Richard Ellenbogen
This post was put together by Roger Caiazza to describe a recently completed white paper by Richard Ellenbogen M.E.E. titled The Intrinsic Danger of Siting Utility Scale Lithium Based Energy Storage Systems In Densely Populated Areas. Ellenbogen and I collaborated on an article about the potential impacts of a fire like the Moss Battery Plant fire if it were to occur in New York City. This report finds that the local conditions at the proposed large Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility at 220 Rabro Drive, Hauppauge, NY would magnify the impacts of a BESS fire in Nassau and Suffolk counties. The following two sections are lightly edited direct quotes from the report.
Executive Summary
This report was written at the request of the Hauppauge Fire Department because of their concerns about a proposed large Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility at 111 Rabro Drive. This would be located within 3500 feet of an elementary school, a much less than ideal siting for such a volatile and potentially dangerous facility.
Research on that issue revealed, in addition, that the proposed location is close to streams and has a high water table. In a location with these characteristics, a lithium-ion battery fire, of the type that frequently has occurred at BESS facilities, could produce long-term, catastrophic environmental damage. This is in addition to the more immediate, very serious threat to people and structures at the school and in nearby neighborhoods from heat and toxic gases in the event of a fire. The body of this report explains these threats in detail and also provides background that shows why the occurrence of fire at a BESS facility, like the one proposed, presents such a high level of risk. The readers should be aware in reading this report, that the author received no compensation or payment in kind for the research and writing, but willingly invested the hundreds of hours of work required for its preparation strictly as a result of his great concern for the Hauppauge community, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, the downstate region, and the State of New York in general, inspired by the high level of threat and risk arising from the proposed BESS facility. The report is designed to be read on a network connected device and is arranged with hyperlinks providing backup documentation for each issue should readers wish to learn more about the statements made within.
Introduction
Utility scale electrical energy storage has been a recognized need in the New York Metropolitan Area for over sixty years. For example, Con Ed first proposed the Storm King Mountain Pumped Storage facility in the early 1960’s to address this. However, that facility was never built because of potentially negative environmental impacts and community opposition. However, the need for energy storage has not gone away and has recently been exacerbated by a growing trend toward electrification to reduce carbon emissions, along with several years of state energy policies that have left the New York state critically short of electric generation.
The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) recently released their 2025 – 2034 Reliability Study that determined that electric generation capacity margins could go below zero as early as 2027 with the risk increasing even more each year through 2034. Figure 1 from page 10 of that document clearly shows the problem.
This crisis has resulted from state policies, many associated with New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (CLCPA), that have blocked the construction or retooling of new gas generation plants for the past seven years, while simultaneously closing a 2 Gigawatt nuclear plant without having a viable operating alternative to replace the lost energy. As a result, NY State officials are moving hastily to find solutions to bridge the gaps. Among these hasty measures, the consequences of which do not seem to have been carefully thought out, is the proposed development and addition to its electrical grid of a number of lithium-ion-battery-based electrical energy storage facilities. To expedite this process, these officials have been attempting to override local zoning laws and their own Department of Environmental Conservation, via the six-year-old Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES).
One of these hastily conceived and poorly thought through BESS facilities is proposed for Long Island, within the town of Islip, in Suffolk County. This siting of an intrinsically dangerous BESS facility, in such a densely populated and environmentally sensitive area, having a high water table and close proximity to many streams and the ocean, would seem to defy logic. This is especially true given the very recent catastrophic history of a similar BESS siting at Moss Landing, near Monterey Bay in California.
Figure 1
Plausible Range of Statewide System Generation Margins 2025 – 2034. Source: NYISO 11/2025
Whatever help a BESS facility in Islip might promise for the NY state electrical grid is certainly offset by the risks of such a move and the likelihood of accidents with long-term very negative consequences that would impact millions of people and large geographic areas of the state and its waters. These risks follow from three categories of intrinsic dangerous characteristics of lithium ion batteries and the large number of them housed within a BESS facility. These categories of risks are as follows:
- Lithium metal, when brought into contact with any water, creates an exothermic reaction that generates a great deal of heat which can drive the batteries into a state of thermal runaway. So Li-ion batteries and BESS facilities that contain them are very subject to fires, especially if they are located near large bodies of water and exposed to significant humidity or moisture. Lithium Batteries can also burst into flame if they overheat and enter thermal runaway under heavy load.
