Modular iceberg creation by submersibles

Blue Iceberg, Rødefjord, Northeast Greenland National Park

?

The ice in glaciers has been under enormous pressure for eons. The compression eliminates air and reflective surfaces within the ice.

Year: 2014


Photographer: Peter Prokosch

References

Arctic sea ice extent has rapidly decreased over the last few decades, with most multi-year ice disappearing altogether. This has already had major effects on local communities and ecosystems. The disappearance of the relatively reflective sea ice also leads to a dramatic decrease of albedo in the Arctic and subsequent high energy uptakes by the darker water during the Arctic summers.

In 2019, an Indonesian design team came up with the idea of a submersible device that could take in sea water, desalinate it, and then have it freeze into a solid block they called a “new ice baby” (Griffiths, 2019). Although the idea received a second prize in a 2019 international design competition, and the related video gained much media attention, it is not clear what exactly the designers tried to achieve with their device. Most likely these modular icebergs would replace Arctic sea ice, but it is not specified how this would be done. In the project’s description, the designers explain they see this as an analogue to tree planting programs in tropical forests, without stating how this would have climate positive effects. Moreover, they confuse the Arctic and Antarctic several times, and seem to be unaware of the basics of sea ice physics.

Technological Readiness Level (TRL)

Low 1

This idea only exists on a drawing board, and no serious research has been done.

Technological Readiness Level (TRL)

A technology with a TRL of 1-3: TRL 1 – Basic; TRL 2 – Concept formulated; TRL 3 – Experimental proof of concept

Scalability

Low 1

0

Scalability

Physically unable to scale; sub-linear/logarithmic efficiency of scalability

Timeliness for near-future effects

Low 1

0

Timeliness for near-future effects

Implemented too late to make a significant difference

Northern + Arctic potential

Low 1

0

Northern + Arctic potential

No noticeable extra positive effect beyond the global average; technology is unsuited to the Arctic

Global potential

Low 1

0

Global potential

Insignificant to be detected at a global scale

Cost - benefit

High 1

Thousands of such devices would be needed, generating equal concerns about costs, sustainability, and possible ways to transport. Furthermore, these submersibles would require energy, and although the design features solar panels, it is not sure how these would work.

Cost - benefit

Cost of investment comparable to cost of avoided damage

Environmental risks

Medium 2

0

Environmental risks

More widespread and possibly regional impacts that extend beyond the immediate solution deployment location

Community impacts

Neutral 2

0

Community impacts

Unnoticeable or negligible positive or negative effects

Ease of reversibility

Easy 3

0

Ease of reversibility

Easily reversible naturally

Risk of termination shock

Low 3

0

Risk of termination shock

Low or insignificant termination shock or damage

Legality/governance

Medium 2

0

Legality/governance

Fits within existing structures to a certain degree, but some policy changes are needed to deploy at scale

Scientific/media attention

Low 1

Although the project has not been developed further, it is still relatively frequently mentioned in blog posts and less critical news media.

Scientific/media attention

Very low attention from individuals and/or abandoned ideas; low media attention; no commercial interest.

References

Griffiths, A. 2019. Iceberg-making submarine aims to tackle global warming by re-freezing the Arctic. Dezeen. 27 July 2019. https://www.dezeen.com/2019/07/27/refreezing-the-arctic-geoengineering-design-climate-change [Accessed 8 July 2024]

Related ideas