Underwater Cities Development

[Hydromancerx]

@primem0ver

1a. What if in the future they wanted to return the land to its natural state and have cities underground so not to impede the natural land. Or what if all land on earth was taken up and the only place left was underground?

1b. That would be cool to have 2 cities on top of each other. Same goes for floating and underwater to be on top of each other.

2. Totally not true. One could have fish farms, algae farms, hydroponics, a desalination plant. Not to mention no city is completely isolated. Ships would continually trade with them to give the supplies they cannot make. In reality they could even move to other ports. However due to game limitations it would need to be immobile.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/floating-city1.htm

3. Orbital Cities could be pushed as far int the future as we need. Like the floating city it could produce things but of course could always trade via spaceships. Again when real estate is at a premium orbital cities might look good. Especially if its a port city in which you could directly get cargo from spaceships. The spaceships would not have to entire the atmosphere like an Earth city would require you to do.

-----

1. Surface ocean farming could be quite profitable. As for orbital again the zero G factor for say building spaceships or trade. However I would suspect in an orbital city they would have some sort of artificial gravity. Unless the people on it plan to never leave micro-gravity again.

2. I don't see why earth would need to be moved. Both are more like huge vehicles. Like a giant cruse ship.

3. Floating cities could run on solar, wave, tidal, wind or even more land based ones since its on the surface and exposed to air. Orbital would have to be either solar, nuclear or later non fusion.

4. Boats and Aircraft can still provide transportation to floating cities while spaceships to the orbital city.

5. Scientific discovery could be used for both orbital and floating cities. Especially if the city floated out in the deep ocean and we already have an orbital spcae lab on the international space station today.

----

From a game perspective it make sense based on the maps that everything on the surface map is on the surface and everything on the underground/underwater is under the surface map. And likewise an orbital map.

The graphics I have sen used for the underwater city where it has bubble over it would probably be best as an underwater city on the underwater map. Since the sea floor would be land it should look correct. Likewise sea units would be like air units. Well more like airships in that they float above the sea floor. We can also have seafloor units that drive or walk on the sea floor.

The floating cities would have to get a new graphic which would probably not be too hard to do. Since it can have part above the surface and then part having under the surface.

 

[strategyonly]

Can we pls get an update on this, thx . . . SO

 

[johny smith]

You could have for example higher mountain chains underwater that anchor cities for nearer locations on the surface. It would be a way limiting possible locations of settlement. I would think the large abyssal trenches would not have tunnels just go in them, but probably bridge over them underwater. The camp I fooled with could be used for a more mobile city with no buildings (with of course changed graphics) roving the ocean collecting resources perhaps. So instead of arguing which type of city. I think you could have both.

The only downside I found in the genetic era sea colonies was a lack of diversity in the water. I just think this could be an opportunity to make ocean currents, geysers, and whatever for a more realistic geo model. I think for example it would be easier to have super oranges grown near the equator in the water versus in the north pacific ocean. Since the genetic era is much easier to implement than the multimap. I would suggest working from g-era. I do not know what changes have been made, but the WoC had began adding a sea cities module already. There was one thing wrong with it, but I can't remember what it was. Here is the link, but if you guys have done a lot more than maybe it is just a waste.

http://worldofciv.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/worldofciv/Assets/Modules/Sea Cities/

Of course the SDK would need to be scoured as well. If I am just wasting your time sorry.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

.. But we should also have 'Bridges' for a number of gaps across water tiles that can cover the majority of the small jumps from one landmass to another without having to switch maps. We have the graphics... we just need the rest of the programming for them.

And it would give bridges and tunnels a distinct difference in application.

I have on my list of things to do some way of implementing bridges (and ferry crossings), Not that I have graphics for the latter yet. The problem with the bridge graphics iirc is that they are only at the 90 degree points (ie run north-south or east-west).

With routes, which these are, I have not seen an example where placement is limited in some way.

I have not yet tested to see if a route across water connects a resource on an island to the trade network or if you still need the fort to act like a city.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Since the genetic era is much easier to implement than the multimap.

Just because it was done by another mod doesn't mean C2C has to do it the same way. Having floating cities can use the same implementation as the Genetic Era's floating cities. And when mult-maps are done then we can add underground and underwater cities too. We should work with what we have but also plan ahead for when we can do other things beyond our current limits.

Things that we would not use from the genetic era involving floating cities would be no need to limit methane for placement. And of course we should make a different graphic since the ones they have would work better for the underwater cities on the underwater map.

