🔥 AI saving lives: Fighting wildfires with AI-powered early detection
24:57 Share

This is a new special deep dive of the podcast AI Unraveled, created and produced by Etienne Moomin, a senior engineer and a passionate soccer dad from Canada. Please remember to like and subscribe and definitely spread the word. Welcome to the deep dive. This is where we take really complex information, we try to distill it down and hopefully uncover some surprising nuggets of knowledge all tailored for you. Our

Our mission today, well, it's to unpack a critical global challenge and explore how cutting edge technology is rising to meet it head on. We're taking a deep dive into the escalating global wildfire crisis and specifically the transformative role artificial intelligence is playing in detecting and combating these devastating events.

We'll explore the shocking scale of the problem, trace the evolution of how we detect fires, analyze the current AI arsenal, you know, what tools are actually out there. We'll also look at some real-world success stories and importantly acknowledge the sobering challenges that still remain. So, okay, let's unpack this pressing issue. The global landscape, it feels like it's increasingly defined by fire. It's really no longer just a seasonal problem, is it? It feels more like a persistent worldwide crisis.

fueled by, well, climate change, obviously, but also evolving land use and that growing interface between wild lands and where people live. You're absolutely right. In the statistics, they paint a really stark picture of this escalating crisis. It's quite grim, actually. In the U.S., for instance, the number of acres burned has just risen dramatically. If you look back, say, from 1983 to the early 2000s, we averaged maybe two to four million acres a year. But since 2015,

we're routinely seeing over 8 million acres burned annually, sometimes peaks over 10 million. In 2024 alone, it was over 9.3 million acres. That's a 40% increase in just a decade. And get this, a fourfold rise compared to only 40 years ago. Wow, four times. That's staggering. It is. And what these numbers really reveal is

a fundamental shift. We're not just dealing with more fires. We're increasingly dealing with mega fires. Think about this. In 2024, just 39 fires. These are the really big ones. Over 40,000 acres each. They were responsible for 56% of the total acreage burned nationwide. Half the damage from just a handful of fires.

Exactly. Consider the 2024 Park Fire in California. It just exploded 350,000 acres in three days. The key takeaway here really is that it's the fires escaping that initial containment, that initial attack that drive these catastrophic outcomes. They turn small ignitions into national disasters. And this isn't just a U.S. problem, right? You mentioned global scale. Oh, absolutely. It's global. In 2023, the EU had its fourth largest burnt area on record.

That's about 500,000 hectares. That included Greece's 96,000-hectare blaze, the largest single wildfire ever recorded in the EU.

Globally, the estimate is around 3.9 million square kilometers burned between March 2023 and February 2024. And we're seeing fires now in places you wouldn't expect, like the Amazon, even the Arctic. Plus, the fire seasons themselves are just expanding. In California, for example, major fires now burn well into December. That used to be considered safely outside the peak risk period. December, that's wild. Yeah, and the outlook...

According to the UN Environment Program, or UNP, it's pretty grim, they project extreme fires to increase by 14% by 2030, then 30% by 2050, and a staggering 50% by 2100. This basically transforms wildfires into a permanent global feature.

It fundamentally reshapes how we design cities, manage land, even how we breathe. And the ripple effects. Yeah. They go way beyond the flames, hitting us hard in the wallet, too. The financial fallout must be just staggering. Absolutely staggering. And it's not just the immediate damage. It's the cascading effects. Yeah. Just look at the U.S. federal suppression costs fighting the fires. That reached $4.8 billion in 2024.

That's a 250 percent increase in a single decade. 250 percent. Yeah. But that's honestly just a fraction of the real cost. Yeah. The total economic losses, property destruction, business interruption, health care, ecosystem damage, damage. They're orders of magnitude larger. Projections for the 2025 Southern California fires alone exceed $250 billion. Quarter of a trillion dollars.

For one event, potentially. Remember the 2018 campfire? $12.5 billion in insured losses. The 2023 Maui wildfire added another $4.4 billion. Some comprehensive estimates put the total annual cost of wildfires in the U.S. somewhere between $394 billion and $893 billion every year. That's almost a trillion dollars at the high end. It's a huge drag on the economy.

These costs essentially turn a natural disaster into an enduring burden on local and national economies for years after the flames are out. And the human cost?

