Moss Landing Fire: Battery Primer and NIMBY reaction
- Jeff Jorgenson
- Jun 2
- 7 min read
Let’s take a closer look at Lithium Ion batteries and why Moss Landing has scared people.
“A battery is made up of an anode, cathode, separator, electrolyte, and two current collectors (positive and negative). The anode and cathode store the lithium. The electrolyte carries positively charged lithium ions from the anode to the cathode through the separator during discharging. The movement of the lithium ions creates free electrons in the anode which creates a charge at the positive current collector. The electrical current then flows from the current collector through the device being powered (EV, computer, etc.) to the negative current collector.”
Charge/Discharge
"While the battery is discharging and providing an electric current, the anode releases lithium ions to the cathode, generating a flow of electrons from one side to the other. When plugging in the device, the opposite happens: Lithium ions are released by the cathode and received by the anode."
As we noted in Part 1, the batteries at Moss300 are an older design.
For the NMC batteries at Moss300 the Cathode is comprised of Nickel, Manganese and Cobalt and the Anode is constructed from Graphite.
For the LFP Tesla batteries next door, the Cathode is comprised of Lithium Iron Phosphate and the Anode is constructed from Graphite.
Both are made of toxic materials. However LFP is considered the more stable of the two.
This matters when a battery like those at Moss300 goes into thermal runaway. Thermal runaway begins when the heat generated within a battery exceeds the amount of heat than can be dissipated outside of the battery. The rise in temperature in a single battery will affect other batteries in close proximity, and the pattern will continue, hence the term “runaway.”
As this informative article “LFP vs NMC thermal runaway By Aspen Aerogels” notes: “NMC cells trigger more easily…The NMC cell goes unstable at a temperature of 160°C, while the LFP holds steady up to 230°C.”
“NMC cells bring all three elements of the fire triangle – fuel, oxygen, and an ignition source – to a thermal runaway event…In contrast, LFP cells tend to emit mostly smoke and gas which, although hot, is typically not actively combusting.“
Bruce Wishart in “What Is Thermal Runaway? Common Causes and How to Prevent It” adds:
“In the event of thermal runaway, Lithium-ion fires catches fire at temperatures around 500°C… Most concerningly, llithium-ion battery fires are prone to reigniting, because the lithium salts in the battery are self-oxidizing, which means that they can't be "starved out" like a traditional fire.”
So NMC very bad, LFP less bad…but what we need is not bad at all. Fortunately the industry knows this and knows this can be a game changer for whoever figures it out at scale first or soon.
There are multiple layers that can be applied to Battery safety.
Our friends at Aspen Aerogels are bold enough to claim that with the “advent of aerogel thermal barriers such as PyroThin cell barriers, cell-to-cell heat transfer is now a solved problem. Managing combustion gases and flaming ejecta remains stubbornly hard to address.”
So what is next?
Brian Martucci answers this very question in: “After Moss Landing, what’s next for battery storage?”
Mr Martucci starts with Element’s Battery Management System (BMS) which “enables real-time monitoring, diagnostics and controls at the cell level.” Tim Woodward, managing director at Prelude Ventures contends “this technology could predict the elements that may result in thermal runaway 50 to 80 cycles in advance, allowing operators to take cells offline and avoid potentially catastrophic outcomes like Moss Landing”.
Mr. Martucci also features the company Viridi Parente who recently decided to show off their safety first approach by intentionally triggering thermal runaway at their “The No Heat Zone” event.
Tests 1 & 2 – Conventional Packs: Two standard battery packs without anti-propagation features were intentionally pushed into thermal runaway. As expected, the initial failure triggered cell-to-cell propagation, resulting in heat spreading throughout the entire module.
Test 3 – Viridi-Engineered Pack: Viridi triggered the same failure in one of its own packs—engineered with proprietary thermal isolation and anti-propagation barriers. The result: complete containment. The incident remained isolated to a single cell with no secondary reactions, validating Viridi's passive safety architecture.”
I’ve got to say this was a pretty bold demonstration. The Viridi batteries cost more but it is literally the price for safety.
New Battery Alternatives
The Utility Dive article also quotes someone we follow; Ric O’Connell, founding executive director of GridLab, “In the longer term, efforts to develop solid-state lithium-ion vehicle batteries by automakers like Toyota and technology developers like QuantumScape could benefit the stationary storage industry.”
Non-Lithium batteries:
Giovanni Damato, president of CMBlu Energy’s U.S. subsidiary, is pushing CMBlu’s organic flow battery systems which contains “no high-toxicity materials, almost 50% water in its active chemistry”.
