I found five major problems with the claims made on the podcast.
They claimed the average price of storage is $165/kWh.
According to the 2025 EIA price guide, the cost of 4-hour storage is $1,580/kW, which equates to $395/kWh. They likely left off major items for a fully connected system. Items such as switchgear, switchyard, substation, SCADA, etc.
Very interesting discussion. I would like this type of discussion (solar/battery) applied to an individual homeowner. I have solar for 100% of my usage (including 2 BEVs) and want to use those BEVs as a battery backup with bidirectional charging for necessary home devices during a short blackout (~3 days max). I would also like to hear discussion about putting more than 100% of use on my roof and selling my power to the grid at a reasonable price (10% discount at most).
1. Towards the end, David suggests that the whole of the magic is adding batteries. This idea, however, skips over a point brought out earlier—that collocation of batteries and solar creates a 5x efficiency on grid interconnection. Because grid interconnection is arguably the biggest constraint on solar development today in most parts of the US, that efficiency gain matters.
2. The idea that *supply* needs to do all the work is unduly burdening solar+storage economics. While assuming flat demand isa useful academic exercise, and possibly relevant for off-grid applications, any sensible energy market brings demand-side shaping into the game. Moreover, the natural demand shape is not flat but dips overnight, precisely when solar is not producing while most of us are sleeping. Consequently the modeled need for firm, flat power is unduly pessimistic. Demand should be able to flex and allow for further cost savings.
3. Land lease costs are too important to skip over; consequently the paper’s cost estimates are likely too low.
4. A grid composed of mostly solar+storage is far more reliable than the current ‘central station’ model. That is, the N-1 or N-1-1 NERC contingency tests are going to require fewer reserves for the solar+storage grid than the CCGT/nuke grid. Therefore, the estimated costs overstate the total consumer costs of a solar+storage grid.
Another idea/component to your reflections is the idea of using battery storage to take advantage of the cool night when transmission capability is maximum and (presumably) less electricity is flowing. Solar stored during the day could travel to urban centers where the fleet of EV cars and trucks are wanting to charge. This is another way to get around the long lead times needed to add more long distance transmission.
The cost of solar was calculated as the actual costs of panels and batteries etc divided by 20 years. The cost of gas power was calculated how? Did it take into account the cost of building a gas plant plus the cost of the methane fuel for 20 years (plus the cost of the tankers and pipelines etc)? Although impossible to quantify, I think it is still important to emphasize the value of localized energy autonomy, for countries or municipalities or remote and rural areas. No pipelines, tankers, geopolitics, tariffs, pollution, billionaires. And, of course, saving the world.
This pod reminded me of the difficulty of picking the "best" path forward due to constant innovation and the changing cost of clean technology. A decade ago, studies were done analyzing the most efficient way to 100% clean electricity. One big takeaway at that time was that long distance HVDC interconnects to allow sharing of clean power across the entire country as the day progresses would provide the most reliability at the lowest cost. As battery cost continues to drop, has anyone run new simulations based on current and projected solar+wind+batteries costs? How about if the US gave up trying to keep low-cost Chinese tech out of the US and opened the flood gates?
I was recently listening to a YouTube from a solar installer in Texas who analyzed the cost differentials between Europe and USA installations and the additional hidden bullshit costs associated with getting anything done in the United States triples the cost to us consumers. I find this so ridiculous and disgusting. I've known this to be the case for Australia versus the USA for many years as I listen to Australian solar programs. Unfortunately, I'm stuck here in this end of life country that seems to be doing everything it can to fail these days. Great program. Appreciate it and as always love you folks..
Did said Youtuber mention Texas Senate Bill 1202, which was signed into law? It is reportedly designed to streamline the permitting process for rooftop solar installations, potentially reducing costs for homeowners. We'll see what happens! 😉 Some claim that avoiding the soft costs related to permitting might make up for something like a 30% tax credit.
Clean energy inventions offer safe, clean, cheap fuel-less sources of constant energy. They compare favorably with 'renewable energy sources' such as solar farms and wind turbines which generate cumbersome intermittent electricity that are still somewhat expensive and require backups.
