Letter: Let’s stop treating BESS safety as a matter of fear

There is a legitimate discussion to be had about the safety of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). Lithium-ion batteries can experience thermal runaway, and a serious failure can produce fire and hazardous gases. Anyone who says otherwise is not being honest.

But neither is it honest to imply that a BESS is automatically an unacceptable danger simply because a serious battery fire is possible.

The Crossvine project in Dubois County is an approximately 85 MW/340 MWh battery-storage facility. AES has obtained Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission approval, and the project has undergone a battery-energy-storage hazard-mitigation analysis and other technical studies. Indiana also requires Indiana Department of Homeland Security approval for the BESS facility.

That doesn’t mean residents should stop asking questions. It means the questions should be answered with engineering evidence rather than fear.

Yes, a battery fire can be dangerous.

Opponents are correct about one thing that should not be minimized, a lithium-ion battery fire can generate hazardous gases, including hydrogen fluoride. Recent public discussion concerning the Crossvine plume study has raised serious questions about potential concentrations and emergency-response procedures. Those questions deserve answers.

But a worst-case plume calculation is not the same thing as saying that residents are likely to experience those concentrations. Risk assessment requires looking at probability, duration, distance, weather conditions, detection systems, containment, emergency procedures and actual exposure. That is why the Crossvine emergency plan and plume analysis should be publicly examined by qualified fire, chemical and environmental professionals.

Here’s the question the critics aren’t asking, if safety is really the principal concern, why aren’t we investigating whether the former National Gypsum mine at Shoals could provide a safer location for battery storage?

The Shoals mine is not some shallow abandoned hole in the ground. The gypsum deposit is hundreds of feet underground. Historical geological records document the National Gypsum underground workings at depths ranging from roughly 350 feet to more than 500 feet.

The Town of Shoals describes the former National Gypsum operation as reaching approximately 515 feet underground and having been a major industrial employer for decades.

That makes the mine worthy of an engineering feasibility study.

Imagine putting the battery equipment hundreds of feet underground, in properly engineered and separated chambers, while locating the electrical substation, controls and other infrastructure on the surface. Such a facility could potentially provide enormous separation between the batteries and the public. It could also eliminate much of the visual impact and avoid converting additional agricultural land to an industrial use.

This is where a serious discussion differs from political rhetoric. An underground BESS would create its own challenges. A battery fire underground could produce toxic or flammable gases that must be detected and removed through a carefully engineered ventilation system. Emergency access would have to be addressed. Mine stability, groundwater, electrical isolation, fire suppression and compartmentalization would all have to be evaluated.

So I am not claiming that the Shoals mine is already proven safe for BESS. I’m saying something much simpler, let’s find out. If qualified engineers conclude that the mine cannot safely accommodate a BESS, then reject the idea. But if engineers conclude that the mine can be converted into a safe, compartmentalized energy-storage facility, and perhaps one that presents less risk to surrounding residents than a surface installation, then dismissing the idea without studying it makes no sense.

The debate should be about risk, not ideology. Some Crossvine opponents have legitimate concerns. The location near schools and homes deserves scrutiny. Emergency responders need appropriate training. The plume study deserves examination. Financial responsibility for an accident needs to be clear. And the public deserves access to the information needed to evaluate those questions. Local officials have already been working with AES and the Huntingburg Fire Department on emergency-response planning.

But there is a difference between saying, “Prove that this facility is adequately protected against a worst-case event”; and, saying, “BESS technology is too dangerous to use.” The first is responsible citizenship. The second is an unsupported conclusion. The same principle applies to the Shoals mine. If it can provide a safer location, let’s investigate it. If it cannot, let’s establish why with engineering evidence.

We don’t need to be blindly pro-BESS, and we don’t need to be reflexively anti-BESS. We need to be pro-safety. And if the safest solution happens to be an existing underground industrial facility at Shoals rather than a surface installation near homes and schools, we owe it to the people of southern Indiana to find that out before dismissing the idea.

Jim Arvin
Rutherford Township
Martin County

Not Mr. Jim Arvin, the former president of Jasper Desk