Current battery energy storage systems are too risky for Long Island

Local opposition to battery energy storage facilities has very little to do with opposing a green energy transition and everything to do with a risk/benefit analysis.

According to current analysis, to keep global warming to no more than 1.5°C — as per the 2015 Paris Agreement — a 45% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is required by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050. Despite carbon reduction efforts in the United States and European Union, global emissions continue to rise driven especially by growth in China, Southeast Asia and India. A 45%-plus reduction over the next six years increasingly appears to be a pipe dream. As the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) states: "Every year, the gap between what is achieved and what is required continues to grow."

The rapid rise in electricity demand for AI is making matters worse. Electricity demand in the U.S. is now projected to grow at a 3%-4% rate over the next five years. The message is crystal clear. We can expect to fall further behind emissions goals over the coming years.

Even if meeting those goals was technically feasible, the economics are troublesome. IRENA estimates that a cumulative $150 trillion investment, averaging $5 trillion annually, is required to meet the 2050 target. To put those amounts into perspective, global GDP is roughly $100 trillion, and the entire U.S. federal government spent $6.75 trillion in fiscal 2024. The obvious question is: If we are to meet the emissions goals, where is the money coming from?

The good news for reducing emissions is that science is not fact. It is merely the current state of knowledge, which often advances grudgingly. If current science is fact, we can stop wasting our time on renewable energy because our time on this planet is limited. However, if current science is not fact, we have options. We can make some quick emissions progress by replacing coal and oil with much cleaner natural gas, but we should also continue to develop renewable energy technology for future progress. However, there is little reason to marry ourselves to first-generation technology.

While lithium-ion batteries are a ‘proven’ technology, they also have proven risks. But there is better battery technology on the way. Solid-state batteries use a solid electrolyte instead of a flammable liquid and are generally safer and have a lower fire risk.

Sodium ion batteries, also in development, are said to be nonhazardous and won't catch fire or explode even if punctured, heated, or exposed to pressure or electric faults. These options are not yet perfected, but we have time to wait. If we build lithium-ion battery energy storage facilities, we will be wedded to technology that will quickly be outdated.

Fire departments are not happy with the proposed battery storage facilities, for good reason. Using lithium-ion batteries now pushes our volunteer departments to the brink of their current capacity to serve. And it’s not just about the ability of fire departments to respond today; the ability to respond years from now is just as important. If active membership trends continue to falter, they may be unable to respond in the future.

There is no need to push inferior technology into densely populated areas, creating risk for the next 20-30 years. There is no need to rush projects with first-generation technology in a futile effort to meet some impossible emissions goal. The risks simply outweigh the benefits.

This guest essay reflects the views of Glen Head resident Doug Augenthaler, a chartered financial analyst and former Wall Street equity analyst focused on the environmental sector.