- Li-ion battery fires are very hot and damaging. They burn at temperatures between 2600 – 5000 degrees-F making these fires, even small ones, very difficult and costly to put out, even if a fire department is well-prepared, which most are not. These fires spread rapidly within a BESS facility, quickly resulting in a conflagration. In addition to the great heat from them, there is release of toxic gases during the fires.
- In the aftermath of large-scale Li-ion battery fires, there is significant, nearly impossible to remediate environmental pollution of land and water with heavy metals and other toxins. This will be particularly damaging in areas with surface water or a high water table, and particularly on Long Island which has a history of water issues and highly permeable soil..
Sections of this report explain in detail, with reference to each of these risk categories, why siting utility-scale lithium battery facilities in densely populated areas, like Nassau and Suffolk Counties, is a problem, in general. Also, it will be detailed why this is made especially problematic in coastal areas because of the hydrology and soil composition in this part of Long Island, as well as its proximity to the ocean.
Report Sections
The report has four sections: The issues with lithium storage, the aftermath of Moss Landing, negative impacts of ingesting heavy metals, and groundwater leaching issues on Long Island. I summarized Ellenbogen’s main points below and refer you to the report for more details.
There are substantive issues associated with lithium energy storage systems. It is necessary to keep water away from the batteries because lithium is volatile in the presence of water. Water causes lithium batteries to overheat and enter thermal runaway and catch fire. These fires are not unusual. Appendix 1 has a list of the fires, locations, and dates along with a link to the EPRI Battery Storage Fire Database. Once started the fires are so difficult to extinguish that they must left to burn out but during a fire there is release of toxic gases. To reduce the spread of the fire water is used to cool nearby batteries. As a result, in the aftermath of Li-ion battery fires, there is significant heavy metal and other toxin pollution of land and water from the smoke and water used to control the fire.
In another section Ellenbogen describes the aftermath of a BESS fire at Moss Landing California. On January 16, 2025, the Moss Landing 300 Megawatt – 1200 Megawatt-Hour Vistra BESS facility caught fire. A description of the fire and its aftermath is provided in Appendix 2. He explains that researchers from San Jose State had been working in the marshes around Moss Landing since 2018 and had measurements of the levels of certain chemicals in the ground and water around the BESS Site for at least two years prior to the battery fire. Their research on the effects of the fire on the ground and marshes around the BESS Site appear in the document Coastal wetland deposition of cathode metals from the world’s largest lithium-ion battery fire. It is also attached as Appendix 3. Ellenbogen includes the following quote from the paper:
The 2025 fire at the Moss Landing, California, battery energy storage system (BESS)—the world’s largest—released approximately 55,000 pounds (25 metric tons) of toxic cathode metals (nickel, manganese, cobalt) into surrounding Elkhorn Slough coastal wetlands. This airborne particulate matter formed a thin, widespread layer (<<5 mm) in surface soils, creating a “fingerprint” of the NMC-type batteries.
• Environmental Impact: The metals, particularly cobalt and manganese, are toxic to aquatic and terrestrial organisms. They pose risks to the ecosystem by potentially bioaccumulating through the food chain, from small invertebrates to shellfish, crabs, and top predators like sea otters.
• Fate of Contaminants: While initially settling in the soil, heavy metals have been mobilized into the estuary through tidal action and rain, spreading the risk beyond the initial deposition zone.
• Detection and Monitoring: Researchers from San Jose State University’s Moss Landing Marine Laboratories utilized field-portable X-ray fluorescence (FpXRF) to map the contamination.
• Long-Term Concerns: The long-term impacts on the restored tidal marsh ecosystem are under investigation, as the contaminants may cause lasting, subtle damage to the food web.
