By Vijay Jayaraj

Fossil fuels are destroying our planet. Big oil is evil. Coal is an addiction. These are hyperbolic statements uttered without basis in the public square as we continue with lifestyles dependent on hydrocarbons and their derivatives.

This dissonance exists cognitively in individuals whose choices are inconsistent with their thinking. Another dissonance manifests itself as elites who are wedded to an apocalyptic climate vision fearmongering to people who are just fine with their “high-carbon lives.”

Whatever one thinks about hydrocarbons, nobody can deny the sheer ubiquity of the things produced through their use as an energy source or feedstock.

From the plastic in smartphones to the synthetic fibers in clothing, from life-saving medical equipment to the asphalt on roads, petroleum-based products are woven into the fabric of modern life. Even the components of many “green” technologies, such as solar panels and wind turbines, are made with materials derived from fossil fuels.

In a document stating that petrochemicals are the basis for more than 6,000 everyday products, the U.S. Department of Energy lists a fraction of them to make the point of their prevalence.

The success of the climate industrial complex in demonizing coal, oil and natural gas despite their enormous benefits speaks to the broadness of the alarmists’ network: career politicians, unelected international political organizations, media houses, government-funded scientists in academia and corporate CEOs addicted to subsidies. All this is fed by an education system that puts ideological indoctrination ahead of inculcation of independent thought to beget complaisant minds.

Yet, this schizophrenic relationship to hydrocarbons may not run as deeply as it sometimes seems. Despite the crescendo calling for a rapid transition to solar and wind, global consumption of fossil fuels continues to climb. That is because the alternatives are neither affordable nor dependable.

In 2023, the world set new records for hydrocarbon consumption. This trend is not limited to developing nations struggling to industrialize like China and India; it’s equally evident in some of the world’s most advanced economies.

The U.S. was the world’s largest oil producer in 2023, with an average of 12.9 million barrels per day (b/d), breaking the previous U.S. global record of 12.3 million b/d set in 2019. Norway, often hailed as a leader in environmental policy, issued hundreds of new drilling permits for oil and gas exploration in 2024.

Dependence on fossil fuels is not waning; it’s intensifying at a rate never seen before.

Aramco CEO Amin Nasser says, “Global South is likely to see significant growth in oil demand for a long time…. If so, more than 100 million barrels per day would realistically still be required by 2050… This is a stark contrast with those predicting that oil will, or must, fall to just 25 million barrels per day by then…. Being short 75 million barrels every day would be devastating for energy security and affordability.”

Meanwhile, the preachers of the anti-fossil fuel gospel live hypocritically, enjoying fossil fuel-guzzling private jets and lavish sea-front mansions. That their affluence rests on an economic bedrock of fossil fuels is not lost on impoverished countries seeking betterment through the use of hydrocarbons as they are pressured to adopt “green” policies.

Even if the findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports are accepted, the predictions of harm from global warming are overblown. According to the IPCC, the cost of a warmer planet would be in the range of 2-4% of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2100 – a tiny amount considering that the average person is expected to be much richer by then and the cost of “green” policies are likely to impoverish entire nations.

Every major economy thriving today was built on fossil fuels. Their contributions in the areas of energy, transportation, construction, agriculture, manufacturing, healthcare and more have produced unprecedented levels of prosperity, health and life expectancy.

Moreover, the increase in atmospheric CO2 from the combustion of hydrocarbons has been a boon, greening vast areas of Earth and producing record crop harvests to feed billions of people.

It’s past time to abandon the climate myth and embrace fossil fuels for the gifts that they are.

This commentary was first published at BizPac Review on October 28, 2024.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

By David Wojick

Washington State’s environmental agency, the Department of Ecology, recently took comments on dual draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Analyses (PEIS) for wind and solar developments. Unfortunately while each had a section on grid battery fires there was significant confusion as each cited a regulation that as I read it does not apply to grid scale battery complexes.

So I posted the comments below to help them develop the desperately needed regulations.

“Comments of David Wojick, Ph.D. on the Washington Department of Ecology “draft PEIS for wind and solar” regarding the potential impact of grid scale battery fires

Submitted October 26, 2024

The wind and solar PEIS address the very serious issue of spontaneous fire in the huge battery complexes that often accompany wind and solar projects.

