Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power

Fire Erupts At Huge Battery Plant In California (gpb.org) 113

Posted by BeauHD from the can't-catch-a-break dept.
Longtime Slashdot reader sfcat shares a report from the Associated Press: Hundreds of people were ordered to evacuate and part of Highway 1 in Northern California was closed when a major fire erupted Thursday afternoon at one of the world's largest battery storage plants. As the fire sent up towering flames and black smoke and showed no sign of easing by Thursday night, about 1,500 people were instructed to leave Moss Landing and the Elkhorn Slough area, The Mercury News reported.

The Moss Landing Power Plant, located about 77 miles (about 124 kilometers) south of San Francisco, is owned by Texas-company Vistra Energy and contains tens of thousands of lithium batteries. The batteries are important for storing electricity from such renewable energy sources as solar energy, but if they go up in flames the blazes can be extremely difficult to put out. "There's no way to sugar coat it. This is a disaster, is what it is," Monterey County Supervisor Glenn Church told KSBW-TV. But he said he did not expect the fire to spread beyond the concrete building it was enclosed in. According to reports, the fire originated in the 300-megawatt Phase I section of the 750-megawatt facility, located on the site of a retired PG&E natural gas plant.

It's unclear what caused the fire, but officials said a full investigation will begin after it's out. Thankfully, everyone at the site was evacuated safely. Videos and images of the fire can be found here.

Fire Erupts At Huge Battery Plant In California More | Reply

Fire Erupts At Huge Battery Plant In California

Comments Filter:

  • And they want these in electric buses? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Baloo Uriza ( 1582831 ) <baloo@ursamundi.org> on Friday January 17, 2025 @04:52PM (#65097627) Homepage Journal
    Seriously no, just string the trolley wires and be done with it. Not like more stable battery technologies aren't already available and in use on trolleybuses to get around detours, and have been for about a century now. While we're at it, expand transit so you don't need a schedule so the only people who are driving are the folks who get paid to drive or actually want to drive.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by darkain ( 749283 )

      You do realize a trolley bus, like the ones we have in Seattle, use batteries right?

      How do you think they operate when switching from one power grid section to another?
      How do you think they operate when a power grid section goes offline?
      How do you think they handle road detours?

      • Re:And they want these in electric buses? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by suutar ( 1860506 ) on Friday January 17, 2025 @06:12PM (#65097765)

        I would guess they use the batteries mentioned in the second sentence, but do you have more info?

      • worse, does he realizes that ICE buses have gasoline or diesel in them and they are actual fire hazards, that several of them go up in flames every week and it is just not news because it is normal?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by haruchai ( 17472 )

          I'm all for electric buses, have been of the opinion for over a decade that should have been the focus instead of small passenger vehicles.
          In terms of a push to electrification, I think Shenzhen has done by far the best job when they converted all city buses & most taxi to BEV.
          But as EVs proliferate so too will the number of fires and while I'm reasonably sure they'll never be more than a fraction of ICE vehicle fires they are IMMENSELY more difficult to extinguish and BEV fires almost routinely reigni

      • For fixed route services, why bother with the expense of quick charge battery technology when we have battery tech we can make with materials we already commonly have here in America and can put up overhead lines? Trolleybuses are a proven technology and you already know where the route's gonna go.

    • Okay who wants to tell him how flammable gasoline is, or what an oil refinery fire looks like. I really don't want to be the one.

      • It's far less flammable than people think. You can put a cigarette out in gasoline.

        • It's far less flammable than people think. You can put a cigarette out in gasoline.

          Technically you're right, you can put a cigarette out in gasoline. It's the vapour gasoline gives off that can ignite and explode and that is highly flammable falling into the IIB gas group in Europe meaning you need 60microjouels of energy to ignite it. That said you're either being dishonest or ignorantly believe cigarettes are risky flammable source. The reality is cigarettes are an oxygen restricted smolder, only a couple of hundred degrees hot in an incredibly restricted area behind a tail end of ash w

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by jonadab ( 583620 )
            But, but, in old movies and TV, they *constantly* use a cigarette as the fuse for MacGuyver-type improvised explosion setups.

