316 is used commercially for tanks in ocean-going product tankers, its not THAT bad! But sure, maybe restrict it to skinning.
My other concern with 316 in a seastead is hydrogen embrittlement when around batteries with aqueous electrolytes.
Probably shouldn't have said "best all-rounder" :-p that was asking for trouble.
(But it is! :-p Just not best at everything).
Tanks inside aren't subject to as much stress as the hull of a ship, since they are usually made to be pressurized or work in tension. With stainless you have to be a lot more careful of temperature gradients placing stress on joints/fastening.
I'm just not a fan of stainless as structural parts. I weld enough stainless used in various safety related systems to just hate it. Customers wonder why the parts come out so funky, when they are requiring at least 5x too much weld on pieces and don't understand that stainless warps way more than carbon steels. I think you could make it work, though, but it would require better engineers than I'm used to working with to pull it off.
Proper venting would reduce/eliminate any hydrogen concerns, especially if you double or triple seal the batteries, or use sealed batteries for a majority of your power storage.
LOL true, re stainless.
Re batteries, you are correct, but sadly a seastead isn't subject to military or even commercial discipline. Some bored teenager or suburban dad is going to remove / disable the fan or barrier features, and embrittlement is nontrivial to pick up. We need not just idiot proof but owner-proof
Oh. You're talking about building stuff for other people. Eff that. I'm a pretty seriously competent idiot, but I know they make industrisl trade idiots that put me to shame. I would not want to try to design and build something so complicated as a seastead and then let other people try to not break it.
If they sign a contract and end up with a cracked hull because they didn't do the thing they were supposed to do, that is not your fault.
ROFL
In a seastead, they're probably moored to my vessel and several more. And while I'd like to cut them loose and let them sink, Murphy's Law says the guy who does this will be the nephew of the Secretary of the Navy and the only reason we've not been blown up yet as a "hazard to navigation" :-D
Meeeeh. Fine.
Use as many passively redundant systems as possible, coupled with stupidly redundant fail over monitoring. My brain hurts thinking about the wiring system just for that alone. I'd rather build a car from scratch... LOL