Another interesting issue is any floating city would instantly become a coastal city meaning they have direct access to all sea trade routes. Bridges could be added so land units could travel over still.

 

[rightfuture]

All of you guys are impressing the heck out of me.(and yes that takes a lot). Please keep it up!!!!!

Love all of these ideas.

 

[primem0ver]

@primem0ver
2. Totally not true. One could have fish farms, algae farms, hydroponics, a desalination plant. Not to mention no city is completely isolated. Ships would continually trade with them to give the supplies they cannot make. In reality they could even move to other ports. However due to game limitations it would need to be immobile.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/floating-city1.htm

On the contrary... totally true. And that stupid ship is EXACTLY why it won't work. I am not putting it down because you brought it up. I have ALWAYS hated the cruise ship industry because they are a complete waste of natural resources and this monstrosity is the pinnacle of that stupidity. The thought that this ship is even in the works infuriates me.

The fact that it hasn't been built yet is a testament to its impracticality. Let's forget about the 11 billion dollar building costs. The operating cost alone would be over a billion dollars per year. And that thing could only hold the population of a small city. No company in their right mind other than a travel and resort company would ever invest in such a monstrosity for the purpose of something like a fish farm or other natural resources.

Just to give you an idea: the QE2 had 9 diesel engines where the "floating city" you point to will require at least 100. Those nine diesel engines burned 173.8 gallons of diesel fuel per mile (200 gallons per nautical mile). Now... multiply that by 11 and we have nearly 2000 gallons per mile. The cost of that much fuel using the international average fuel cost is just under $5 per gallon (we get gas cheaper because our currency is currently the international standard). The minimum fuel bill alone for such a vessel is nearly $10,000 per land mile. At this rate, a trip from New York to Miami would cost 10 Million dollars in fuel expenses alone!

Now consider that that vessel you linked me to would only hold around 50 thousand residents, the size of a small city with a CivIV population cap of around 5. Are you beginning to get the picture? Even converting it to nuclear power would not make it a financially viable option for a business interested in making money. Especially when all the resources that it creates have to be shipped off. Now let's look at those resources individually.

A desalinization plant? LOL

The only point of one of those would be to bring water to the city itself. And of course it would exist to do that. That also would be built into an underwater city. But their is no point to having a desalinization plant in the middle of an ocean to supply the land. The cost of transporting the water would render it completely useless. Particularly since similar plants can be built and maintained in coastal cities for a tiny fraction of the cost. At least in an underwater city, pipelines could be built along the sea tunnels, providing a much cheaper than the slow, inefficient method of transport by tanker ships.

As for hydroponics... there isn't much of an advantage here either since all water used in hydroponics must be desalinated and kept separate. The amount of resources, particularly real estate necessary to run a hydroponic garden on an artificial construct for anything other than self-reliance would render its profits nonexistent.

Finally... for fish farms. While such edifices will probably be built in the future, they will most certainly be built with minimized operating costs in mind. A city sized population to sustain such a facility would never even enter the mind of the company who wanted to build it. And again... it is more practical to build such facilities close to existing shores and their cities.

1. Surface ocean farming could be quite profitable. As for orbital again the zero G factor for say building spaceships or trade. However I would suspect in an orbital city they would have some sort of artificial gravity. Unless the people on it plan to never leave micro-gravity again.

2. I don't see why earth would need to be moved. Both are more like huge vehicles. Like a giant cruse ship.

3. Floating cities could run on solar, wave, tidal, wind or even more land based ones since its on the surface and exposed to air. Orbital would have to be either solar, nuclear or later non fusion.

4. Boats and Aircraft can still provide transportation to floating cities while spaceships to the orbital city.

5. Scientific discovery could be used for both orbital and floating cities. Especially if the city floated out in the deep ocean and we already have an orbital spcae lab on the international space station today.

I am not sure the purpose of the above statements. The original point of my second set of statements was to state why underwater cities would have an economic advantage as opposed to the other types you proposed. For example... my 2nd statement was to show the lack of economic drain that an underwater city would have over an underground city. The metric tonnes referred to the removal of earth necessary in the later.

I can see the desire for some to build underground cities to allow the natural earth to grow back. However, I don't ever seeing human beings coming to a point where that would happen. I consider myself somewhat of an environmentalist and I would never go to such extremes. And at least 45% of this country (and even more of the world) don't give a rats you know what about the environment. Not to say we shouldn't keep trying but I just don't see what you suggest ever happening. There are other, much more practical approaches to maintaining and even improving our environment.