            Are you telling me Hollywood could get something *wrong* ???

    • Re:And they want these in electric buses? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Friday January 17, 2025 @08:34PM (#65098031) Homepage Journal

      Can you imagine if someone proposed a bus that has a huge tank of flammable liquid and is powered by explosions?

      Bus batteries are fine. Catch fire less then liquid fuel buses.

    • This plant has had two other fires in the last couple of years and overheating due to malfunctions. This doesn't seem to be a battery issue per se, but a negligence issue. How many plants suffer that many fires in such a short time, even plants that store highly flammable liquids?

  • Energy storage plant. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Friday January 17, 2025 @05:07PM (#65097651)

    A battery plant produces batteries while an energy storage plant uses batteries. If we say, "yeah, you can call them both battery plants" then we'll have another "bi-weekly" problem. Is it a problem twice a week or every two weeks? Both? Neither! Linguistic ambiguity is a problem all the time! #DiedOnThisHill

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rinnon ( 1474161 )
      Mod parent up. Serious problem.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by jbengt ( 874751 )

      . . . then we'll have another "bi-weekly" problem. Is it a problem twice a week or every two weeks? Both? Neither! Linguistic ambiguity is a problem all the time!

      "bi-weekly" is no linguistic ambiguity - it has a clear definition of every 2 weeks. The fact that some people are unaware is not an ambiguity in the word the way the word "plant" has multiple definitions.

      • https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]

        biweekly
        1: occurring every two weeks : fortnightly
        2: occurring twice a week

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          Same with "biannual". Is that once every two years, or twice a year?

          Though, there's also the term "biennial" which unambiguously means "once every two years".

          This is an issue since many deadlines are simply marked as "biannual".

          • The problem exists because of people failing to use the prefix "semi" which indicates half and as a result, it eventually becomes definition.

    • Even better was this bit:

      erupted Thursday afternoon at one of the world's largest battery storage plants.

      Soooo... it stores batteries? I'm all sorts of confused...

  • Just up the coast from me. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Local ID10T ( 790134 ) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Friday January 17, 2025 @05:12PM (#65097667) Homepage

    Apparently one of the batteries caught fire, and it spread to the other battery systems in the same containment building. (it is an old power plant -lots of SOLID concrete buildings designed to contain explosions/fires). No chance of it spreading beyond the one building, fortunately. Also no chance of putting it out -it will have to burn itself out. Nasty chemicals being released into the atmosphere. Yuck.

    Power facilities catch and burn. It happens. It is always ugly. There have been fires at this very facility before.

    It will impact electricity availability in CA for a while. And the investigation and repairs will be costly. But life will go on.

    • This is apparently the third fire in a few years at the same place. This one is larger than the other though. I haven't dug into it further, but it feels that maybe there's some safety issues that aren't being dealt with.

      • Re:Just up the coast from me. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Local ID10T ( 790134 ) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Friday January 17, 2025 @06:40PM (#65097821) Homepage

        The site is a kludge. There are multiple revisions of equipment from multiple vendors on the site. (vendor A: charge controllers versions 1-5, batteries versions 2,4,7, Installed years x,z Vendor B: charge controllers version 3 , batteries version 1-6, installed year y Vendor C: ... etc.) There are even multiple operators of the site (both PG&E and Vistra run operations on the site).

        The previous failures were in different buildings and built by different vendors at different times.

        We do not know what happened this time.

        The smoke column was visible from miles away. The air has an acrid smell. We were advised to keep doors and windows shut last night and to avoid exercise outdoors today as a precaution. (don't breathe the poison ... nothing to worry about)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ffkom ( 3519199 )

        This is apparently the third fire in a few years at the same place. This one is larger than the other though. I haven't dug into it further, but it feels that maybe there's some safety issues that aren't being dealt with.

