Front Page  »  

Green energy plans need to be responsible

August 7, 2024

OPINION by GAIL JOHNSON

Open letter to both the Sierra Club and Surfrider executives and members:

Surfrider and Sierra Club’s broad-brush approval, accepting and encouraging “green” energy developments without regard to their locations and underlying costs, is unacceptable. These dangerous projects have harmed dozens of communities, cost millions of dollars in damages, resulted in death and injury to humans, and caused unacceptable risk to the very things you pretend to protect.

They have literally and negatively changed the landscape of neighborhoods, the lifestyle of individuals, the health of our oceans, the economic viability of towns, the affordability of energy, our trust in government, off-loaded costs to underrepresented populations, and added to the public’s suspicion of “greenwashing.”

You, you have contributed to the reversal of climate protection and reparation.

It appears that society and government agencies in California are finally getting a grip on the negative impacts of  battery energy storage system facilities on communities.

Two things happened in the last couple of weeks that you may already be aware of:

On Aug. 2, the California Coastal Commission wrote a letter of “clarification” regarding the battery energy storage system proposed by Vistra in Morro Bay.

Once you read this, you will understand why the Morro Bay battery energy storage system is doomed. Surfrider Foundation and Sierra Club have both given its approval of this project, and you, you should be ashamed!

On July 17, the County of San Diego voted to fund a study that will result in new guidelines for sitting battery energy storage system projects.

Please stop turning a blind eye to the obvious destruction your “clubs” have pursued. Yes, we need to be aware of the impending climate disaster, but efforts to develop renewable energy must be responsible and respectful of all.

It’s time that you correct your course and look for a smart and principled approach to reversing climate change.

Gail is a long-time resident of San Luis Obispo County who is working to protect our coastline.

 


Loading...
Subjects:     
Related:


9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This isn’t about powering your car or producing electricity, it’s about safely storing energy until it’s needed on the grid.

Batteries have been around since the 1800’s and most modern automotive and EV batteries are made of cells. The number of cells required depends on the voltage and capacity in watt hours required. The 2020 tesla model 3 has 4,416 individual cells that create a 90killowatt hour battery.

According to the NFPA only one cell in a million will be faulty and cause a short that could start thermal runaway. Now if you build an energy storage facility rated at 600megawatts and use a top-of-the-line battery such as tesla made in the US with quality control and manufacture liability, you will need 6,666.67 90kwh batteries that have 4,416 cells for a total of 29,440,014. cells. Twenty-nine chances at a bad cell.

Now throw China in the mix as low bidder and what do you get?

Not to mention mechanical and electrical failures that can have catastrophic results.


12

By the way, no matter what we do we are going to have people against it. Nuclear energy is already proven and technology is advancing rapidly with fusion vs fission. Once we get rid of the waste issue, it is the best solution. Until then….


20

I wonder if this letter writer can provide examples and documentation of “dangerous projects?”


Like any energy systems, problems can occur. Just look at the devastation wrought by fossil fuel companies all over the world. But to label green energy as harming “dozens of communities” simply doesn’t jive with the facts. I just wish she would have included some before painting with such a wide brush.


I can tell you that continuing down the current road of high emissions and carbon in the atmosphere will indeed cause “millions [more like billions] of dollars in damages.”


-40

100% of solar and wind generation facilities, rely on fossil fuels. From mining, to manufacturing, to building, to operating, to disassembly and destruction. It can ONLY happen with oil products.


“Green energy” isn’t green at all.


15

Yes, indeed, moving the world energy system away from fossil fuels toward renewable sources will definitely generate carbon emissions with construction of wind turbines, solar panels and other new infrastructure being powered by oil and gas. But, if this infrastructure can be put online quickly, those emissions would dramatically decrease, because far more renewable energy early on will mean far less fossil fuel needed to power the changeover.


Am I confident that this switch can be made quickly. No, not at all. The U.S. continues to drag its feet, such as the hemming and hawing about building a wind farm off the Central Coast, and if a Republican administration takes power in 2025, this process will be set back at least ten years, meaning that we probably will not be able to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. In that case, look for a future with more weather extremes and more insurance companies going out of business.


But, sure, keep your head in the sand and pass on a dirty, overheated world to your kids and grandkids.


-6

Fossil fuels! Fossil fuels! I prefer to power my vehicles with dead dinosaurs.


29

Newsom will issue an Executive Order and fast track the battery storage. This project and other energy projects are a State of California priority.

BTW, there are functionng wind farms and battery storage facilitis all over the world. Get with it, Luddites!


-56

Big difference between a luddite and a hypocrite.


37

So, rather than listen to the people, Newsom will simply force this nightmare down our throats?


Sounds a little dictator-y to me…


18