Scale & Dimensions — How Big Does The Claw Need To Be?
Scale & Dimensions — How Big Does The Claw Need To Be?
Everything starts here. The platform size is dictated by how much plastic you can collect, how fast you can process it, and what equipment fits on deck. Work backward from the ocean to the spec sheet.
1. How Much Plastic Is Available?
GPGP Inventory
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Total estimated mass | 79,000–100,000 tonnes | Lebreton et al., 2018 |
| Annual new input | ~2,700 tonnes/year | Estimated from gyre circulation models |
| Area covered | ~1.6 million km² | Variable — shifts seasonally |
| Mean concentration | ~50 kg/km² (highly variable) | Ranges from <1 to >500 kg/km² in hotspots |
| Composition by mass | ~64% megaplastics (>50cm), ~20% macroplastics, ~16% meso/micro | Lebreton et al., 2018 |
| Dominant material | 87–96% polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) | Multiple studies |
The Bottleneck Is Collection, Not Processing
This is the single most important insight for sizing The Claw. There is no shortage of plastic in the GPGP — there are 80,000+ tonnes sitting there. The constraint is how fast you can physically gather it from the ocean surface.
2. Realistic Collection Rates
What The Ocean Cleanup Actually Collects
The best real-world data comes from System 03, the most advanced ocean collection system ever deployed:
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| System 03 barrier length | 2,200m (towed between two vessels) |
| Tow speed | ~1.5 knots (0.77 m/s) |
| Peak collection rate | 75–100 kg/hour |
| Average extraction yield | 10–15 tonnes per extraction (every 3–4 days) |
| Record single haul | 158,757 kg (Nov 2025) |
| Total GPGP collection (all systems, 5+ years) | ~500 tonnes |
| Estimated annual collection (System 03, 6-month season) | ~200–300 tonnes |
Stationary Platform Collection Estimates
A stationary platform faces a fundamentally different physics problem — the current brings plastic to you, not the other way around. GPGP centre currents are 0.05–0.15 m/s, roughly 5–15x slower than System 03's tow speed.
| Scenario | Passive Booms | Drone Fleet (20 units) | Total | Daily Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | 11 t/yr | 300 t/yr | 311 t/yr | ~0.9 TPD |
| Moderate | 443 t/yr | 912 t/yr | 1,355 t/yr | ~3.7 TPD |
| Optimistic | 4,825 t/yr | 2,000 t/yr | 6,825 t/yr | ~18.7 TPD |
The Complementary Model — Platform as Processing Hub
The strongest collection scenario isn't purely passive. If The Claw serves as a processing hub for Ocean Cleanup-style towed collection vessels, throughput jumps dramatically:
| Model | Annual Collection | Daily Average |
|---|---|---|
| Platform passive + drones only | 1,355 t/yr | 3.7 TPD |
| + 1 towed system delivering to platform | +300 t/yr | +0.8 TPD |
| + 2 towed systems (dedicated) | +600 t/yr | +1.6 TPD |
| + 4 towed systems (dedicated fleet) | +1,200 t/yr | +3.3 TPD |
| Combined moderate + 2 towed systems | ~1,955 t/yr | ~5.4 TPD |
| Combined optimistic + 4 towed systems | ~8,025 t/yr | ~22 TPD |
3. Processing Rate Targets
Working backward from collection:
| Target | Daily Rate | Annual (75% uptime) | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum viable | 5 TPD | ~1,369 t/yr | Matches moderate passive collection. Single PAWDS-class unit. |
| Match annual input | 10 TPD | ~2,738 t/yr | Removes plastic faster than it enters the GPGP. Inflection point. |
| Meaningful cleanup | 25 TPD | ~6,844 t/yr | ~7–9% of GPGP per year. Matches InEnTec G100P capacity. |
| Ambitious | 50 TPD | ~13,688 t/yr | 14–17% of GPGP per year. Requires multiple processing lines. |
| Full-scale (10-year cleanup) | 100 TPD | ~27,375 t/yr | Cleans GPGP in ~3–4 years. Requires massive collection infrastructure. |
