You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Big batteries are critical to decarbonizing the electric grid. They can also explode.
Every source of renewable energy seems to face an opposition based on a real downside that’s blown out of proportion. Wind turbines kill birds. Solar panels fry them. Hydropower can release methane. Nuclear reactors can melt down. And now batteries are coming under the microscope for exploding.
Late last week, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced that the state had formed a working group to “ensure the safety and security of energy storage systems,” in response to fires at battery systems in three New York counties. Her announcement concerns batteries used on the electric grid, which are larger but typically conform to high standards in construction and installation, but it came a few months after the publication of a New York Times report about deadly fires caused by much smaller lithium-ion batteries in e-bikes.
While energy researchers and fire officials are concerned about the risks of battery failures leading to explosions, they’re also nervous that fears of e-bikes packed into bike shops could rebound against energy storage. If a 5-pound e-bike battery can explode and burn down a house, who would want to put 300,000 pounds of batteries on their apartment building’s roof?
The problem is there’s basically no way to realistically decarbonize an electric grid without a lot more battery storage. Wind and solar power only generate electricity when it’s either windy or sunny, so powering the grid on cloudy, calm days — or, in the case of solar, just at night — requires a way to store that energy.
In other words, with energy storage rolling out fast across the country, a lot more attention is about to be paid to preventing and putting out battery fires.
It’s worth noting at the outset that there’s also always a risk of failure from energy storage. Oil and gas can ignite, dams can burst, and batteries can explode. The chemical or kinetic energy you hope to release in a controlled fashion can always be released in an uncontrolled fashion, and batteries are no different.
“Anytime you store energy it can be released in an uncontrolled manner,” Lakshmi Srinivasan, a senior technical leader at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), told me.
In fact, the very reason lithium-ion batteries are so appealing — i.e. their high levels of energy density — is also why their fires can be so devastating and hard to put out.
“They put in energy in a small footprint. That’s bad when energy is released in an uncontrolled way. It’s an inherent hazard we accept,” Brian O’Connor, technical services engineer at the National Fire Protection Association, told me. The battery cells are packed tightly together to efficiently use available space, which then presents the risk of issues in one cell spreading to the others.
When one battery cell goes in thermal runaway, which is uncontrolled energy release, it can then spread to the next battery cell and the next, O’Connor explained. “As this process continues, it can result in a battery fire or explosion. This can often be the ignition source for larger battery fires,” according to the NFPA, which may result in explosions and the release of toxic gases.
The subsequent fires can be hard to put out and difficult to manage for first responders without specific training and experience, explained O’Connor. “We’re trying to encourage and require thorough codes and standards in preplanning with fire departments. Let’s make sure first responders know where they’re going to. Let’s have a plan.”
Because battery storage systems typically have to go through a permitting process to be installed, there’s leverage for making them safer through improving and disseminating best practices, explained Stephanie Shaw, a principal technical leader at EPRI.
Longstanding doubts and fears around batteries in scooters, e-bikes, and hoverboards can sometimes make people apprehensive about energy storage, Shaw said. “We do see a tendency for folks less familiar to lump all that together. One of the things that I’m trying to get across is that larger-scale grid connected units have a lot of requirements.” This can mean spacing out the batteries both from each other and from walls, as well as installing sprinkler systems.
The issues around batteries are not new or unknown: According to a database of battery failures maintained by the EPRI, there have been 11 in the past year, including three in New York since late May, as well as a recent one in Taiwan.
There also doesn’t yet appear to be evidence that failures and fires are scaling with deployment of electrical storage at a constant rate, said Shaw.
That’s encouraging because large-scale battery storage is getting rolled out rapidly.
“With grid scale utility scale deployments, the vast majority are lithium-ion technologies. We’re increasing deployment very rapidly. We’re at beginning of a hockey stick curve,” Srinivasan said, referencing the way exponential growth looks on a chart.
California, in particular, has installed a staggering amount of grid scale storage, from around 500 megawatts in 2020 to 5 gigawatts this year. Texas has 3.5 gigawatts of installed battery storage on its grid, compared to 2 gigawatts last year. Any area that pursues decarbonization with a renewable heavy grid will likely have to follow suit. Earlier this year, Kathy Hochul announced a goal to install 6 megawatts of storage in New York by 2030.
While there is not yet any evidence of the kind of widespread, intense local backlash to battery storage that has greeted many utility scale wind and solar projects, there are a few cases of leery residents when faced with a proposal to install batteries near them. In the Brooklyn neighborhood of Greenpoint, for example, a plan to install 15 lithium-ion batteries that weigh a combined 300,000 pounds on the roof of an apartment building has stirred up tenant opposition, according to the local publication Greenpointers.
