DARPA is funding reef structures that will be colonized by corals and bivalves

https://www.wired.com/story/darpa-thinks-walls-of-oysters-could-protect-shores-against-hurricanes/

by Brajeshwar • 2 years ago

156 32 2 years ago

If you’re in New York, the Billion Oyster Project [1] throws an annual all-you-can-eat oyster fundraiser every September that is among my favourite events in the city [1]. (The shells are used as substrate for new reefs.)

[1] https://www.billionoysterproject.org/

tonetegeatinst• 2 years ago

Anyone got an archive link of this?

23B13• 2 years ago

https://archive.is/iI1yt

Also the news here is that DARPA is interested in this, not that oysters protect shorelines – this has been known for some time. Thinking about climate change through the (slightly more practical) lens of national defense is a smart approach, perhaps it will bypass a lot of the B.S. involved in the discussion.

azinman22• 2 years ago

You would think, except when certain people come into power and appoint figure heads who go and scrub such things. It’s not immune.

23B13• 2 years ago

That's not really the case inside the defense-industrial complex, for better or worse.

toast0• 2 years ago

Army Corps of Engineers does a lot of work on protecting communities from flooding (and restoration afterwards), so this is in DARPAs baliwick. If Oyster walls are as effective as concrete seawalls, it should be a big improvement where they can be used, because concrete seawalls tend to move tidal problems rather than resolve them, and they also tend to have negative impacts on local ecology.

edm0nd• 2 years ago

The Army Corps of Engineers has a really bad rep here in Louisiana even after almost two decades of Katrina being over because of their colossal fuck ups which caused all of our damage.

After the storm, multiple investigations concluded that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which had designed and built the region's levees decades earlier, was responsible for the failure of the flood-control systems. However, federal courts later ruled that the Corps could not be held financially liable due to sovereign immunity in the Flood Control Act of 1928.

and

A June 2007 report released by the American Society of Civil Engineers determined that the failures of the levees and flood walls in New Orleans were found to be primarily the result of system design and construction flaws.[41] The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had been federally mandated in the Flood Control Act of 1965 with responsibility for the conception, design, and construction of the region's flood-control system. All of the major studies in the aftermath of Katrina concluded that the USACE was responsible for the failure of the levees. This was primarily attributed to a decision to use shorter steel sheet pilings during construction in an effort to save money.

They skimped out to save money and ended up killing 1300+ people, destroying hundreds of thousands of peoples lives, and causing hundreds of billions $$ in damages.

Fuck the Army Corps of Engineers.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina#Analysis_of_...

Joel_Mckay• 2 years ago

Manufactured controversy on climate-change is just a side-effect of bad communication.

1. The whole world needs to bring petroleum burn rates down to sustainable levels (China and the USA will need to make the right choice for their grandchildren.) This doesn't mean complete elimination of petroleum fuels or chemical mining operations. Note, investors that promulgate sustainable management will cost everyone their job are just manipulative liars, and environmentalists that refuse to acknowledge there is a scientifically sound balance are just as naively idealistic.

2. There is a complex physics model that describes what's happening. The only controversial counterarguments are generally from non-scientific dubious communities with questionable political motives.

3. No one wants to admit the earth will return to normal about 50 000 years after human full/partial extinction events. Sustainable energy policy is a national security issue, as we will be living like cavemen if a cascade environmental change event hits us early.

4. The profits made from sustainable energy policy will enrich communities that make the right call. Or alternately desperation driven hostilities await those that choose to give their children a wasteland.

One can invest in technology that creates wealth, or prepare for endless conflict. As a people, we share a common future with the consequences from decisions all people have chosen today.