The Gallery of Clean Energy Inventions is linked in https://app.box.com/v/cleanenergyexhibit and padrak.com/vesperman. The exhibit displays profiles of 31 Larger Generators, 36 Smaller Generators, 30 Advanced Self-Powered Electric Vehicle Innovations, 29 Radioactivity Neutralization Methods, 30 Space Travel Innovations, 25 Technical Solutions to Water Shortages, and a Torsion Field School Network.
I’m also a techno-optimist, but as the former CEO of an ocean-wave energy company, I’m also a realist about how difficult and time-consuming it is to turn good ideas into commercial reality. The advantage of solar+storage(+wind) is that these are all off-the-shelf solutions available today.
The word “wind” wasn’t used once in this entire podcast episode. Doing a solar-first report is fine. But I assume Birmingham UK, if they mixed in some wind, could have a LCOE way down with solar and battery. It seems weird and almost nefarious to exclude entirely wind power from this discussion
The separation between the US and RoW is striking. We seem to be on a path towards a significant competitive disadvantage because we are paying the tax of fossil fuel payoffs.
Hopeful episode. The land use limitation is concerning. With one obvious solution being rooftop solar, I wonder if folks can see scenarios where (depending on local/regional utility pay structures) lower battery prices cause utilities to flip to actually wanting rooftop solar and therefore paying a more fair price for it?
Question: how so you realistically compare the LCOE from Solar vs Gas, when the fuel cost for gas do not end and there is no cost for ongoing power for 20 years after installation?
Thank for the really interesting podcast! This low cost battery talk is opening my brain to the possibility being affordability off-grid in the middle of the city. I want to ditch my non-responsive monopolistic utility so badly. My dream: goodbye Xcel.
What I really wanted to understand, and I feel like wasn't covered, was "what does it actually mean to have the 97% coverage?" If the 3% that isn't covered can be made to fall during nighttime hours, then 97% coverage is more than enough. If that shortfall can on average be moved to night hours when overall demand is lower, than that lack of coverage is not an issue at all. You could probably get away with much less coverage (maybe 80 or 90%). Can someone else chime in on this?
This question needs to be discussed at length. "97%" doesn't mean there are 10-11 days per year with zero power. It's any combination of undersupply and time that adds up to 3% of the 8765 hours in a year.
Only being able to supply 60% of needed power for 18 hours a day, for 36 days, is also a loss of 3% of total generation. That would be early December to mid-January, losing 40% of power over a long night, also low-sun mornings and afternoons.
The vertical elbow they alluded to is the HUGE extra batteries needed to not just carry over day into night, but from sunnier months through to the dark ones. That's still out of the question.
It could also easily be 1-2 hours every day before the sun rises, in which case firm generators can cover, and it's no big deal. But some clarification would have been helpful on the pod. I'll try to read the paper shortly.
Odd study, and odder still emphasis on 98% solar Vegas for "only" $0.10/kWh wholesale. The more germane result was something like 80% solar Vegas for $0.05ish/kWh. The gas generators are there to do the backup for that or less in "marginal" cost.
BUT, the overall result is what has been apparent for a while. Cheap storage is the KILLER APP for maximizing variable/intermittent renewables and minimizing FFs and GHGs. The FF biz and their new allies in macho influencers, MAHA, etc. will try to stomp on storage and batteries like they are stomped on wind and then EVs and now solar. So far the rest of the world has been a bit less influenced by these coalitions, but w/social media, they may get their way.
Unfortunately, there are issues with fire and the batteries leaving heavy metals in the land. With winds these carry many miles and are destructive to human, animal and plant life. They are also extremely hard to put out. It took 15 days for cal fire to put out otay Mesa battery fire. Just recently the governor of New York has called an investigation into 3 fires there for safety concerns. I know of at least 40 recent fires from battery facilities. Also the amount of birds killed by these solar facilities is unconscionable. A large one in California is called the bird killer. They even have a name for the birds. They call them steamers. Horrifying. My background is in biodiversity and sustainable farming. 59% of the biodiversity is within the soil of the planet. That is what feeds us nutritionally. Many of these farms are sprayed with chemicals that are illegal in Europe. The soils do not just come back after the life of these facilities. We need to remember that we are part of nature. It is not just nature and then us. We are nature.