Battery installations across Staten Island have also evoked grumbling from residents and local officials, with the borough president, Republican Vito Fossella, telling the Staten Island Advance, “If you put a deck on your house, it is scrutinized from every angle ... But we have residents who are quite literally waking up with these battery systems in their backyards.”
If the ambitious battery storage targets required for decarbonizing the grid are going to be met, expect the grumbling to increase.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A conversation with Mary King, a vice president handling venture strategy at Aligned Capital
Today’s conversation is with Mary King, a vice president handling venture strategy at Aligned Capital, which has invested in developers like Summit Ridge and Brightnight. I reached out to Mary as a part of the broader range of conversations I’ve had with industry professionals since it has become clear Republicans in Congress will be taking a chainsaw to the Inflation Reduction Act. I wanted to ask her about investment philosophies in this trying time and how the landscape for putting capital into renewable energy has shifted. But Mary’s quite open with her view: these technologies aren’t going anywhere.
The following conversation has been lightly edited and abridged for clarity.
How do you approach working in this field given all the macro uncertainties?
It’s a really fair question. One, macro uncertainties aside, when you look at the levelized cost of energy report Lazard releases it is clear that there are forms of clean energy that are by far the cheapest to deploy. There are all kinds of reasons to do decarbonizing projects that aren’t clean energy generation: storage, resiliency, energy efficiency – this is massively cost saving. Like, a lot of the methane industry [exists] because there’s value in not leaking methane. There’s all sorts of stuff you can do that you don’t need policy incentives for.
That said, the policy questions are unavoidable. You can’t really ignore them and I don’t want to say they don’t matter to the industry – they do. It’s just, my belief in this being an investable asset class and incredibly important from a humanity perspective is unwavering. That’s the perspective I’ve been taking. This maybe isn’t going to be the most fun market, investing in decarbonizing things, but the sense of purpose and the belief in the underlying drivers of the industry outweigh that.
With respect to clean energy development, and the investment class working in development, how have things changed since January and the introduction of these bills that would pare back the IRA?
Both investors and companies are worried. There’s a lot more political and policy engagement. We’re seeing a lot of firms and organizations getting involved. I think companies are really trying to find ways to structure around the incentives. Companies and developers, I think everybody is trying to – for lack of a better term – future-proof themselves against the worst eventuality.
One of the things I’ve been personally thinking about is that the way developers generally make money is, you have a financier that’s going to buy a project from them, and the financier is going to have a certain investment rate of return, or IRR. So ITC [investment tax credit] or no ITC, that IRR is going to be the same. And the developer captures the difference.
My guess – and I’m not incredibly confident yet – but I think the industry just focuses on being less ITC dependent. Finding the projects that are juicier regardless of the ITC.
The other thing is that as drafts come out for what we’re expecting to see, it’s gone from bad to terrible to a little bit better. We’ll see what else happens as we see other iterations.
How are you evaluating companies and projects differently today, compared to how you were maybe before it was clear the IRA would be targeted?
Let’s say that we’re looking at a project developer and they have a series of projects. Right now we’re thinking about a few things. First, what assets are these? It’s not all ITC and PTC. A lot of it is other credits. Going through and asking, how at risk are these credits? And then, once we know how at risk those credits are we apply it at a project level.
This also raises a question of whether you’re going to be able to find as many projects. Is there going to be as much demand if you’re not able to get to an IRR? Is the industry going to pay that?
What gives you optimism in this moment?
I’ll just look at the levelized cost of energy and looking at the unsubsidized tables say these are the projects that make sense and will still get built. Utility-scale solar? Really attractive. Some of these next-gen geothermal projects, I think those are going to be cost effective.
The other thing is that the cost of battery storage is just declining so rapidly and it’s continuing to decline. We are as a country expected to compare the current price of these technologies in perpetuity to the current price of oil and gas, which is challenging and where the technologies have not changed materially. So we’re not going to see the cost decline we’re going to see in renewables.
And more news around renewable energy conflicts.
1. Nantucket County, Massachusetts – The SouthCoast offshore wind project will be forced to abandon its existing power purchase agreements with Massachusetts and Rhode Island if the Trump administration’s wind permitting freeze continues, according to court filings submitted last week.
2. Tippacanoe County, Indiana – This county has now passed a full solar moratorium but is looking at grandfathering one large utility-scale project: RWE and Geenex’s Rainbow Trout solar farm.
3. Columbia County, Wisconsin – An Alliant wind farm named after this county is facing its own pushback as the developer begins the state permitting process and is seeking community buy-in through public info hearings.
4. Washington County, Arkansas – It turns out even mere exploration for a wind project out in this stretch of northwest Arkansas can get you in trouble with locals.