@SO
What do you mean? Are you asking about multi-maps or the separate implementation of undersea cities?

 

[primem0ver]

Just because it was done by another mod doesn't mean C2C has to do it the same way. Having floating cities can use the same implementation as the Genetic Era's floating cities. And when mult-maps are done then we can add underground and underwater cities too. We should work with what we have but also plan ahead for when we can do other things beyond our current limits.

Things that we would not use from the genetic era involving floating cities would be no need to limit methane for placement. And of course we should make a different graphic since the ones they have would work better for the underwater cities on the underwater map.

Another interesting issue is any floating city would instantly become a coastal city meaning they have direct access to all sea trade routes. Bridges could be added so land units could travel over still.

No... things don't have to be done the same way. Unless there are few alternatives.

The Genetic Era mod DID NOT HAVE FLOATING CITIES. They were underwater cities.

And....

Methane NEEDS TO BE A REQUIREMENT FOR UNDERWATER CITIES TO BE VIABLE. Unless you have some other highly valuable resource in mind as well. For crying out loud... you guys act as though energy and money can be wished into existence!

1) Methane makes the underwater cities vast expense justifiable.
2) Methane supplies the underwater cities with much needed heat and energy.

 

[strategyonly]

@SO
What do you mean? Are you asking about multi-maps or the separate implementation of undersea cities?

I only look at the titles, so Underwater Cities Development area, thx.

 

[Hydromancerx]

The Genetic Era mod DID NOT HAVE FLOATING CITIES. They were underwater cities.

For all intensive purposes you may have had it called an underwater city and it and its techs could have acted like an underwater city but if it appears above the surface of the water on the map then it is a floating city. That was the main reason why they have not been implemented sooner is that the fact that the city graphic was not under the water. However as a floating city it would not have to. And a real underwater city could be done on an underwater/underground map. Sicne it would be sitting on the sea bed and would not have to be under the floor plane of the map either.

And....

Methane NEEDS TO BE A REQUIREMENT FOR UNDERWATER CITIES TO BE VIABLE. Unless you have some other highly valuable resource in mind as well. For crying out loud... you guys act as though energy and money can be wished into existence!

1) Methane makes the underwater cities vast expense justifiable.
2) Methane supplies the underwater cities with much needed heat and energy.

Methane is not the only way. You could have geothermal vents, tidal power or nuclear. later eras could have fusion. I wonder though if you got deep oil or natural gas if that would work too.

 

[Hydromancerx]

On the contrary...

1. Mobile floating cities would be less viable to move the larger they got. This is true based on the fuel type. However once you reached fusion then fuel and power would not be much of an issue.

A desalinization plant? LOL

2. This is assuming your city is not near the coast where it could get freshwater imported.

As for hydroponics...

3. An alternative if soil was not possible to import.

Finally... for fish farms.

4. Again if you have to be self reliant for long periods of time and you are in the ocean, it makes sense that fish farms could be built on or at the edges of the city.

I am not sure the purpose of the above statements. The original point of my second set of statements was to state why underwater cities would have an economic advantage as opposed to the other types you proposed. For example... my 2nd statement was to show the lack of economic drain that an underwater city would have over an underground city. The metric tonnes referred to the removal of earth necessary in the later.

5. I suppose you could always sell all that dirt to the floating cities for soil.

I can see the desire for some to build underground cities to allow the natural earth to grow back. However, I don't ever seeing human beings coming to a point where that would happen. I consider myself somewhat of an environmentalist and I would never go to such extremes. And at least 45% of this country (and even more of the world) don't give a rats you know what about the environment. Not to say we shouldn't keep trying but I just don't see what you suggest ever happening. There are other, much more practical approaches to maintaining and even improving our environment.

6. Well I should think that these cities should be very difficult to build. From a game perspective you are opening up areas that were once off limits. As for real life politics and economics, who is to say. However from a game perspective if I want to build a floating city or underground city I should be able to. We should allow even for a crazy dictator who wants to colonize the ocean with floating cities.

I mean look at Dubai. They make artificial islands for goodness sakes. If you have enough money, power and are crazy enough I don't see why a nation could not make them.

 

[MagnusIlluminus]

As Hydro mentions briefly above, arguing about the real-world economic viability of any of these concepts is silly and pointless, as they are all entirely theoretical. Yes, I know they are trying to build the city-ship, but it's not there yet, so we don't know if it's actually viable or not. IMHO, the discussion should not be about the real-world feasibility of these cities, as none of us knows that (have you built one in reality?), but how to incorporate them into the game.