        Maybe the "solid concrete" is just a thin layer of paint on panels of plywood and drywall? :-)

        Or, somebody calculated that at some point in time, having an insurance pay for replacements of old, run-down batteries turns a little fire accident into a net profit.

    • How are these morons still placing batteries close enough to each other so that you are almost guaranteed to have a chain reaction fire?

      • Well, they do the same thing with LNG. As long as fire is contained to the facility, then it's a numbers game. How much does it cost to buy more land and space it out vs. how much does it cost to rebuild after relatively rare fires. The focus is on stopping fires from happening at all.

    • Concrete - against popular believe - is not fireproof.
      The question if this concrete wall is lasting, is multifold.
      Is it fire tempered, for example with asbestos (no idea if you would use that in this use case), heat of the fire, availability of oxygen.

      So I would not bet that the fire will be contained ... but I guess, you can start sprinkling the surroundings, if that makes sense in the presence of lithium (ions).

  • Sabotage? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by flyingfsck ( 986395 ) on Friday January 17, 2025 @05:18PM (#65097679)
    The big question: Is this sabotage, or Trumps fault?

  • I can see some elected officials stating "See I told you batteries are a bad idea". Particularly those who want to keep using fossil fuels.

    This is a new industry. There will be incidents. There will be lessons learned. I just hope that the federal government doesn't regulate the crap out of it just to extinguish it. (Sort of like they did with nuclear power).

  • Just put each battery module in a mostly watertight enclosure (can be open up top) and add a sprinkler. Even if you fear a misfire you can just add a human in the loop.

    Submerged batteries don't burn.

    • Re:Sprinklers? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Shugart ( 598491 ) on Friday January 17, 2025 @07:23PM (#65097895)
      Lithium reacts violently in water.
    • Yes they do. Water is conductive, and these packs are many many many cells in series to make hundreds of volts per string. You don't want any water, and in fact water ingress probably was the issue as it was last time.

      • That's okay, you want to discharge them any way. If it's in a grounded metal enclosure ... it's not going to create any voltage outside of the box.

        So you take some module for which a steel enclosure does not impact overall density too much, say a couple cubic meter of battery per enclosure and add 1 high flow sprinkler per enclosure. Yes, a sprinkler for office buildings doesn't put out enough water, but the entire energy content of a battery discharged and burned can only evaporate around as much water as

      • Pure water is an insulator, but this is not pure water.

    • Lithium batteries CANNOT be extinguished or submerged using "Water"... Lithium burns at 2000 degrees Celsius. A temperature that instantly separates hydrogen from water and causes a hydrogen gas explosion. The more water, the larger the explosion... PLEASE DO NOT use water to put out a lithium fire! ABC DRY CHEMICAL EXTINGUISHER ONLY! (Hazardous to humans, hence why it isn't coming out of a "Sprinkler")

      • Wow, just throw an 18650 in a pool and it's near infinite energy.

        • Typing stuff like this removes all doubt of just how ignorant you are... Strawman BS. Grow up. Learn2google.

          • How can you have missed pretty much every battery fire in the news ever?

            They fight car battery fires with spikes which inject what into the car batteries? Or alternatively they dump them into big containers filled with what? What does Tesla say it's safe to use on their Megapacks?

            Every large battery fire is always fought with water, it cools everything down, douses flames and prevents fire spread.

            "NOTE: Water has been deemed appropriate for use on Tesla Energy products, thus will not create a hazard while p

            • When it takes 150,000 liters, the water did NOT put the fire out. IT burns regardless of the presence of water. IT simply manages the heat. And still causes gas explosions if you go too fast. Aka, you should NOT use water to put out these fires. Foam ABC is THE BEST and SAFEST method to extinguish them. And ALWAYS has been. Nothing you or Elon Tusk has said, changes that.

              • Because most water just drains away and they allowed the fire to spread in the first place. The water still cools everything down and contains the fire, so they use it ... better than nothing. What would be even better is to have sprinklers to start containment immediately.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

                Enthalpy of evaporation is huge, you don't need a very large flow to cool things down faster than a battery fire can heat them up. Compartmentalize and add sprinklers.

