FYI, I worked in firefighting as well as other facets of emergency response for a number of years and I have a strong interest in wildfire mitigation and control. I also wrote an A+ paper on wildfire mitigation back in undergrad! If anyone is working on a concept in this space, I'd love to help out - please don't hesitate to get in touch!
Over 1,500 California fires in the past 6 years — including the deadliest ever — were caused by one company: PG&E. Here's what it could have done but didn't.
PG&E should have done years ago, from better tree trimming to power-line upgrades.
It's quite the conundrum...wildfires (uncontrolled or controlled indigenous science) thin out forests, which in turn prevent devastating infernos from being fueled. So, is all prevention of wildfires really a solution or part of the causation?
I was just reading up on the fires by Lake Tahoe and how decisions made in the 1850's are connected to the uncontrollable fires in the area today.
The history:
For centuries, fires burned about every 10 to 15 years on average through the forests around Lake Tahoe, said Brandon Collins, a research scientist with the U.S. Forest Service and adjunct professor of fire science at UC Berkeley.
Those fires, set by lightning strikes or by the native Washoe people, removed dead wood, accumulated needles and other fire hazards. When fires did burn, they typically remained close to the ground, and burned slowly. But everything began to change in 1859, when a huge deposit of silver was discovered 15 miles east of Lake Tahoe in Virginia City, Nevada.
Miners working on the Comstock Lode, clear cut large sections of Tahoe’s forests to obtain supports for the huge networks of underground tunnels. They removed large Jeffrey pines and other trees that were spaced apart by years of fires.
Fast forward to today:
What grew back were dense numbers of white fir and other trees. Not only did the firs have thinner bark that made them more vulnerable to fire than the older pines, they have lower branches which makes it easier for fire spread.
The solution:
Since 1997, 65,000 acres have been thinned or treated with prescribed burns around the 200,000-acre Tahoe basin...
It's not enough. Forest-thinning efforts across the Sierra should be increased five-to-tenfold in the coming years. Such projects can be challenging, with controversies over smoke from prescribed burns, a cost of about $2,000 an acre with millions of acres needing treatment, and a shortage of places to take the wood, leaving it often chipped onsite.
My two cents:
We should embrace indigenous science. So, we need to stop acting like conquistadores. Fire has a purpose and it's not about conquering it. I also agree with this quote from the article: “We need to think about making peace with fire, not just making war on it. We’re good at that, but we aren’t winning.”
Hi! I was thinking about this idea last weekend. I recall these things being relatively good as small arms fire early warning systems when I was deployed. Wonder if you could train clusters of drones attached to the aerostat to swarm early fires and self destruct around the perimeter of the fire, painting it with fire retardant.
for what it is worth, i did some statistical analysis for the state of CA through a contractor in 2003 - my last year in school - as part of my honors thesis in statistics. there were 17 devastating fires that burned in CA that year. here is one of the two publications that came out of that project: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/64311/959_ftp.pdf?sequence=1
i cant find the other one.
the main concern at the time was the region of forested area called the Wildland-Urban Interface, i.e. the forested areas where there were homes that were at high-risk for being destroyed in a fire. it could be that the agencies would be much more interested in protecting/mitigating those areas opposed to protecting/mitigating forest fires generally.
It's quite the conundrum...wildfires thin out forests, which in turn prevent devastating infernos from being fueled. So, is prevention really a solution or a causation?
Smokey Bear drilled in our heads as kids that “only you can prevent forest fires" but I always questioned listening to a shirtless bear. 😁
I was just reading up on the fires by Lake Tahoe and how decisions made in the 1850's are connected to the uncontrollable fires in the area today.
The history:
For centuries, fires burned about every 10 to 15 years on average through the forests around Lake Tahoe, said Brandon Collins, a research scientist with the U.S. Forest Service and adjunct professor of fire science at UC Berkeley.