That's immeasurable, too. Equally profound. Absolutely. Beyond the direct deaths like the tragic 97 lives lost in Lahaina, Hawaii, there's the severe public health crisis from wildfire smoke. That fine particulate matter, PM 2.5, it can travel thousands of miles. You probably remember the Canadian smoke blanketing the U.S. East Coast in 2023. Oh, yeah. It was terrible here. Exactly. And that kind of pollution is linked to an estimated 340,000 premature deaths globally each year.

So every dollar we save through better, faster detection isn't just cost avoidance. It's really an investment in community health and resilience. And here's what's crucial to understand from a technology perspective. The real market driver for advanced tech like AI isn't just that fires exist. It's the failure to control them quickly.

Those megafires show us that the critical window for effective action is minutes, not hours or days. Right, that initial attack phase. Precisely. It's in that narrow time frame that a small manageable ignition becomes an unstoppable monster. So

So AI's value proposition is delivering precise, verified, actionable intelligence fast enough to keep fires small and therefore keep those costs contained. It makes you wonder, given this growing crisis, how on earth did we manage before AI? Let's trace that journey from human eyes to digital sentinels, starting with, well, the classic fire lookout tower. Ah, yes, the romantic but flawed bastion, as some call it.

For a large part of the 20th century, these lookout towers were the primary method. There were over 8,000 at their peak across 49 states.

Lookouts used binoculars and a special tool called an Osborne Fire Finder to spot smoke and estimate its location. Sounds quite low-tech now. It was. And it had significant limitations. First, you needed a clear line of sight that's easily obscured by terrain, bad weather, even smoke from other fires. It was totally reactive, obviously, relying on constant human vigilance. Someone had to be watching all the time.

And crucially, there were critical delays. Spotting smoke was just the first step. Then the lookout had to use that fire finder, estimate the location, assess the threat, then relay it all by radio or maybe telephone. Time ticking away with every step. Exactly. That time lag is simply unacceptable for today's faster moving fires. Plus, it just wasn't scalable, which is why there are only a few hundred active towers left today. Okay, so towers faded out. Then we moved towards the first wave of automation. What did that look like? Right.

In the 1990s, we saw early attempts using ground-based cameras and sensor networks. An improvement, maybe, over purely manual methods. But they inherited many of the same flaws and, frankly, introduced some new ones. Such as? Well, for one, they were incredibly expensive to deploy and maintain. You need infrastructure, power, data links in remote areas. Like the lookouts, cameras had limited viewpoints. They couldn't see behind hills or through dense forest, and they were pretty useless at night.

But maybe the biggest issue was the high rate of false positives. These early systems really struggled to tell wildfire smoke apart from, you know, fog, dust, even industrial steam. The cry wolf problem. Exactly. It erodes credibility. If the system is always wrong, people stop trusting it and you waste resources chasing ghosts.

And importantly, this first wave of tech was purely reactive. It told you maybe there was smoke, but offered no predictive capabilities, no detailed metrics on the fire's size, intensity, or where it was heading. So still a big gap in getting useful information quickly. A huge gap. And this brings us to really the core failure of all these legacy systems, both human and early automated ones.

It was the unacceptable delay between that initial detection and getting actionable intelligence to the people who needed it. Spotting smoke or getting an alarm ping is just the start. All the steps after that verification, pinpointing the location, assessing the situation, communicating it, they all took precious time.

Modern AI systems are fundamentally engineered to solve this problem. They fuse detection, verification, localization, and context into a workflow that's almost instantaneous. Okay, so let's dive into that core. How is AI actually revolutionizing detection now? What are the main technologies we're seeing? Broadly speaking, there are three main approaches using AI for wildfire detection today, each with its own unique strengths and weaknesses. Okay, let's hear them. First up, we have Eyes in the Sky, satellite-based AI.

This uses Earth observation satellites, think NASA, NOAA, but also private companies now. They use advanced thermal sensors, mostly mid-wave and long-wave infrared, that can literally see the heat signature of a fire, often around 800 to 1200 degrees Celsius, even from orbit.

Then, AI algorithms analyze that data. They identify new heat sources, filter out potential false alarms, and issue alerts. The big advantage there is coverage, I assume. Unparalleled coverage. Vast global reach. Millions of acres. It's ideal for very remote regions where ground access is difficult.

