Why Beaches Need More Sand 

Visit brilliant.org/scishow/ to get started learning STEM for free. The first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription and a 30-day free trial.

In the Netherlands they built a sand engine. A large 'beach' meant to erode naturally so the sand is deposited on other beaches that would erode otherwise.

In Denmark, we build these T’s diagonal from the beach. They are about 20 meters out from the coast and a few hundred meters apart. That has stopped the ocean from taking away the sad. We also have these special drainage rods that actually make the waves deposit more sand than they take away. This way we don’t have to move sand by machinery. Much better for the nature and environment.

Beaches and shorelines change dramatically over time - they aren't supposed to be static systems. When we build homes and cities and infrastructure next to beaches, we tie the ecosystem to an arbitrary point in time, and we limit the ability of that beach to migrate inland in response to rising sea levels. Beach nourishment can be a useful tool, but we also need to consider longer-term strategies like managed retreat (moving developments away from the shoreline to give the beach room to change and adapt).

Also replanting native beach plants is important so the sand does not wash away as easily

sandy Barrier Islands like the Outer Banks or Chandelier Islands should’ve been/should be allowed to roll over, but because of private property that’s not possible. Mainland sandy beaches might just be moved inland as during smaller swells sand is deposited allowing for accretion, although during larger swells there is rapid erosion. Again, this will be prevented because of private property, which may mean we lose the whole habitat all together. It’s a choice of private ownership of property or preservation of the beach.

There's also Dams. I'm in AZ and a not-insignificant-portion of our state's non-tax-revenue is selling sand to CA at a massive discount due to the power we get from Boulder ("Hoover") Dam which stops the sand from flowing downstream.

Sand go bye bye? Me know! Add more sand make sand not go away!

Was going to comment about the irony of sand erosion from hurricane Sandy. Thank you for acknowledging it.

I live in Sydney and one night I went to Bondi Beach at about 3am (anxiety things) and saw a large number of huge dump trucks dropping piles of sand onto the shore. I was utterly astounded.

After Hurricane Camille (Category 5 at landfall) hit the Mississippi gulf coast in August 1969, they literally had to replace the beach by dredging sand out of Mississippi Sound. The water was going right up to old Highway 90.

Hey @SciShow Please know your new video set up, location, background, and everything is a very nice, modern change, and it really brings a nice feel to the channel. Unique, homey feeling, very Nice!

The Dutch are the global experts in sand management and coastal erosion mitigation

There's somewhere the Gobi desert is encroaching on grasslands, it would be great if that sand was useful for replenishing beaches.

That coarse sand is necessary for concrete aggregate. Construction uses massive amounts of it every year.

It sands like it's a wash.

Perhaps we should stop mucking with sand and let the processes happen

Anakin Skywalker is watching this video and screaming.

One big fear i have with microplastic/nanoplastics is it may shorten all lifespans of living, blooded, creatures and thus eventually destroy and halt evolution in its tracks, or become a great obstacle for whatever intelligences may or may not develop after us Edit: I say this because of the studies with consumption of microplastics being linked to inflammation and heart problems in humans. Also adding to that, what I mean with the last sentence in the original unedited comment is that we may have destroyed earth itself by infecting living beings with the hair like, penetrating reach of micro and nano plastics until no living beings can live long enough or retain their intelligence and instincts enough to support their next of kin and evolve so forth

Hi Reid!

Are we sure that beach nourishment is actually responsible for protecting against weather, and not that we only nourish beaches where other protective measures are affordable?

I wonder why Britain choose to use pebbles instead of sand...

slow birth rate way down is the first step imo

Erosion is one reason

or... get glass out of landfills and crush it to sand , then set that sand out...

first?

Yes. I'm a humanist here. I do value human lives over other lifeforms, plus, unless more human lives are available to come up with a more equitable solution, both the human and non human species will suffer without beach restoration.

Beach grass = erosion control

Y'all didn't even touch on the dangers of dredging the sand up from the ocean floor for beach nourishment. They keep doing this in Florida. Hurricanes come, and the storm surge washes away the beach. Because so much of Florida's economy is tourism, they dredge up the sea floor to "restore" the beaches (y'all did touch on all those issues). However, by doing so they're destroying the natural sand banks, and other features of the sea floor that actually *protects* Florida's coastline from the worst of the storm surge. It's almost like nature evolved in such a way to work in harmony with itself. Then we arrived

No no, it needs less people

People need to stop messing with nature... Let nature do as nature does-

Use desert sand even if its fine

Isn't sand ultimately the mere result of nature grinding away rocks until they're smaller than grains of rice? If we could make a cheap way to artificially make more sand by grinding rocks, we could probably save the trouble of scooping it up from the seafloor and disturbing those ecosystems -- and there's usually plenty enough rocks freefalling around the world anyway, so we wouldn't be disturbing too many ecosystems if we removed some of those.