                • Lithium instantly catches fire in the presence of water. Water + Lithium = instant fire. Fact. Its an exothermic reaction. There is nothing yopu can add or remove from lithium to make that not happen. ITs impossible. Chemistry and physics are not wrong. You... Are.

      • I thought metal fires were for "D" rated fire extinguishers. Or if the fire is small, dump salt on it (an ingredient in D fire extinguishers).

        • From Google: "Lithium-ion battery fires are Class B fires, indicating the presence of flammable liquids, so a standard dry chemical or ABC extinguisher can put them out."

        • Or if the fire is a large battery, you fight it with water ... because it's not like the water can reach all the metallic lithium instantly, it cools everything down and then there is no more fire. Discharged batteries have no metallic lithium BTW. So before the water can even reach most of the lithium, it will have converted.

          All large battery fires are doused with water.

          • Water can only manage the heat and prevent spread. The lithium continues to burn in its presence. And if you go to fast it WILL explode by creatign too much hydrogen gas. ABC dry chemical foam is the BEST method for extinguishing lithium fires. (Its just expensive....)

      • Lithium batteries burn between 700 and 1000 degrees [britsafe.org] depending on chemistry. LFP may be significantly lower. There is something to what you say but let's not get carried away.

        • From google when "How hot does lithium burn" is asked... Direct quote "Lithium burns at extremely high temperatures. When a lithium-ion battery catches fire, the burning lithium can reach temperatures of up to 2,000 degrees Celsius (3,632 degrees Fahrenheit). Additionally, lithium-ion battery fires can reach temperatures of between 700 and 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,292 to 1,832 degrees Fahrenheit) due to thermal runaway, which is a rapid overheating process that can ignite the battery and spread to adjacent

        • Yet water only boils at 100 degrees Celsius. Water unlike hot air, benefits from enthalpy of vaporization.

          The battery can burn at whatever temperature it wants, but the sprinkler will make anything slightly removed from it 100C.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by jonadab ( 583620 )
        Eh. You're right on the general idea but wrong on some of the details.

        Among other things, if some of the energy released by the explosion goes into separating water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then the hydrogen reacts with the oxygen (to make water again), that doesn't increase the net amount of energy released.

        With that said, water is definitely not the right thing to use to put out a fire, when the fire is likely to contain flammable metals and other reactive chemicals. Water is great for putting out

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by jonadab ( 583620 )
      Water is a bad idea. Batteries aren't usually made of simple mostly-cellulose combustibles like wood or paper. They tend to have more reactive chemicals in them, frequently including flammable metals. In that type of environment, if you want to extinguish a fire without spreading it around or making it worse, you want to drop something on it that's not an oxidizer, and also not a particularly good solvent, and also not especially reactive. So that's three good solid reasons NOT to use water.

      The ideal th

  • Key, very important thing here: (Score:3)

    by paul_engr ( 6280294 ) on Friday January 17, 2025 @07:31PM (#65097913)
    The most important fact here is that Vistra is an energy utility, not a battery engineering firm. One of the biggest in the US, in fact. Were the batteries to blame, or was it something like 1. Shit components 2. Shit installation 3. Shit upkeep that actually caused the issue?
    • Dendritic formation, happens in ALL lithium storage batteries. Its the reason they have a "Lifespan" Unattended systems using mostly automation to determine battery health are far from perfect. These systems should have major warning and alarm systems for even a fraction of a volt drift. And I'm sure they do. My question, is WHY none of these systems are hardened against thermal runaway, when it is the ONLY problem lithium storage systems typically have happen to them? Drop bins for cell banks to entomb the
  • Getting in before the fuckwits

  • Same thing happened a couple years ago.

  • Not "a huge battery plant" but rather a "huge LITHIUM storage battery plant."

  • There have been multiple fires at this plant.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.

Close