Be kind to yourselves, and have a fantastic day =3

wernerb• 2 years ago

In the Netherlands we are renewing our "Afsluitdijk" which is a dyke that now gets 75000 special concrete blocks specifically designed to protect against wave s similarly as proposed here.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2018/04/75000-massive-concrete-bloc...

aqme28• 2 years ago

While useful, it's my impression that the storm surge is the most dangerous part of a hurricane, and oysters unfortunately don't do much about that.

soulofmischief• 2 years ago

Do you live in an area that gets hurricanes? I grew up in the gulf and while storm surge can be seriously damaging, it's not the most dangerous part.

I've been through Katrina, Gustav, Isaac and more and witnessed incredible damage from wind, rain and auxiliary tornadoes caused by the storm. I've seen wind pick up massive metal structures right in front of me, ball them up and toss them into the sky until they're just a speck on the horizon. I've woken up to my entire neighborhood missing parts of their roof. I nearly got taken out by a large pine tree. I've seen trees crush cars, boats, houses, you name it. Helene just ravaged several inland states and many are still without power or access to basic resources.

WarOnPrivacy2• 2 years ago

Do you live in an area that gets hurricanes?

Yes. I've lived on FL's gulf coast for over 30 years.

while storm surge can be seriously damaging, it's not the most dangerous part.

Storm surge is the leading cause of deaths from hurricanes. Rain-induced flooding is second.

ref: https://www.weather.gov/wrn/hurricane-hazards

I've been through Katrina, Gustav, Isaac and more...

I've been thru two in the last three weeks. Past that I'm not sure, dozens certainly. I've also witnessed other impact areas during 3 decades of organized storm relief - most recently yesterday.

...and witnessed incredible damage from wind, rain and auxiliary tornadoes caused by the storm...[notes dramatic examples of damage to things]

I'm trying to pin down what you mean by "most dangerous". It doesn't seem tied to number of lives lost or the number of structures damaged. Those are from surge and flooding.

The damage you describe seems like it would be photographic and striking. Is that what you mean my most dangerous?

stouset• 2 years ago

In the article they explicitly call out that this is intended to protect against storm surges.

patmorgan23• 2 years ago

Hurricanes present a triple threat. In no particular order they are 1) Storm surge, 2) insanely high winds, 3) torrential down pour and the resulting flash flooding.

Immediately along the coast the storm surge is probably the most destructive as it's a wall of water that hits and then pulls everything out to sea, but once you get a few hundred feet inland, or some elevation, it's not really a problem.

Hurricane wind speeds are comparable to tornado wind speeds, except the storms are so much bigger. They will throw projectile debris at windows, and then they break the resulting change in pressure will blow out and rip the roof of a home clean off.

Then the incredible amount of rain they generate can create devastating flooding, and this can happen hundreds of miles from the coast(this is what happens in Asheville, North Carolina, and the specific geography made the flooding worse and harder to recover from since Asheville is a mountain valley river town)

WarOnPrivacy2• 2 years ago

but once you get a few hundred feet inland, or some elevation, [surge is] not really a problem.

[more clarification than correction] Along the US gulf coast, surge will travel miles inland thru waterways and drainage basins. When it's over, many places drain right away while some can take weeks.

Depending on the storm, an area can get multiple surges.

Hurricane wind speeds are comparable to tornado wind speeds, except the storms are so much bigger.

[same] Inland wind risk is closely tied to wind field size and relative position to the eye's direction of travel. We're 30 min inland from the gulf. Every factor about Milton (@36h out) was a factor in our risk calc. With Helene, we didn't have to calc anything. But that weekend, we drove the 30 min to help clean/gut houses on the coast.

And to support your synopsis, I describe cat 4/5 landfalls as x hour tornadoes.

