Japan’s GS Yuasa sells Li-ion storage battery to Honda

Spanish Market: Battery materials, Electricity, Metals
17/03/23

Japanese battery producer GS Yuasa will install a lithium-ion (Li-ion) storage battery facility at a domestic factory of auto manufacturer Honda, aiming to start operations in 2024.

GS Yuasa will supply a 20MWh capacity Li-ion battery facility to Honda's Kumamoto factory in south Japan's Kyushu by 2023, expecting to start commercial operations in April 2024. The battery facility aims to support the factory's solar power generation, by storing excess solar power generation and supplying electricity at night-time, according to GS Yuasa.

The facility is equipped with GS Yuasa's industrial use li-ion battery LEPS-2-14, "designed and developed especially for a renewable energy facility", a GS Yuasa representative told Argus.

GS Yuasa and Honda already have a partnership in developing Li-ion batteries for electric vehicles.

GS Yuasa will initially deliver the facility to Japan's largest gas retailer Tokyo Gas' wholly-owned subsidiary Tokyo Gas Engineering Solutions, an energy operator for Honda's solar power generation sites.

By Yusuke Maekawa

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

31/03/26

Regulators press data centers to cut load, or wait

Houston, 31 March (Argus) — US regulators and grid operators are calling on data centers to cut their power use when the grid is overloaded, saying it is the only way to connect large-load customers as quickly as they are requesting. Officials and industry executives in Houston for an energy conference last week agreed the grid can not be expanded fast enough to meet unprecedented load-growth forecasts if each data center must be served its full allocation of power every hour of the year. But panel discussions and interviews showed a gap between the flexibility regulators say is possible and what data-center operators say they can deliver right now. "Finding a way to manage this demand in a flexible way is how we are going to get through this transition," PJM chief operating officer Stu Bresler said at CERAWeek by S&P Global in Houston, Texas. Without a way to curtail load during tight conditions, large new customers could face wait times stretching over a decade to connect on to the grid, he said. Although data centers request power connections sized for their maximum load, they do not necessarily operate at that level around-the-clock. Meanwhile, the grid only faces severe strain for a few dozen hours a year, usually during extreme weather events, a window that the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) says amounts to less than 1pc of the time. Regulators argue that if data centers agreed to reduce their draw during those peak hours for the grid, the system could absorb far more demand without immediate infrastructure expansion. Officials pointed to a study by Duke University showing that if customers in PJM, the nation's largest grid operator, cut load by half a percentage point for roughly two days, 18GW of new load could be absorbed without adding physical infrastructure to the system. Those cuts will not materialize without clear financial incentives, said the conference attendees. One way to incentivize such behavior is to pay large load customers who agree to use less power at the grid's request, the same way generators are compensated for supply, said Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) commissioner Judy Chang. "We really should focus on the demand side and include large data centers' ability to curtail," said Chang. "We're not quite getting the incentives yet right." Switching off Some artificial intelligence (AI)-training workloads can be paused or rescheduled but that flexibility varies by site and depends on permits, on-site equipment and the type of computing being performed, said Google's global head of data center energy, Amanda Peterson Corio. "There are many flexibility options, but not every data center can respond the same way," she said. AI-focused "compute factories" tend to be more adaptable because training jobs can be paused, while enterprise data-center workloads are far less flexible, said EPRI vice president of strategy David Porter. The group's work includes launching Flex Mosaic, a classification system meant to help utilities and data-center operators define what each site can realistically offer. Large customers who can will respond if markets put a value on reducing load, but the industry still needs clear rules for how much load can be cut and under what price signals, said Peterson Corio. Some data-center operators pushed back against the idea that most facilities can deliver the type of reductions regulators are envisioning. The vast majority of Amazon Work Spaces' (AWS) sites cannot lower their load on demand because the cloud and enterprise workloads they host cannot be interrupted without affecting customers, said AWS vice president Kerry Person. The only practical way AWS and others like it can reduce their draw on the grid is by switching to on-site backup generators, the majority of which burn fossil fuels because battery storage technology has not yet reached the scale of demand. US rules prohibit that approach, however, because environmental permits limit backup generators to emergency use only. "That's a regulatory issue," Person said. For now, most large-scale examples of this behavior remain confined to pilot programs. EPRI's DC Flex initiative is running field demonstrations at operating data centers to test how much load can be reduced without harming performance and whether facilities can provide services such as frequency support. If the industry cannot agree on workable rules for cutting load during peak hours, large users will continue to pursue their own behind-the-meter generation rather than wait years for a grid connection — a shift executives warned would raise costs, lock in more fossil-fuel use and leave the shared power system worse off . By Jasmina Kelemen Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Bulk terminals firm HES prepares for energy transition

