Renault and EDF to Partner on Electric Vehicles and Recharging Infrastructure in France
09 October 2008
Renault and French electric utility EDF signed a memorandum of understanding to create, starting with France, a large-scale zero-emissions personal transport and travel system. The objective is to establish electric cars as a viable and attractive transport solution for consumers and to develop a supporting recharging infrastructure.
Through the agreement, the Renault Nissan Alliance and EDF aim to provide consumers access to electric vehicles beginning in 2011. The Renault Nissan Alliance and EDF will jointly develop a commercial project, open to other interested parties, leading to the set up of an Electric Mobility Operator in the longer term. The role of the Electric Mobility Operator will be to supply customers with the infrastructure to recharge an electric vehicle and to manage its range.
Between now and January 2010, the partners will study engineering requirements, national and European regulations and all necessary technical and financial procedures, including the identification of new partners, to ensure that the infrastructure is ready for a vehicle launch in 2011.
To reconcile the demand for individual mobility with the preservation of the environment and high cost of oil, the Renault Nissan Alliance is committed to the development of “zero-emission” vehicles. Thanks to our partnership with EDF, in 2011 we will be able to provide our customers in France with high-performance and affordable electric vehicles.
—Carlos Ghosn, President and CEO of Renault and President and CEO of Nissan
In May, Ghosn committed the Renault-Nissan Alliance to be a global leader in zero-emission vehicles (ZEV). Nissan, through its GT 2012 five-year business plan, will introduce ZEVs in the United States in 2010 and two years later will mass market ZEVs globally.
The Renault-Nissan Alliance has begun ZEV initiatives in Israel, Denmark and Portugal, the state of Tennessee (USA), and Kanagawa Prefecture (Japan), all of which have announced similar partnerships with the Renault Nissan Alliance. (Earlier post.)
EDF is Europe’s biggest electricity producer. In France, the Group uses mainly nuclear and hydroelectric generation resources, for an electricity supply that is 95% CO2-free. EDF is also working with Toyota on the testing of plug-in hybrids in France and the UK. (Earlier post.)
Since nuke plants in France 'load follow' EV in France would actually reduce ghg and increase energy independence in France.
Posted by: Kit P | 09 October 2008 at 06:35 AM
Kit
I fully agree with you for France and many parts of Canada (and elsewhere) where electricity is maily from Hydro, Wind, Sun, Thermal and Nuclear.
Clean Coal power stations may also qualify in the future.
Secondly, an early charge station standard is required and welcomed for PHEVs and Bevs.
Posted by: HarveyD | 09 October 2008 at 06:48 AM
It is a bit of a no-brainer for France - they have loads of nuclear power, an indigenous car industry and a penchant for going their own way.
In lieu of "proper" batteries, they will require a sophisticated charging infrastructure with lots of charging or battery swapping stations.
What you will want in the car is a system where you tell it where you want to go and it tells you if you can, and perhaps, where to stop for charging.
In most cases (commuting to work / going to the shops) there will be no problem, but you don't want some fool attempting to drive from Paris to Lyons and getting stuck 1/2 way there - if you could avoid it.
I can think of loads of ways around it - battery swaps - car swaps, where you drive to a service station and get another similar (ICE) car in exchange.
In the meantime, they could (optionally) rent your car to someone else who wants an EV (A GCC reader, perhaps).
You go on your holiday, and get your electric car on the way back.
Thus, as long as you are not a "crazy, impetuous fool", you can get by with a medium range electric car, even for long runs.
If you get sudden urges to drive 800 Km for a packet of Gitanes, you had better stick with a diesel.
Posted by: mahonj | 09 October 2008 at 07:52 AM
Last time I checked, Canada is not like France.
Posted by: Kit P | 09 October 2008 at 07:57 AM
"you don't want some fool attempting to drive from Paris to Lyons and getting stuck 1/2 way there"
I think if people accepted a modest 150 mile range using Altairnano titanate packs (ie 30 kWh), they probably wouldn't mind stopping to recharge for 10 minutes every 2 and a half hours of driving. 30 kWh in a 10 minute charge is a 180 kW charger, and Altair/Aerovironment have shown these working easily to charge their packs in 10 minutes from the 440 volt 3-phase national supply.
For those people who do run their batteries "dry" on a long run, roadside rescue is easy if the system is based on titanate batteries. A transit van with a 100 kWh battery in the back simply pulls alongside, charges up the stranded vehicle with 5 or 10 kWh (enough to get them to the next service station) in under 15 minutes, accepts a hefty fee, and moves on to the next depleted vehicle. Easy. Those doing very long trips or before the recharging network is established will simply hire a rotary-engine range extender to bolt on the rear bumper.
Posted by: clett | 09 October 2008 at 09:16 AM
KitP
For your information. Large parts of Canada are 100% Hydro.
Posted by: HarveyD | 09 October 2008 at 10:59 AM
KitP
For your information. Large parts of Canada are 100% Hydro.
Posted by: HarveyD | 09 October 2008 at 10:59 AM
Find more info of the french AIR CAR here !
