It is hard to understand just why there is still so much resistance to recognizing the down sides of renewable energy programs, given the depth of the cost/ benefit analyses that have "finally" come to light in the last decade (or two?). This of course extends to the merits and limits on battery storage to provide "backup" or temporary electricity. The analyses of hydrogen as a "fuel" rather than a form of energy transferance seem to be providing similar cautions about the limitations of hydrogen. Perhaps some breakthrough will still be found for hydrogen, however?
Presumably this situation is just another example of "“You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.” ― Jonathan Swift
Comparing energy storage to nuclear misses the point. We need both, nuclear for base load always on, storage to cope with fluctuations in renewable output. Batteries are one technology, the hope is they will get cheaper, and clearly in the US at least they need tighter fire safety regulations. Alongside batteries we need to also invest in more proven technologies such as pumped storage and maybe also dabble with compressed air, liquefied air. There is no either-or here.
I am not "comparing energy storage to nuclear." The storage of fossil fuels and hydro is already a proven, cost-effective energy storage solution.
In the linked article, I am showing the cost of utility-scale batteries. Nuclear is notorious for its high cost, but very few people realize how expensive utility-scale batteries are (the same order of magnitude).
And, yes, "the hope is they will get cheaper," but energy policy should not be based on hope and government subsidies and mandates. There is too much at stake.
And if batteries are going to be cheaper in the future, it is far better to wait.
You can believe whatever you want in terms of what "we need to invest in", but neglecting the cost is very short-sighted.
Pumped storage is highly restricted by geography and the other storage methods are currently just "good ideas."
Did you actually read the articles before commenting? (that is a commenting rule in this Substack).
I never claimed that other energy sources do not catch fire.
But the whole point of replacing our existing energy system with renewables is supposed to be to avoid ecological disasters, so I think they deserve a higher standard that justifies the trillions of dollars spent each year on Green energy. Otherwise, why build them in the first place?:
Thank you for your informative article regarding the Moss Landing Battery Storage fire. More details are found in this January 27, 2025 article which features a 28 minute YouTube video. "The Real Story on That Monterey Battery Plant Fire: The Human Failures As Net Zero Fanatics Ignored Safety" https://energysecurityfreedom.substack.com/p/the-real-story-on-that-monterey-battery. I posted a comment highlighting content at two points in the video.
Interested in how many metric tons of CO2 and toxic materials were spewed out
It is hard to understand just why there is still so much resistance to recognizing the down sides of renewable energy programs, given the depth of the cost/ benefit analyses that have "finally" come to light in the last decade (or two?). This of course extends to the merits and limits on battery storage to provide "backup" or temporary electricity. The analyses of hydrogen as a "fuel" rather than a form of energy transferance seem to be providing similar cautions about the limitations of hydrogen. Perhaps some breakthrough will still be found for hydrogen, however?
Presumably this situation is just another example of "“You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.” ― Jonathan Swift
I think the reason is simple:
The Left deems renewable energy to be moral. From their perspective, that ends all debate and the Results don't matter.
It is somewhat like the goal of Equality, which I discuss in today's article:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-central-moral-dilemma-of-the
I guess that must mean that I am immoral.
But many discussions of morality seem to avoid or side step or overlook reason to justify the assertions being made (religous or otherwise).
Your 1/28/25 posting on Equality is intriguing and well stated.
Comparing energy storage to nuclear misses the point. We need both, nuclear for base load always on, storage to cope with fluctuations in renewable output. Batteries are one technology, the hope is they will get cheaper, and clearly in the US at least they need tighter fire safety regulations. Alongside batteries we need to also invest in more proven technologies such as pumped storage and maybe also dabble with compressed air, liquefied air. There is no either-or here.
I am not "comparing energy storage to nuclear." The storage of fossil fuels and hydro is already a proven, cost-effective energy storage solution.
In the linked article, I am showing the cost of utility-scale batteries. Nuclear is notorious for its high cost, but very few people realize how expensive utility-scale batteries are (the same order of magnitude).
And, yes, "the hope is they will get cheaper," but energy policy should not be based on hope and government subsidies and mandates. There is too much at stake.
And if batteries are going to be cheaper in the future, it is far better to wait.
You can believe whatever you want in terms of what "we need to invest in", but neglecting the cost is very short-sighted.
Pumped storage is highly restricted by geography and the other storage methods are currently just "good ideas."
And we all know that no energy systems/centers ever did that before.
https://hiddencityphila.org/2013/12/a-petaled-rose-of-hell-refineries-fire-risk-and-the-new-geography-of-oil-in-philadelphias-tidewater/
https://pophistorydig.com/topics/gulf-oil-refinery-fire-1975/
https://billypenn.com/2019/06/21/south-philly-refinerys-long-history-of-fires-explosions-deaths-and-injuries/
https://www.usdeadlyevents.com/1975-jan-31-tanker-corinthos-explosions-fire-after-hit-by-queeny-del-riv-marcus-hook-pa-26/
Did you actually read the articles before commenting? (that is a commenting rule in this Substack).
I never claimed that other energy sources do not catch fire.
But the whole point of replacing our existing energy system with renewables is supposed to be to avoid ecological disasters, so I think they deserve a higher standard that justifies the trillions of dollars spent each year on Green energy. Otherwise, why build them in the first place?:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/now-greens-want-to-spend-6-8-trillion
Plus it was a follow-up to my article from a few weeks ago where I went into detail on that exact energy storage facility.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/utility-scale-batteries-are-as-expensive
Thank you for your informative article regarding the Moss Landing Battery Storage fire. More details are found in this January 27, 2025 article which features a 28 minute YouTube video. "The Real Story on That Monterey Battery Plant Fire: The Human Failures As Net Zero Fanatics Ignored Safety" https://energysecurityfreedom.substack.com/p/the-real-story-on-that-monterey-battery. I posted a comment highlighting content at two points in the video.