Personally, looking only at real-world, modern day technology, I can understand the argument to require Methane as a resource. However, looking only at modern day, real-world technology, I don't think that any of what is proposed is possible. To me it seems that we will need at least a few advances in materials technology (to withstand the pressures), and miniaturization of current hydroponic and desalinization technologies (among others) before any of this is possible. Thus it stands to reason that by the time this is possible, we may have developed better energy technologies as well, and thus would not require Methane. Sure, it would still be helpful and a useful resource, but probably not required.

 

[Daedwartin]

As Hydro mentions briefly above, arguing about the real-world economic viability of any of these concepts is silly and pointless, as they are all entirely theoretical. Yes, I know they are trying to build the city-ship, but it's not there yet, so we don't know if it's actually viable or not. IMHO, the discussion should not be about the real-world feasibility of these cities, as none of us knows that (have you built one in reality?), but how to incorporate them into the game.

Personally, looking only at real-world, modern day technology, I can understand the argument to require Methane as a resource. However, looking only at modern day, real-world technology, I don't think that any of what is proposed is possible. To me it seems that we will need at least a few advances in materials technology (to withstand the pressures), and miniaturization of current hydroponic and desalinization technologies (among others) before any of this is possible. Thus it stands to reason that by the time this is possible, we may have developed better energy technologies as well, and thus would not require Methane. Sure, it would still be helpful and a useful resource, but probably not required.

To further this point, time travel is a tech later down for crying out loud...physic as we know it does not allow such a thing. Obviously to do it requires stupendous amounts of energy. It's Linda pointless to argue its not possible to do this with that fact

 

[rightfuture]

For all intensive purposes you may have had it called an underwater city and it and its techs could have acted like an underwater city but if it appears above the surface of the water on the map then it is a floating city. That was the main reason why they have not been implemented sooner is that the fact that the city graphic was not under the water. However as a floating city it would not have to. And a real underwater city could be done on an underwater/underground map. Since it would be sitting on the sea bed and would not have to be under the floor plane of the map either.

Methane is not the only way. You could have geothermal vents, tidal power or nuclear. later eras could have fusion. I wonder though if you got deep oil or natural gas if that would work too.

and don't forget
OTEC's and
Aquarius colonies which are both being considered or are in stages of active development.

OTEC - Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTEC
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) uses the temperature difference between cooler deep and warmer shallow or surface ocean waters to run a heat engine and produce useful work, usually in the form of electricity. However, the temperature differential is small and this impacts the economic feasibility of ocean thermal energy for electricity generation.

Most attempts talk about using converted old oil rigs, or floating super tankers to quickly make one.

Even a floating platform based on land could do

The most commonly used heat cycle for OTEC is the Rankine cycle using a low-pressure turbine. Systems may be either closed-cycle or open-cycle. Closed-cycle engines use a working fluids that are typically thought of as refrigerants such as ammonia or R-134a. Open-cycle engines use vapour from the seawater itself as the working fluid.

A heat engine gives greater efficiency when run with a large temperature difference. In the oceans the temperature difference between surface and deep water is greatest in the tropics, although still a modest 20 to 25 °C. It is therefore in the tropics that OTEC offers the greatest possibilities. OTEC has the potential to offer global amounts of energy that are 10 to 100 times greater than other ocean energy options such as wave power[citation needed]. OTEC plants can operate continuously providing a base load supply for an electrical power generation system.

They can be open, or closed systems

an idea of what a smaller scale closed OTEC could look like.

The main technical challenge of OTEC is to generate significant amounts of power efficiently from small temperature differences. It is still considered an emerging technology. Early OTEC systems were 1 to 3 percent thermally efficient, well below the theoretical maximum 6 and 7 percent for this temperature difference. Modern designs allow performance approaching the theoretical maximum Carnot efficiency and the largest built in 1999 by the USA generated 250 kW.


Attempts to develop and refine OTEC technology started in the 1880s. In 1881, Jacques Arsene d'Arsonval, a French physicist, proposed tapping the thermal energy of the ocean. D'Arsonval's student, Georges Claude, built the first OTEC plant, in Matanzas, Cuba in 1930. The system generated 22 kW of electricity with a low-pressure turbine.

Demonstration plants were first constructed in the 1880s and continue to be built, but no large-scale commercial plants are in operation, (yet, some are currently being built.)

