rethinking jersey barriers

Jersey barriers are a ubiquitous part of the modern urban landscape. Originally designed for highway safety in the mid-20th century, these concrete structures are now seen on highways, at construction sites, and even as perimeter security around buildings.

What if we redesigned jersey barriers to reduce carbon?

Reducing carbon emissions alone may not be sufficient to combat this crisis – we also need to remove the excess carbon already in the atmosphere. This brings us to the idea of carbon sequestration, which involves capturing and storing carbon dioxide to prevent its release into the atmosphere.

Let’s explore integrating carbon sequestration technology into Jersey barriers to create “carbon-eating” barriers. The key to this idea is a technology called carbon mineralization, where carbon dioxide is converted into solid minerals such as calcium carbonate. This process can be achieved by infusing the concrete with substances that react with carbon dioxide, turning the barriers into carbon sinks.

Concrete is typically made from a mixture of cement, sand, and crushed rocks or gravel, all bonded together with water. Cement, in particular, is a major source of global carbon dioxide emissions. However, researchers have already developed ‘green’ cement variants that can absorb more carbon dioxide than they emit during their production. By using this type of cement in the construction of Jersey barriers, we could potentially turn these barriers into carbon-absorbing structures.

Practical Implementation 

The use of carbon mineralization in concrete is not new, and several research studies have already demonstrated its feasibility. For instance, CarbonCure Technologies, a Canadian company, has developed a technique to inject carbon dioxide into concrete during its production. This technology not only sequesters carbon but also improves the strength of the concrete. 

On a similar note, Blue Planet Ltd. offers a concrete aggregate made from synthetic limestone derived from sequestered carbon dioxide. Their solution also sequesters carbon while simultaneously reducing the need for traditional limestone quarrying.

Scaling these technologies to integrate into Jersey barriers could be a feasible strategy. It would require significant investment and planning, as well as a regulatory framework that encourages or mandates the use of carbon-sequestering concrete in public infrastructure. However, the payoff could be substantial.

Benefits 

The primary benefit of carbon-eating Jersey barriers would be their ability to capture and store carbon dioxide. Given the vast number of Jersey barriers used worldwide, this could result in a significant amount of carbon sequestration.

Additionally, implementing this idea could spur technological advancements in the field of carbon sequestration and green construction materials. The concept of ‘carbon-eating’ concrete could be extended to other types of infrastructure, potentially leading to a significant reduction in carbon emissions from the construction industry.

The Green Jersey: Integrating Nature with Infrastructure

jersey barriers2

While carbon mineralization approaches to carbon sequestration in Jersey barriers are promising, there is another more visually pleasing option: harnessing the power of nature. By incorporating plant life into Jersey barrier design, these structures can be transformed into containers for greenery that both sequester carbon and clean the air.

The Concept

The concept of integrating greenery with infrastructure is a fast-growing trend in the field of urban design. The idea is to utilize native plant species that are adapted to local climate conditions and can flourish with minimal maintenance.

Jersey barriers could be redesigned to include small planting spaces, transforming them from simple concrete dividers into lush, mini-vertical gardens. The selection of plants could be based on their ability to absorb carbon dioxide, tolerate urban pollution, and withstand varying weather conditions.

Practical Implementation 

One of the practical challenges of this concept is irrigation. Designing a low-maintenance, effective watering system would be crucial to ensure plant survival. Potential solutions could include rainwater harvesting systems, or low-drip irrigation systems powered by solar energy.

Another consideration would be plant selection. Species such as Honeysuckle, English Ivy, Boston Fern, and others known for their excellent air-purifying properties. Mosses and lichens could also be effective choices, as they have been demonstrated to absorb and store a significant amount of carbon dioxide. A study by the University of Helsinki has demonstrated the effectiveness of such plant species in carbon sequestration.

Benefits 

The incorporation of plants into Jersey barriers could have several benefits. Firstly, they would provide additional carbon sequestration. According to a study in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, urban green spaces can sequester significant amounts of carbon.

Secondly, the inclusion of greenery could significantly improve the aesthetic value of urban landscapes, which could potentially have positive psychological impacts on city inhabitants. Moreover, the plants could help to mitigate urban heat island effects, thereby reducing energy use in surrounding buildings.

Finally, these green barriers would contribute to improving local air quality, as plants naturally filter out pollutants from the air.

References for Further Reading

1. CarbonCure Technologies Inc. (n.d.). CarbonCure: A Carbon Removal Solution for the Concrete Industry. https://www.carboncure.com/

2. Blue Planet Ltd. (n.d.). Economically Sustainable Carbon Capture. http://www.blueplanet-ltd.com/

3. Biernacki, J. J., Bullard, J. W., Sant, G., Brown, K., Glasser, F. P., Jones, S., Ley, T., Livingston, R., Nicoleau, L., Olek, J., Sanchez, F., Shahsavari, R., Stutzman, P., & Asgarzadeh, A. (2017). Cements in the 21st Century: Challenges, Perspectives, and Opportunities. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 100(7), 2746–2773. https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.14814

4. IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp.

5. Porada, P., Weber, B., Elbert, W., Pöschl, U., & Kleidon, A. (2013). Estimating global carbon uptake by lichens and bryophytes: a process-based model. Biogeosciences, 10, 6989–7033. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-6989-2013

6. Setälä, H., Viippola, V., Rantalainen, A.-L., Pennanen, A., & Yli-Pelkonen, V. (2013). Does urban vegetation mitigate air pollution in northern conditions? Environmental Pollution, 183, 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.06.026

7. Churkina, G., Brown, D.G., & Keoleian, G. (2010). Carbon stored in human settlements: the conterminous United States. Global Change Biology, 16(1), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01878.x

8. Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., & Stevens, J.C. (2006). Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 4(3-4), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.007