Tom Edison's lights and wires caused many many fires while they were being perfected. All high energy systems from wood stoves to nuclear reactors have fire/explosion hazards. One reason fire/electrical building codes and NRC regulators are both so onerous.
Newer utility batteries have multiple layers improved fire avoidance and extinguishing methods. From your perspective, one of the biggest improvements should be the replacement of lithium-manganese-nickel-cobalt with lithium-iron/ferrous-phosphate avoiding most of the heavy, and most destructive to mine metals. Yes there is destruction from extraction at the lithium mines, but it's far far less than the ongoing destruction of FF extraction and GHGs from burning them. The amount of heavy metals dispersed from batteries is orders of magnitude less than the cadmium, mercury and arsenic from avoided coal burning.
As far as solar farms, again, huge progress in just a few years in reducing impacts. Land area covered and the (often not even used) herbicide application is orders of magnitude less than conventional ag. The CO2 avoidance from a PV farm is 100x that of CO2 sequestered by regenerative ag per acre. Most solar farms are now seeded with pollinator mixes where the climate allows and mowed or grazed. In many case bird and insect diversity and populations increase dramatically two or three years after planting PV instead of conventional crops.
I sympathize with where you are coming from. But, the regenerative/organic/sustainable ag community is being targeted with worst-case scare scenarios through social media amplified by more conventional farm/rural media. The FF biz is helping this along. They also target plumbers and HVAC techs to dis' heat pumps. They target folks who live in cold climates to dis BEV heating/range, though somehow 90% of Norwegians are buying them. They target the less affluent and claim renewables are increasing their utility bills. Etc.
It's relative. Nothing's perfect, but try to not oppose these vast improvements because they do not achieve the perfect eco-utopia.
Google Moss Landing fire. Google Otay Mesa fire, Google governor of New York fires on their battery systems for solar storage of power. Google Ivanpah, bird killer. The fires are caused by the battery storage systems for solar. Underneath large solar industrial complexes,plants grow that need to be reduced, thus using chemicals harmful for the environment which are illegal in Europe but somehow still legal here. It kills the biodiversity in the soil. It is the biodiversity in the soil that contributes to the amount of nutrition in the plants you eat. So for instance, your body needs B-12 for energy. Your body does not produce it on its own. You have probably heard a good source of B-12 is beef. Plants do not have B-12, but when the cow eats the plant it also eats dirt. The dirt has B 12 in it and it is passed into the cow which you eat. Just an example. Many of these solar industrial complexes are built on farmland thus ruining the biodiversity of the soil. Poor soil means less nutrients in our foods.
You are comparing old tech to the newer ones described in the podcast. Ivanpah was a CSP (Concentrating Solar Power) plant which would be expected to cook anything that got into the path of the light focused on the thermal collector. Solar Photo Voltaic is what was described in the podcast. No extreme heat/energy beams generated. I don't expect Ivanpah is any worse for killing birds than our feline friends or our glass clad buildings. It has more sci-fi effect though.
Battery fires are a concern as is any uncontrolled fire. Moss Landing and Otay Mesa were built in buildings before the issue of fire control was fully understood. All grid storage that I have seen installed recently is containerized to limit the amount of material exposed in the event of a fire and limit spread - even additions made to Moss Landing were containerized (they didn't catch fire). Also the understanding of how to stop a battery fire is progressing quickly. Look at this YouTube from Sweden regarding EV battery fires.
UtkikenRescue (Sweden) has many interesting videos on YouTube about their findings as they studied Li-Ion battery fires primarily for EVs but also stationary.
All forms of energy storage can have serious consequences when the energy is released in an uncontrolled fashion. As the narrator in the video notes, we have decades of education through fatal failures with fossil fuels. The understanding of what is happening in batteries during thermal runaway and how to control it has taken investigation, and the safety level is increasing very quickly.