Thanks. The last thing I needed was you giving my Prime Minister an excuse to add another tax 🤙

why not take some sand from sahara?

How come 100 year old pictures of Beaches compared to recent stoll look the same. How come when. I look at a pictures of the earth sense tte moon landing and recent pictures the poles still look the same

The beach at the town I grew up in was "re-sanded" by dredging sand from deep water onto the shore to cover the barnacle encrusted rocks, so it would be easier to walk out to deeper water. It destroyed clam beds, kelp forests and left the beaches covered with sharp bits of shells and lumps of sticky clay. The shorebirds had to move on as the shore was destroyed, the crab fisherman lost their livelihood for years until it recovered.

The ocean at Keawa’ula Beach on Oahu (Also called Yokohama) is so naturally dynamic! The winter storms rip ALL the sand out, leaving just exposed rock for a mile. But when the trade winds return and the storms come from the opposite direction, the ocean brings the sand back! It’s currently like 15 feet deep and the shoreline is so wide, in late July! I take photos there every month because the sheer power of the ocean to change the beach so dramatically is incredible to watch!

I love sand. It's smooth, it's velvety, and it stays in place.

There's a park in Alabama that uses old Christmas trees to help build dunes. They help catch sand blowing inland and keep it on the beach l, and might also help native grasses take root.

0:10 you forgot to mention us building houses on sea fronts, covering up a huge sand reservoir that cycled in and out of the water with storm events.

Seems like we are just making more problems trying to fix beaches "disappearing". Mining tons of sand from the bottom of the ocean (where things live) and dumping it onto a beach (where other things live) in an attempt to resist the rising see seems like seems destructive at worst and futile at best.

Rocky beaches work just as well as sandy beaches. Only problem is that people won't come from 50 miles away to walk or swim off a rocky beach.

In the Netherlands for decades we have used this "zandmotor" (sand engine) where we dump sand in one particular spot along the coast, near Den Haag (The Hague) and have it resupply the beaches upstream in a less invasive way (I think). Doesn't fix the foreign sand issue, but might make it less stressful for all that lives there.

Maybe if the beach nourishment was done similarly to suatainable forestry, it would work and be less destructive to lical ecosystems. What i mean by this is - you start by selecting the sand that is the closest in its ateibutes to hat is/used to be natively in the area. Then, instead of dumping all at once in one thoroughful swipe, the beach in question could be divided into zones, where each zone gets covered in a patchwork fashion with a certain time delay between individual dumps. That way, the area where the sand was dumped could get colonised by critters from the neighbouring area, which would then get some time to settle down and eventually recolonize their previous spot that got covered by the sand later on. Kind of like reseeding the forest with tree at different times, so you end up with trees of different ages with a variety canopy heights. But, you know, a beach. It would be definitely lesa drastic than basically nuking the whole beach at once in a matter of a single month or something

haven't beaches been getting washed out since the dawn of time? tropical storms and hurricanes aren't anything new. but they been washing away beaches for a long time.

This is like picking the lesser of two evils. Death or destruction? Pick one lol

I saw one of these sand moving operations at the beach one year. They were bringing sand from off shore onto the beach. They had this really big tube going into the ocean and a bunch of trucks nearby.

We should let nature take its course like it did before people existed

As noted, we've been doing nourishment for decades. I've been aware of them doing it in my hometown for 40 years. And they keep doing it. Because they have to. Because the glorified sand bars we build communities on just weren't meant to be static. The beach is constantly changing and we have to compensate to maintain what we've created. For better or worse, whether you like the pros or fear the cons - either way - it will be done. Repeatedly. And some may argue for naught, because the next Cat 4+ will still push a 15' storm surge and wreak havoc on the area anyway.

Sand? Give it some time. It gets everywhere! Of course, it's also coarse and rough and irritating ...

No don't fix it, so people realize what they're losing and believe the climate crisis is real.

Reid: You are a great presenter. Thanks.

so when do we start grinding rocks into sand? or is that no longer plan Z?

Some island countries in Oceania, I think, bring sand to their coasts because the sea level rising "swallows" them literally.