(could also be useful as an early technology in the Alternate Steampunk Era along with the Difference Engine (Charles Babbage -which really should be the starting tech for Steampunk/early computers)!)

1970's View of a land based OTEC facility at Keahole Point on the Kona coast of Hawaii (United States Department of Energy)

This is real world technology people which is being developed by both private enterprise, Lockheed Martin, several billionaires, and Darpa today!



some of my posts on the subject:
1. From: Underwater cites àla "Call to Power"? thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11252222&highlight=otec#post11252222

I've been championing the idea of underwater cities for awhile here on C2C.

Spoiler :

Please share your love for them.

The Planetfall mod uses them.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=278
The Genetic Era mod (long since dead) developed them differently I believe.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=184182
the other ideas and code here is probably somewhat useful as well.

There is a lot of potential in developing the oceans, from underwater zoos, to sea colonies, to harvesting methane, rare minerals, to growing kelp, algae for food, exploring the depths, like the television series Seaquest DSV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaQuest_DSV

I would suggest some other good sources to pull ideas.
The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps
www.amazon.com/Millennial-Project-Colonizing-Galaxy-Eight/dp/0316771635
Great book by the way. I own it.
The material here would be fascinating to use for the Transhuman through Galactic eras.
The Aquarius sea colonies alone are interesting for the Transhuman era.
The OTEC or Ocean -Thermal -Energy - Conversion technology shows great promise in changing energy and food production for the world. Darpa is currently building a major project with the technology today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/11/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-otec.html
Most of the ideas in the Millennial project are based in real science.

Here are some other good sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennial_Project:_Colonizing_the_Galaxy_in_Eight_Easy_Steps
http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=i...l6437l0l6679l21l19l0l0l0l0l190l1597l17.2l19l0

Spoiler :

Why we are on that subject. Here are some other great sources to consider:
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
https://www.google.com/search?q=the...QWzn9nmAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CGMQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=728
http://oceania.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zeitgeist_Movement
http://www.amazon.com/Rifts-Underseas-World-Book/dp/091621172X
http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Underwater-Sourcebook-Roleplaying-Supplement/dp/1932374124
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/atlantis/
I only have so much time,
Can anyone help me go through these for good ideas for C2C?

Spoiler :

2. From: C2C - Galactic Era thread
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11252236&highlight=otec#post11252236

Here are some really good ideas and real world technology that would be good to consider for the Galactic Era (as well as the Transhuman or Alternate ones)

The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps
http://www.amazon.com/Millennial-Pro.../dp/0316771635
Great book by the way. It is one of my favorites.
The Aquarius sea colonies alone are interesting for the Transhuman era.
The OTEC or Ocean -Thermal -Energy - Conversion technology shows great promise in changing energy and food production for the world. Darpa is currently building a major project with the technology today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_t...rgy_conversion
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/11/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-otec.html
Most of the ideas in the Millennial project are based in real science.

Here are some other good sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mil...ght_Easy_Steps
http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...1597l17.2l19l0
I hope this is inspirational, please chime in on what you like and want to see in C2C.
I believe is worth your time to browse for some great ideas.

also check out
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
https://www.google.com/search?q=the+...w=1920&bih=728

3. I've mentioned OTEC technology several times before.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11744309&highlight=otec#post11744309

I've mentioned OTEC technology several times before. I think it should be eventually included because it has so much potential to generate power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTEC
The engineering challenges are similar to offshore oilrigs. It will be no more hard than mining the sea floor, and the first attempt to do that started this year.

Everything I've read about the OTEC technology says that is has a lot more potential than Solar Updraft Towers.
DARPA is currently building an OTEC, and there have been several attempts to start it by billionaires, in the Phillipines, and Hawaii I believe.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/otec.html
http://www.otecnews.org/
http://hinmrec.hnei.hawaii.edu/ongoing-projects/otec-thermal-resource/
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/otec/docs/otectech1109.pdf
http://www.energysavers.gov/renewable_energy/ocean/index.cfm/mytopic=50010
Just to prove how serious they are taking it.
Many corporations are starting to consider pursuing it today.

I've mentioned the book and organization that it inspired several times.
The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps
http://www.amazon.com/The-Millennial-Project-Colonizing-Galaxy/dp/0316771635

Like in Gerald K O'Neill's, The High Frontier
http://www.amazon.com/High-Frontier-Human-Colonies-Apogee/dp/189652267X
There are lot's of plausible and great ideas, in both books, that should be considered in every attempt to colonize space (and the oceans). C2C deserves as much.
OTEC is actually as big a deal as geothermal energy, and is a proven technology that is seriously being developed. It can actually solve most of the world's energy problems on it's own.
Check out the energy generation potential with just simple deployment.

