Power Generation

(Larry G) #21


The basic principle of Buoyant Energy (buoyant hydraulic energy storage system) is based on the well-established technology behind pumped hydro energy storage plants. The major difference is the arrangement and location of reservoirs at such plants. While conventional pump hydropower storage plants consist of an upper and a lower reservoir, Buoyant Energy uses a buoyant platform.

The energy is stored solely through the potential energy of the mass of the floating structure. In order to store energy, water is pumped out (air is pumped in). As a result, the floating structure rises. In order to release the energy, the structure is lowered and the inflow into the smaller reservoir powers a turbine (turbine mode).

And they include a shout-out to Seasteading: http://www.buoyant-energy.com/english/areas-of-application/off-grid-energy-solution.html

(danielrocha) #22

have you guys considered this tech in the projects? https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=EzdQAnDJjfg

(Gavin Brown) #23

There have been some great suggestions but i thing the solution is in all honesty ALL of the above. The floating city will need to have multiple methods of power generation from solar, wind and wave. OTEC systems will be brilliant also and I would also have a small Thorium Nuclear Reactor too.

Yes I would have a system of battery storage locally for specific system back up but my main clever thing would be that all the power being generated would go into splitting water and then storing the oxygen and hydrogen. at slack times this can then be recombined to generate electricity and clean water.

The Thorium Reactor can provide plenty of energy as it is but I would like my island to be able to support itself as an energy provider to the poor countries.

The split compressed Oxygen and Hydrogen would be transported to shore and then fed through our dock side fuel cell plant. This woud generate clean energy and clean water for the poorer countiries.

On a side note Thorium Reactors have the added bonus of being able to burn nuclear waste, which is handy.

Anyone got any spare cash… I want to go build one right now.


You can forget nuclear reactors. No nation or organization will want a floating Fukushima (which, by the way, is still leaking into the Pacific).

If Thorium reactors met any of the hype, the Navies of the world would have already converted.

(Matias Volco) #25

Floating Power Plants,
wiki article


Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Regulation and Laws

This is the start of the regulatory section. In the future more will be added about regulation in the US and other countries. Comparisons will be made of the relationships between the agencies and plant operators. Currently, countries covered are:

United States
Czech Republic
United Kingdom


(Matias Volco) #27

The lesson from the floating nuclear power plants appears to be, according to MIT, that

The Ocean offers an interference free (freedom is mutual by definition) zone

It would be placed
on deep waters far from coastal populations, and would only be connected
to land by an underwater energy transmission line.

The high seas offer a more predictable environment than a coast or even inland desert, a liquid medium.

By placing the
platform on an area with a depth of at least 100 meters, the sea water absorbs the movements of the sea floor and protects the plant from earthquakes and tsunamis.

a liquid medium

The sea can also be an infinite source of cooling water in case of an emergency.

@danielrocha showed us another ingenious way in which the liquid medium of the high seas can be used in Power Generation:

(Wilfried Ellmer) #28

Context: | ORES sphere - Energy buffer batterie | Energy sistem integration Gas Economy | Algae Hydrolysis | Vent Base Alpha - mid ocean ridge | pelamis | stream turbine | task dedicated seasteads |


Sure, take that ~$660/sq-ft platform and put a multi-billion-dollar nuclear powereplant in a multi-billion dollar hull, nearby, which will have to be at least the equivalent of the smallest nuclear vessel in current use, plus the million-dollar per mile power lines, not to mention a ready supply of food, water and waste- managerment for the personnel…

Admittedly, Coca and Marijuana grow well in South America, but y’all have clearly smoked too much of the combination.


This is not a problem if we are independent.


We can use a typical nuclear reactor, we have enough cooling water and if we built the actual reactor chamber underwater we could just flood the place in case of an emergency. But a mix of multiple energy sources will allow us to be flexible.


This is a joke, right? I mean, your moniker and the concept of flooding a nuclear reactor at sea, thus dumping tons of tainted water into the ocean violating just about every international law on pollution.

Besides, where will you get the fuel?


You would make a system a double door system in order to allow heat to dissipate across the water inside the chamber, but the water which is dumped in the actual chamber ICE isnt going back into the ocean it will be able to be drained in containers and be removed to a safe location or be filtered\cleane up. And the fuel, it would be able to be delivered and the old fuel cells can be stored in a safe contaiment area (back on land of course) where they will irradiate their toxicity of thousands of years. Or better yet now I start thinking about it more we should use a LFTR. (Look it up) , not that expensive, short lasting waste half time and it is hard to use for making weapons, which scores points internationally.


Draining water into containers implies using gravity.

Is that the intended method … and is that method intended for normal operations, emergencies, or both?

I ask because … gravity-draining an underwater tank necessitates an empty underwater tank. Right?

(Matias Volco) #35

consider closed contained storage at sea might be easier to monitor than “traditional” underground dumping


It was gravitiy in case of emergency, but if you use a lftr it isnt necessary, you have a passive security meassure, lwr aren’t my chose of reactor.


The storage of waste products is an issue, one that is only discussed in the UN by finland but if you store on a sea stead it could be done but will take up some room, luckily thorium is a very potent and abundent material so you dont need much room to store it and it wont be much to ship it away somewhere or in.


For the people wondering about LFTR’s


There is no way to simply filter the radioactive waste water, to clean it. Even then, the extreme filtering required produces filters that have to be stored for thousands of years.
, and the system is contaminated, so dedicated to that purpose, forever.

Our Naval personnel that went to the Far East after the tsunami were exposed to radiation from Fukushima, which is STILL leaking into the Pacific Ocean.

Thorium reactors aren’t practical, or there would BE Thorium reactors.

They STILL need ALL of the shielding any existing reactor needs. They STILL make radioactive waste.

IF Thorium reactors were all they have been promoted to be, power companies would have switched to making, distributing, and servicing them.


Thorium reactors are what they are promoted to be, the reason we are not switching is because you would have to make new reactors, this is a slow process and converting a LWR is expensive. LFTR weren’t chosen in the beginning of the atomic age because they were back then not much more efficient as LWR’s and their waste product could not be used for atomic weaponry. The reason people are not building new reactors is because the public doesnt trust nuclear energy and they want sustainable energy like solar and wind, something which is do-able while you have large, empty spaces on land or small sea steads, but on larger scale it is easier to have something powerful like nuclear energy.