sea-floor by divers.
The resulting structures were heavy enough to resist wave action,
and had sharp corners to catch the nets of potential poachers. After
awhile, the coral would grow on them, strengthening and connecting them,
and regenerating itself. The increase of fish resulting from this
creation of habitat paid off the investment within one year.
I think a sunken geodesic made of rebar and accreted using tidal of
wave-acton generated electricity would have the same result, but might
be far less labor intensive, per cubic foot of internal space created
for the smaller fish.
Anyway, there are lots of valuable spin-offs to this accretion idea
for floating habitats.
One thought I might mention is that there are right now some huge
floating buildings occupied by hundreds of people, and generating huge
revenues from the ocean. I'm referring to oil-drilling rigs: the exact
opposite kind of work as what we propose.