Then the incredible amount of rain they generate can create devastating flooding, and this can happen hundreds of miles from the coast

In the mid 90s we did relief in Athens Ga (from Alberto I think). Storm remnants parked on the GA/AL border for 2 weeks. Six hundred dams broke and the river thru town became over a mile wide. We were mucking out a church on the top of a hill. A road ran from the church, down the long hill to the river. The road was lined with homes that had been fully submerged for 2 weeks.

tinix• 2 years ago

Navy sinks old concrete carriers in the Gulf of Mexico already, for this exact reason (artificial reef). i remember this happening at least 20+ years ago... it's not as new novel idea. Florida also uses shell material as aggregate in concrete already.

pfdietz• 2 years ago

I'm not sure about the "concrete" part, but the final Essex class carrier, USS Oriskany, was sunk off Florida to form an artificial reef, the first US naval ship for which this was done, just about 20 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Oriskany#2004_%E2%80%93_ar...

InDubioProRubio2• 2 years ago

How does a artificial reef plan hold up to ocean accidifcation? Can you hold it back by adding base material that keeps the waters permanent habitable for shell-organisms?

a_shovel• 2 years ago

Oysters used to be so abundant they were a poor people's food. It's hard to understand how overfishing, overhunting, and habitat destruction have destroyed ecosystems.

Some people think we can just pretend we're not part of an ecosystem if we pour enough concrete. It doesn't work, it just makes everything worse. A damaged ecosystem is not just unpleasant but physically dangerous to us. A flooded coastal base will soon be the least of our concerns. We need to fix damaged ecosystems and replace destroyed ones

heisenzombie• 2 years ago

In my local area it was mussels that underpinned (kind of literally) the marine ecosystem. This is the interesting and sad story:

https://www.reviveourgulf.org.nz/why/

Terr_2• 2 years ago

It's hard to understand how overfishing, overhunting, and habitat destruction have destroyed ecosystems.

I like to bring up the sad example of Passenger Pigeons, since they're a species someone in North America could imagine seeing--or even having a hard time avoiding--walking around in daily life at one time, yet they disappeared relatively recently, even leaving a strange linguistic hole because many people have still heard of "Carrier" pigeons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon

selimthegrim• 2 years ago

They’re not the same as carrier pigeons. In the WWII Musueum in New Orleans you can see the exhibit about how many British carrier pigeons were sourced from Shahjahanpur, India.

InDubioProRubio2• 2 years ago

Could these eco-systems recover, if they had "defensive" investments? Like anti-drag net drones, that cut ropes? Or underwater pylons with blades? If a economic activity is suicidal, is it okay to use technology to sabotage it?

steve_adams_86• 2 years ago

It’s just occurring to me now that some of the more beautiful beaches I know of in my area, with natural sand deposits that aren’t suffering from erosion, are also oyster beds. At low tide the beds are exposed. They extend another 20 meters out to the ocean from where they’re visible, give or take a few meters.

Maybe that’s coincidence. There are also immense beaches in places like tofino where no such beds exist, but the beaches are huge and sandy without particularly evident erosion. They are the work of much larger tidal and current systems though, so maybe a different beast altogether.

Oysters are so much fun to harvest with kids. Throw on a mask and snorkel, grab a catch bag, and swim around looking for the perfect size for cooking over a fire on a rack. Kids are awesome at it. You can feed half a dozen people easily with half an hour in the water. It’s a bonus if there’s sea asparagus nearby. Bring some lemons and corn on the cob or something similar and it makes for an incredible evening. My best memories of this are on Cortes Island in BC. There are some magnificent oyster beds all over that island, but relatively few (especially that are safe to eat) here in Victoria.

TaterTots• 2 years ago

Who knew oysters could find broken arrows.

Havoc2• 2 years ago

The wildest part of the article is the flipped F22s. Nobody remembered to move the 350m dollar planes out of the way?

lorax• 2 years ago

They didn't forget, the ones left behind weren't flyable. F22s seem to require a lot of maintenance. https://www.twz.com/24442/we-finally-know-how-many-f-22s-wer...

Havoc2• 2 years ago

Ah that’s fair I guess.

Still sad cause the airframes can’t be replaced :(

DARPA is funding reef structures that will be colonized by corals and bivalves

Related Stories