If you live in Ripon, there is a burning question you need to ask.

How safe are lithium storage batteries given enough of them to store 100 megawatts are planned for their community?

The fires devastating the Los Angeles Basin may have your attention.

But it isn’t wildfires you  should be concerned with the most even though State Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara  put a rule into play last year that will bump up what one pays for homeowner coverage in Ripon, Manteca, and elsewhere to help cover insurers’ losses in wildfire zones.

Instead, you should worry about a fire that started on Jan. 16 and burned for three days 72 miles to the southwest.

It was at a former PG&E power plant site in Moss Landing, roughly midway between Santa Cruz and Monterey.

The fires was at the world’s largest lithium battery storage facility operated by Vistra Energy out of Texas.

It is capable of storing 750 megawatts of electricity.

The storage facility, and others like them now in place and to be constructed, are key to making the “chosen” fossil fuel replacement work.

The California Legislature has anointed wind and solar power as the technology to meet its renewable green energy mandate.

But there are some issues that have to be addressed to take other known energy technologies such as nuclear, hydrogen that is in its infancy stages, and even natural gas off the table.

The biggest is the fact neither solar nor wind can produce electricity 24/7.

That is why California is in the midst of a battery storage boom requiring an estimated 52,000 megawatt of storage by 2045.

And that did not factor in the energy demands of artificial intelligence.

It is to simply make 100 percent replacement of current fossil fuel work along with projected growth before energy mega-hogs such as AI and cryptocurrency popped up.

Based on a draft resolution going before the California Public Utilities Commission on March 13, by the end of 2024 there was 11,462 megawatts of utility-scale energy storage capacity in California.

That is the equivalent of 22 percent of the state’s current peak electric demand.

It’s going to take a lot more storage to cover the remaining 78 percent to wean off fossil fuel.

That’s where Ripon comes in.

It is one of three locations in play with approval to construct utility-scale battery storage within San Joaquin County to meet the demand.

The Ripon battery storage location is adjacent to the PG&E substation nestled next to the Flying J Truck Plaza next to Highway 99.

It represents 100 megawatts of storage compared to the 182.5 megawatts at Moss Landing.

The second location is proposed 22 miles southwest of Manteca.

It is a 400 megawatt storage facility that would tie into PG&E’s Tesla substation on the boundary with Alameda County.

The 40-acre site is on Patterson Pass Road some 2,000 feet south of Midway Road about 9/10th of a mile east of Interstate 580.

The third proposed location is in the Linden area.

One megawatt, on average, supplies the needs of 750 homes.

Now, let’s return to the Moss Landing fire that burned for three days during which time Highway 1 was closed and 1,200 people in the lightly populated area were evacuated.

Lithium batteries employ nickel, cobalt, and magnesium. 

They are three heavy metals that, in large enough concentrations, can be highly toxic.

Two weeks after the fire burned out, San Jose State scientists operating the Moss Landing Marine Lab detected the three potentially deadly metals in the waters of the teeming ecological system of the Elkhorn Slough.

They were at levels between 100 and 1,000 times greater than traces typically found in nature.

The metals were carried to the slough with a mile of the fire by a toxic flume of smoke that persisted for the better part of three days.

Heavy metals have a long life.

If they enter the food chain for wildlife or humans and start accumulating in their respective bodies, it can lead to serious neurological and reproductive system issues,

Ivano Aiello, a marine geologist that is among those collecting and analyzing the data, noted it raises serious questions about whether the technology replacing fossil fuels is the right replacement and if it is essentially trading one set of serious concerns with another set.

Keep in mind,lithium batteries burn hotter and are extremely problematic to extinguish.

It is why firefighters let battery packs powering cars and trucks burn while dumping an inordinate amount of water on them to cool the lithium inferno.

The lithium battery dynamics are well known to scientists.

Some improvements can be made to reduce lithium battery fire risks primarily through prevention measures.

But, as Texas A&M University professor of chemical engineering Jodie Lutkenhaus points out, “The only way to really address the problem is to use a safer technology.”

Princeton University engineering professor Yiguang Ju notes regardless of the specific lithium battery technology used, “when you reach a certain size, it is inherently very dangerous and easy to catch fire.”

Scientists are working on water-based and redox batteries but neither have been developed to the point they can be commercially scaled.

Another option, according to scientists, is lithium iron phosphate batteries are “highly stable.” Even so, they still carry some fire risk.

All of this raises the question whether it is wise to place commercial scale utility battery storage that rely on lithium technology in populated areas or upwind from environmentally sensitive areas.

In Ripon’s case, there was no public vetting of prevailing winds and potential toxic smoke flumes should a fire erupt.

That may be because the one state agency charged with protecting Californians when it comes to safety and/or being ravaged financially by utilities is a cheerleader instead, for not just the for-profit utilities but its masters in Sacramento.

It’s none other than the CPUC that shirked in watchdog role on behalf of the public for decades when it operated as PG&E’s lapdog.

One doesn’t become a felony cooperation guilty of 85 counts of manslaughter without a watchdog agency being hideously short in the vigilant and compliance departments.

Energy storage systems the CPUC is pushing on a commercial scale for utilities is more of the same.

It is why vetting of wind conditions in the event of a fire when it comes to toxic smoke flumes is not part of the vetting process for local approvals of utility-scale battery storage projects.

The data from the draft resolution going before the CPUC on March 13 is to justify requiring safety incidents and fires at such battery storage facilities be reported to the utility oversight agency.

Adoption of the resolution creates CPUC oversight.

As usual, just like it’s history “regulating” PG&E, the CPUC is always bringing up the rear.

There have been no less than 10 known safety incidents at energy storage centers that the writers of the CPUC resolution could list that there was not even state reporting requirement for.

Imagine if the CPUC didn’t require PG&E or Southern California Edison to report safety issues and equipment failures.

Moss Landing is the proverbial canary in the coal mine.

Let’s just help the CPUC can actually do its job to keep Californians safe instead of being cheerleaders wearing blinders for all green energy solutions embraced by Sacramento similar to their relationship for years with PG&E.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com