The dangers of massive battery storage facilities

According to the Political Economy Research Institute’s “2024 Greenhouse 100 Polluter’s Index,” Vistra Energy was the No. 1 emitter of CO2 greenhouse gases in 2022, the last year for which data is available. First place, out of 100 polluting companies. They deserve a ribbon.

These are the guys whose battery storage facility, ostensibly the largest in the world, decided, without consulting anyone, that it would ignite and reignite several times in one “day.” This is the fourth such fire at battery storage facilities in Moss Landing. Aren’t you glad they operate in our backyard?

State Assemblymember Dawn Addis said, “This can’t happen again.” I agree. However, the only way to keep this from happening again is to prevent such a tremendous aggregation of perilous lithium-ion batteries from occupying the same building, “hoping” the latest safety measures will keep us safe.

Could a better argument exist for diversifying electric generation and storage by using rooftop solar and local batteries to replace the dangerous centralized storage model? Not to mention the CO2 pollution from burning gas, eh?

— Jeff Rudisill, Aptos

Possible to change lithium battery composition

An important distinction about lithium batteries has been left out of the coverage of the battery fires at Moss Landing. Lithium batteries are made using a variety of elements. Each of these different chemistries have different properties. The batteries used in the Vistra bank are made of lithium and nickel manganese cobalt (NMC), notorious for thermal runaway.

However, there is a different battery composition using lithium, iron, phosphate and oxygen, LiFePO4, which is not subject to thermal runaway. Other advantages are they last a lot longer and are not toxic.

The easiest way to avoid the problems we have been witnessing this past week is to switch to LiFePO4 batteries.

— John Coha, Santa Cruz

State subverting local housing growth controls

When it comes to the state determining how many new housing structures that each county will be required to make: Is the population density per square mile taken into the calculation? It is with shock that so many in Santa Cruz County see our beach community turn into a city with high rises as tall as those in San Jose. This is taking place because the state has subverted our local housing control and now determines how many new housing units we are required to build in a given year, lest we be fined by the state or lose certain funding sources.

Because we are already so dense in population, these new housing unit requirements strain our traffic patterns and roadways, our ability to provide enough water and firefighting capabilities, our ability to serve our community well in regards to their hospital and emergency needs and much more. These capabilities have not increased and are not set up for a even more dense population per square mile.

— Kim Frey, Santa Cruz

Keeley tax proposal a ‘socialist … crusade’

Political science students are taught that elected officials are not kings but are servants to the people who have elected them into office. However, under King Fred Keeley, the demand that property owners empty their wallets and their life to health care savings for his socialist affordable housing crusade is insane.

He demands property owners pay an increase in parcel and real estate transfer taxes with a yearly adjustable CPI increase with no end in sight. His crusade will impact property owners’ budget and expenses such as: gas, public transportation and grocery costs, health to long-term family care, insurance, etc., on top of the yearly property tax increases for environmental and school bonds already in place — while taking the burden off developers making millions from these dense developments that go unoccupied. He also provides no incentive for a renter to better himself/herself.

Instead, he wants the citizens to become dependent with no responsibility for their own actions or whether they can reach their own life goals, dreams and growth, independent from Keeley’s economic and social policy.

— Jeff Staben, Soquel