In particular section 3.6.1.1 of appendix G in both PEIS says this:

“WAC 51-54A-0322 includes requirements for storage of lithium-ion and lithium metal batteries. Permits are required when more than 15 cubic feet of most battery types are accumulated. A fire safety plan is required and must include emergency responses to be taken upon detection of a fire or possible fire. Where required by the fire code official, a technical opinion and report complying with Section 104.8.2 should be prepared to evaluate the fire and explosion risks associated with the storage area and to make recommendations for fire and explosion protection. The report must be submitted to the fire code official and should require the fire code official’s approval prior to issuance of a permit. In addition to the requirements of Section 104.8.2, the technical opinion and report should specifically evaluate the potential for deflagration of flammable gases released during a thermal runaway event.“

Unfortunately it is highly likely that this regulation does not apply to wind and solar battery complexes. It covers battery storage while these complexes are batteries in use. Thus they are likely exempt under this exception listed in section 322.1:

“2. New or refurbished batteries packed for use with the equipment, devices, or vehicles they are designed to power.“

In this case the equipment being powered is the grid, including stabilization.

It appears that this regulation is either not applicable to wind and solar battery complexes or it is being ignored. In either case this raises the reasonably likely impact of a huge multi-battery fire. That impact needs to be properly assessed, not just mentioned in passing as these draft PEIS seem to do.

An example may be helpful. I recently wrote an article on the desperate national need for standards of design and emergency preparedness for grid scale battery complexes. The title is “Grid scale battery fires loom large.”

By coincidence my example is the Washington State wind-solar-battery project at Horse Heaven. Lax permitting of a very dangerous project is my focus.

Here is the relevant excerpt :

“Now let’s turn to permitting these facilities where I have another example that speaks volumes. This is a facility that just got permitted by Washington State. It is a combined wind, solar and battery project with a proposed storage capacity of 300 MW…. It might have 200 huge lithium battery units. That number is not disclosed.

The project is named the Horse Heaven Wind Farm despite its massive solar and battery components. The name, usually shortened to Horse Heaven, is truly ironic because it will be no place for horses. Horse Hell might be better.

The permitting authority is the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council or EFSEC for short. The permit is called a Site Certification Agreement or CSA and Horse Heaven just got one, with a big push from the Governor.

The astounding point is that there was no discussion, or even recognition, of the fire threat posed by this enormous lithium battery facility. The CSA has numerous requirements for lots of issues, big and small, right down to the facility having water to keep the road dust down. There is nothing on having a million or so gallons to prevent a catastrophic conflagration, nor on the environmental impact of such.

This is wildfire country so there should be liability insurance for harm to others from a fire. Other potential sources of harm are huge amounts of contaminated water runoff as well as toxic air emissions, especially if the whole facility burns.

This neglect no doubt flows from the Horse Heaven Application. The App is over 500 pages long and I can find just one sentence about battery fires. Buried in a long paragraph on PDF page 366 we read “Lithium-ion battery storage may pose a risk of fire and explosion due to the tendency for lithium-ion batteries to overheat.”

This single sentence does not even refer to the project. For that matter there are only a few paragraphs about the battery facility in the entire App, mostly just describing it in general terms. There is nothing about the number of giant battery containers or that it is a huge project in its own right, posing an equally huge fire threat. In fact the App says they might double deck these container sized battery units which is absurd given the risk of setting off a chain reaction in the whole complex.

One can easily think from the Application that the batteries are of no significance and that appears to be exactly what has happened at the EFSEC.

This systematic neglect looks to be what is happening around the country. We desperately need a national code or standard covering this issue. The National Fire Protection Association says it is working on one, but it is up to the permitting authorities to make something happen.

The growing threat of grid scale battery fires is a very serious issue calling for equally serious action.“

See https://www.cfact.org/2024/10/01/grid-scale-battery-fires-loom-large/

To continue, Horse Heaven is in dry, wildfire prone country and I have read that 100,000 people live within 5 or 6 miles of it. Clearly there is a real threat of enormous property damage and even loss of life if a battery fire gets out of control. This potential impact needs to be included in the PEIS assessment as it is likely to be true for many battery complexes throughout much of the State. Most of the State is dry.

I therefore recommend as follows:

Washington State needs to quickly promulgate and enforce fire safety regulations specifically for grid scale battery complexes. These should cover emergency planning and preparedness, where the latter includes both facility design and material readiness. Design includes container spacing and other necessary engineering features. The material readiness includes having a supply and delivery system for water and/or fire suppressants as needed to prevent a chain reaction of container fires.

In closing I disagree with the PEIS statements that grid scale battery fires are “very rare” as this makes it sound like the threat is not serious which it surely is. There are relatively few battery complexes in America yet there have been a significant number of fires. See for example

https://www.firetrace.com/fire-protection-blog/us-has-suffered-second-highest-number-of-major-storage-fires

A large number of grid scale battery complexes are presently proposed for Washington State and the scale of the threat is correspondingly enormous.

I am happy to discuss any of the above issues or to provide additional information.

Respectfully submitted,

David Wojick, Ph.D., exPE

Policy analyst and advisor to CFACT

https://www.cfact.org

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow”

End of comments submitted.

Here’s hoping they listen.