## Honda to focus on PHEVs, development of battery-electrics in addition to fuel cell vehicles; 2/3 of sales electrified by 2030

##### 09 June 2017

At a press meeting in Tokyo, Honda Motor Co., Ltd. President & CEO Takahiro Hachigo discussed the future direction of Honda, including various products and technologies and the company’s new 2030 Vision.

Hachigo said that Honda aims to electrify two-thirds of global automobile unit sales in 2030. The company will put a central focus on hybrid-based models utilizing a high-efficiency plug-in hybrid system unique to Honda. As for zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), Honda will strengthen the development of battery-electric vehicles in addition to fuel cell electric vehicles (FCV).

In addition to a China-exclusive model scheduled to go on sale in 2018, a dedicated EV model for other regions is also currently under development. Honda will introduce this model at an auto show this fall.

Hachigo noted that to increase development speed further, the company is strengthening its system and capability for the development of electrified vehicles. In October of last year, it established within Honda R&D an Electric Vehicle Development Division, a specialized team which will be in charge of developing the entire vehicle including the powertrain and body.

On the two-wheel front, Honda is striving to promote the electrification of commuter models, and plans to introduce some new models including an electric scooter in 2018.

Honda is currently working on the research and development of a highly-convenient system for electric commuters, which features a detachable mobile battery that is easy to replace and/or recharge. Honda is considering demonstration testing of this mobile battery in collaboration with the Japan Post Co., Ltd. in Japan.

So Honda has just set the bar for conversion from petroleum to electric power (meaning omni-fuel, as there is practically no useful source of energy that isn't being used to make electricity; steam coal is used for almost nothing else).

This is bad for petroleum.  Let the Saudis drink their oil.

It is potentially very good for climate change, as electrification is key to de-carbonization.  Whether we can get the paranoia of Germany, Japan and Austria properly treated to get the job done is another matter.

You could add USA (one of the top per capita polluter), China (top total polluter) and India (chasing China for first place) to the list.

HarveyD: I think that E-P's list referred to nuclear power paranoia. Most counties are not going to be carbon free without using nuclear power.

The USA's grid emits less CO2 per kWh than Germany's; we're on par with "Green" Denmark.

The USA could reverse the trend toward closure of NPPs with a single sentence in a law:  "Nuclear power shall be considered "renewable" for the purposes of all state portfolio standards, source certificates and subsidies, and shall have the same priority of grid dispatch."

As soon as that was signed, you'd see utilities lining up to sign construction contracts on their already-granted licenses.

Ten years later, you'd see the GHG emissions curve (that will already be headed down, thanks to Honda and the companies that will imitate it) head down even more steeply.

I don't oppose nuclear power, but until SMRs are mainstream, the capital cost, construction time and project risk put NPPs at an economic competitive disadvantage. I agree that they should be classified alongside renewable despite using extractive fuel because they are zero carbon base load.

Solar, wind, geothermal, backed up by stationary storage, do not require massive set-asides for decommissioning.

Decommissioning San Onofre in SoCal Calif will cost $10.4 billion, 70% of which customers must cover. To put that in perspective, at least five 400MW Ivanpah-size solar electric generating facilities could be built for that cost, with an aggregate output roughly equal to a San Onofre generator. The newer solar-thermal plants, with integrated thermal storage, can produce power 24/7. Utility scale solar prices are continuing to decline. Carbon free or low carbon NPPs would be more sellable but they are NOT renewable. You could not fool too many people with that 'wording' change. Renewable combo Hydro-Solar-Wind + storage will and can already compete with NPPs, at a much lower cost. Nuclear power is carbon free. While it is not renewable, the traveling wave reactors will burn existing waste including depleted uranium and waste from light water reactors. Some one figured out that we can produce enough power for the US for 700 years from the existing depleted uranium stock. Solar, wind, geothermal, backed up by stationary storage, do not require massive set-asides for decommissioning. Nuclear plants set aside a decommissioning fund during operation. This comes to a fraction of a cent per kWh, and it has a long time to build; with recent license extensions, current plants can collect returns on their first investements for literally half a century. Decommissioning San Onofre in SoCal Calif will cost$10.4 billion, 70% of which customers must cover.