No more electricity if we use Wind power or solar energy :
http://www.ecolo-trader.fr/AIR-POD-vehicule-a-air-comprime-aux-couleurs-de--vtptc-150.php
:)
Posted by: josh | 09 October 2008 at 11:04 AM
clett:
I like your idea about a removable/detachable ICE range extender. Would a small 2-wheel trailer genset do the same for occasional long trips.
A modular battery pack with 4 (10 miles) modules could also reduce battery pack weight and size to the minimum required. I read that a SA minivan is offering a similar option.
Posted by: HarveyD | 09 October 2008 at 11:05 AM
Hmm.
It's very hard for me to see the economics of a battery swapping infrastructure vs. PHEVs, even PHEVs run solely on ethanol or some other biofuel.
This smells of Project Better Place, which is also hard to justify economically except in special circumstances ("island" markets).
Posted by: Jim | 09 October 2008 at 11:07 AM
I like the idea of a range extender - but internal, not on the rear bumper or in a trailer. The car could be designed with this in mind. You might lose 1/2 your boot (trunk), but you would gain 500 miles.
You could use the existing petrol tank, if the car had been an ICE car to start with.
A question is: how much more will people get stuck if they have 100 mile range rather than 300 ?
And also, how much more will they fret about running out of juice ?
I'm sure you could build quick charge, automatic laybys
quite regularly along roads - a simpler undertaking than a petrol station - operated by cash or credit cards.
Possibly with a small cafe and toilet (bathroom) facilities.
Another question is - do you want to encourage people with 100 mile range cars to undertake 300 mile journeys ?
You will be charging at random times, including during peak demand, while more sedate (commuting) use would charge at night.
Alternately you could encourage people to travel (and generally do things) when the wind is blowing.
"The answer, my friend ..."
Posted by: mahonj | 09 October 2008 at 12:07 PM
As Jim said I think this is affiliated with Shai Agassi's Project Better Place which started in Israel. They've partnered with Renault. Here is a big article from Wired.com a couple of months ago about Agassi and PBP:
http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/16-09/ff_agassi
Posted by: Hal | 09 October 2008 at 12:30 PM
Somewhat fascinating is the idea that PBP and similar swapped component schemes assume that business and consumers will see them as anything like "efficient." Why would the entire automotive industry conclude that a modular, single form factor battery is preferable? Technology revolves around innovation - locking up an industry to a single design is counter productive to innovation.
There is also the matter of people efficiency. That is, the time and energy people are willing to dedicate to servicing their machines. And ideal machine is one that does the job with the least amount of maintenance, operator intervention and resources.
The PHEVs in production combined with liquid biofuels will easily transition us to larger capacity, lower cost batteries like the Altair. A ten minute charge after two hours driving is a small inconvenience compared to the goliath-like task of swapping parts and vehicles.
Posted by: nrg nut | 09 October 2008 at 01:27 PM
Quoth nrg nut:
Why would the portable electric products industry conclude that a small set of modular form factors (AAA, AA, C, D, 9V) is preferable?Those standard form factors mean that an item doesn't become unusable because the batteries aren't made any more. They mean that when an improved item becomes available in the same package (e.g. alkaline) the old equipment can all use it. One-use and rechargeable cells can be used in the same gear depending on the needs of the customer.
A standard form factor and interface for EV/PHEV batteries would be a huge boost to the industry. Manufacturers could switch suppliers for better cost or reliability. Owners with a need for more range could buy higher-performance units, while those whose vehicles are not used as much could buy used batteries at a discount. And the likelihood of a car owner being unable to find a proper battery some years in the future becomes vanishingly small, removing one reason for buyer resistance.
Look at the number of different technologies available in standard packages (carbon-zinc, alkaline, NiCd, NiMH, Li-ion in AA through D) and tell me that innovation has been held back.The amount of labor required to buy motor fuel is a big problem today, and standard form factors for batteries would help remove one of the barriers to replacing expensive fuel with much cheaper electricity.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 09 October 2008 at 08:04 PM
E-P,
You are usually so wise, but I think you missed the boat on this one. Powering a car (10-20 kW-hrs for a PHEV, more for an all-electric) is considerably more complicated, and expensive, than a flashlight, an iPod, or even a laptop.
Pack voltage is dependent on the motor size used (for just one example). So all the motors need to be standard too? Who figures out and sets these standards? Do we go with parallel hybrids like the Prius, or serial hybrids like the Volt?
Pack swapping is also complicated by the extensive cooling needed by both NiMH and (especially) Lithium ion cells. So all the cooling pipes and tubing would need standardization as well. Anyone who has spent 10 minutes examining how any of these battery packs are integrated into these new electric vehicles (Telsa, Volt) will quickly see how complicated the interconnects are, and how specialized the form factor is for each individual vehicle design.
I'm sorry; this is crazy, insane, and unnecessary.
At the very least, electric car design is far too new to be thinking about standardizing a battery pack. We haven't even figured out a standard battery chemistry yet. Even if/when that occurs, it's unlikely a single form factor would be applicable to all types of cars desired by the consumer.
One thing I never figured out; wouldn't there be a Gresham's law w.r.t. swapped battery packs? The stinker packs would all get swapped out, while the good ones are kept in owner's cars.