Reality Check: Collection vs Processing Mismatch
| Processing Capacity | Collection Needed | Can We Collect That Much? |
|---|---|---|
| 5 TPD | 1,825 t/yr | Yes — moderate passive + drones |
| 10 TPD | 3,650 t/yr | Possible — optimistic passive or moderate + towed fleet |
| 25 TPD | 9,125 t/yr | Requires dedicated towed fleet + optimistic passive |
| 50 TPD | 18,250 t/yr | Far exceeds any current collection capability |
| 100 TPD | 36,500 t/yr | Would require 10+ dedicated towed systems feeding the platform |
4. Equipment Space Requirements
Processing Equipment (Plasma Gasification)
| Component | Footprint | Height | Weight | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PAWDS unit (5 TPD) | <65 m² | ~6m | ~20 tonnes | Compact, proven marine. Single unit. |
| InEnTec G100P (25 TPD) | ~400–800 m² | ~10m | ~100–200 t | Land-proven only. Includes molten glass bath. |
| Pre-processing (shredder, dewatering) | 200–500 m² | ~5m | 50–100 t | Required regardless of reactor choice |
| Syngas cleaning + capture | 200–400 m² | ~8m | 30–80 t | Scrubbers, coolers, compressors |
| Gas turbine / genset (5–10 MW) | 100–300 m² | ~4m | 50–100 t | Power from syngas |
Support Systems
| System | Footprint | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Crew quarters (30–50 people) | 500–1,500 m² | Cabins, galley, medical, rec. 28/28 rotation. |
| Control room / operations | 100–200 m² | DCS, communications, monitoring |
| Workshop / maintenance | 200–400 m² | Welding, electrical, mechanical shops |
| Crane operations (2x heavy-lift) | 200–400 m² | Boom deployment, supply vessel ops, collection handling |
| Helipad | 400–600 m² | S-92 capable. Emergency evac only. |
| Fuel storage (60-day diesel reserve) | Included in hull tanks | ~3,600 m³ |
| Fresh water (RO desalination) | 50–100 m² | 20–40 m³/day |
| Hydrogen storage (if exporting) | 200–500 m² | Compressed gas tanks at 350 bar |
| Collection system interface | 300–600 m² | Receiving deck, sorting, conveyor to processing |
| Boom arm deployment/stowage | 200–500 m² | Retractable boom arms, winches |
Total Deck Area Requirements
| Phase | Processing | Support | Collection | Buffer | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 (5 TPD, PAWDS) | ~500 m² | ~2,000 m² | ~500 m² | 30% | ~3,900 m² |
| Phase 2 (10–25 TPD) | ~1,500 m² | ~2,500 m² | ~700 m² | 30% | ~6,100 m² |
| Phase 3 (50 TPD) | ~3,000 m² | ~3,000 m² | ~1,000 m² | 30% | ~9,100 m² |
| Full-scale (100 TPD) | ~5,000 m² | ~4,000 m² | ~1,500 m² | 30% | ~13,650 m² |
5. Platform Size by Phase
Phase 1 — Proof of Concept (~3,900 m² needed)
| Platform Option | Deck Area Available | Fits? | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Large barge (100m × 30m) | ~3,000 m² | Tight | Minimal margin, no growth room |
| Aframax tanker conversion | 5,500–8,000 m² | Yes | Room for Phase 2 equipment pre-positioning |
| Suezmax tanker conversion | 8,000–12,000 m² | Yes | Comfortable with growth room |
| Semi-submersible | 3,000–5,000 m² | Marginal | Depends on specific unit |
Phase 2–3 — Scaling Up (~6,100–9,100 m² needed)
| Platform Option | Deck Area Available | Fits? | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suezmax tanker conversion | 8,000–12,000 m² | Yes | Handles Phase 2, tight for Phase 3 |
| VLCC tanker conversion | 12,000–18,000 m² | Yes | Handles everything through Phase 3 |
| Spar platform | 5,000–10,000 m² | Marginal–Yes | Custom-built, very stable |
Full-Scale — (~13,650 m² needed)
Only a VLCC or purpose-built platform fits full-scale 100 TPD operations. But this capacity requires collection infrastructure (dedicated towed fleet) that won't exist in Phase 1 anyway. The processing plant should grow with collection capability.