That's got to be a scam; it should cost no more than about 1/5 of that.  I'll bet that it was some deal worked out between SCE and the corrupt California government.  People on the ARB have business connections to natural-gas companies.  See how the money flows?

To put that in perspective, at least five 400MW Ivanpah-size solar electric generating facilities could be built for that cost, with an aggregate output roughly equal to a San Onofre generator.

Ivanpah has never exceeded 75% of its expected generation, and that's WITH natural-gas assist.  Total annual generation from Ivanpah in 2016 was 1775 GWh.  Diablo Canyon unit 2 is currently down for refueling, but DC unit 1 has been running at 100% since the start of the year.  That's 159 days at 1122 MW(e) for a total of 4281 GWh.  That's about 2.5 times the best-ever annual generation from Ivanpah, from ONE unit, in less than half a year.  You would need TEN Ivanpahs to equal one Diablo Canyon (or San Onofre).

The newer solar-thermal plants, with integrated thermal storage, can produce power 24/7.

But nobody's building them any more.  Ivanpah uses NG instead of storage.  Abengoa's US unit filed for bankruptcy last year.  Summing it up:

• Concentrating solar is a boondoggle even when it is allowed fossil-fuel assistance.  There are no plants with storage under construction or planned.
• Utility-scale PV is cheap per kWh, but has no storage either, also relying on fossil-fuel backup.

The "renewables" are just greenwash on a fossil-based system.  If you need clean power, your choices are very limited:  nuclear, or hydro.  Pick one.

Solar Reserves's Crescent Dunes plant in Nevada uses thermal storage. It's true that most new utility scale projects use PV and battery costs are dropping, but it's probably too soon to write this technology off.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-concentrating-solar-tower-is-worth-its-salt-with-24-7-power/

Solar Reserves's Crescent Dunes plant in Nevada uses thermal storage.

Only the plant output has been stuck at 0 since November 2016.  For all of 2016 it generated just 127308 MWh, the equivalent of 1157 full-power hours.  This is a capacity factor of just 13.2% for the calendar year; the plant was SUPPOSED to achieve 51.9%, almost 4x as much.

When your plants are producing barely a quarter of their design output and are shutting down for months at a time, you're not exactly creating confidence in the "grand renewable future".

Nuclear power may not be 'renewable', in that it uses uranium (and thorium, potentially) fuel. However, supplies of these fuels are so vast that it hardly matters. We can economically extract uranium from seawater, for instance, by raising the kWhr cost of electricity by a fraction of a cent. Supplies become essentially infinite, on human time scales. Thorium is even more abundant. Nuclear fission is the cheap, green solution. This was understood 50 years ago. Why has the nuclear power industry languished? Ask yourself, who wins and who loses?

The Rockefellers win, we lose.

The Rockefeller foundation financed Hermann Muller and got him his Nobel prize on the basis of work he knew to be fraudulent.

Yes, Crescent Dunes has been offline to fix a leak in one of its molten salt storage tanks, but that does not mean we should dismiss the entire technology.

San Onofre developed a leak in some cooling tubes and has been taken offline permanently, decades ahead of its planned decommissioning.

Whether by molten salts or lithium or some other technology, energy storage is on a favorable power curve that large nuclear power plants are not. I believe, and hope, that some of the SMR technologies can solve this problem but until we see the results, its all just speculation.

The UK's newest NPP, Hinkley Point, has not made an effective demonstration for lower cost nuclear power.

Smaller scale distributed energy and storage may prove to have a resilient advantage.

Personally, I'm for an "all of the above" strategy, as long as the "all" is restricted to low carbon and zero emission solutions.

San Onofre developed a leak in some cooling tubes and has been taken offline permanently, decades ahead of its planned decommissioning.