I wonder if something could be buried beyond the tideline where the sand collects and pump it back up on shore slowly so things aren't impacted as heavily and the coral doesn't get too disturbed... Like a French drain with an auger that builds a small dune back on shore

I llive *on* a nourished beach that's been revamped post-Sandy. It's going well, and attracts a lot more oystercatchers than it used to. Not all bad results, then.

6:06 if the habitat preservation work being done is harming the habitat, you're not preserving the habitat as much as the beachfront property value

As answer to the question "is this the way to go" the answer is yes, as I am Dutch. Half my country is below sea level, so the sand banks and beaches are the first line of defence. The second are the dunes. If the sandbanks and beaches get washed away, so will the dunes and the Netherlands would simply flood. It did in 1953, which led to the construction of the Delta Works. A moveable sea barrier, closing off the river delta that is province of Zeeland. In the 1920's, the Zuiderzee was closed off with the Afsluitdijk, turning it into a brackish lake called the IJsselmeer. In the 1970's, an entire province was built in that lake, called Flevoland. A couple of decades ago, a huge moveable barrier was built to protect Rotterdam harbour, called the Maaskering. It consists of two Eiffel tower sized, curved pontoons, that get floated out in the river, filled up with water and submerged to protect the city and hinterland from flooding. I think it is the largest moveable flood barrier in the world. The Dutch helped rebuild the sea defences for New Orleans, making them much, much better. If you wonder what the state of the oceans are, just look at the Netherlands. It is literally life or death here, so we're usually the first to act.

Imma give that beach some sand. Beaches love sand.

What if we took the sand, and PUT IT OVER HERE?

The Dutch have a solution to all the problems you mentioned 10 years ago. The so called Zandmotor, the sand engine. Always check the Dutch when you do a video about coastal protection and coastal ecosystems. 😀 There are several videos about it on RU-vid, under the title sand motor. From Wikipedia: sand engine or sand motor (Dutch: zandmotor) is a type of beach nourishment where a large volume of sediment is added to a coast. The natural forces of wind, waves and tides then distribute the sand along the coast over many years, preventing the need for repetitive beach nourishment. The method is expected to be more cost effective and also reduces the repeated ecological disturbances caused by replenishment.

Meanwhile in Brittany (France) farmers take away sand in dump trucks to put it in their fields, hell yeaaaah

Fix the climate crisis. Wasting money on beaches is time, money, energy that could be better spent elsewhere.

“Yknow what this place need…needs more sand”

What about simply planting mangroves?

I may have a small solution to the problem though it may cost more money in the long run. Sand sheets dropped by planes(crop dusters). Wind may be an issue so the planes may have to fly closer to the ground than normal. Thin layers of sand dropped by planes over the course of a week or two. This will allow buried clams to move closer to the surface. You would also have to do this on the off season when there are no turtle eggs of course. The birds may get covered in sand but they can dust it off or could even be temporarily scared off for the plan to work the day of. It would take fewer men, could cover a large area and be less harmful to the environment. The beach just has to close for a day so the sand settles.

Anakin skywalker punching the air rn

Me, after the shorelines have been destroyed by rising sea levels: "Oh, what a little beach!"

Face it earth is hosed. Game over on extra life

just like... 2 cubic tons

Here's an idea.... how about we control the human population in an environmentally and economically sustainable way, and also control carbon emissions? Oh wait, that impacts Q3 numbers. Never mind.

Drink every time he says sand.

Too many people are on this planet 😒

🍞

As a Dutch person who grew up knowing several people who work for the government, specifically in the water-related-stuff department, I love this. So much I recognise and even more I didn't even know about

Not to mention sand is becoming a scarce resource as it's quickly being used up in the manufacturing of concrete around the would to build cities and roads. We may need to find an alternative. I do wonder what useful properties lunar dust might have once we start mining it.

We have the technology and manpower to just shift our cities back and expand the beaches back.......

: They did that near Southport, NC and nearby beaches in the '80s and '90s, and in most places they did it, the dunes were 30' to 100' back in twenty years (and several hurricanes). My aunt and uncle on Oak Island, NC had their old house about 200' back from the coastal road up to Fort Fisher. By 2005, the coastal road was just under the water at low tide, and the coastal road was moved back to about 100' or so from the house. And the house was eventually condemned because of all the water damage from the big storms. (The house was on a roughly 30' elevation from the coastal road.) -- Mayhaps the beach sand the state used back in the '80s and '90s was the wrong kind of sand.

I could give a quick, flippant answer, but that is because I live in Minnesota. I'm sure these will affect my friends in California and especially Florida far more significantly.