Vanadium Flow, aqueous zinc, sodium-ion all show promise and all have drawbacks they must overcome. Mainly cost and energy density.
What price do you put on safety? We’ll give Tim Woodward, managing director at Prelude Ventures, the last word (for now): “We’ve tried in the past to invest on the thesis that people will say lithium is not safe, and it just hasn’t happened. [Lithium] keeps coming down the cost curve and will keep getting deployed as people find ways to minimize the risk.”
This is an active area of research and development World-wide. I will post updates with the latest developments to my BlueSky account: @jjorgensonmcr.bsky.social
These new developments are crucial because many communities are so alarmed by the Moss Landing fire they are spurning new battery storage projects in their Back Yards.
Even all the way across the country in Brooklyn: Brooklyn Residents Rally Against Proposed Lithium-Ion Battery Facilities In Homecrest And Gravesend
“At the heart of the apprehension is the risk of fires similar to a recent incident in California where a lithium-ion battery fire lasted for days. This event led to evacuations, the release of toxic gases, and scattered heavy metals, resulting in homeowners filing suits against the energy companies, according to reporting from CBS News New York. Although facilities in New York are smaller and adhere to strict regulations, for many residents, the assurance is not enough.”
However, the aforementioned MacDonald BESS is planning to use 6 Tesla Megapacks as the storage technology. Tesla Megapacks are LFP based batteries. And as you know since you’re reading this, these are vastly different in chemical composition and design and thus level of safety than the Moss 300 batteries that caught fire.
In nearby Watsonville writing for The Santa Cruz Local Jesse Greenspan reports: Lithium battery storage proposal near Watsonville faces hurdles. "In the wake of the Moss Landing battery storage fire in January, some Santa Cruz County activists have battled a New Leaf Energy Inc. proposal to build a more modern battery storage site at 90 Minto Road near Pinto Lake outside Watsonville.”
The article does a good job of pointing out the differences between Moss Landing and Minto Road. “They are both battery energy storage projects, and that’s where the similarities end,” Christian (New Leaf representative Max Christian) said. “Moss Landing was a failure. I’m with everyone who says, ‘never again.’”
Educating the public, upgrading safety and monitoring standards, newer technologies, emergency action plans…will it be enough to erase the spectacular visions of the flames of Moss Landing?
The answer as we saw clearly in last week’s Monterey County Board of Supervisors meeting was a resounding “No!”.
Last week PG&E’s request to bring their side of Moss Landing back on line on June 1st received push back from residents and Supervisors of the County alike.
The County issued a statement:
“ The County of Monterey learned about PG&E’s decision to move forward with reactivating the Elkhorn Battery Energy Storage Facility by June 1, 2025, on May 7, 2025 and has expressed concern.
At this time, the requisite emergency action plan (EAP) in compliance with SB38 has not been finalized and remains under review by the County and other agencies.
The County of Monterey remains committed to public safety, environmental protection, and full regulatory compliance. The County has reach out to and offered to work closely with all operators to ensure Emergency Action Plans adequately provide for the safety of the surrounding communities and the environment.
At this time, however, the County feels it is prudent to encourage PG&E to delay reactivation and continue to engage in additional open, transparent dialogue with County officials, first responders, and the residents we collectively serve.”
At an emotional Board of Supervisors meeting on May 20th, PG&E made their presentation (Moss Landing update starts at 2:25 of the video). They made it clear that their side was separate from Vistra’s Moss300 in every way they could. They gave an overview of the Tesla battery issues from 2022, the fixes, the enhanced safety measures taken, and the new monitoring and a new action plan in place. All very good steps.
However as the comments from all the Supervisors and a very engaged public made clear - this is a very traumatized community still feeling the effects of the fire and there are still glaring gaps in as Supervisor Church put it: Communications, Safety and Clean-up.
I logically understand PG&E’s point of view regarding their facility but what this meeting really made me understand is that if the industry wants to be accepted into communities then a comprehensive plan for assuring public safety needs to be in place and a partnership needs to exist. And for Moss Landing it is not and does not.
Supervisor Daniels made the point that our community are the guinea pigs for what happens in a catastrophic battery fire, we now need to be the guinea pigs for how the right model is created for a community, government services, and public utility to work together on safety, communications and emergency response.
It is apparent that for the community that the Moss Landing Fire ordeal is not over. Next time we delve into: Ongoing Health Issues, Erin Brockovich, the anticipated health survey results and the toxicology report.