Those fires, set by lightning strikes or by the native Washoe people, removed dead wood, accumulated needles and other fire hazards. When fires did burn, they typically remained close to the ground, and burned slowly. But everything began to change in 1859, when a huge deposit of silver was discovered 15 miles east of Lake Tahoe in Virginia City, Nevada.
Miners working on the Comstock Lode, clear cut large sections of Tahoe’s forests to obtain supports for the huge networks of underground tunnels. They removed large Jeffrey pines and other trees that were spaced apart by years of fires.
Fast forward to today:
What grew back were dense numbers of white fir and other trees. Not only did the firs have thinner bark that made them more vulnerable to fire than the older pines, they have lower branches which makes it easier for fire spread.
The solution:
Since 1997, 65,000 acres have been thinned or treated with prescribed burns around the 200,000-acre Tahoe basin...
It's not enough. Forest-thinning efforts across the Sierra should be increased five-to-tenfold in the coming years. Such projects can be challenging, with controversies over smoke from prescribed burns, a cost of about $2,000 an acre with millions of acres needing treatment, and a shortage of places to take the wood, leaving it often chipped onsite.
My two cents:
We should embrace indigenous science. So, we need to stop acting like conquistadores. Fire has a purpose and it's not about conquering it. I also agree with this quote from the article: “We need to think about making peace with fire, not just making war on it. We’re good at that, but we aren’t winning.”
1) What's an acceptable time to be on target after detection? If it's a few hours, you could have trucks pre-positioned with drones ready to launch once you fed the co-ordinates in. Most high end consumer drones have a 3 mile range, so you'd probably need to get the truck down some fire roads to get in range to launch.
2) Water can be heavy - extinguishers are another option. Drone swarm drops a number of perhaps heat activated C02 canisters onto the fire to extinguish or retard it. Delivering enough volume will be a challenge.
3) Perhaps you have a larger UAV such as a modified Predator which is a launch platform for the drones. Much faster time on target.
4) Maybe you have the UAV itself be the retardant delivery vehicle; though I don't think tankers really try to extinguish fires, just direct their burn path.
5) What's the common growth rate of a fire in medium or heavy brush, and size when it can be spotted? Somewhat counterintuitively, you may want to target high growth fires, since they are the most costly when the reach scale.
Love this idea; it's neat to consider them for both fire detection and extinguishing. I saw an article on a solar glider recently and those assisting with either detection or verification of hot spots picked up by satellite could dispatch swarm(s) with retardant while the fire is still small.
CEO | Founder | Managing Partner @ Platform Venture Studio
Speed of putting out the fire in the early stages is critical but fires often start in remote locations.
Wildfires are detectable quite quickly by satellite. It's likely that the speed of detection will improve with more satellites launched and better machine learning models.
A large swarm of drones could be automatically dispatched to fight a remote fire based on the satellite detection lat/lon. The amount of water/fire retardant each drone can carry is small but the cost of each drone is also tiny (versus the cost of letting the fire grow).
I would expect range is the main issue so swarms would need to be staged at sufficient density in high-risk locations.
Drones can be sacrificed for early intervention - they need not even return so one-way range is all that is required.
Jeremy Burton
almost 5 years ago
Managing Partner @ steamshovel.
FYI, I worked in firefighting as well as other facets of emergency response for a number of years and I have a strong interest in wildfire mitigation and control. I also wrote an A+ paper on wildfire mitigation back in undergrad! If anyone is working on a concept in this space, I'd love to help out - please don't hesitate to get in touch!
Builder of Beautiful Things
Over 1,500 California fires in the past 6 years — including the deadliest ever — were caused by one company: PG&E. Here's what it could have done but didn't.
PG&E should have done years ago, from better tree trimming to power-line upgrades.
https://www.businessinsider.com/pge-caused-california-wildfires-safety-measures-2019-10
Builder of Beautiful Things
Reposting for today's discussion:
It's quite the conundrum...wildfires (uncontrolled or controlled indigenous science) thin out forests, which in turn prevent devastating infernos from being fueled. So, is all prevention of wildfires really a solution or part of the causation?