How about where they bring in DIFFERENT sand ( like in Hawaii) to make a beach look better, for tourist/financial reasons? For this ^ I am against it. If it helps the local wildlife, I am for it, but...and it is a big BUT.... WE do not live on a static planet. The environment changes, and animals adapt or die out. So, I am for trying to save them, BUT I know we also have a shortage of sand for other things...So I think we need to ask what benefits us most. btw, I did not say " what benefits the planet the most" because honestly the planet does not care, and will get along fine without ANY of us.

Super useful if the government already dredges the “river” near your beaches for “security purposes.” By river I mean tidal fjord and by security purposes, I mean submarines. Add in all the crushed shells from area seafood places that offer locally farmed clams… seems to have been working for New England. Keep in mind, the dredged sand all comes from the beaches it’s being returned to.

We’ve been going to the outer banks for 25 years now, so beach nourishment is nothing new to us lol

This just reminds me of that climate change futurama episode. Just dropping bigger and bigger ice. Forever.

Much like preventing forest fires, we are only delaying and compounding the problem.

I think that this question of whether or not to nourish beaches is complex. Many of the beaches that have nourishment projects are in areas that have been experiencing net erosion for a long time and will into the far future. This is compounded by the effects of climate change, where sea-level rise and increasing storm frequency and serverity in turn increase the occurance of highly erosive events and their severity. If there is a commitment to beach nourishment in these areas, even if dune vegetation or other measures to retain this sediment and trap additional sediments traveling in from other areas were put in place, the combination of a naturally erosive shoreline and climate change would mean regular beach nourishment projects to maintain these beaches. Many studies look at the short-term effects of nourishment on animals and vegetation, but we really lack long-term studies of these impacts. Changes in sediment grain sizes and sorting (the size and organization of sand grains), nutrient content of sediments, introduction of other organisms, removal of habitat from other areas, etc. all result from bring in sediment from different locations and may have long-lasting impacts. Simultaneously, climate change and human infrastructure limit the capacity of these habitats to recover naturally. Many threatened and endangered species will likely never recover without human intervention because we've changed these habitats and the environment so much. Humans have modified many environments to the point where human interventions are now necessary to try and preserve these ecosystems and species. Ideally, living vegetation via dune plantings, natural sediment influx from up-stream/up-current areas and sand bars, etc. would suffice for restoring and maintaining habitat. Dune vegetation has an incredible capacity to help build and maintain dune systems and beaches, but still need adequate sediment supply and many years (even decades) for vegetation to facilitate full dune and beach recovery following a big storm. With increasing storm frequency and severity plus sea-level rise, these ecosystems may no longer have that kind of time to recover on their own. These habitats have responded in different ways over thousands and millions of years. With barrier island systems, for example, many will "roll over" and migrate landward during times of higher sea-level, but now are artifically stabilized. What that means is, instead of sediment moving over dunes and being dumped on the far side--facilitating island movement land-ward--the sediment now gets washed away. The problem we now face is that we live in an era of global change that is so rapid many species and ecosystems simply cannot respond fast enough. Further, there are many pressures happening simultaenously--for example, beach driving, excess nutrients, pollutants, warming temperatures, ever increasing human infrastructure, changing water availability, and more--are all happening at the same time. So, I think yes we need to consider nourishment as one possible tool for protecting these areas, but we also need careful consideration about how to implement these projects. SHOULD the multi-million dollar project be used to add sand to a popular beach that we know will disappear in the next 5 years? Are there places where these projects might be more successful in the long term? Can we assess sites for their potential to contribute to the conservation of key species, coastal protection, AND recreation? Can we plan these projects for the long term to create fully functioning ecosystems that will last generations and allow us to experience these beautiful places? If so, then I think we could do great work for both humans and the natural environment, and preserve these special ecosystems far into the future.

One approach used here in the Netherlands is what's called a Sand Motor. It's essentially an artificial pier made of sand, that juts out far into the sea. As coastal currents erode the pier, they then deposit the sand onto the beaches at a slow, constant, manageable rate. This simultaneously puts far less stress on the vulnerable ecosystem, and provides species with a more sheltered area to hide from strong currents, big waves or otherwise rough weather. And because it is intentionally built to be impermanent, or at least impermanent enough that the ground is constantly being cycled out as you refill the lost sand, you can't really build any lasting structures on top of it. This means that the Sand Motor itself becomes an excellent space for coastal plants & animals to make their habitats as well, and so they become lovely parks & nature reserves suitable for all sorts of transient fun & appreciation.