Ellenbogen also included a section describing the negative impacts of ingesting heavy metals contained in Lithium-Ion batteries. He used an AI search to ask which health effects are linked to nickel, manganese, and cobalt exposure in soil and water from BESS fire runoff over extremely porous soil with a shallow aquifer. The response explained: that exposure to nickel, manganese, and cobalt from battery fire runoff in porous soil and shallow aquifers heightens risks due to rapid leaching into groundwater, amplifying ingestion and dermal contact pathways. These metals, common in lithium-ion batteries, can contaminate drinking water and crops, leading to bioaccumulation in the food chain. Health agencies like Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry note that such scenarios mirror industrial pollution patterns where soil pH and redox conditions accelerate mobility.
In his final section Ellenbogen describes the particular issues of local conditions at the proposed large Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility on Long Island, NY. Long Island is a terminal moraine formed during from the melting of the Laurentide ice sheet, specifically the Wisconsin Glacier, around 60,000 years ago. Ellenbogen explains that Long Island has a long history of water quality issues due to the resulting porous soils and its shallow aquifer which is used to provide its drinking water. A history of Long Island environmental advocacy, initiated by water quality concerns, appears here. There are numerous instances of specialized treatment being given to Long Island regarding chemicals that can leach into the aquifer. A history of chemical bans on Long Island can be found in Appendix 4. His report includes maps of aquifer depths that show that if a fire occurred at the proposed location that it would cause problems from the heavy metals.
Conclusion
Ellenbogen’s conclusion notes that he has no monetary interest either way in Lithium Storage technologies. He views the issue entirely from a perspective of, “Would he want one of these facilities near him based upon what he knows, and if not, why not?” his analysis leads him to clearly believe that he would not want one located near him.
He believes that if you combine the hazardous emissions and the potential environmental damage, it becomes apparent that the suitable locations for these types of systems have to be restricted to areas where there are very few people and no surface water or ground water. Anything less than that will lead to a high probability of increased public health issues.
Ellenbogen is the President [BIO] of Allied Converters and frequently copies me on emails that address various issues associated with the New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act). I have published other articles by Ellenbogen including a description of his keynote address to the Business Council of New York 2023 Renewable Energy Conference Energy titled: “Energy on Demand as the Life Blood of Business and Entrepreneurship in the State -video here: Why NY State Must Rethink Its Energy Plan and Ten Suggestions to Help Fix the Problems”. He comes to the table as an engineer who truly cares about the environment and as an early adopter of renewable technologies at both his home and business two decades ago.
Like bird choppers, the Green Blob will not
care about the risks of grid scale batteries.
Apparently, they think that some communities can be sacrificed in the name of saving the planet. But I wonder how many of the Blob will be living next to one of these grid scale batteries. A lot of resistance to these systems is building here in Wokeachusetts, especially in the more rural western counties where some are now proposed. Of course the governor doesn’t want these rural communities- or any in fact- to have any say over them.
Again, the only thing they want to save the planet from is Capitalism and freedom. They couldn’t care less about CO2 or any of that crap, it’s just a cudgel.
Hydro Pumped Storage makes far more sense than chemical battery storage as it can store far more energy in a smaller space and release it over Hours Long periods rather than minutes. Plus water reservoirs can be used for forest fire management and don’t explode when warmed.
While true, here in Australia we have pretty big droughts every now and then. Hydro only works when there is water to actually pump. More reliable than solar and wind, but definitely not guaranteed.
They should use less volatile batteries.
Or, hear me out, they could revert to fossil fuel and nuclear generation and so avoid this hazard and its associated expense. Makes sense to me.
But then what would those Congoese kiddies do for work?
Probably migrate to where the jobs are.
Yes. There is no reason to use ultra light lithium batteries for non portable use.