31/03/26

Bulk terminals firm HES prepares for energy transition

Paris, 31 March (Argus) — Bulk terminal company HES International operates 14 facilities in four European countries and anticipates important changes to its operations as the energy transition and hydrogen market evolve. Argus spoke with new energies business development director Otto Waterlander and chief commercial officer for HES Med Terminal Firas Ezzeddine about how an infrastructure player must adapt to serve customers. Edited highlights follow: What does HES do and what is its role in decarbonisation? Ezzeddine: We are an essential and critical part of the logistics value chain for the industrial heart of Europe. Our value proposition is that we are located in deep sea ports in close proximity to industrial zones, meaning that we are well positioned to serve strategic European industries and their logistical needs. Waterlander: We are purely an infrastructure player; we do not normally have a stake or exposure to the commodities that we manage through our terminals. Our customers tend to be carbon-intensive and they all are struggling with the question of decarbonisation. For HES, it is both a necessity and an opportunity. It is a necessity because classic flows of commodities will phase out over time. And an opportunity because of the energy transition... new things are happening, for example, [development of a] CO2 [market]. Today, we are not involved in handling CO2, but it is going to become a commodity in the future. What are the main challenges related to energy transition activities? Ezzeddine: I see challenges in three buckets. The first is timing: there is a bit of a lag between project deployment and when the infrastructure should be ready to facilitate flows. These are generally not well aligned. The second challenge is around financing. We see from both private and public sector a bit of a risk averseness in terms of investing in the infrastructure for the future. The final challenge is regulation regarding both the new flows of commodities and the actual development of infrastructure. Waterlander: There is also a question about what the utilisation of new infrastructure will be like, particularly in the early years. What you see in the industry is that often projects get delayed, either because they are not economic or because their utilisation challenges create an [unfavourable] economic situation. A recent example is the CO2 transport pipelines. They require large volumes to make it economic and those volumes are not there yet. You need to factor in some long periods of underutilisation of the infrastructure. H ow are you addressing this last challenge, for example for CO 2 infrastructure? Waterlander: We believe that the key to unlocking the market is to go smaller and create optionality. For example, with regard to CO2 terminal activities, we are advancing in Wilhelmshaven and Rotterdam. We already have infrastructure there to receive tankers and we have dedicated jetties to handle the unloading or loading of vessels. We just need to adjust them so that we can also move CO2. We believe that we can actually get our terminals economically viable at about 1.5mn or maybe 2mn t/yr of CO2 handling, when most of the projects will look at 10mn t/yr plus. If we could develop a smaller size terminal to begin with and then grow to larger sizes, we can help the market to come to grips with those volumes. And then gradually over time, volumes will move into pipelines as well. Will the CO 2 be liquefied at the HES terminals? Waterlander: There are two models. In one we have pipeline transport of gaseous CO2, then HES will liquefy the CO2 at its site before it goes onto the ships. That is the most efficient way because otherwise each player would have to have their own liquefaction. But before we have the gaseous pipelines, we will see customers installing their CO2 capture facilities, liquefy it on site, load it into rail tankcars or into barges on the Rhine, for example, to Rotterdam. In this case we receive it in liquid form already. We are planning to have CO2 infrastructure in place by 2029. In the first year, that is only for a small volume, but by 2030 it starts to become significant. We will launch an open season for our first two CO2 terminals in the coming weeks and we are aiming to analyse more specific capacity bookings through these. In France's Fos-sur-Mer, you are working with the Gravithy green iron initiative . What additional infrastructure is needed for that? Ezzeddine: We will be managing the inflow of material for them, which is the iron ore, and the export of their hot briquetted iron [HBI] production. What that entails, in essence, is having some cranes and conveyor belt infrastructure from and to their facility. For the iron ore side, it is not different from the infrastructure that we have for other sites. But the HBI requires dedicated infrastructure because of the nature of the product. What we are doing now is designing a conveyor belt network going from our terminal to theirs, which is around 2km away, where we send iron ore and we receive HBI, and we dedicate a specific slot on our terminal land where we have specific storage for them. Does GravitHy need to book capacity in advance to enable the expansions? Ezzeddine: We have a specific planning and demand forecasting system where we input the potential volumes going in and out. When a new client comes in, they add their inflow and outflow requirements to the model. Then we see whether that is feasible or not given the current infrastructure and the land capacity that we have. The client, in this case GravitHy, tells us they have a need for ‘X' million tonnes of throughput in our terminal, and it is up to us to design the optimal inflow and outflow process. We update the model quite frequently so that we have visibility on what is needed by when, especially because some projects require infrastructure that takes years to build. What are HES' plans for e-methanol? Waterlander: We're working on an e-methanol import project where it will be brought from across the Atlantic into Germany. We have a storage site in Germany that is a former refinery and has liquid storage facilities. We still have an element of the refinery operational that provides security of supply today. We're discussing with a partner the construction of a synthetic aviation fuel (e-SAF) facility as well, which they would locate on our premises. What about other hydrogen carriers or hydrogen-based fuels? Waterlander: We're very proactive on following everything in the hydrogen space. We had discussions about liquid hydrogen imports. We are also into advanced project steps on imports of ammonia into Germany and are in project definition for imports of liquid organic hydrogen carriers. For our Wilhelmshaven site, we already have signed a letter of intent with grid infrastructure company OGE to be connected to the hydrogen network. Ammonia in particular is rather expensive because you need crackers. Is HES planning to develop ammonia crackers? Waterlander: It depends, it is still such early days. If we do it, it would not be at our sole risk, that is clear. Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Western Australia's LNG projects restart production

