Food & Waste? add to that energy, fresh water, bulk waste — the whole infrastructure — the following is all # rounding:
Food: - US people eat 2,000 (less) pounds of food each year in 5 food groups. Hydroponic farming can provide fruit and vegetables. Vertical sea farming can provide protein and seaweed. Both technologies are sufficiently advance to be economically productive intensity — to be financially feasible. I have done sufficient work to prove this. I myself in a former life have raised chickens, pigs and milking goats. I doubt that the pigs and goats of sufficient economic intensity ---- but I know the chickens are. I have solved the correct area ratio of these hydroponics and ague culture farms to population. I not solved all of the food so provision will be need to supplement.
Energy: - The present configuration has sufficient are to provide 60% of electricity demand to be supplemented with industrial size wind turbines (not utility size). This can be backed up with batteries and diesel as necessary. Eventually thermal and water current generator technology may be superior — I am only and architect! :).
Water: - All the current seasteading locations considered have rain from 40 inches to 70 inches each year. Thus the water is obtained by catchment with the storage a function of demand over the dry months — It varies by current seated locations — The catchment water is purified and supplemented with a package desalinization plant.
Sanitation: - There are sanitation treatment plants within current technology and advances in water saving toilets. This is a mature technology being used in remote resorts all over the world.
Bulk Waste: - This is a yet solved problem. Separation and disposal are yet to be resolved. Son sea stead conversion to energy? Transferring to land during the flight-ferry movement of people and provisions? Not solved — Welcome input.
A budget for each of these infrastructure items is provided for in development budget.
In summary: I am working on my prototype in multiple locations. Let me introduce a thought about the micro-choice of location. TSI has not shared very much. I read recently within the Bora Bora reef. I myself reject this as an unaesthetic option imposed on the views form the existing land uses. In the US the reduction of private land values that would occur can be litigated. I myself would not support a highly visible “sea stead.” I have offered TSI multiple alternative locations in Polynesia — Is there more current information? Is there a debate on any forum?
An alternative is sufficiently beyond the 3-mile horizon to conceal the height of the sea stead buildings. I propose 7-miles in principal. All of my prototype locations are bound the horizon for this reason. Thus it is possible to combine the sea stead prototype with utility-scale wind turbines — that are close in enough to the mainland to provide “green” energy while not reducing the value of the on shore residents — Is there support for this notion on this forum?
An alternative is sufficiently remote from the main land as to make the transfer of wind generated energy not cost effective ---- and the need for service staff to be provided accommodations. Are there any thoughts on this? Ted