Do we still have natural gas in our homes, gas cans in our garages, propane bottles for our grills, electrical systems (now fortunately with fuses/breakers), fireplaces, nuclear reactors, fireworks at July 4th, cell phones with Li-Ion batteries? How many Christmas trees burned down houses due to incandescent light bulb heat/shorts? But, we still put them up before LED bulbs came along.
It is about risk control. Our modern life style is all energy control, and we keep pushing the energy levels higher. Think about the amount of energy embodied in our cars when we are driving at 65 mph (if anyone drives that slowly). It is a high energy/low stability state, and we jump into it every day. Most people are oblivious to the consequences if they lose control of that embodied energy, even though we see the consequences regularly. We have developed systems to better handle/absorb an out of control condition, after killing tens of thousands of people each year on our highways. Humans understand feelings/fear and not probability.
There may be a battery chemistry out there that will be high energy density, low flammability, with safe thermal runaway characteristics. We won't find it if there isn't research motivated by demand in the market. If we wait for the perfect battery (which may not exist) our CO2 levels will be approaching those on Venus. (hyperbole noted).
As Mr. Porter noted, nothing is perfect. All of our activities produce wastes, and at the levels we (humans) produce them, they have to be managed. Air borne wastes are some of the most difficult to handle, so we need to avoid them through electrification and cleaner electricity.
I found five major problems with the claims made on the podcast.
They claimed the average price of storage is $165/kWh.
According to the 2025 EIA price guide, the cost of 4-hour storage is $1,580/kW, which equates to $395/kWh. They likely left off major items for a fully connected system. Items such as switchgear, switchyard, substation, SCADA, etc.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/EMM_Assumptions.pdf
They claimed the LCOE of solar at 97% reliability in Las Vegas is $104/MWh.
Using simulation of EIA hourly data and inputs from EIA cost guides, assuming 8% interest rate, the cost I get is $222.9/MWh.
They claimed the LCOE of gas generation in the U.S. is about $76/MWh.
Assuming an 8% interest rate, 3 MMBTU for gas, 87% capacity factor, and using inputs from the 2025 EIA price guide, the cost is $33.44/MWh,
They claimed only 25% of gas capacity is needed for backup at 97% solar reliability.
My simulation shows that at 97% reliability, you require 64% of the gas capacity to prevent blackouts.
They claimed it takes 5 years to connect a gas plant to the grid, but only 1.5 years for a solar farm.
According to this Berkeley Labs study, the median time to connect a solar farm to the grid is 5 years and rising.
https://emp.lbl.gov/queues
Very interesting discussion. I would like this type of discussion (solar/battery) applied to an individual homeowner. I have solar for 100% of my usage (including 2 BEVs) and want to use those BEVs as a battery backup with bidirectional charging for necessary home devices during a short blackout (~3 days max). I would also like to hear discussion about putting more than 100% of use on my roof and selling my power to the grid at a reasonable price (10% discount at most).
A few reflections on this excellent podcast:
1. Towards the end, David suggests that the whole of the magic is adding batteries. This idea, however, skips over a point brought out earlier—that collocation of batteries and solar creates a 5x efficiency on grid interconnection. Because grid interconnection is arguably the biggest constraint on solar development today in most parts of the US, that efficiency gain matters.
2. The idea that *supply* needs to do all the work is unduly burdening solar+storage economics. While assuming flat demand isa useful academic exercise, and possibly relevant for off-grid applications, any sensible energy market brings demand-side shaping into the game. Moreover, the natural demand shape is not flat but dips overnight, precisely when solar is not producing while most of us are sleeping. Consequently the modeled need for firm, flat power is unduly pessimistic. Demand should be able to flex and allow for further cost savings.
3. Land lease costs are too important to skip over; consequently the paper’s cost estimates are likely too low.
4. A grid composed of mostly solar+storage is far more reliable than the current ‘central station’ model. That is, the N-1 or N-1-1 NERC contingency tests are going to require fewer reserves for the solar+storage grid than the CCGT/nuke grid. Therefore, the estimated costs overstate the total consumer costs of a solar+storage grid.