6. Crew Size
| Phase | Processing Staff | Marine/Deck | Maintenance | Operations/Admin | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 (5 TPD) | 6–8 | 6–8 | 4–6 | 4–6 | 20–28 |
| Phase 2 (25 TPD) | 12–16 | 8–10 | 6–8 | 6–8 | 32–42 |
| Phase 3 (50 TPD) | 18–24 | 10–12 | 8–10 | 6–8 | 42–54 |
| Full-scale (100 TPD) | 30–40 | 12–16 | 10–14 | 8–10 | 60–80 |
7. Positioning — Where In The Patch?
The GPGP is not a uniform soup. Like a hurricane, density increases exponentially toward the centre. The battle map shows this gradient clearly:
| Zone | Area | Density | Current Speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core | ~100,000 km² | 100–428+ kg/km² | Near-zero (0.01–0.05 m/s) |
| Inner GPGP | ~500,000 km² | 10–100 kg/km² | Slow (0.05–0.15 m/s) |
| Outer GPGP | ~1.6M km² | 1–10 kg/km² | Moderate (0.1–0.3 m/s) |
The Density-vs-Delivery Tradeoff
The densest plastic is at the centre — but the centre has the weakest currents. For a stationary platform relying on current to deliver plastic, this is a direct conflict:
- Centre position: Maximum plastic density, but currents near zero. Passive booms collect almost nothing because nothing is moving. You'd depend entirely on drone collection.
- Inner ring position: Lower density but stronger currents. Passive booms actually work because water is moving at 0.05–0.15 m/s, pushing plastic along the boom faces.
- Edge position: Lowest density, strongest currents, closest to supply ports. Most efficient passive collection per metre of boom — but you're fishing in thin water.
Can We Get There?
Yes — nothing stops a floating platform from being towed into the centre. It's open ocean, no reefs, no shipping lanes, no territorial boundaries (international waters beyond any EEZ). An FPSO or spar gets towed into position by ocean-going tugs, same as every offshore platform ever deployed. Typical tow speed: 4–6 knots. From Singapore: ~3,500 nm = ~25–35 days tow. From Honolulu: ~1,000 nm = ~7–10 days tow.
There is no physical barrier to entry. The challenge is not getting there — it's staying there (mooring at 4,500m) and getting supplies there (1,000 nm from Hawaii).
Recommended Positioning Strategy
Start in the inner ring (~30–33°N, 143–148°W), not dead centre. Reasons:
1. Currents of 0.05–0.15 m/s actually deliver plastic to passive booms — dead centre doesn't 2. Still high density (10–100 kg/km²), with hotspots reaching core-level concentrations 3. Slightly closer to Hawaii for supply logistics 4. Ocean Cleanup's System 03 operates in this zone (~29.9°N, 148.0°W) — proven plastic availability 5. Can deploy collection drones into the core zone on sorties, returning plastic to the platform
A semi-mobile capability (thruster-assist) would allow seasonal repositioning to track hotspot migration without full mooring relocation.
8. The Key Finding
Start small, design for growth.
- Phase 1 processing (5 TPD) matches realistic collection rates
- Phase 1 fits on an Aframax or Suezmax hull — cheaper than a VLCC
- If collection exceeds expectations, add processing capacity on the same hull
- If the project proves out, upgrade to a VLCC hull for Phase 3+
- The 100 TPD "full-scale" scenario requires a collection fleet that doesn't exist yet — don't overbuild processing for plastic that can't reach the platform
Recommended Phase 1 Spec
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Hull | Aframax or Suezmax conversion |
| Length | 230–290m |
| Beam | 32–48m |
| Deck area | 5,500–12,000 m² |
| Processing | 1× PAWDS or small PEM (5 TPD) |
| Power | 3–5 MW from syngas + diesel backup |
| Crew | 20–28 on-platform (40–56 total) |
| Collection | 4 retractable boom arms (300m each) + 10 drone fleet |
| Hull cost | $20–50M |
| Total Phase 1 CAPEX | $150–350M (excl. mooring) |
| Mooring | $220–440M (same regardless of hull) |
Analysis compiled March 2026. Based on Ocean Cleanup System 03 performance data, GPGP composition research (Lebreton et al.), InEnTec/PyroGenesis specifications, FPSO conversion market data, and collection system engineering estimates from The Claw knowledge base.