The only thing I don't agree with is just dropping technologies just because you didn't make enough room for them.
I'm all for 'more', and I agree with adding/removing these with some level of caution, but can't some of these ideas be moved to a 'potential' list so they can be considered for other versions.

I'm really against the idea of have a sparse near future, since there are so many potential ideas for technologies, and different scenarios. Nobody is going to be completely sure when some of these technologies will be actually possible.

4. From: C2C - Transhuman Era thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11744404&highlight=otec#post11744404

Well the Solar Updraft Tower [Wonder] is already in the game if we need to move it to a new tech. Its currently requires Ecology, Solar Power and Megastructure Engineering.

I don't see why we cannot just use combo tech requirements and do the same for some sort of Ocean Thermal Power Plant (maybe with a better name).

OTEC is what everybody calls it. Most people haven't heard about it yet.
It can also do some serious desalinization of water, and algae can be grown for food (in large noticeable quantities) along with it.
energy production - One study estimates power generation costs as low as US $0.07 per kilowatt-hour, compared with $0.05 - $0.07 for subsidized wind systems. Others do much better.
+2 food
fresh water

OTEC has uses other than power production.
Aquaculture
Air conditioning
Chilled-soil agriculture
Desalination
Hydrogen production
Mineral extraction
(per wikipedia)

I'm sure we can find a place for it eventually, as a building if not as a separate technology.

@rightfuture

Sounds cool. So would it be better as a wonder, national wonder or regular building?

Here are some other Civfanatic conversations on Otecs:
The Scientific Biofuel Debate.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=261807&highlight=otec

and

Fusion Power Question
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=167502&highlight=otec

Lambast my idea (or invest in it!)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=176259&highlight=otec
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=164536&highlight=otec

and some reference links from wikipedia

http://otecfoundation.org/
http://otecnews.com/
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/otec.html
http://www.makai.com/e-otec.htm
http://www.bluerise.nl/
http://www.ocees.com
http://www.OTEC.ws

(yes - these could be their own topics and threads, feel free to add your thoughts and discussion.)

 

[rightfuture]

OTEC is a serious technology posed to provide a massive scaling of energy production and shows tremendous potential for food production and building of floating sea colonies.

But the real discussion here should be about all types of sea colonies: Floating, hybrid, underwater, and bottom.
I would like to take a second to focus on the Aquarius or floating ones:

In the 1970's, a book popularized the idea of OTEC's and Floating sea colonies, (known as Aquarius colonies),

http://www.amazon.com/The-Millennial-Project-Colonizing-Galaxy/dp/0316771635

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennial_Project:_Colonizing_the_Galaxy_in_Eight_Easy_Steps
(note that the book is serious, and is plausible based on 1970's technologies, they actually inspired efforts which are just getting noticed today.
This book could be useful in the Galactic Era and Transhuman Era threads, as well as inspire some development in the alternate eras, like Steampunk (what if it was completely developed in the 1800's) and I'm sure everyone was aware of the video game series Bioshock! Rapture (utopian city) anyone?

It has spawned several organizations with (thousands of supporters) that have flown below the public radar for the last 40 years.

Aquarius Colonies:

http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Aquarius

This model showcases the "tectonic" architecture envisoned for late-stage Aquarius settlements.
(yes actual project)

Yes people are serious, have you all missed all the seriously ambitious actual news lately on similar type projects, asteroid mining, actual mars colony, actual tourist flights, moon colony within 10 years, etc.
(I will fill in the actual news, not the near future speculative stuff here later.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennial_Project:_Colonizing_the_Galaxy_in_Eight_Easy_Steps

http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2008/01/energy-islands-are-floating-modular.html

http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Aquarian_Colony_Design_Concepts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_habitat#Aquarius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology

so the fiction of the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000's and today is steadily and quickly becoming real.
You should look back as well as ahead to see what could/should be explored.

I am a big fan of being able to explore all of them in C2C. Whether or not different futures become real.

(yes, I'm adding my list of links here(next post of course)(more coming), yes all of them!)
List of my links:

Yes - these could be their own topics and threads, feel free to add your thoughts and discussion. Please add your own:
ack! meant to submit this as a followup post for followup on floating cities, underwater cities, and Aquarius colonies - will finish filling in later. I meant to flesh these out before submitting.

