Renault: Electric Car Range To Possibly Double By 2020



In 5 Year’s Time, The Electric Car Segment Will Change Dramatically

EVS 28

EVS 28

Right now, EVS 28 is underway in South Korea.  Renault is one of the major automakers attending the event.  From the event, Renault is issuing highlights via Tweets.  We captured the pair of Tweets above because they were of the most interest to us.

For those unfamiliar with EVS, here’s a brief description:

The World Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition (EVS) is one of the oldest world-wide symposiums. Since 1969, the EVS series has been held every 12-18 months rotating among North America, Europe and Asia. With a history spanning 5 decades, the EVS symposium has become the utmost academic forum for sharing experience and global networking. As electric drive technologies have progressed from the classroom and laboratories into the market place, the EVS exhibition has become the core program of the EVS symposium and premier showcase for all forms of technologies. Today, as the most highly acclaimed symposium in its field, the EVS28 is planning to attract academic, government and industry leaders from around the world interested in exploring and understanding the technical, policy and market challenges to the paradigm shift toward the use of electric transportation technologies.

Back to those Tweets.  According to Renault, there are just a few barriers that limit the adoption of electric cars.  Those barriers include range and price.  Renault says that the price barrier is largely overcome by incentives offered by most countries, but range is still an issue.  According to Renault, the world’s various battery manufacturers appear to be on track to double range by 2020.  If that’s achieved, then electric car sales will surely boom.

You can follow Renault’s Tweets from EVS 28 by clicking here.

Categories: Renault


Leave a Reply

29 Comments on "Renault: Electric Car Range To Possibly Double By 2020"

newest oldest most voted

So, does this mean the reason for not showing or hinting at a bigger Leaf battery in the near term, is because they don’t have one now? Costs being the main obstacle to prevent just cramming more batteries in the pack…


Nissan makes their own batteries and it is probably not their Forte. Actually, we know it isn’t given how bad the initial battery did in very hot climates.

All eyes are really on two players: LG Chem and Tesla.

LG Chem seems to have the most design wins and with all the different cars using their batteries, perhaps they can crank up the volume and reduce costs.

But Tesla is the great white hope. They are trying to shoot the moon with the gigafactory. By going mass manufacturing on a monster scale and putting most of the supply chain under a single roof, they are trying to drive down the battery costs the old-fashioned way. Just hardcore industrialist mass manufacturing. If they pull it off, they are gonna be the kings and they’ll deserve that nosebleed market valuation they have.


Both LG and Tesla are about reducing manufacturing costs of existing battery tech. I don’t think this path will get you to price/performance parity with ICE. That will require Li-S and/or solid state batteries.
If 2020 is dominated by Tesla and LG, it’s because no new battery tech panned out. This is the 2020 where 200 mile EVs cost $35-$40k.
If 2020 is dominated by someone else, it means something came out of left field. A bet VW, GM, or someone else had money on. In that 2020, 200-300 mile EVs can be had for as little as $25k.


I don’t think we’ll EVER have EV price parity with ICE. But I also think that is a completely unrealistic goal. People will probably need to accept that EVs will always be a little more expensive than ICE cars . . . but that in the long-run that price difference is neutralized with the much lower operating cost of driving on electricity as fuel.


Speculawyer said:

“I don’t think we’ll EVER have EV price parity with ICE.”

Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, why not? I’m dead certain that within a human generation (technically 27 years, as I recall), BEVs will be cheaper than comparable gas guzzlers. The EV drivetrain is much simpler, with far fewer moving parts. It’s also cheaper to make, with the sole exception of the battery pack. And of course, lots of the Rube Goldberg kludges that the horribly inefficient internal combustion engine needs to be able to power a passenger vehicle aren’t needed in the far more practical BEV. Things like exhaust systems and mufflers, water pumps, oil pumps, fuel pumps, air filters, spark plugs… etc. etc. None of those are needed in the BEV.

Regarding the price of that battery pack: There is a great deal of potential for continuing improvement and lower cost in electrical energy storage. At least theoretically, we should be able to get electrical energy storage with the energy density of gasoline, and that’s about 2 or even 3 orders of magnitude improvement over the energy density of current EV battery cells. The potential for great improvement in energy density also gives the potential for greatly lowered costs.

Robert DeDomenico

What theory claims that battery energy density can reach that of gasoline?

Ocean Railroader

Here they go again with this double range crap in 2020. In they kept on saying that the ranges would double in 2016 and now they are lying to us again with this double 2020.

It would be nice to go 100 miles none stop in a i-miev or leaf while I’m still young enough to drive.


They say 2020 so they don’t undermine the current ev sales. If they say the double range ev is coming next year people will wait for it.

I think the best strategy would be having incremental range increases and price drops every year instead of big leap announcements.

I hope they don’t wait for battery improvements to increase range, range should also be improved with increased efficiency by less weight, better aerodynamics and motor.

Kevin Cowgill

Brilliant analysis. My sentiments exactly. While I’m still breathing and able to hold the wheel.


If it only ‘possibly’ doubles by 2020, then you are going to be way behind, Renault.

Ocean Railroader

If it was three or four times by 2020 then I would be impressed.

Alonso Perez

I’d rather see double in 2016/2017, then flat for a while, than triple in 2020. If we need to wait till 2020 for range improvements it will take the wind out of the current EV effort. It will be like starting over again.