San Onofre was facing the exact same political situation as Diablo Canyon:  being forced off-line by any means necessary.  DC is in excellent shape, but the government of California wants it gone.  PG&E realized that they would probably be forced to decommission rather than restarting even if they replaced the defective steam generators, and would never get the license extension required to pay for the repairs.  All politics.

Crescent Dunes has been offline to fix a leak in one of its molten salt storage tanks, but that does not mean we should dismiss the entire technology.

It doesn't seem to me that an ambient-pressure, static liquid thing like a molten-salt storage tank should be all that susceptible to leaks.  It's not remotely like a PWR steam generator.  If solar companies can't even build the tanks correctly, the technology is not ready for prime time.

Whether by molten salts or lithium or some other technology, energy storage is on a favorable power curve that large nuclear power plants are not.

Oh, please.  Elon Musk says that the raw materials for a Li-ion battery cost about $80/kWh. 72 hours of storage is about the minimum you need with an all-RE system, so 1 kW continuous from Li-ion storage costs$5760 just for the battery's materials.  After you include regular replacement your costs are higher than a nuclear plant... just for 3 days of storage.  You can still have cumulative generation deficiencies running to more than 3 days of demand, so you still have to have backup on top of that.  And need I mention that RE generation will never be free?

Supposedly, climate change is the biggest danger facing mankind, even ahead of nuclear war (we fought one of those, we're still here).  If the fake environmentalists actually believed that, they'd be fighting tooth and nail to keep our existing nukes on line and build more.  They're doing the exact opposite, which is what proves that they're fakes.

The UK's newest NPP, Hinkley Point, has not made an effective demonstration for lower cost nuclear power.

That was a massive mistake.  The UK knew that the EPR design had a lot of things which made it difficult and costly to build... and went with it anyway.  Meanwhile, GE-Hitachi had volunteered to build S-PRISMs to burn the UK's reclaimed Pu stockpile with only a guaranteed price for the power.

Smaller scale distributed energy and storage may prove to have a resilient advantage.

It's not resilient, it just has a massive regulatory and tax thumb on its side of the scale.  Take those away and it will dry up and blow away.

The materials cost quoted for Lithium Ion only holds if the energy density does not increase. But energy density is likely to double, and then quadruple from current levels. I agree that it doesn't seem a near-term cost effective solution for baseload, but power curves have a funny way of making the most unlikely things possible, and affordable.

I think it's more likely that some other storage technology wins for stationary applications, but the reality is, *any* storage method that wins on price makes more expensive energy sources less competitive.

Bettter grids also help to solve the reduced capacity factor of renewables. (Agree that until cost effective storage arrives, the foundation of the baseload contines to be fossil fuel).

Michael Barnard points out some of the challenges facing NPP here:

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/06/09/no-virginia-no-nuclear-santa-claus/

Onshore and offshore wind also continue to drop in price as the industry continues to work down the learning curve:

You take Cleantechnica seriously?  They censor and purge all pro-nuclear viewpoints.  It's an echo chamber for the industrial RE lobby.

Cleantechnica's editor does have a POV on renewables. But the author of the article, Mike Barnard, makes some very good points on the relative economics of the technologies that are not easily refuted. I can't find it now, but I recently read an article that compared subsidies of NPP and other energy sources and Nuclear was the most heavily subsidized. Personally, I'm willing to pay higher prices for zero-carbon solutions but the real solution is to pour more money into new renewable technology and SMR, which can reduce deployment times by years.

Btw, Barnard also writes for Newsweek, Slate, Forbes, Huffington Post, Quartz, and RenewEconomy.

I can't find it now, but I recently read an article that compared subsidies of NPP and other energy sources and Nuclear was the most heavily subsidized.

Every time I look at one of those, it always claims that the entire Department of Energy budget is a "subsidy" to commercial nuclear power.  This is, to put it bluntly, a shameless and despicable lie.  Most of the DoE's budget is spent on weapons, WWII/Cold War cleanup, fusion research and the like.  None of those have the slightest thing to do with nuclear power plants, which pay massive amounts of both commercial and property taxes as well as high special government levies for "regulation".

the real solution is to pour more money into new renewable technology and SMR, which can reduce deployment times by years.