Systems like NOAA's NGFS, which uses geostationary satellites, can scan the entire contiguous U.S. every five minutes. They claim they can issue an alert in as little as one minute for fires as small as a quarter of an acre. That sounds pretty impressive. What are the downsides? There are critical tradeoffs. Latency and revisit time are big ones. Low Earth orbit, or LEO satellites, might only pass over the same spot every few days. Even the geostationary ones, while scanning frequently, can still take up to 90 minutes for an alert to actually process through the whole system and get out. 90 minutes?

A lot can happen in that time. A huge amount. Then there's resolution. It's often quite low, especially for GEO satellites, maybe one kilometer pixel size or more.

So they can miss small incipient fires, exactly the ones you want to catch early. And of course, they can't see through clouds or thick smoke. Plus, they still have issues with false positives from other heat sources. Think large solar farms, industrial facilities, things like that. OK, so satellites are good for broad coverage, but have latency and resolution issues. What's next? Next is the ever vigilant network.

Ground-based AI cameras. Companies like Pano AI are a good example here. They install these ruggedized, ultra-high-definition cameras, often with 360-degree rotation, on high vantage points like existing towers or mountaintops. These cameras capture images constantly, maybe every minute. The images are streamed to the cloud. Their 247 AI computer vision models analyze the images. These models are trained on huge data sets to recognize very subtle signs of smoke, often long before a human eye would catch it.

AI doing the constant watching, basically? Exactly. But here's a critical step. Human in the loop, or HITL, verification.

The AI flags potential detections, but they don't just send an alert automatically. Instead, it gets routed to a 247 intelligence center where trained human analysts look at it. They use tools like optical zoom on the camera feed, time-lapse imagery. They verify if it's really a fire. Ah, so that addresses the cry wolf problem. Precisely. It dramatically reduces false positives and builds trust with the first responders. They know when they get an alert, it's been vetted.

Once verified, the system sends out actionable intelligence instantly. We're talking precise GPS coordinates, often triangulated from multiple cameras for better accuracy, plus live video feeds, all through a web or mobile app. So the strengths are speed and quality of information. Unparalleled detection speed, often within minutes of ignition.

and really rich, actionable intelligence that live video lets responders see exactly what they're dealing with immediately. Light of sight is the main one. Each camera typically covers a radius of maybe 10 to 15 miles. So it's best suited for high-value areas, the wildland-urban interface, WUI, critical infrastructure, watersheds. And naturally, it requires physical installation, ongoing maintenance, and you need reliable power and data connections, which can be tricky in remote spots.

Key players include Pano AI, FireScout, and the Alert California network. Okay, satellites, ground cameras. What's the third approach? The third one is newer, still emerging really, sniffing out danger. IoT gas sensors. This is being pioneered by companies like Dryad Networks. The idea is to deploy mesh networks of low-cost, often solar-powered sensors directly in the forest canopy.

These sensors don't look for heat or smoke initially. They actually smell the air. They're designed to detect the specific chemical signatures of smoldering combustion, things like carbon monoxide, hydrogen, certain volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. Before there's even visible smoke. That's the goal. Detecting the fire before there's significant visible smoke or a strong heat signature.

The data is typically sent back using low-power, long-range IoT protocols like LoRaWAN, which work better in dense forest than, say, cellular. So the potential is even earlier detection? Theoretically, yes. The potential is for the earliest possible detection, maybe hours ahead of visual methods, especially under dense forest canopy where cameras and satellites struggle. But you said it's emerging. What are the hurdles? It's definitely still in the early stages, not yet proven at a massive scale.

A big challenge is you need a very high density of these sensors for effective coverage.

The logistics and cost of deploying and maintaining potentially millions of sensors across vast forests are formidable. Plus, there are questions about durability, battery life in harsh conditions, and avoiding false alarms from other environmental factors. But the key players pushing this are dryad networks and sensory AI. So three distinct technologies. Right. And if we connect this back to the bigger picture, it's really clear there's no single silver bullet here. No one technology solves everything.

The most effective, the most resilient wild fear management strategy will almost certainly evolve integrating these different technologies into a layered system of systems. Imagine a platform that can intelligently fuse data from satellites spotting potential heat, cameras confirming smoke plumes, maybe even IoT sensors giving very early warnings. Combine all that into a single coherent picture for responders. That's where the real advantage lies.