I was just reading up on the fires by Lake Tahoe and how decisions made in the 1850's are connected to the uncontrollable fires in the area today.
The history:
For centuries, fires burned about every 10 to 15 years on average through the forests around Lake Tahoe, said Brandon Collins, a research scientist with the U.S. Forest Service and adjunct professor of fire science at UC Berkeley.
Those fires, set by lightning strikes or by the native Washoe people, removed dead wood, accumulated needles and other fire hazards. When fires did burn, they typically remained close to the ground, and burned slowly. But everything began to change in 1859, when a huge deposit of silver was discovered 15 miles east of Lake Tahoe in Virginia City, Nevada.
Miners working on the Comstock Lode, clear cut large sections of Tahoe’s forests to obtain supports for the huge networks of underground tunnels. They removed large Jeffrey pines and other trees that were spaced apart by years of fires.
Fast forward to today:
What grew back were dense numbers of white fir and other trees. Not only did the firs have thinner bark that made them more vulnerable to fire than the older pines, they have lower branches which makes it easier for fire spread.
The solution:
Since 1997, 65,000 acres have been thinned or treated with prescribed burns around the 200,000-acre Tahoe basin...
It's not enough. Forest-thinning efforts across the Sierra should be increased five-to-tenfold in the coming years. Such projects can be challenging, with controversies over smoke from prescribed burns, a cost of about $2,000 an acre with millions of acres needing treatment, and a shortage of places to take the wood, leaving it often chipped onsite.
My two cents:
We should embrace indigenous science. So, we need to stop acting like conquistadores. Fire has a purpose and it's not about conquering it. I also agree with this quote from the article: “We need to think about making peace with fire, not just making war on it. We’re good at that, but we aren’t winning.”
Source: https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/31/caldor-fire-why-lake-tahoes-forests-face-so-much-fire-danger/
Chief Growth Officer @ Platform Venture Studio
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/05/220524124913.htm
Chief Growth Officer @ Platform Venture Studio
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/08/wildfires-united-states-cause-science
Founder, MD @ PivotNorth Capital
we have 150 trees per acre vs 50 decades ago. too much density. forests are mostly fed govt owned. allow logging to get back to 50, and then provide these trees free if used for affordable housing. trees on the stump are 20% of cost of lumber. would make it cheaper to build affordable housing, and all that carbon is then encapsulated in buildings vs being burnt in fires. https://gvwire.com/2020/09/15/california-forests-80-600-denser-than-150-years-ago-uc-researcher-says-biomass-is-one-of-the-answers/
Senior Recruiter @ Anaplan
Hi! I was thinking about this idea last weekend. I recall these things being relatively good as small arms fire early warning systems when I was deployed. Wonder if you could train clusters of drones attached to the aerostat to swarm early fires and self destruct around the perimeter of the fire, painting it with fire retardant.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JLENS
A potential issue is the sensitivity of folks in the vicinity of these systems. For example, cannabis growers up north might be hard to convince.
programmer/entrepreneur @ Contextly
for what it is worth, i did some statistical analysis for the state of CA through a contractor in 2003 - my last year in school - as part of my honors thesis in statistics. there were 17 devastating fires that burned in CA that year. here is one of the two publications that came out of that project: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/64311/959_ftp.pdf?sequence=1
i cant find the other one.
the main concern at the time was the region of forested area called the Wildland-Urban Interface, i.e. the forested areas where there were homes that were at high-risk for being destroyed in a fire. it could be that the agencies would be much more interested in protecting/mitigating those areas opposed to protecting/mitigating forest fires generally.
Builder of Beautiful Things
It's quite the conundrum...wildfires thin out forests, which in turn prevent devastating infernos from being fueled. So, is prevention really a solution or a causation?
