3 ms·
Cool tech, but IMO this is long-term useless for many areas. In a lot of the West, including California, the problem is that there is a buildup of fuel that, d
by cameldrv 3y ago
Cool tech, but IMO this is long-term useless for many areas. In a lot of the West, including California, the problem is that there is a buildup of fuel that, due to the dry climate, doesn't really rot. Eventually this fuel has to burn. We've kept increasing the technology applied to suppression, first with fire engines, then hotshot crews, aerial firefighting, then satellites that can detect fires, and now automated cameras. Each innovation makes the response quicker and more effective, so more and more fuel can build up before it finally burns.
I liken this to damming up a river with no outlet for the water. The water keeps accumulating, so you build the dam higher every year. After a while, the dam is so high that concrete isn't strong enough so you build it higher with carbon fiber. Then that's not strong enough so you start using carbon nanotubes. The end result is that you have this massively unstable system that is going to eventually catastrophically fail.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- CameronNemo 3y agoMega fires can cause a lot of refugees and destruction of habitat, as well as the death of old growth trees that in theory are fire resistant. I do think at some point you have to let something burn, but you can set up fire breaks earlier for sensitive habitat areas... Or population centers.