Renault’s dual-energy hybrid uses lithium-ions and hydrogen, eliminating range anxiety while offering the convenience of charging at home
To be perfectly honest, I’ve never thought much about Renault. It can’t make a Formula One car to save its soul (things are going so bad, the company will stop producing its own F1 engines next year). Its electric cars — yes, including the popular Zoe and Twingo —are hardly spectacular. And it’s long played second fiddle to Nissan in the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance. The company is, as a point of context that Canadians will understand, the Toronto Maple Leafs of automakers: a big name with not much of a recent history of winning.
That might be about to change.
Next Monday, media day at the upcoming Paris auto show, Renault will show off a concept called Emblème. Like so many new cars being unveiled recently, the Renault is a hybrid. More specifically, a plug-in hybrid. One with a sizable battery, no less. Some 40 kilowatt-hours, in fact, which, by PHEV standards, borders on the humongous, especially since it is meant to power a relatively light (1,750-kilogram) and streamlined (a Cd of just 0.25) Ioniq5-sized SUV. Battery-only range should be in the arena of 200 kilometres (124 miles).
Normally, that would be big news all on its own. On their best days, the PHEVs offered here barely touch 100 kilometres (62 miles) before running out of lithium-ions. Doubling that would most certainly up a PHEV’s suitability for Canada’s wide-open spaces, especially since the Emblème’s big battery is of nickel-manganese-cobalt chemistry, which means it should be fast-charging as well. In other words, even if that’s all that was new about Renault’s latest concept car, we’d be feting it on these pages as a major step forward for both the brand and SUVs.
A whole new take on hydrogen power
What makes the Emblème game-changing, however, is that the other half of its dual-energy powertrain isn’t fossil-fuelled, but rather hydrogen-powered. Yes, the Emblème is a battery/fuel-cell hybrid which means that, like a BEV, it would be truly a completely zero-emissions vehicle.
As for the advantage of such a hybrid, it’s simple: range anxiety could be virtually eliminated. Although Renault hasn’t yet specified exactly how many miles the Emblème can eke out on its 2.8 kilograms of hydrogen, it should be in the neighbourhood of 300 kilometres (186 miles).
What the French auto giant does say is that a 1,000-kilometre trip would require only two fill-ups, and, because each stop would require but five minutes, the entire journey would take no longer than it would in a petrol-powered car. All, again, with no tailpipe emissions. In fact, Renault says that, thanks to light-weighting and a relatively small battery (at least, compared with a full BEV) its total lifetime production of CO2, including manufacturing, would be just five tonnes, less than comparable battery-electrics. It also, perhaps as a single-fingered salute to China, is to use no rare-earth metals in its 215-horsepower electric motor!
All upside, no downside
Despite the braying that will no doubt come from pro-BEV protagonists, it’s tough to see a downside of this arrangement. For one, the convenience of home charging remains. Sure, 200 kilometres may not be Tesla-challenging, but it would seem more than enough for urban driving and all but the very longest suburban commutes. In other words, no change from the daily-driving routine of most EV owners.
On the open road, the same refuelling procedures as ICEs currently enjoy would supplant the interminable waits at charging stations. Less lineups, less congestion, and, most of all, especially for we short of patience, less time twiddling our thumbs.
Check out this week’s Motor Mouth Podcast, where David Booth asks “Which legacy automaker will fail?”
The only problem, as many will be wont to point out, is that there is no hydrogen refuelling infrastructure. True enough. But then, there wasn’t any EV charging infrastructure 10 short years ago. Just because there are scarce hydrogen-refuelling stations now — there are fewer than 1,000 such depots worldwide — doesn’t mean FCEVs will always be under-served.
Follow the money
The other argument used to dismiss anything even partially hydrogen-powered is the high cost of fuel. That, in the case of the Emblème and its (relatively) long-range battery, would be pretty much eliminated. The main argument used by electric-vehicle advocates to dismiss the inconvenience of slow roadside charging is that most EVs are charged at home. Using that very same logic, the Emblème would be no different. Indeed, if the numbers the EV industry claims are true — that 95% of all EV charging is done at home — any higher fuelling costs to refuel the Emblème on road trips would be a pittance.
As for the high cost of producing vehicles with a fuel cell, the argument is the same as that put forward by the EV industry. Batteries used to cost more than US$1,000 a kilowatt-hour. Today, the going cost for a lithium-iron phosphate (LFP) battery manufactured in China is less than US$100 per kWh. Who’s to say that fuel cells and high-pressure storage tanks won’t follow the same price trajectory? And an Emblème-like pairing of BEV and FCEV could actually prove cheaper than current battery/ICE hybrids, as they already share far more parts.
The lesson we should learn from China
The lore behind this ascendancy goes something like this: caring so much about the havoc their reliance on fossil fuels was causing to the environment, the country’s power brokers realized they needed an alternative, which, EV proponents say, led them to deciding battery power was the future of mobility. Then, through the miracle of central planning — i.e. forcing automakers to produce EVs — they created a world-dominating industry.
What a load of hogwash.
Oh, they did very much create a world-dominating battery industry. But the real reason why they did so wasn’t some grand world-saving vision, but the stark realization that they had virtually no chance of reducing Western legacy automakers’ huge advantage in internal-combustion technology. Chinese ICE-powered products of the day were, in fact, nothing short of abysmal. So, rather than trying to catch a train that had already left the station, better, thought they, to take a flyer on a fledgling technology — cars powered by electricity — that legacy automakers were ignoring.
And that should be the lesson we should glean from China’s rapid rise to EV dominance. North American subsidization and tariffs might — though doubtful — reduce China’s massive advantage, but a quicker road to competitiveness would be to focus on new technologies. If Beijing’s success is any indication, it’s a lot easier route than trying to reverse a 15-year head start (that being about how much of an advantage China has on legacy automakers when it comes to EV battery production). Simply put, China couldn’t beat us in the ICE game, and it’s looking increasing like we won’t be able to catch up to them in EVs.
So, instead of pooh-poohing new ideas — like the Emblème — we need to embrace something other than the status quo. Is Renault’s dual-energy hybrid a game-changer in our quest for the ultimate zero-emissions vehicle? I don’t know. But perhaps the final lesson of the Chinese dominance of battery-electrics is this: sometimes, game-changing technologies — and the will to produce them — comes from the most unlikely of sources. I, for one, won’t be making fun of the French auto giant again any time soon!
Sign up for our newsletter Blind-Spot Monitor and follow our social channels on X, Tiktok and LinkedIn to stay up to date on the latest automotive news, reviews, car culture, and vehicle shopping advice.