 

[primem0ver]

For all intensive purposes you may have had it called an underwater city and it and its techs could have acted like an underwater city but if it appears above the surface of the water on the map then it is a floating city. That was the main reason why they have not been implemented sooner is that the fact that the city graphic was not under the water. However as a floating city it would not have to. And a real underwater city could be done on an underwater/underground map. Sicne it would be sitting on the sea bed and would not have to be under the floor plane of the map either.

No... not true. The graphics for Warlords were not as conclusive since they didn't have a water surface texture except at the shorelines. The only thing that made them appear above the surface was their height. But it was obvious they were not floating, that they were anchored to the sea floor. In addition, the fact that one could not attack underwater cities with anything other than ships or units in a sea tunnel made it obvious that they were underwater.

Methane is not the only way. You could have geothermal vents, tidal power or nuclear. later eras could have fusion. I wonder though if you got deep oil or natural gas if that would work too.

I will buy the geothermal vent idea. But tidal power will not work below water. Fusion is iffy. It would allow for cheaper production of energy but still would not provide sufficient reason for the underwater city to be built. Unless it was discovered that deep ocean water was more deuterium rich than water at the surface.

I only look at the titles, so Underwater Cities Development area, thx.

No work has been done on this because no one other than ls612 has specifically stated that they want it done without layers. I do as well. I like the idea of layers for graphical purposes but do not think it is the best approach for game play reasons.

As Hydro mentions briefly above, arguing about the real-world economic viability of any of these concepts is silly and pointless, as they are all entirely theoretical. Yes, I know they are trying to build the city-ship, but it's not there yet, so we don't know if it's actually viable or not. IMHO, the discussion should not be about the real-world feasibility of these cities, as none of us knows that (have you built one in reality?), but how to incorporate them into the game.

Personally, looking only at real-world, modern day technology, I can understand the argument to require Methane as a resource. However, looking only at modern day, real-world technology, I don't think that any of what is proposed is possible. To me it seems that we will need at least a few advances in materials technology (to withstand the pressures), and miniaturization of current hydroponic and desalinization technologies (among others) before any of this is possible. Thus it stands to reason that by the time this is possible, we may have developed better energy technologies as well, and thus would not require Methane. Sure, it would still be helpful and a useful resource, but probably not required.

You are right. My argument isn't about feasibility. I believe it could be done. My argument is about it being commercially sustainable. A floating city would be financially in debt before it began as a city and would never crawl out of that debt because it would cost more than it could produce.

Actually Hydro... I was thinking about it last night after I posted my objection and I decided there may be two scenarios in which your floating city could work. Any situation where it didn't require fuel to correct it's position. This would include:

1. Any place where it could be anchored to the continental shelf
2. Any place where the mid-ocean ridge was shallow enough to be anchored too (such as near Iceland).

Any floating city that was not anchored however would not be a commercially viable option.


@MagnusIlluminus
I agree with you that such technology does not exist currently. However, since this is a mod with far reaching futuristic techs, it is possible that the technology could be developed.

However... even with such technology, the laws of nature cannot be ignored. No matter how much energy costs, there will be a huge money sinkhole in maintaining any floating city that is not anchored somehow. Again, there is no reason (other than an idealistic environmental one) to build an underground city in a place where an above ground city does not exist. So if we are going to stack cities, there is no point in separating them into layers.

To further this point, time travel is a tech later down for crying out loud...physic as we know it does not allow such a thing. Obviously to do it requires stupendous amounts of energy. It's Linda pointless to argue its not possible to do this with that fact

In my opinion/belief, Einstein is not the only reason time travel is impossible. There are many scientific and para-scientific issues that make time travel an impossibility that scientists sometimes overlook.

The most obvious one overlooked is that it would violate the law of conservation of mass. The universal gravitational constant would no longer be constant if matter could actually move through time since it depends on the amount of matter in the given universe at any moment. Moving matter backward through time would make it so that more matter can exist in the beginning than the end of the universe. And if moved forward, more matter would exist in the end of the universe than in the middle or beginning.

There are many other issues with time travel. More importantly (for some): from a game perspective: any tech that allows such a thing in the game would not have a real application in the game.

 

[Hydromancerx]

I don't see why we cannot just use combo tech requirements and do the same for some sort of Ocean Thermal Power Plant (maybe with a better name).

Now that's a cool idea. I should add that as a type of coastal power plant.

