Today, people commonly believe that technology improves our communications, solves all manner of medical and ecological problems, and keeps our environment "green and clean".

::::::::

I keep thinking about an old Kaiser study: if someone believes firmly in one idea-- say that the Earth is flat-- and then hears that the Earth is round, the person will likely attach more strongly to their original belief.

Today, people commonly believe that technology improves our communications, solves all manner of medical and ecological problems, and keeps our environment "green and clean". Marketers promote these ideas in full force! But if we look at devices and infrastructures from their cradles to their graves, evidence shows that computers, Internet infrastructure, solar PVs, battery energy storage systems (BESS), wind facilities, e-vehicles, smartphones, smart meters, telemedicine and A.I degrade wildlife habitats and public health. Some manufacturing engages slave laborers. Operating electronics creates extreme fire hazards, demands extraordinary amounts of water, and makes us dependent on international supply chains while we lose human know-how.

Consider my reports an invitation-- to join me in discussing our assumptions about electronic technologies, reducing their ecological and public health impacts, and moving toward living within our ecological means.

WELCOMING RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION

In April, Bill McKibben published an OpEd in The Santa Fe New Mexican critical of "an outspoken minority" that opposes plans for AES corporation's proposed 700 acre solar and battery energy storage (BESS). McKibben wrote that these Santa Fe "liberals spread misinformation and work against the interests of their neighbors".

Call me outspoken. Call me a liberal. I aim to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and international supply chains while protecting ecosystems and public health. I welcome respectful discussion-- including about solar PVs and BESS facilities.

PROMISES DO NOT MITIGATE RISK

AES's project could generate 96 megawatts of power and roughly 45 MW of battery storage (with no commitment to keep the power in Santa Fe). This project is utility scale-- but the corporation wants it in an area zoned "rural fringe." Santa Fe County's code prohibits an electric energy production facility in a rural fringe zone. County officials call the project "commercial production." Without community input, they revised our sustainable land development code to allow battery storage at "commercial production" projects. Alas. Such code revision does not make a project safe.

AES claims that the project's risks are fully mitigated and the communities will suffer no harm. How can the corporation claim that over 35 years of operation, 570,000 lithium-ion batteries near residences pose no risk? Ignoring the 96 BESS failures listed at EPRI.com does not protect the project from fire or battery fires' toxic residue.

By AES' analysis, the project will register 0.6 decibels above the County's Sustainable Land Development Code noise limit. By this factor alone, why don't commissioners deny the project?

AES claims that the project won't impact property values, including homes 500 feet away from the solar field. Here again, promising that property values won't be impacted does not protect property values.

AES calls their fire suppressant "a clean agent" that leaves no residue when it's released to suppress heat or fire. But once this fire suppressant reaches 500 degrees, it decomposes into hydrogen fluoride. The corporation also claims that there are no PFAs in their facility, and no fluoride in lithium-ion battery chemistry-- even though panels are coated in four places with PFAs. Show us a liability-carrying professional engineer's sealed report that their fire suppressant does not decompose into hydrogen fluoride, their panels include no PFAs, and their batteries hold no fluoride!

QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONERS

Who will regulate ecological and public health impacts of mining, smelting and chemical manufacturing for solar PVs and batteries? Who will ensure that slave laborers did not make panels' polysilicon in Xinjiang?

Who will mitigate groundwater leached with cracked panels' chemicals? Who will pay to dispose of panels and batteries (hazardous waste) at end-of-life?

To date, AES has designed only 30% of its project. The County says that fire marshals will review the complete design during construction. Residents, therefore, will not have say in 70% of the project's safety or health impacts. Why would commissioners, AES shareholders or Bill McKibben consider a project that is only 30% designed "safe"?

Who would ignore the BESS failure database, and Monterey County, CA Commissioner Glen Church, who called January 2025's Moss Landing BESS fire the industry's "Three Mile Island?"

Who benefits when Santa Fe County lacks an emergency plan for dealing with a BESS fire?

Until an independent professional engineer's sealed report proves that AES' complete design is safe, commissioners should deny AES' permit.

RETHINKING SOLAR PVs, BESS FACILITIES, DATA CENTERS"AND MORE

While I've focused here on the solar PV and BESS facility that AES proposes to deploy in Santa Fe County, communities around the world face similar projects needing similar scrutiny. (Check out what Elon Musk's massive xAI data center is doing to Memphis-- without permits or pollution controls.)

By 2027, England will require solar panels on all newly-built homes. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair says that a strategy that limits fossil fuels in the short term or encourages people to limit consumption is "doomed to fail". Blair proposes that the UK government focus less on renewables and more on carbon capture so that people don't "make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal". Blair calls for an international embrace of nuclear power and more work on small modular reactors. I don't agree with Mr. Blair! We've got more than CO2 emissions at stake; we do need lifestyles that reduce our ecological impacts; and nuclear power will not help. Still, I'm grateful that he's initiated discussion about these issues.

Electronic technologies depend on rare minerals like copper, graphite, gallium, niobium, cobalt, tungsten, bismuth and indium. These deposits are often found intermingled with arsenic and uranium, which makes processing them complex and environmentally toxic.

Electronic technologies depend on extraordinary amounts of fresh water.

All electrical equipment-- including solar PVs, batteries and EV chargers-- pose fire hazards. No one benefits when fire risks are ignored.

Isn't it time 1)to stop calling solar PVs and batteries "green," "clean" and

"renewable?" And 2)to study how to live within our ecological means, within the fuel, food, water and ores offered within our watershed?

GOOD NEWS

To prepare for society's collapse, some people go off-grid, champion individual fortitude and hoard provisions, firearms and ammunition. Others focus less on survival, more on building community and mutual aid, on maintaining humanity in the face of calamity. As David Baum says, "Survival is not the goal. The relationship, wisdom and love that one discovers by approaching nature with respect-- that's the goal."

The Rights of Nature Movement is Reshaping Law and Culture with a global movement to grant the natural world legal personhood, driven by Indigenous worldviews. See also the launch of Community Environmental Legal Defense Funds' (CELDF's) Community Resistance and Resilience Program, dedicated to supporting, networking and facilitating the success of grassroots initiatives, actions and campaigns.

A Massive Win for Marine Conservation.

Reform or ruin: A history of societies that avoided crisis.

Why building inspiring alternatives is necessary to counter authoritarianism: Seven ways communities can build a worthwhile future.

RELATED SUBSTACKS

Fire hazards at the battery storage system coming near you

21 questions for solar PV explorers

Call Me a NIMBY

Do I report what I've learned about solar PVs-- or live with it privately?

When Land I Love Holds Lithium: Max Wilbert on Thacker Pass, Nevada

Mining the sacred: questions for a sustainable relationship with the Earth (co-authored with Aaron French)

Who decides what's sustainable? (includes resources about unsustainability of solar PVs, wind turbines, A.I., data centers, smartphones and nuclear power)

Authors Website: http://www.ourweb.tech

Authors Bio:

Katie Singer writes about nature and technology in Letters to Greta. She spoke about the Internet's footprint in 2018, at the United Nations' Forum on Science, Technology & Innovation, and, in 2019, on a panel with the climatologist Dr. James Hansen. Her most recent book is An Electronic Silent Spring. www.DearGreta.com and www.ElectronicSilentSpring.com.