Why Do Major US Energy Storage Projects Keep Burning? Lessons from Moss Landing’s Recurring Fires

The Moss Landing Inferno: A Pattern Emerges

On January 16, 2025, thick black smoke billowed over California's Monterey County as the world's largest battery storage facility – Moss Landing's 750MW/3000MWh behemoth – erupted in flames for the fourth time since 2021. This latest blaze destroyed over 70% of Phase 1 equipment, forced 2,000 evacuations, and reignited urgent questions about lithium-ion battery safety in grid-scale applications[1][5].

A Timeline of Failure

• Sep 2021: Faulty cooling system triggers water spray on batteries (7% modules damaged)
• Feb 2022: Repeat cooling failure melts 10 battery racks
• Jan 2025: Internal fire suppression system fails, 40% capacity destroyed
• Feb 2025: Same location reignites 34 days later

Root Causes: More Than Just Bad Luck

While investigations continue, three systemic flaws stand out:

1. The Thermal Runaway Domino Effect

LG Energy Solution's NMC cells – while energy-dense – have narrower thermal margins than newer chemistries. When Phase 1's firewalls failed, a single cell's thermal runaway cascaded through 4,800 battery modules at 15°C/second[6][9].

2. Design Flaws in Plain Sight

Vistra Energy's decision to repurpose old gas plant infrastructure created critical vulnerabilities:

• Inadequate spacing between 20-ton battery containers
• Zoning variances allowing residential proximity (1.2 miles)
• Shared ventilation with non-battery facilities

3. The False Security of "Passive" Safety Systems

CAL FIRE reports reveal multiple protection layer failures:

The Industry's Billion-Dollar Blind Spot

Moss Landing's disasters expose three unresolved challenges:

1. The Density-Safety Tradeoff

Project developers face impossible choices – meet California's 3hr storage mandate (SB 100) or maintain safe cell spacing. PG&E's adjacent Tesla Megapack facility chose lower-density LFP chemistry, sacrificing 18% energy density for stability[4][10].

2. Liability Limbo

Who's ultimately responsible when fires occur?

• Cell manufacturers (LGES in this case)?
• System integrators (Fluence)?
• Operators (Vistra)?

3. The Firefighting Paradox

Monterey County's "controlled burn" strategy – letting batteries self-consume – prevented toxic runoff but created new risks. Residual heat from January's fire likely caused February's reignition[8].

Pathways to Safer Storage

While perfect safety remains elusive, three innovations show promise:

1. Chemistry Advancements

• Tesla's LFP-dominated Megapacks (0 thermal runaway events since 2022)
• CATL's condensed matter batteries (45% lower failure rate in trials)

2. AI-Driven Predictive Maintenance

Startups like VoltaIQ now offer:

• Cell-level SOC balancing
• Early dendrite detection (97% accuracy)
• Dynamic thermal modeling

3. Regulatory Reboots

California's proposed AB 705 would:

1. Mandate 100ft safety buffers
2. Require independent BMS audits
3. Ban NMC chemistries above 500MWh

As utilities race to deploy 30GW of storage by 2035, Moss Landing serves as both cautionary tale and catalyst. The fires will keep burning – unless we stop treating safety as an afterthought.