Another idea/component to your reflections is the idea of using battery storage to take advantage of the cool night when transmission capability is maximum and (presumably) less electricity is flowing. Solar stored during the day could travel to urban centers where the fleet of EV cars and trucks are wanting to charge. This is another way to get around the long lead times needed to add more long distance transmission.
The cost of solar was calculated as the actual costs of panels and batteries etc divided by 20 years. The cost of gas power was calculated how? Did it take into account the cost of building a gas plant plus the cost of the methane fuel for 20 years (plus the cost of the tankers and pipelines etc)? Although impossible to quantify, I think it is still important to emphasize the value of localized energy autonomy, for countries or municipalities or remote and rural areas. No pipelines, tankers, geopolitics, tariffs, pollution, billionaires. And, of course, saving the world.
This pod reminded me of the difficulty of picking the "best" path forward due to constant innovation and the changing cost of clean technology. A decade ago, studies were done analyzing the most efficient way to 100% clean electricity. One big takeaway at that time was that long distance HVDC interconnects to allow sharing of clean power across the entire country as the day progresses would provide the most reliability at the lowest cost. As battery cost continues to drop, has anyone run new simulations based on current and projected solar+wind+batteries costs? How about if the US gave up trying to keep low-cost Chinese tech out of the US and opened the flood gates?
I was recently listening to a YouTube from a solar installer in Texas who analyzed the cost differentials between Europe and USA installations and the additional hidden bullshit costs associated with getting anything done in the United States triples the cost to us consumers. I find this so ridiculous and disgusting. I've known this to be the case for Australia versus the USA for many years as I listen to Australian solar programs. Unfortunately, I'm stuck here in this end of life country that seems to be doing everything it can to fail these days. Great program. Appreciate it and as always love you folks..
Did said Youtuber mention Texas Senate Bill 1202, which was signed into law? It is reportedly designed to streamline the permitting process for rooftop solar installations, potentially reducing costs for homeowners. We'll see what happens! 😉 Some claim that avoiding the soft costs related to permitting might make up for something like a 30% tax credit.
Clean energy inventions offer safe, clean, cheap fuel-less sources of constant energy. They compare favorably with 'renewable energy sources' such as solar farms and wind turbines which generate cumbersome intermittent electricity that are still somewhat expensive and require backups.
The Gallery of Clean Energy Inventions is linked in https://app.box.com/v/cleanenergyexhibit and padrak.com/vesperman. The exhibit displays profiles of 31 Larger Generators, 36 Smaller Generators, 30 Advanced Self-Powered Electric Vehicle Innovations, 29 Radioactivity Neutralization Methods, 30 Space Travel Innovations, 25 Technical Solutions to Water Shortages, and a Torsion Field School Network.
I’m also a techno-optimist, but as the former CEO of an ocean-wave energy company, I’m also a realist about how difficult and time-consuming it is to turn good ideas into commercial reality. The advantage of solar+storage(+wind) is that these are all off-the-shelf solutions available today.
The word “wind” wasn’t used once in this entire podcast episode. Doing a solar-first report is fine. But I assume Birmingham UK, if they mixed in some wind, could have a LCOE way down with solar and battery. It seems weird and almost nefarious to exclude entirely wind power from this discussion
Another great discussion.
The separation between the US and RoW is striking. We seem to be on a path towards a significant competitive disadvantage because we are paying the tax of fossil fuel payoffs.
Hopeful episode. The land use limitation is concerning. With one obvious solution being rooftop solar, I wonder if folks can see scenarios where (depending on local/regional utility pay structures) lower battery prices cause utilities to flip to actually wanting rooftop solar and therefore paying a more fair price for it?
Question: how so you realistically compare the LCOE from Solar vs Gas, when the fuel cost for gas do not end and there is no cost for ongoing power for 20 years after installation?
Thank for the really interesting podcast! This low cost battery talk is opening my brain to the possibility being affordability off-grid in the middle of the city. I want to ditch my non-responsive monopolistic utility so badly. My dream: goodbye Xcel.