However... even with such technology, the laws of nature cannot be ignored. No matter how much energy costs, there will be a huge money sinkhole in maintaining any floating city that is not anchored somehow. Again, there is no reason (other than an idealistic environmental one) to build an underground city in a place where an above ground city does not exist. So if we are going to stack cities, there is no point in separating them into layers.

- Preparation for Nuclear War. If all the surface cities are wiped out and you don't want the enemy to know where your city is it would be beneficial to not hide it under your existing cities.

- Along the same vein such as Cheyenne Mountain where they hide their city-like bunker under a mountain.

- Pollution in your part of the world is so bad that going to the surface is harmful.

- You live in an arid desert region and its just to hot on the surface. Sandstorms cover up your surface cities so your better off making them underground.

- You have a Lunar or Martian base and do not want to be exposed to harmful surface radiation. Having some dirt between you and the surface allows you to still be able to have babies and avoid cancer.

Any floating city that was not anchored however would not be a commercially viable option.

What if it was free drifting? And only needed a massive fleet of tugboats if it got too close to the shore? If it had rudders it might even be guidable on the sea currents.

 

[MagnusIlluminus]

I can think of three very very good reasons to build a subterranean city in a location that does not have a surface city above it. These reasons are not exclusive and can easily overlap.

The first reason is strategic. I do agree that the majority of underground cities, should they ever actually develop, will be under existing cities. However, there would be strategic military value in having such a city not be under an existing one specifically because most people will assume that all such underground cities are under surface cities. Admittedly, such a city would probably be a glorified military base, probably with bunkers to house important political persons in case of military invasion, severe bombing, or other disaster. However, even a military base needs support personnel, families often come along, brothels happen, etc.

If one or more Resources were discovered in a deep location and close proximity where mining/drilling were economically and/or physically impossible. This type of city would start as just a remote outpost to exploit the resource(s), but could develop by adding processing facilities, shipping facilities, and all of the support necessary for human existence. Kind of a Sci-Fi version of an old west mining town that prospered and became a real city.

If a city was needed, or just desired, in a location where the surface terrain cannot support a city (such as a chain of mountains, extensive desert, or a glacier). Surface population pressures could easily warrant building a city in such locations. It wouldn't surprise me if China or India were considering such cities even now.

---
I do agree with you about Time Travel, in game anyway. It just would not be possible to allow units to travel back in time, well not unless there are several dedicated Viewports, one for each era. That seems wasteful to me though. However, what it could do in game is allow for the harvesting of resources/creatures from deep in the past. Yes, I can hear the arguments now about that causing disruptions in history, etc. In game, we'd just have to make sure that the resources/creatures harvested this way were ones that were not used by the Civs at the time. They would have to be of the type found in that region. As for breaking the 'laws' of conservation of matter, etc, they would be better described as theories, especially in this case as there is no way to test them. Obviously, if some future humanity ever does figure out how to time travel, they will have learned things that prove that much of what we think we know today is Just Plain Wrong. Rather like how today we know that the Earth is round(ish) rather than flat as much of the ancient world thought. Even if they weren't harvesting whole resources, they could perhaps 'sample' or 'read' the DNA of the plant/animal so as to recreate it in that future setting. "Bears went extinct 200 years ago? No problem, we'll just send back a probe, read the DNA of an ancient Bear, and recreate it now."

 

[johny smith]

I know there is the Dubai project or whatever dreamed large scale ideas for using the water. But there is more practical projects that are creating hybrid plants to live on salt water. One is for farming the ocean, and the other is because the expected rise of the ocean with fewer fresh water supplies. The saltwater plants on land are just as said. The plants in the ocean have been proposed as biofuels and food. The impact on the natural environment is not usually investigated.

I do not have a link, but I do know some of these plants are being tested in Baja California as I type this for use on the land and being irrigated with saltwater. So I certainly do not feel hydroponics is a waste because it is already used to raised plants to later transplant into soil. At this point though there is nothing truly seen to grow large plants without any soil though. If someone is a Botanist I would like to know more though.

Also how long in the future are we talking? I do not believe this will in the near future for underwater. I believe we will be colonizing space at the same time we colonize underwater areas. I do think we may begin to alter plants and search for resources to bring back to land in the near future. Basically I am saying the cost of the materials for permanent underwater or floating cities will be equivalent to going to space.

 

[johny smith]

Just show I am not full of it. Here is a link. I am sure if I looked more I could find a better article.

We Learn to Grow Crops in Saltwater
http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/16/we-learn-to-grow-crops-in-saltwater/