And, you know, for those of you listening who are inspired by this tech and want to dive deeper into AI, maybe for your career or just out of interest, remember Etienne Newman, who creates AI Unraveled. He has some fantastic resources over at djamgactech.com. We're talking AI certification prep books like Guides for the Azure AI Engineer Associate, Google Cloud Generative AI Leader, EWS Certified AI Practitioner, and more. Plus, he's got this comprehensive AI Unraveled Builder's Toolkit,

It's packed with tutorials, guides, even audio and videos, all designed to help you actually start building with AI. Check the show notes for the links.

These tools can really help you boost your skills and turn ideas into reality. That's great. So these technologies, they sound compelling on paper, but what about tangible impact? Can you give us a real-world example where this tech genuinely changed the outcome, maybe hitting that critical window you mentioned? Absolutely. The Bear Creek fire in Douglas County, Colorado, back in June 2024, is a perfect illustration. A lightning strike started a fire in a really remote critical watershed area.

The Pano AI system, the ground cameras we talked about, detected the initial smoke plume at 9.30 in the morning. It used two different camera stations to triangulate the precise coordinates. A verified alert with those exact coordinates and live video was sent instantly to the emergency managers. By 9.54 a.m., so just 24 minutes later, a rapid hell attack response was launched. Helicopters in the air that quickly? Yes. And crucially, they started dropping water long before the ground crews could even get there.

The crews faced a tough 2.5-hour hike just to reach the site. Because of that fast detection and aerial attack, the fire was contained at just three acres.

Officials later stated it almost certainly would have become highly destructive without that early, precise AI detection enabling the rapid response. It perfectly shows speed, precision, and actionable intelligence making the difference in that critical window. That's a powerful example. And what about the economics? How do these systems show a return on investment? Well, the economic savings can be significant. Take the Wellington Fire, also in Colorado.

A Pano AI alert gave responders a 21-minute head start. That allowed them to contain the blaze to just a quarter of an acre. Think of the potential cost saved there. On the satellite side, NOAA's NGFS system, during just one fire outbreak, was estimated to have helped save over $850 million worth of structures. That's a massive, like, 250-fold return on its initial $3 million development cost. Wow. 250 times ROI. Yeah.

And the performance metrics are stacking up too. Pano AI reports that 95% of fires detected by its system are ultimately contained under 10 acres. That's a key metric for success. Alert California, which integrates AI with its camera network, detected over 1,200 fires in its first AI-integrated season.

And get this, it provided the first alert beating 911 calls over 30% of the time. Faster than people calling it in. Exactly. These aren't just anecdotes, they're tangible proofs of efficacy.

showing how this technology directly translates into saving property, resources, and potentially lives. And it sounds like AI's role is expanding beyond just detection, right? Across the whole disaster lifecycle. That's absolutely right. It's moving into prediction. AI models are now analyzing historical fire data, current weather, lightning strikes, fuel moisture, vegetation maps, all to forecast ignition risk, sometimes with up to 90% accuracy. This allows agencies to pre-position resources where they might be needed most. So getting ahead of the fire. Trying to, yes. Then

Then there's resource allocation. During an active fire, machine learning can help optimize the deployment of firefighters, engines, aircraft. It analyzes terrain, weather, real-time fire behavior, and can even simulate different suppression strategies to see what might work best. Like a tactical advisor. In a sense, yes. And finally, damage assessment.

After the fire is out, AI can rapidly analyze satellite or drone imagery to identify and classify damaged structures, often with very high accuracy, around 95%. This speeds up recovery aid, insurance claims, getting communities back on their feet faster. It's clear the promise is huge, but we need that nuanced look too. Let's talk about the challenges, the limitations. Technology is powerful, but it's not a magic wand, is it? No, definitely not. It's crucial to acknowledge the realities.

There are significant technological hurdles still. First is what I call the data dilemma. Deep learning AI thrives on vast amounts of accurately labeled data. For wildfires, getting that kind of data across all the diverse conditions, different terrains, weather, fuel types is really hard. That scarcity limits how well the AI models can generalize and how accurate they can be in new situations. Garbage in, garbage out, basically. Or maybe just not enough good stuff in.

Then there's the persistent false positive problem. We talked about the early systems, but even modern AI can struggle to reliably distinguish wildfire smoke from fog, dust, steam, inversions, you name it. The human-in-the-loop verification helps manage this, but it's a workaround, not a fundamental fix in the algorithm itself yet.