These are just random tweets, from some Z.E. marketing staff. I would not put a lot of weight in them. I find it hard to believe that Ghosn would have rolled out the Leaf in 2011 thinking in terms of the same range through 2020. I still think the key year is 2017. We’ll see.


Is this the same gathering where 3 or 4 years ago Envia was ready to start manufacturing a 400Wh/kg battery?

Lou Grinzo
It’s fun for those of us outside the car companies to speculate about what they’ll do, and What It Will All Mean, etc. I do it all the time, usually very badly, if you judge my musings on the unblinking scale of accuracy. But as far as statements from car companies, I try very hard to ignore everything that isn’t a straight-up promise, with details, regarding something they’ll do within, say, a year. Anything else, even if it’s directly from a CEO on the record, I consider only slightly more reliable than an Intertubes rumor. Take the Bolt. Does anyone here think that in 2017 it will ship in the form shown, with an EPA-rated 200-mile battery, for $37,500? I don’t. I expect to see numerous changes to the car, some small, some not, probably a very small reduction in the price (just so they can say they beat the one they announced), and an EPA rating of around 175 miles. And I won’t complain about any of it, since it will still be a very major product introduction. (If they drag out the introduction, and it takes over a year to go from availability in just CA and OR,… Read more »

I have to agree with your line of thinking…


More than one EV maker (other than Tesla) is talking about selling a “200 mile” EV in 2017. That’s double the range Nissan claims for the Leaf, 100 miles. Are we actually supposed to be impressed to see Renault say they might do the same thing three years later?

Thank goodness Tesla is pushing the EV revolution forward. Heaven knows nobody else is!




If it wasn’t for Tesla, EVs would only be seen in auto shows.

Alonso Perez

I’m not sure about that. Ghosn has been a big force for a while now. It’s simply that his approach is focused on cost. He is thinking about developing markets, countries where even a Model III will be prohibitive to all but the very rich.

I would not spend a lot of time parsing these tweets. Probably the work of some marketing guy or “community manager” at Renault Z.E.


If it wasn’t for CARB Tesla wouldn’t exist and neither would other electrics.


1) Tesla used computer batteries. Like in developed for computers not for CARB.
2) Tesla sell luxury cars. Tax exception is bonus added but not definitive factor. Heck You will find some worse *EVs on the market priced even more that also sell well 😉
3) Tesla used standard electric tech for its drive.
4) Tesla started with ICE platform.

Nothing in Tesla scream “Impossible!!!”.

Somebody just seen the chance, took it, and is running with it still.

CARB **may** have helped in making/educating/evangelazing **enthusiast** crowd.


You spelled Department of Energy Loan wrong.


Which was brilliantly helpful.

And was also paid back early, with interest.

The other benefit, is Tesla is still here, making new compellingly disruptive BEVs (and soon, batteries), in AMERICA.

I agree for the most part Don, although EU carbon limits are the other driver. You could track the script changes from the automakers as it became clear to them that they would not be able to roll the regs back.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing in my mind btw. The requirements start ratcheting up in 2018 and we’ll see those cars sold in 2017.

Naturally I’d like to see all car go electric tomorrow, but between CARB, EU and a credible threat from Tesla, electrification is inevitable although it will take a few decades.

If the market sufficiently rewarded clean air, we’d already be there.


DonC said:

“If it wasn’t for CARB Tesla wouldn’t exist and neither would other electrics.”

Only Tesla bashers repeat the false claim that Tesla’s success, or profitability, is dependent on carbon credits. Everybody else understands that without that extra source of income, Tesla wouldn’t be growing as fast, and would have to put higher prices on its cars. But the idea that it wouldn’t exist at all is not very plausible.

Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning didn’t start Tesla Motors to earn income from carbon credits. They started Tesla Motors because they wanted to build electric cars that people could get genuinely excited about.

Tesla found it necessary to increase the price of the Roadster about 10% after its debut, without affecting demand much. If carbon credits were to disappear tomorrow, Tesla would simply raise its prices and soldier on, growing a bit slower but still growing.

Just to be clear, I’m not a Tesla basher, I drive a Tesla. What I write for a national print publication is generally quite positive about Tesla, I think they are doing remarkable work.

But it’s not just about the money for credits, and although I am speaking only for myself here, I didn’t interpret Don’s comment that way, or even in a negative light.

The fact is, strong leadership by California and CARB has created the market for EVs. A lot of people love to bash regulation but the reality is, California and many other areas would still have smog worse than it was in the 60s and early 70s if not for strong regulations and strong regulators.

How much Tesla has benefitted from that and whether or not they could have survived without that regulatory environment is an interesting debate.

But there’s little doubt that the stage was set by California.


One could anderstand it as:

Renault: 2020 will double battery punch without increasing size

Others: We will go for it, and provide 2x with some increase in size and weight.

Its not that thar OEMs do not have plenty of space left for batteries.

Tesla crammed 85kWh into car. Others are at 30kWh at best right now.


I’m expecting them to eventually cram even more into Model X and a later Truck model. Not sure if that will be before GiFa comes online and they change cell form factors.

Robert DeDomenico

If it wasn’t for CargoFish, there would be no future for mass electrification of surface transportation.

Jouni Valkonen

Tesla has already solved both issues. With Tesla batteries, both price and range are sufficient and affordable. 300 mile range costs less than about 20 000 dollars or about 200 dollars for monthly lease contract. This is not significantly more expensive than gasoline + maintenance costs of regular ICE car.