English 
Spanish 
5 min read
6 comments
An ambitious startup plans to use underwater drones to refreeze the Arctic, proposing a radical climate solution estimated to cost $10 trillion annually.
As the Arctic melts at an alarming rate, scientists are exploring drastic measures to prevent the collapse of this crucial ecosystem. But is this the wisest choice?
While some experts defend geoengineering as a necessary risk, others fear it distracts from the real goal: reduce carbon emissions.
A solution to the Arctic feedback loop
As Arctic ice melts, the exposed ocean absorbs more heat, further accelerating the thawing process.
- US scientists create strongest ever armor material with 100 trillion bonds
- Bracell Uses Cutting-Edge Technology to Fight Wildfires and Protect the Environment
- No Volkswagen, Toyota or BYD: Brazil's most modern automotive factory belongs to the company that is often overlooked by Brazilians
- Iron Dome: The incredible invisible wall that protects Israel from thousands of missiles and revolutionizes global defense
To combat this cycle, researchers at Cambridge University Climate Repair Centre, in partnership with the startup Real Ice, are developing an innovative approach: pumping seawater over existing ice to increase its thickness.
Andrea Ceccolini, CEO of Real Ice, explains: “Our field tests over the past two years show that 'ice thickness' is an effective way to stimulate additional ice growth on top of existing sea ice."
An underwater drone and thicker Arctic ice
Since 1979, the Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the global average. This not only raises sea levels, but also reduces the region’s cooling effect, worsening global warming.
Real Ice believes it has a solution to reverse the situation.
The startup is developing underwater drones powered by green hydrogen that can drill into the ice and spray seawater onto its surface. This water freezes, forming a thicker top layer.
Ceccolini highlights the potential of this approach: “By flooding and freezing the snowpack, which normally insulates sea ice, we can stimulate additional ice growth at the base.”
Colossal challenges
The proposal faces major hurdles. First, it needs to prove that the technology works on a large scale. Then there is the challenge of securing funding and scaling the operation to ocean levels.
It is estimated that it would take 10 million wind pumps just to thicken the ice across one-tenth of the Arctic. “On a small scale, pumping water and forming new ice is simple,” says Ceccolini. “But scaling that up to the extreme conditions of an Arctic winter is the biggest challenge.”
The ultimate goal, however, is to create an ice sheet thick enough to survive the summer. However, the effectiveness of this approach has yet to be proven.
First tests and futuristic plans
In January, Real Ice led an expedition that generated about 2024 tons of ice over an area the size of a football field. For the first time, a hydrogen fuel cell-powered pumping system was used. The aim now is to expand the tests in 2025 and XNUMX.
“So far, our tests have been too small to assess whether the additional ice survives the summer and prevents the ice cap from shrinking,” Ceccolini admits.
A High Price: $10 Billion a Year
With scientists warning that we will not meet the target of limiting global warming to 1,5°C, Ceccolini believes his tech can buy time.
“If this approach proves effective, it makes sense to keep it in operation at scale until we can decarbonize our economies and reduce CO2 levels to around 350 ppm,” he explains.
Initial estimates suggest an annual cost of $10 billion to implement ice-thinning measures on a significant scale. However, Ceccolini says this investment would be a fraction of the future costs of adaptation and climate damage.
The idea of manipulating the climate is not new, but it has a bad reputation. In addition to pumping water into the Arctic, scientists are studying the injection of stratospheric aerosols (SAI), which simulate the effects of a volcanic eruption to cool the planet. However, this technique can cause damage such as acid rain.
Critics also point out that geoengineering could create a “moral hazard” by reducing the urgency of reducing emissions. If these technologies fail, the planet could face an even greater disaster.
Aware of the criticism, Ceccolini prefers to describe his approach as “biomimicry” rather than geoengineering. He explains: “We use methods inspired by nature to preserve and restore mechanisms that occurred naturally before climate change affected ecosystems like the Arctic.”
Preparing for the inevitable
Ceccolini warns that we need solutions beyond reducing emissions. The 2023 IPCC report reinforces the need to remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, scaling technologies at an unprecedented pace.
“Emissions reductions alone have almost zero chance of avoiding the most likely economic scenarios. We will need innovative methods of carbon capture, and even then, the quantities needed may take too long to avert the worst temperature increases,” he points out.
The Clock is Ticking
Time is short. CO2 emissions are expected to hit a new record in 2024, and the World Meteorological Organization predicts more record-breaking temperatures.
Ceccolini concludes with a warning: “In the Arctic, the risk of inaction is losing an entire ecosystem, with planetary impacts such as the collapse of Greenland’s glaciers and the release of methane from thawing permafrost.”
As the future of the planet hangs in the balance, solutions like Real Ice’s could be the key to a more resilient world. But will they be enough? Time – and action – will tell.
Salty sea water will have exactly the opposite effect, helping freshwater glaciers melt!
I imagined the same, the freezing point of salt water is lower than that of fresh water, just before freezing some of the freshwater ice would melt and when summer comes the salty ice will melt faster.
Well, wouldn't that be an interference with nature like the one attributed to the "only" millions of cars that emit greenhouse gases, the infamous CO2? On the other hand, could it be that what they say is happening in the Arctic and Antarctic is actually the fault of the almost zero CO2 that cars and factories release into the global atmosphere? And 10 trillion in annual costs must be almost 1/2 of the American economy per year. These are values that will have to be produced somehow. How much harm will nature be done just to produce this equipment? How much labor will be required? And where will the values to be paid to these startups come from?