The Energy Cost of an Arctic City-Oasis

In a 1996 movie The Arrival, a scene of greenery and warmth is found within the frozen arctic. An artificial oasis allowing for temperate life. In this movie, it was presumably created by some alien technology. Although with our own engineering, we can show it’s possible to do today with the right amount of power. Call it a “localized terraforming”, after the common term used to describe the warming of Mars for settlement.

Likewise, communities in polar regions such as Iceland and Northern Canada are currently building greenhouses in an effort to grow food locally. With the recoil in globalization comes an increased concern for food independence. Here we will expand on the traditional greenhouse, and imagine one covering an entire city(or a small country) to make an ideal climate for people to live normally. A permanent, climate controlled metropolis could be filled with lush greenery, and perhaps even wildlife.

This economic boon to polar countries could resemble an array of Germany’s Tropical Islands Resorts. Apart from its massive pool, the largest indoor water park features a campsite, lagoon, and a mini golf course. A network of structures like these, might offer an alternative for the bygone autonomous seastead, to offer a regulatory haven. They could play a role scientific and geopolitical endeavors in the future.

• 

• 

Alternately, we could envision avoiding the greenhouse and brute force the problem by mimicking the raw power of the sun. After all, greenhouses need large structures that require maintenance, ventilation, and careful management. If not energy efficient, there is a certain degree of engineering practicality that the source of heat be the same source of light. Our artificial, local star producing daylight would be a supercharged version of what was done to light up an arctic town in 2009 as part of an ad campaign. Tropicana made an artificial sun to illuminate Inuvik, a small town in Canada’s Northwest Territories.

To create the miraculous scene as depicted in The Arrival and elsewhere, we’ll estimate the cost of converting a 280 square mile swath of arctic tundra into a warm 75 degree Fahrenheit sanctuary. Both methods will be calculated.

Feasibility

Such a radical undertaking would require an enormous amount of energy for heat and light to fight the cold and dark environments of polar regions. However, this may only require that the trend of declining electricity cost continue at a good pace.

“I wanted to illuminate the whole earth. There is enough electricity to become a second sun. Mankind is not ready for the great and good.”

Tesla Interview, Colorado Springs 1899

This quote is from an adaption of Tesla’s biography, but nonetheless highlights Tesla’s known ambitions. He seemed to think that large projects such as these are possible, and that it would only be a matter of time and will. If he were here today, would Tesla think we’re ready now?

We do have a precedent for artificial ecology, so it can be done. Take Biosphere 2 for example, designed to help study life forms without outside influence or dependence. These scientific endeavors include study of human behavior and group dynamics. Part of the research serves as a trial-run for colonies on Mars, and space exploration in general.

Motivations

If Elon Musk wants to successfully create colonies on Mars in this same method, it makes sense to start on earth first, on a large scale, before replicating it in outer space. As Elon often states, expansion of human settlement to new planets serves as insurance for the continuity of the human race. In addition, lucrative asteroid mining is given as an economic motivation for doing so.

However, settlement on Mars does us no good if our common sun is the source of an extinction event. Thus in parallel, independent heat and light sources should also be explored. Perhaps Jeff Bezos, who has been more focused on terrestrial matters, may take up a venture like this. That is, to convert extreme climates into livable ones. It’s also likely that mining in our own arctic is much more economic than doing so on asteroids.

A less noble but prescient reason for arctic settlement is for military purposes. As more natural resources and strategic utility are uncovered in the arctic, they will play greater role in on the global stage. For better or worse, advancement in civilian matters often comes hand-in-hand with war. This is analogous to the space race of the 60’s. Permanent settlements in contested polar regions offer a meaningful source of power projection: the capacity of a state to deploy and sustain forces outside its territory. Conversely, where disputes are handled peacefully in United Nations courts, claims to territory are harder to dispute when settled permanently. There are already signs that the arctic will be a highly contested region, much as the Golan Heights in Israel and the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea are disputed today.

Calculation

Using some rough greenhouse power calculations, creating a city the size of Singapore deep in the arctic would work out to the following:

Greenhouse Method

Start with a standard greenhouse energy plan for 1 mile. The parameters used like a “twinwall polycarbonate” at somewhere between 8 to 10mm, is nothing special and can certainly be improved. For our purposes, we’re erring on the side of conservatism. A very high-end estimate for energy cost & consumption. This allows for error and shows feasibility, even with a high-end estimate.

Next, enter the other parameters for the appropriate area, walls and roof, we also assume average temperature of 19°F outdoors in-line with arctic weather, and an indoor temperature target at a comfortable 75°.

Singapore is about 280 square miles. That makes 428,813 kw * 280 miles = 120 million kw, or 120,000 Megawatts.

At the U.S. average power rates, heating this theoretical country would cost about $14 million per hour to run. Or, a whopping $126 Billion per year.

Artificial Sun Method

At the Earth’s surface, the energy density is reduced to approximately 1,000 W/m2 for a surface perpendicular to the Sun’s rays at sea level on a clear day. This amount is what we need to replicate in an artificial sun.

There are 2,590,000 sq meters in a sq mile. 2,590,000 sq meters * 1,000 watts = 2,590,000,000 watts(2,590 megawatts). 2,590 megawatts * 280 miles = 725,200 megawatts.

728,000 megawatts costs $765 Billion per year at average U.S. electricity rates. In actuality, polar regions do receive some sunlight, so we can shave off 10% of the heating cost, to arrive at about $688 billion per year.

Economic Capacity

In 2020, Singapore’s GDP output will clock in at around $400 billion dollars, meaning that the economy and population of it’s size could theoretically support the financial burden of a Green-housed country(costing 126 Billion per year). This cost would however, would reduce the countries standard of living from a rich first world country to a relatively modest one. This is because of the overhead.

The artificial sun method on the other hand, would not be feasible with current technology. The cost is too high at $688 billion, exceeding the economic output of our example country, Singapore. New power tech such as nuclear fusion could close this gap in the future.

Conclusion

The cost of heating an entire city in the arctic, to resemble one of temperate climate, would cost $100-$700 Billion per year, depending on method and efficiency achieved. Perhaps the motivation or “will” as Tesla hinted, is the only missing piece to see an Arctic Oasis. however. A catalyst is needed, such as increased population, arctic mining ventures, experimental or increased militarization. Whatever the reason, we certainly have the means to do so.