5. Wagoner County, Oklahoma – A large NextEra solar project has been blocked by county officials despite support from some Republican politicians in the Sooner state.
6. Skagit County, Washington – If you’re looking for a ray of developer sunshine on a cloudy day, look no further than this Washington State county that’s bucking opposition to a BESS facility.
7. Orange County, California – A progressive Democratic congressman is now opposing a large battery storage project in his district and talking about battery fire risks, the latest sign of a populist revolt in California against BESS facilities.
Permitting delays and missed deadlines are bedeviling solar developers and activist groups alike. What’s going on?
It’s no longer possible to say the Trump administration is moving solar projects along as one of the nation’s largest solar farms is being quietly delayed and even observers fighting the project aren’t sure why.
Months ago, it looked like Trump was going to start greenlighting large-scale solar with an emphasis out West. Agency spokespeople told me Trump’s 60-day pause on permitting solar projects had been lifted and then the Bureau of Land Management formally approved its first utility-scale project under this administration, Leeward Renewable Energy’s Elisabeth solar project in Arizona, and BLM also unveiled other solar projects it “reasonably” expected would be developed in the area surrounding Elisabeth.
But the biggest indicator of Trump’s thinking on solar out west was Esmeralda 7, a compilation of solar project proposals in western Nevada from NextEra, Invenergy, Arevia, ConnectGen, and other developers that would, if constructed, produce at least 6 gigawatts of power. My colleague Matthew Zeitlin was first to report that BLM officials updated the timetable for fully permitting the expansive project to say it would complete its environmental review by late April and be completely finished with the federal bureaucratic process by mid-July. BLM told Matthew that the final environmental impact statement – the official study completing the environmental review – would be published “in the coming days or week or so.”
More than two months later, it’s crickets from BLM on Esmeralda 7. BLM never released the study that its website as of today still says should’ve come out in late April. I asked BLM for comment on this and a spokesperson simply told me the agency “does not have any updates to share on this project at this time.”
This state of quiet stasis is not unique to Esmeralda; for example, Leeward has yet to receive a final environmental impact statement for its 700 mega-watt Copper Rays solar project in Nevada’s Pahrump Valley that BLM records state was to be published in early May. Earlier this month, BLM updated the project timeline for another Nevada solar project – EDF’s Bonanza – to say it would come out imminently, too, but nothing’s been released.
Delays happen in the federal government and timelines aren’t always met. But on its face, it is hard for stakeholders I speak with out in Nevada to take these months-long stutters as simply good faith bureaucratic hold-ups. And it’s even making work fighting solar for activists out in the desert much more confusing.
For Shaaron Netherton, executive director of the conservation group Friends of the Nevada Wilderness, these solar project permitting delays mean an uncertain future. Friends of the Nevada Wilderness is a volunteer group of ecology protection activists that is opposing Esmeralda 7 and filed its first lawsuit against Greenlink West, a transmission project that will connect the massive solar constellation to the energy grid. Netherton told me her group may sue against the approval of Esmeralda 7… but that the next phase of their battle against the project is a hazy unknown.
“It’s just kind of a black hole,” she told me of the Esmeralda 7 permitting process. “We will litigate Esmeralda 7 if we have to, and we were hoping that with this administration there would be a little bit of a pause. There may be. That’s still up in the air.”
I’d like to note that Netherton’s organization has different reasons for opposition than I normally write about in The Fight. Instead of concerns about property values or conspiracies about battery fires, her organization and a multitude of other desert ecosystem advocates are trying to avoid a future where large industries of any type harm or damage one of the nation’s most biodiverse and undeveloped areas.
This concern for nature has historically motivated environmental activism. But it’s also precisely the sort of advocacy that Trump officials have opposed tooth-and-nail, dating back to the president’s previous term, when advocates successfully opposed his rewrite of Endangered Species Act regulations. This reason – a motivation to hippie-punch, so to speak – is a reason why I hardly expect species protection to be enough of a concern to stop solar projects in their tracks under Trump, at least for now. There’s also the whole “energy dominance” thing, though Trump has been wishy-washy on adhering to that goal.
Patrick Donnelly, great basin director at the Center for Biological Diversity, agrees that this is a period of confusion but not necessarily an end to solar permitting on BLM land.
“[Solar] is moving a lot slower than it was six months ago, when it was coming at a breakneck pace,” said Patrick Donnelly of the Center for Biological Diversity. “How much of that is ideological versus 15-20% of the agencies taking early retirement and utter chaos inside the agencies? I’m not sure. But my feeling is it’s less ideological. I really don’t think Trump’s going to just start saying no to these energy projects.”