The LiFePO (Lithium Iron Phosphate) batteries used in the Moss Island conflagration(s) are most likely the same chemistry as the batteries to be used in Long Island as discussed in this article. They contain around 5% Fluorine by weight, and when they burn, along with the other harmful emissions, the generate copious HF gas and Hydrofluoric Acid vapor and liquid. Anyone exposed to the Lithium and Fluorine compounds is potentially going to have a lifetime of neurological and cancer issues. There is no known safe exposure level for HF and Hydrofluoric acid. These battery systems should not be deployed until they are made safe.
The future is Sodium-ion batteries. They have a significantly lower risk of fire, operate well in extreme temperatures, and are less toxic.
Here’s a Google AI review.
“Reduced Toxic Emissions: Sodium-ion (Na-ion) electrolytes release significantly less Hydrogen Fluoride (\(HF\)) and Phosphorus Oxyfluoride (\(POF_{3}\)) when burned compared to Lithium-ion (Li-ion).
Material Safety: Sodium-ion batteries often avoid cobalt and nickel, replacing them with more benign, less toxic materials.
Lower Thermal Risk: They exhibit lower thermal runaway risks, allowing for higher safety during operation and in thermal events.
Easier Recycling: Due to their, non-toxic components, Na-ion batteries are easier to recycle with lower environmental impacts.”
Seems that the Sodium Ion batteries are still a risk, (at least in this paper), maybe another chemistry will be used in the future.
I’d never trust AI to give you the full answer, it responds in line with whoever is paying the bills or what it thinks you want to hear/read. The classic Artificial Idiot.
https://www.ess-news.com/2025/06/20/comparing-thermal-runaway-behavior-of-sodium-ion-lithium-ion-batteries/
“I’d never trust AI to give you the full answer.”
I don’t, but getting the full answer could sometimes take a lifetime.
Before Google introduced the ‘AI overview’ to answer my questions, I would search through dozens of references and websites that were provided in relation to a specific question.
The ‘AI overview’ now summarizes the relevant answers from those many sites, which saves me a lot of time, but those many sites are still available if I want to spend the time sorting through them to confirm if the ‘AI overview’ is reasonably accurate.
You gave me an example of just one study that implies the risk of thermal runaway of sodium-ion batteries is similar to that of Lithium-ion batteries.
There are dozens of scientific studies available on Google Scholar, that compare the combustion risk of Sodium-Ion batteries (SIB) and Lithium-Ion (LIB), but most are paywalled.
I asked Google for: ‘Research comparing the combustion risk of sodium-ion batteries versus lithium-ion batteries.’
This is the AI Overview, which seems to be in line with all the other sites I read which address the issue.
“Research comparing sodium-ion batteries (SIBs) and lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) consistently indicates that SIBs offer a lower combustion and thermal runaway risk due to their inherent chemical stability.
While LIBs can experience catastrophic failure, such as explosions, under stress, SIBs generally display milder failure modes, such as venting or smoking, with significantly lower toxicity in emitted gases.
Key Findings on Combustion Risk
Thermal Stability: SIBs demonstrate higher thermal stability, with some studies showing they can tolerate higher temperatures before initiating thermal runaway compared to common lithium nickel cobalt manganese (NCM) batteries.
Thermal Runaway Threshold: Laboratory tests indicate that SIBs have a higher thermal runaway trigger temperature (around 220°C) compared to LIBs (around 191°C).
Abuse Tolerance: Under nail penetration tests, 85% of LIBs tested showed rapid temperature spikes above 200°C, while SIBs did not experience thermal runaway. SIBs also remained stable at 150% state of charge, whereas LIBs often start venting at 120%.
Lower Temperature Rise: In short-circuit scenarios, the maximum temperature rise in SIBs was recorded around 45°C, compared to over 180°C in LIBs.
Gas Emission: In the event of failure, SIBs release lower total mass loss and fewer toxic gases, with LIBs producing roughly 2.33 times more toxicity at 100% state of charge.
Safety Advantages of Sodium-Ion Batteries
Non-Flammable Electrolytes: SIBs often use electrolytes with higher flashpoints, which are less prone to ignition.
Lower Energy Density: Due to their lower energy density, SIBs store less energy per cell, resulting in reduced heat generation during failures.