Smokey Bear drilled in our heads as kids that “only you can prevent forest fires" but I always questioned listening to a shirtless bear. 😁
Builder of Beautiful Things
I was just reading up on the fires by Lake Tahoe and how decisions made in the 1850's are connected to the uncontrollable fires in the area today.
The history:
For centuries, fires burned about every 10 to 15 years on average through the forests around Lake Tahoe, said Brandon Collins, a research scientist with the U.S. Forest Service and adjunct professor of fire science at UC Berkeley.
Those fires, set by lightning strikes or by the native Washoe people, removed dead wood, accumulated needles and other fire hazards. When fires did burn, they typically remained close to the ground, and burned slowly. But everything began to change in 1859, when a huge deposit of silver was discovered 15 miles east of Lake Tahoe in Virginia City, Nevada.
Miners working on the Comstock Lode, clear cut large sections of Tahoe’s forests to obtain supports for the huge networks of underground tunnels. They removed large Jeffrey pines and other trees that were spaced apart by years of fires.
Fast forward to today:
What grew back were dense numbers of white fir and other trees. Not only did the firs have thinner bark that made them more vulnerable to fire than the older pines, they have lower branches which makes it easier for fire spread.
The solution:
Since 1997, 65,000 acres have been thinned or treated with prescribed burns around the 200,000-acre Tahoe basin...
It's not enough. Forest-thinning efforts across the Sierra should be increased five-to-tenfold in the coming years. Such projects can be challenging, with controversies over smoke from prescribed burns, a cost of about $2,000 an acre with millions of acres needing treatment, and a shortage of places to take the wood, leaving it often chipped onsite.
My two cents:
We should embrace indigenous science. So, we need to stop acting like conquistadores. Fire has a purpose and it's not about conquering it. I also agree with this quote from the article: “We need to think about making peace with fire, not just making war on it. We’re good at that, but we aren’t winning.”
Chief Penguin @ Red Hot Penguin Consulting
Love the idea. Some thoughts:
1) What's an acceptable time to be on target after detection? If it's a few hours, you could have trucks pre-positioned with drones ready to launch once you fed the co-ordinates in. Most high end consumer drones have a 3 mile range, so you'd probably need to get the truck down some fire roads to get in range to launch.
2) Water can be heavy - extinguishers are another option. Drone swarm drops a number of perhaps heat activated C02 canisters onto the fire to extinguish or retard it. Delivering enough volume will be a challenge.
3) Perhaps you have a larger UAV such as a modified Predator which is a launch platform for the drones. Much faster time on target.
4) Maybe you have the UAV itself be the retardant delivery vehicle; though I don't think tankers really try to extinguish fires, just direct their burn path.
5) What's the common growth rate of a fire in medium or heavy brush, and size when it can be spotted? Somewhat counterintuitively, you may want to target high growth fires, since they are the most costly when the reach scale.
Software Engineer @ Ethically
Love this idea; it's neat to consider them for both fire detection and extinguishing. I saw an article on a solar glider recently and those assisting with either detection or verification of hot spots picked up by satellite could dispatch swarm(s) with retardant while the fire is still small.
programmer/entrepreneur @ Contextly
interesting idea. one challenge is drones are often prohibited from operating on public lands or restricted in some way.
CEO | Founder | Managing Partner @ Platform Venture Studio
Speed of putting out the fire in the early stages is critical but fires often start in remote locations.
Wildfires are detectable quite quickly by satellite. It's likely that the speed of detection will improve with more satellites launched and better machine learning models.
A large swarm of drones could be automatically dispatched to fight a remote fire based on the satellite detection lat/lon. The amount of water/fire retardant each drone can carry is small but the cost of each drone is also tiny (versus the cost of letting the fire grow).
I would expect range is the main issue so swarms would need to be staged at sufficient density in high-risk locations.
Drones can be sacrificed for early intervention - they need not even return so one-way range is all that is required.
I have found limited discussion of this concept so far. e.g. https://dronelife.com/2021/04/28/drone-swarms-for-firefighting-the-future-of-fire-supression/