"Renewable technology" is used as an excuse to kill the nuclear industry, period; it locks in fossil-fuel consumption because of its requirement for massive amounts of "balancing".  Ten years of building currently-available designs is ten years of head start we'd be giving up if we wait for SMRs.

Barnard also writes for Newsweek, Slate, Forbes, Huffington Post, Quartz, and RenewEconomy.

You don't see anything in common between those outlets?

Cleantechnica booted you off.

Exactly.  They do not want ANYONE who can competently challenge the renewable orthodoxy.  It's a site for preaching, not facts.

Hawaii and California are poised to run that experiment, 100% of electricity from renewables by 2045.

Hawaii has already passed 100% renewables legislation, California appears to have the votes to pass SB100.

Both have abundant sun, wind and geothermal resources, so maybe they have a natural advantage over other states but I'm willing to bet if they make good progress on that goal, other southwest states will be pressed to follow suit.

Coincidentally, main San Diego daily newspaper ran a huge front page story on the issue today. Local Fox affiliate picked up the story and ran a segment. Both at link below:

Hawaii and California are poised to run that experiment, 100% of electricity from renewables by 2045.

28 years from now, by which time almost all the legislators who voted for it will be safely retired and most of them dead.  In other words, they will have cashed out already, never to be called on their broken promises.

France almost completely de-carbonized its electric grid in roughly 16 years, about twice as fast.  This legislation doesn't qualify as a "plan", because several of the technologies required to make good on the promises are not merely unavailable at the required scale and cost, they don't exist yet.

Hawaii has already passed 100% renewables legislation, California appears to have the votes to pass SB100.

So why not just make it a "100% carbon-free" mandate by 2045 and let the different technologies fight it out in the marketplace?  Why the blatant thumb on the scale?

What it if doesn't work?

Both have abundant sun, wind and geothermal resources

Ah, geothermal.  There are more than a few problems with that.  Hawaii has religious objections to tapping it on the big island, which is the only one with significant resources.  California has just 2760 MW with only 855 MW more even on the drawing board.  The total of 3615 MW doesn't equal the sum of Diablo Canyon and San Onofre, and that's it for the non-emitting year-round baseload capacity for the state.

Both have abundant sun, wind and geothermal resources, so maybe they have a natural advantage over other states but I'm willing to bet if they make good progress on that goal, other southwest states will be pressed to follow suit.

And what about the rest of the country?  Places where you have, you know, actual winter?

I've run the numbers.  A single NuScale reactor could both light and heat the city of 15,000 or so near me, likely with no backup except in the extremes of winter cold snaps.  There are no geothermal resources here, so in the all-too-common dark cold calms people reliant on renewables would literally be freezing in the dark.

main San Diego daily newspaper ran a huge front page story on the issue today.

I notice that the article doesn't even mention Diablo Canyon, let alone that the proposed agreement to shut it down would replace less than half of its generation with renewables.

This all comes to the natural gas companies as profits.  When will you realize that you've been sold a bill of goods.

I do not oppose nuclear, but while the engineers on this site love it, I want to see the economics work. Right now they do not. Just ask Toshiba, or the Toshiba investors. It is political because nuke plants can only get financed if the Government takes 100% of the risk. Technology may change all that, but I will wait to see.

I want to see the economics work. Right now they do not. Just ask Toshiba, or the Toshiba investors.

Just ask Toshiba what Jaczko's NRC did to their US projects AFTER all the licenses were issued and the contracts signed.

Nuclear works fine where government is a healthy partner, not an enemy.  China's building like crazy.  S. Korea has a bunch of domestic capacity and KEPCO's Barakah project is on time and on budget.  Rosatom is guaranteeing Finland power at €50/MWh from a new VVER.

Just get rid of the NRC and all its regulatory fees and delays and most of the problem will fix itself right there.  That would literally require the stroke of a pen signing a bill:  "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is hereby abolished, and its functions terminated."

The comments to this entry are closed.