What I really wanted to understand, and I feel like wasn't covered, was "what does it actually mean to have the 97% coverage?" If the 3% that isn't covered can be made to fall during nighttime hours, then 97% coverage is more than enough. If that shortfall can on average be moved to night hours when overall demand is lower, than that lack of coverage is not an issue at all. You could probably get away with much less coverage (maybe 80 or 90%). Can someone else chime in on this?
This question needs to be discussed at length. "97%" doesn't mean there are 10-11 days per year with zero power. It's any combination of undersupply and time that adds up to 3% of the 8765 hours in a year.
Only being able to supply 60% of needed power for 18 hours a day, for 36 days, is also a loss of 3% of total generation. That would be early December to mid-January, losing 40% of power over a long night, also low-sun mornings and afternoons.
The vertical elbow they alluded to is the HUGE extra batteries needed to not just carry over day into night, but from sunnier months through to the dark ones. That's still out of the question.
It could also easily be 1-2 hours every day before the sun rises, in which case firm generators can cover, and it's no big deal. But some clarification would have been helpful on the pod. I'll try to read the paper shortly.
Odd study, and odder still emphasis on 98% solar Vegas for "only" $0.10/kWh wholesale. The more germane result was something like 80% solar Vegas for $0.05ish/kWh. The gas generators are there to do the backup for that or less in "marginal" cost.
BUT, the overall result is what has been apparent for a while. Cheap storage is the KILLER APP for maximizing variable/intermittent renewables and minimizing FFs and GHGs. The FF biz and their new allies in macho influencers, MAHA, etc. will try to stomp on storage and batteries like they are stomped on wind and then EVs and now solar. So far the rest of the world has been a bit less influenced by these coalitions, but w/social media, they may get their way.
It seems the cost to install residential PV went up again in CA-
Borenstein, Severin. “Every Electricity Demand Reduction is a Cost Shift” Energy Institute Blog, UC Berkeley, July 14, 2025, https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2025/07/14/every-electricity-demand-reduction-is-a-cost-shift/
Unfortunately, there are issues with fire and the batteries leaving heavy metals in the land. With winds these carry many miles and are destructive to human, animal and plant life. They are also extremely hard to put out. It took 15 days for cal fire to put out otay Mesa battery fire. Just recently the governor of New York has called an investigation into 3 fires there for safety concerns. I know of at least 40 recent fires from battery facilities. Also the amount of birds killed by these solar facilities is unconscionable. A large one in California is called the bird killer. They even have a name for the birds. They call them steamers. Horrifying. My background is in biodiversity and sustainable farming. 59% of the biodiversity is within the soil of the planet. That is what feeds us nutritionally. Many of these farms are sprayed with chemicals that are illegal in Europe. The soils do not just come back after the life of these facilities. We need to remember that we are part of nature. It is not just nature and then us. We are nature.
Tom Edison's lights and wires caused many many fires while they were being perfected. All high energy systems from wood stoves to nuclear reactors have fire/explosion hazards. One reason fire/electrical building codes and NRC regulators are both so onerous.
Newer utility batteries have multiple layers improved fire avoidance and extinguishing methods. From your perspective, one of the biggest improvements should be the replacement of lithium-manganese-nickel-cobalt with lithium-iron/ferrous-phosphate avoiding most of the heavy, and most destructive to mine metals. Yes there is destruction from extraction at the lithium mines, but it's far far less than the ongoing destruction of FF extraction and GHGs from burning them. The amount of heavy metals dispersed from batteries is orders of magnitude less than the cadmium, mercury and arsenic from avoided coal burning.
As far as solar farms, again, huge progress in just a few years in reducing impacts. Land area covered and the (often not even used) herbicide application is orders of magnitude less than conventional ag. The CO2 avoidance from a PV farm is 100x that of CO2 sequestered by regenerative ag per acre. Most solar farms are now seeded with pollinator mixes where the climate allows and mowed or grazed. In many case bird and insect diversity and populations increase dramatically two or three years after planting PV instead of conventional crops.