And finally, there are unavoidable physical limitations. AI can't change physics. If you have extreme conditions like 100 mile per hour, Santa Ana winds whiffing a fire, it can become uncontrollable in literally 60 seconds. Even instant detection might not be enough then. And as we said, ground cameras need that line of sight. And satellites are basically useless if there's thick cloud cover or heavy smoke obscuring the view. OK, so technological limits. What about

Getting these systems out there and working together. Right. That leads to the operational and deployment hurdles. A big one is integration and compatibility.

Right now, the landscape is often a patchwork. You have different public agencies, private companies, various systems, and they often don't talk to each other effectively. This creates data silos, complicates workflows. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, the GAO, actually identified this lack of interoperability as a major challenge. So you might have great data, but it doesn't get to the right person easily. Exactly.

Then there's deployment and maintenance. Putting this tech cameras, sensors, power sources, communication links into remote, rugged terrain is logistically complex and expensive. You need rugged hardware, skilled technicians, reliable power and data, often in places where that's hard to come by. And we can't ignore privacy and security.

Those always on ultra high def cameras raise legitimate privacy concerns, especially near homes. Often solutions involve pixelating sensitive areas. Plus, any system supporting critical infrastructure like fire response becomes a potential target for cyber attacks. Good points. And beyond the tech and logistics. There's the crucial human and political dimension.

We have to remember, technology is a tool, not a replacement for everything else. Advanced detection is only effective if you have adequate, well-trained firefighters ready to respond quickly. The AI doesn't put out the fire itself? Yeah, precisely. A purely reactive AI approach isn't enough. It has to be integrated with proactive mitigation efforts. Things like prescribed burns to reduce fuel, forest thinning, creating defensible space around homes, and ultimately smarter land use policies about where and how we build.

Policy and regulation play a huge role, too. The UN Environment Program explicitly calls for a radical change in government spending, shifting focus and funds from just reacting to fires towards preventing them or mitigating their risk. But sometimes existing regulations can actually hinder those mitigation efforts.

Think about air quality rules that can limit windows for prescribed burns or debates around the environmental impact of fire retardants. It's complex. It's not just about buying the tech. Not at all. And this raises, I think, an important question, maybe a second order risk we need to watch. The danger of over-reliance on technology and potentially de-skilling our human experts.

If agencies become too dependent on automated alerts, maybe funding for traditional reconnaissance, lookout training, or ground patrols could get cut. Responsible implementation really requires a belt and suspenders approach. AI should be a powerful layer within a resilient, multifaceted strategy that still values and heavily invests in human expertise and

and boots on the ground capability. That's a really critical point. So this deep dive, it's shown us the immense power AI can bring to the wildfire crisis, faster detection, better prediction, quicker assessment, but also the absolute necessity of that human element and the complex challenges still ahead. Absolutely. The path forward really demands a strategic, integrated approach from everyone involved. We need investors who prioritize solutions that deliver truly actionable intelligence and leverage those network effects. We talked about systems working together.

We need policymakers to foster strong public-private partnerships and critically, to start shifting that funding balance more towards prevention and mitigation, not just suppression. And for the end users, the fire agencies themselves, they need to evaluate solutions based not just on flashy features, but on how well they integrate into existing workflows and the long-term reliability of the vendor. And looking ahead, say towards 2030, what does the future of fire tech look like? Even more integrated? I think so, yes. We can envision...

integrated command centers using things like digital twins, virtual replicas of the fire environment. In these centers, AI could synthesize data from all sources, satellites, cameras, drones, sensors, weather feeds, run complex simulations in real time, and recommend optimal strategies for resource allocation, maybe even help plan evacuation routes dynamically. Wow, like a real-time fire strategist. Potentially.

We'll also likely see more AI processing happening on the edge, meaning directly on the satellites or the cameras themselves, rather than sending all raw data to the cloud. This could make alerts even faster. And ultimately, the hope is that AI-driven prevention becomes much more sophisticated, allowing for highly targeted, data-driven mitigation efforts clearing specific high-risk fuels, maybe long before fire season even begins.

So, maybe a final provocative thought for you, for everyone listening, to consider. AI won't magically eliminate wildfires. They're a natural part of many ecosystems, and climate change is amplifying them. But AI will fundamentally transform our ability to live with and manage fire more intelligently. By providing that crucial foresight, speed, and intelligence, AI offers a powerful set of tools to mitigate the worst impacts of our burning world and hopefully build a more resilient future.

A powerful thought indeed. Thank you so much for sharing your expertise on this deep dive. We hope you listening found this exploration as fascinating and, frankly, as important as we did. Until next time.