What if you just add the sand really gradually? Like a few buckets a day all year round? Replace it as it's eroding so you never disturb it all at once. And the changes in sand type will be really gradual. As for getting the sand: Go deep instead of wide. Pick a spot, and just dig deeper in that one place as long as you can. You don't have to get a lot at any one time, but by going back to the same spot each time, you're disturbing a smaller area. It'll fill in a little bit between digs anyway. When it gets too deep to be feasible, you pick spot that's not terribly far away, maybe even just 100 meters. The first spot will start filling in. After a while, you just rotate between two or three spots that'll always just be sand "wells". And get the sand via a pump rather than scraping the ocean or river floor. If you can do it with oil, you can do it with sand.

Question 1: In a hypothetical world where sea levels aren't rising would we have to nourish beaches at all? And if it still needed to occur, how sparingly would it be with an ocean that isn't actively trying to encroach in on us everywhere?? Question 2: What about the really unique beaches, like Hawaii's "Peridot" (technically Olivine), how would you nourish that beach without diluting the essence of what it is??? Theft however little of the sand has already in a way diluted it to be less vibrant anyways, so is there truly anyway to preserve it via replenishment??

Bay nourishment has only one drive, human satisfction. It is another example of this flaw in our thinking that, we are the center of the Universe. Since we put money as the ultimate way of weighing our wealth, it transpire in every act we spawn. Most of all we, the society, are acting on about ecology, biology and society is bias by our psychological 'need' for stability forgetting that stability in the Universe is change and reaction to change. So, beaches are doomed to be modified, to change from the effects of the cosmic laws we are discovering since our first thinking habibity appears. We are subject to those cosmic laws too. Why try to change all this. Isn't that better to embrace them and work with them. The art of thinking, thinking deep, is moving slower than technology is evolving. That is what we made our doom.

Two thoughts: First, it seems to me there must be more gradual ways to add sand to beaches than just dumping it all. I mean, I'm sure others have thought about this, but still. What if you piled up the sand a ways uphill from the beach, in a less threatened ecosystem, and let rain and occasional human intervention wash it down to the beach itself? I mean, beaches have existed for billions of years. They must be getting refilled naturally. If we just add to that process, it should be a bit less destructive, right? Like I said, I'm sure there are experts working on this problem, and I hope they're at least as smart as me😅. Second, it bothers me that we have to take sand from elsewhere to do this. It's not as if sand just *exists,* and is never created or destroyed. We know the recipe. Rocks. We know how to force-erode rocks down to whatever size particles we want. Rock tumblers are literally children's toys. Sort out the particles by size. Send the particles so small they're clay off to potters and brick makers. Send the bits in between clay and sand, called silt, to get mixed with compost and restore eroded farmlands and other silt. And send the sand to beaches, glassblowers, and so on. The shape and color of the sand will be determined partly by the starting rock, and partly by the milling process, so you can choose the right rocks and process to get the type of sand you want - the same as what is already there, except a bit rougher, so it can get worn down over time, like breaking in shoes.

Humans being destructive by nature and thinking that we can just counteract our detrimental effects on this world through poorly understood and ill-conceived methods makes me laugh.

Sounds to me like beach nourishment wouldn't ne that bad if we just did it alower and smaller. Take less sand from the bottom of the ocean. Ads it in small segmenta (Maybelline 20m of beach nourished and 80m left as it was... It would take 5.yeara but hopefully more animals would survive it since only part of their habitat was changed and the ones that can move would move over to the old habitat until the new one became livable for them.

😅I thought sand came from eroding mountains. Shouldn't people not be building houses right on coastlines anyway because of rising sea levels. If you want sand why not go to a desert?

They should source it from The Sahara. There's a lot, and should keep digging until you hit rock to see what's under the desert. Also, unlike river sand, desert sand isn't useful to make concrete. The rounder grains make it almost identical to regular beach sand.

Maybe beach erosion wouldnt be such a problem in the first place if we could just leave native mangrove forest and dunes grasses in place. Just about every single foot of beach has to get torn up to put up tacky, overpriced buildings.

I live on the beach.. like right on the beach in Bush Point Whidbey Island.. and the tide stops in the exact same place it did when I grew up here in this house I inherited.. 60+ years.. so I assume this "rising tide" will happen sometime soon?

They created gianourmous sand dunes in New Zealand by burying used christmas trees under sand on the shore. Its a successful preservation model we should employ here in the states. Think about the future National Seashores!

Why did you not explain how beaches get their sand in the first place. Like the concept of all of our damn's preventing this sediment from filling the beaches

The folks at #Hemsby UK would tell you that this strategy of adding sand doesn't particularly work.