I sympathize with where you are coming from. But, the regenerative/organic/sustainable ag community is being targeted with worst-case scare scenarios through social media amplified by more conventional farm/rural media. The FF biz is helping this along. They also target plumbers and HVAC techs to dis' heat pumps. They target folks who live in cold climates to dis BEV heating/range, though somehow 90% of Norwegians are buying them. They target the less affluent and claim renewables are increasing their utility bills. Etc.
It's relative. Nothing's perfect, but try to not oppose these vast improvements because they do not achieve the perfect eco-utopia.
What are you even talking about
Google Moss Landing fire. Google Otay Mesa fire, Google governor of New York fires on their battery systems for solar storage of power. Google Ivanpah, bird killer. The fires are caused by the battery storage systems for solar. Underneath large solar industrial complexes,plants grow that need to be reduced, thus using chemicals harmful for the environment which are illegal in Europe but somehow still legal here. It kills the biodiversity in the soil. It is the biodiversity in the soil that contributes to the amount of nutrition in the plants you eat. So for instance, your body needs B-12 for energy. Your body does not produce it on its own. You have probably heard a good source of B-12 is beef. Plants do not have B-12, but when the cow eats the plant it also eats dirt. The dirt has B 12 in it and it is passed into the cow which you eat. Just an example. Many of these solar industrial complexes are built on farmland thus ruining the biodiversity of the soil. Poor soil means less nutrients in our foods.
You are comparing old tech to the newer ones described in the podcast. Ivanpah was a CSP (Concentrating Solar Power) plant which would be expected to cook anything that got into the path of the light focused on the thermal collector. Solar Photo Voltaic is what was described in the podcast. No extreme heat/energy beams generated. I don't expect Ivanpah is any worse for killing birds than our feline friends or our glass clad buildings. It has more sci-fi effect though.
Battery fires are a concern as is any uncontrolled fire. Moss Landing and Otay Mesa were built in buildings before the issue of fire control was fully understood. All grid storage that I have seen installed recently is containerized to limit the amount of material exposed in the event of a fire and limit spread - even additions made to Moss Landing were containerized (they didn't catch fire). Also the understanding of how to stop a battery fire is progressing quickly. Look at this YouTube from Sweden regarding EV battery fires.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlLDKVDl9gA
UtkikenRescue (Sweden) has many interesting videos on YouTube about their findings as they studied Li-Ion battery fires primarily for EVs but also stationary.
All forms of energy storage can have serious consequences when the energy is released in an uncontrolled fashion. As the narrator in the video notes, we have decades of education through fatal failures with fossil fuels. The understanding of what is happening in batteries during thermal runaway and how to control it has taken investigation, and the safety level is increasing very quickly.
Do we still have natural gas in our homes, gas cans in our garages, propane bottles for our grills, electrical systems (now fortunately with fuses/breakers), fireplaces, nuclear reactors, fireworks at July 4th, cell phones with Li-Ion batteries? How many Christmas trees burned down houses due to incandescent light bulb heat/shorts? But, we still put them up before LED bulbs came along.
It is about risk control. Our modern life style is all energy control, and we keep pushing the energy levels higher. Think about the amount of energy embodied in our cars when we are driving at 65 mph (if anyone drives that slowly). It is a high energy/low stability state, and we jump into it every day. Most people are oblivious to the consequences if they lose control of that embodied energy, even though we see the consequences regularly. We have developed systems to better handle/absorb an out of control condition, after killing tens of thousands of people each year on our highways. Humans understand feelings/fear and not probability.
There may be a battery chemistry out there that will be high energy density, low flammability, with safe thermal runaway characteristics. We won't find it if there isn't research motivated by demand in the market. If we wait for the perfect battery (which may not exist) our CO2 levels will be approaching those on Venus. (hyperbole noted).
As Mr. Porter noted, nothing is perfect. All of our activities produce wastes, and at the levels we (humans) produce them, they have to be managed. Air borne wastes are some of the most difficult to handle, so we need to avoid them through electrification and cleaner electricity.