31/03/26

Western Australia's LNG projects restart production

Sydney, 31 March (Argus) — Western Australia's (WA) off line LNG projects are restarting some domestic gas production, while the Pilbara Ports Authority (PPA) is assessing damage from category 4 tropical cyclone Narelle, which passed through the region late last week. The ports of Dampier and Ashburton have been checked over, with structural damage to Dampier's general cargo import facilities, rendering the wharf inoperable, PPA said on 31 March. The bulk liquids terminal is operable, PPA said, meaning fuel imports for the region's major iron ore mines is unaffected. Ashburton port has also suffered damage to its general cargo wharf and this remains closed, with engineering teams looking over the facilities during the next few days. The port of Varanus Island — a central gathering and processing hub for oil, gas and condensate supplied by nearby fields, including those operated by Australian independent Santos — has reopened with no impacts to operations, PPA said. LNG projects recovering The region's affected LNG projects are slowly returning to production after Narelle took two major plants, the 14.3mn t/yr North West Shelf (NWS) and 8.9mn t/yr Wheatstone terminals, off line late last week . NWS' Karratha gas plant will be producing at 300 TJ/d and Wheatstone at 20 TJ/d on 1 April, indicating that some volumes are returning on line, according to the Australian Energy Market Operator's WA gas bulletin board, which measures domestic flows. Wheatstone may take weeks to return to full capacity, Chevron has said, while it returned one train at the 15.6mn t/yr Gorgon LNG terminal, which was taken off line during the cyclone to service on 29 March. The disruption to supply comes during an already tight supply balance in the Pacific basin, with Qatar's 64.2mn t/yr Ras Laffan terminal pausing production on 2 March due to the US-Iran war. Domestic gas flows fell from 1,202 TJ/d on 24 March to 558 TJ/d on 29 March due to Narelle's impacts, forcing alumina refineries run by US producer Alcoa to slash output temporarily . By Tom Major Argus LNG prices ($/mn Btu) Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Japan's scrap exports fall in February

31/03/26

Japan's scrap exports fall in February

Shanghai, 31 March (Argus) — Japanese ferrous scrap exports continued to decline on the year in February, but posted a strong rebound from the previous month, driven by renewed demand from Bangladesh and Thailand. Exports rose by 37pc on the month to 628,000t in February, Japanese customs data show. But February volumes were still 5.5pc lower than a year earlier. Total exports in January-February fell by 11pc on the year to 1.09mn t. Shipments to Vietnam were largely stable compared with January but declined by 18pc on the year. Demand from Vietnamese mills was subdued during the lunar new year holiday period, traditionally a slow season. Buying activity picked up again from late February as mills began restocking for the construction season. Exports to Bangladesh increased significantly, given that mills returned to the seaborne market after limited activity at the end of 2025. Market participants expect Bangladeshi demand for Japanese scrap to strengthen further, supported by a recovery in buying interest following the February national election. At the same time, reduced US supply to south Asia because of higher freight costs and stronger demand from Turkey also supported mills' demand for Japanese scrap. Kanto export tender cargoes were awarded to Bangladesh in the first three months of the year. Thailand imported 59,000t of Japanese scrap in February, well above the 2025 monthly average of 18,000t. Japanese traders received increased inquiries from Thai mills, particularly those with Japanese investment. In contrast, demand from Taiwan remained weak, given that mills continued to favor more competitively priced containerised scrap. Total exports to Taiwan in January-February fell by 73pc, compared with the same period a year earlier. Japanese scrap exports may ease in the coming months as export conditions become more challenging following the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East. Suppliers have shown a growing preference for domestic sales to mitigate risks. Japan's domestic scrap market has strengthened significantly since mid-February, with H2 prices rising by ¥6,000/t ($37.57/t) over 19 February-31 March. Japan ferrous scrap exports t Feb '26 m-o-m ± % y-o-y ± % Jan-Feb '26 y-o-y ± % Vietnam 246,017 -3.3 -18.1 500,362 -9.2 Bangladesh 156,734 591.8 53.4 179,390 4.4 South Korea 106,158 4.1 -9.3 208,133 -13.9 Taiwan 13,400 70.7 -73.4 21,247 -73.3 Others 106,076 47.1 11.5 178,207 0.4 Total 628,384 36.9 -5.5 1,087,339 -11 Source: Japan Customs Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