So you can wrestle with that nightmare, or add a small IC engine with a 5 gallon tank, costing less than $1000, and avoid ALL of this mess.
You decide. Or rather, the consumer will decide, if given half a chance.
Posted by: Jim | 09 October 2008 at 08:26 PM
@Engineer Poet:
You are indeed correct that standardized form factors allow consumer electronics the convenience of swapping brands and chemistry.
It is just such a standard form factor that is the foundation of the Tesla 56kWh pack. Utilizing some 1,600+ standard type #18650 Li-Io cells of 18mm diameter by 65mm length(just a bit larger than a AA battery.)
Jim clearly specifies the concerns for large packs requiring different interconnect and cooling and motor types. It is far too early to consider a standard for automotive EV batteries. In fact it will be very interesting to see the engineering choices made by various EV competitors.
What Agassi and similar programs CAN do is build out a smart recharge infrastructure that quickly services multiple EV configurations AND offers biofuels for liquid fill-ups. Combined recharge and biofuel service stations will replace the shrinking base of gas stations as petroleum fades blissfully into the past.
Posted by: nrg nut | 10 October 2008 at 12:00 PM
Correction: it's 6,800+ cells used in the Tesla pack. Sorry.
Posted by: nrg nut | 10 October 2008 at 06:00 PM
JIM, just for fun: you like to abbreviate, so: .....Gresham's law w.r.t. swapped battery packs..... .....Gresham's law re swapped battery packs..... is standard English, possibly more comprehensible to many, and you've "saved" 66% keystrokes.
Posted by: cubby | 11 October 2008 at 09:22 PM
Eng-poet:
Am glad that you have changed your mind about the benefits of plug-in modular standard format (interchangeable) battery packs/modules (+ standard on-board chargers + connectors, of course?)
Add-on modules (let's say 3 to 5 Kwh each) would give everybody more flexibility and could reduce the initial cost to between $3K to $4K for a minimum very basic size pack.
One to two years latter, when battery modules are cheaper + lighter + more performant, buyers could add one, two or three more modules etc.
This approach is not technically impossible to do. A SA manufacturer has a prototype allready.
Posted by: HarveyD | 12 October 2008 at 12:58 PM
Harvey before you get too excited read Jim's post. It pretty much puts EP to sleep.
Posted by: | 13 October 2008 at 05:03 PM
Quoth Jim:
Expensive, yes, if only because of size. But complicated?There are battery chemistries out there which require very little in the way of TLC. A123's hits its stride at about 70°C, so a little bit of air cooling is all you'll ever need. Zebra needs to be HOT to melt the nickel chloride; available packs appear to have insulation built in. Dunno what Firefly Energy's PbSO4 cells like, but some of their applications appear to have considerable toughness requirements.
Not really. The newest Prius has actually boosted its motor voltage while reducing the pack voltage, using a DC-DC converter to make the shift; such is the miracle of electronics.Isn't something that ought to be considered outside the shop. On the other hand, having a set of wells under the trunk having the proper connections for batteries which can be swapped by a service tech would allow the number and type of batteries to be changed to suit the customer.
Too new?! Electric cars predate the Model T; we've had them since the 19th century. And I've neither made nor seen any proposal to standardize a technology, just a form factor and interface. The whole point is to make the cars compatible with future batteries, and batteries compatible with cars back to the start of the standard.
I can see folks trading battery packs the way they trade cars; the guy who has the long commute buys two new high-capacity units, he trades his used ones to a couple folks who only go across town, who trade their more-worn units to people with NEVs or scooters, who sell their old packs to the utility for a few years of load-levelling duty before they're finally recycled.
Harvey: just as long as you aren't proposing a nightmare like battery-swap stations for long-distance driving, it should be relatively easy.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 14 October 2008 at 07:01 PM
E-P says:
"Harvey: just as long as you aren't proposing a nightmare like battery-swap stations for long-distance driving, it should be relatively easy."
Well, that's exactly what EDF and Renault ARE proposing, by way of their ties to PBP.
This is the whole problem with EVs at this point; they don't have sufficient range for the comfort of enough consumers.
So that leaves rapid recharge, battery swaps, or PHEVs.
Posted by: Jim | 15 October 2008 at 07:27 AM
There is no proposal for battery-swaps in the article, just recharging.
Posted by: Reality Czech | 15 October 2008 at 12:16 PM
E-P:
I'm not a real fan of battery swap or even limited range pure EVs until such time as very quick charge ESSUs with very high energy density are available at an affordable price. (2015++ ???)
What I would like are PHEVs with standardized modular add-on plug-in battery modules. The number of modules (packs) installed would be up to the vehicle owner, i.e. to suit his needs and his pocket book.
Matching the e-motors (and the on-board charger) with the battery modules can be done electronically.
Posted by: HarveyD | 15 October 2008 at 05:56 PM
Dear Bloggers:
The answer to OPEC is the electric vehicles at http://www.energynews.gr
What we need is an International Public Prosecutor Intervention.
Thank you.
Posted by: Basil Dimitropoulos | 25 October 2008 at 03:14 AM