Transportation Safety: SIBs can be transported safely at 0% charge, minimizing risks during transit.
Lower Dendrite Risk: SIBs show a lower tendency for dendrite formation, reducing internal short circuits that often cause LIB fires.
Limitations and Considerations
While SIBs are generally safer, studies note that the safety of SIBs is heavily influenced by the type of cathode (e.g., layered oxides vs. Prussian Blue). At very high states of charge (100% SOC), SIBs can still generate large volumes of flammable gas. Furthermore, while SIBs are generally superior in safety, some studies note that their performance is comparable to Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries rather than NCM batteries.
Disclaimer: The information provided above is based on laboratory tests, research, and field data from 2024–2025. As sodium-ion technology is in an earlier stage of commercialization compared to lithium-ion, further large-scale, real-world data is still being gathered.”
That seems a reasable summary, don’t you think?
Sodium is still reactive with water though so the potential is there.
“Lower, “Easier,” and “Reduced” are not quantitative terms. Are the risks “significantly” lower?
Another miracle battery technology. I will wait until they prove themselves in commercial production. Seen this too many times. Every battery has drawbacks.
I feel bad for the firefighters who may have to fight such fires- and all the neighbors of course.
They should have containment vessels just like a nuclear plant along with large, lined catchment ponds for water used in fire fighting.
Every mega pack battery should be housed in it’s own separate fire brick lined bunker to maintain separation and protect other packs from heat.
Everything’s good until a little thing called LiFePoo gets in your way.
Imagine generating electricity on an as needed basis. Then, no electrical storage is required. It’s really too bad that modern technology can’t accomplish this engineering feat.
You left off the “/s” tag.
Was it really needed?
That’s what happens when you put Nature in charge of delivering your fuel. You can’t guarantee the fuel is available when needed…like evening peak with solar.
And you can’t add more if nature says NO!
Grid level battery sustained by wind and solar has already proved a failure. I tried to find it but it has been scrubbed from the web as near as I can tell. It’s an island with a very small grid that ended up with diesel generators as the primary source of electricity.
I think you are referring to Francis Menton’s favorite zero emissions grid demonstration – El Hierro
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-8-13-zero-emissions-grid-demonstration-project-follies-no-fraudulent-demonstration-projects-allowed
Yes, it’s El Hierro. 12K people in the Canary Islands. They couldn’t even make it work at that small a scale.
There’s a YouTube video on it- back when they thought it would work.
They were very optimistic, but then reality intervened.
Here’s another ‘success’ story. https://www.hydro.com.au/clean-energy/hybrid-energy-solutions/success-stories/king-island
It must be a success based on the amount of money invested….. /s
It’s much more interesting on a cloudy day or after the sun sets.
Climate worriers are quite content to destroy every skerrick of life on the planet…
…. to save 0.0127ºC warming in 108.5 years
Fields of green-
Australia’s solar panel waste is mounting. Will the government’s recycling scheme solve it?
Lithium Ion batteries do not usually contain lithium in a pure reactive metallic form
The AI image at the top- no doubt many alarmists will see that as a beautiful scene.
“This report was written at the request of the Hauppauge Fire Department because of their concerns about a proposed large Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility at 111 Rabro Drive.”
I presume that fighting such a fire is not healthy for the fire fighters.
Is there even a rational engineering design standard for grid batteries?
How much reserve and redundancy is required for full time supply? Three months, six months, one year, two years?
If you still need peaking generation, what is the point?
How are the batteries to be managed?
Rural communities are being sacrificed. But they are important for our survival because we are not producing our food in the cities. I am old enough to remember the Love Canal pollution problem and yet here we are having future Love Canals put all over our landscape. The more “educated” our leaders become, the more stupid they get. But I guess I really am old fashioned. I reckon my maths and economics degrees (eared 40 years ago) are education, while gender studies are indoctrination. And I know which fields of studies will benefit society in the longer term.
They are not educated they are indoctrinated liberal arts bullshitters with no understanding of anything complex.