DOE coal-plant orders yield mixed results

30/03/26

DOE coal-plant orders yield mixed results

Cheyenne, 30 March (Argus) — Only half of the eight US coal-fired power plant units that energy secretary Chris Wright ordered to continue operating this winter actually dispatched appreciable amounts of electricity to the grid. In January, four of the eight coal units the Department of Energy (DOE) ordered to stay open under section 202 (c) of the Federal Power Act had net positive generation, according to power plant operating data recently released by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Two other units consumed more power than they dispatched, while another two did not dispatch any generation during the month. Citing an energy emergency, Wright pointed to concerns about grid reliability in ordering the eight coal units and another two units that run on natural gas and oil to stay open instead of retiring as planned in 2025. Wright then extended the emergency orders for these units when the directives expired, pointing to the same concerns. But some politicians and environmental and consumer groups have disputed Wright's claims grid operators faced potential emergencies. Data from the EIA show that two units at the first coal plant DOE ordered to stay open last year — Consumers Energy's JH Campbell plant in Michigan — dispatched power every month following the department's initial order on 23 May 2025. Another unit at the plant had net generation in June-October as well as December but consumed more energy than it dispatched in November 2025 and in January 2026. Unit 17 of NiSource's RM Schahfer plant and unit 2 of Centerpoint Energy's FB Culley plant, both of which were initially issued emergency orders in December and had them extended on 23 March, also generated power in January. But Schahfer unit 18, which also is subject to the order, had net -3,705MWh on generation in January. DOE's recent orders keeping retiring plant units open have required the plant units be available for dispatch when needed. But that did not mean that they had to generate power at other times. With the exceptions of storms in late-January and early February, the weather in the US most of this past winter was relatively mild. Constellation Power said it operated Eddystone units 3 and 4, which run on natural gas and oil and have been subject to DOE orders since 30 May 2025, during hot weather at the end of June and end of July and during winter storm conditions and colder than normal weather 26-29 January. Extending operations at the last minute can be complicated by fuel availability and other factors. Of the two coal units under emergency orders that did not dispatch any power in January according to EIA, Tri-State Generation & Transmission's Craig unit 1 ,was taken out of service in mid-December because of a mechanical failure, while TransAlta's Centralia plant was put in "cold-shutdown" in early December. DOE issued emergency orders to both units at the end of December, shortly before they were scheduled to retire. The agency extended the order for the Craig unit on 30 March and the order for Centralia on 16 March. DOE last year also issued an order allowing Talen Energy to run unit 4 of the HA Wagner oil-fired plant in excess of emissions limits if needed for reliability, but that order expired at the end of 2025. Talen expects to operate Wagner units 3 and 4 until 31 May 2029. By Courtney Schlisserman US coal plants with active emergency orders Plant name Jan 26 net generation ( MWh ) Jan 26 consumption ( st ) Jan 25 net generation ( MWh ) Jan 25 consumption ( st ) JH Campbell unit 1 155,951 89,633 187,955 107,469 JH Campbell unit 2 -612 0 193,811 108,375 JH Campbell unit 3 431,520 245,342 578,398 320,758 Centralia 0 0 430,197 302,227 Craig unit 1 0 0 174,089 100,975 RM Schahfer unit 17 172,064 90,574 98,307 54,965 RM Schahfer unit 18 -3,705 0 136,987 70,368 FB Culley unit 2 9,338 6,092 17,922 10,884 — EIA Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Argus Seaborne Coal Outlook

Análisis independiente, pronósticos de precios confiables y análisis de datos para ayudarle a tomar mejores decisiones.

Argus Line Pipe

Evaluaciones del precio, perspectivas y comentarios sobre el mercado, noticias y análisis para el mercado de tuberías.

Argus Carbon

Benchmarks de precios del carbono, noticias sobre políticas y proyectos, y análisis exhaustivos, a diario.

Informe Argus Low Carbon Hydrogen Strategy

Tercera parte: América del Norte Un análisis en profundidad de los sectores, países y políticas claves que permiten el crecimiento del hidrógeno.

Argus Hydrogen and Future Fuels

El punto de vista global sobre el hidrógeno y los mercados de productos derivados.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more