Volvo shows off ReCharge plug-in hybrid concept vehicle

It looks like Volvo's the latest to get in on the plug-in hybrid action, with it showing off its new ReCharge concept vehicle in anticipation of next week's Frankfurt Motor Show. Volvo aficionados will likely recognize the vehicle as being based on the company's C30 hatchback, which gives it an all-wheel drive propulsion system. Unlike the standard C30, however, this one has a lithium polymer battery pack in its trunk, which is said to boast enough capacity for 62 miles of all-electric driving. Once that's depleted, a four cylinder flex-fuel engine kicks in to re-charge the battery while you're still on the road. Of course, the key advantage here is that you can also simply plug in the vehicle to recharge the vehicle, cutting down even further on your gas consumption. No word on a possible non-concept version just yet, but you can check out plenty more pics and a video courtesy of Autoblog Green at the link below.

[Rich @ Sep 7th 2007 10:55AM]

Well now I know who stole my Frisbee.

[Chris @ Sep 7th 2007 1:55PM]

The "Frisbees" look like hub motors.

A company called PML makes motors like that and they built a prototype using a Mini Cooper and one hub motor in each wheel. Each of the motors produces 160BHP(!), so the Mini had a total of 640BHP distributed across all four wheels.

[Kiwi616 @ Sep 7th 2007 10:57AM]

I hope this is a concept and not reality, because if this car were to be hit in the front, how would recharge it again???

[Kurtis @ Sep 7th 2007 11:43AM]

It's called a repair shop.

[Argot @ Sep 7th 2007 12:08PM]

Yeah! And how far will you be able to drive anyway? I only have five extension cords at home. That will only take me around the block once. Let's just forget about the whole thing!

[Kiwi616 @ Sep 7th 2007 12:48PM]

@Kurtis

Thanks a repair shop....blah. You obviously missed my point. One more thing to to be fixed in a crash...an important aspect also.

[Hador_nyc @ Sep 7th 2007 1:33PM]

you'd use gasoline. Did you miss the part about the gas engine kicking in after 60 miles or so?

[Wwhat @ Sep 7th 2007 4:28PM]

I'd say mud and rain getting in the plug is more of a worry, why the hell would they not put it on the side(s), seems daft, it's probably just a concept picture where they photoshoped the cable in though.

[tchiseen @ Sep 7th 2007 11:00AM]

I don't care what anyone says that's a cool lookin car.

[rems @ Sep 7th 2007 2:05PM]

It's a cool looking car as well as an energy efficient car because if you recharge it while you're running on gaz, it means it can probably reverse back again to using electricity for the next 62miles after the battery is full, now it would be interesting to know what is the capacity of the trunk with such a battery inside...

[jackson @ Sep 7th 2007 11:02AM]

How is this green? The source of power for this car is a huge coal power plant?

[Kurtis @ Sep 7th 2007 11:27AM]

Who said it was green? All I heard was:

"cutting down even further on your gas consumption"

It didn't say anything about pollution...

[Argot @ Sep 7th 2007 11:33AM]

It depends in what country you drive it in. In France most of the power is produced by nuclear power. Or in Sweden (former home of Volvo) where 50% of electric power comes from hydro-electric plants.

[Jason Carroll @ Sep 7th 2007 11:49AM]

I think everyone should watch the documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car?" It's very insightful.

The problem I still have with this versus the EV or Tesla is that it's still an internal combustion engine. I hope and pray that the electric car will emerge as an affordable and available option...and soon!

The whole argument about this still using energy...duh! Read Paul's comment above, he's got a great point. This desire for electric cars isn't 100% about energy either, a lot of it is about fuel consumption.

I'm done ranting, I don't really have anything great to say...everyone go rent the movie above.

[alex @ Sep 7th 2007 11:03AM]

the problem with electric cars is that YOU may not be using gas directly in the car, but you are still polluting because the electricity comes from the power plants that use coal to give you your electricity.

and the fact that power transmission is drastically reduced by the time the electricity goes out of your wall socket from the plant. Lets say about 5-10% of the electricity generated actually gets to your house.

how about just looking for new ways to generate power? huh?

[Justin @ Sep 7th 2007 11:13AM]

Where do you get your 5-10% figure? Wikipedia puts losses due to electrical power distribution at 7% as opposed to your 90-95%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses

If we were losing 95% of our generated electricity to power distribution problems, I think the solution would a better distribution system rather than new ways to generate power.

[Timothy Sottek @ Sep 7th 2007 11:31AM]

You mean, like, nuclear?

[Kurtis @ Sep 7th 2007 11:37AM]

Thank you Justin.

[alex @ Sep 7th 2007 12:01PM]

@ Justin: Sorry, I was thinking of overall efficiency (from coal to final use 35%*93%*20%*etc. losses)

@Timothy: Nuclear is good and all, but its a NIMBY situation.

[Argot @ Sep 7th 2007 12:52PM]

@alex

"I was thinking of overall efficiency (from coal to final use 35%*93%*20%*etc. losses)"

Well, you still gonna have to back that up with a source or two.

[alex @ Sep 7th 2007 1:14PM]

@Argot
Yea, sure. Go buy this book:

Energy: Its Use and the Environment
by Roger A. Hinrichs, Merlin Kleinbach
ISBN: 0495010855

And go to the chapter about coal power plants. Great textbook.

[james @ Sep 7th 2007 4:46PM]

This is a common argument against electric cars, but its backwards thinking. First of all, cleaning up a coal plant is possible its one large source, and you could cap the emmissions and store it -- if you succeeded, you'd have greened up a whole bunch of things. You can't do that with cars.

Secondly, power plants have baseline capacity, which means they are burning coal even if nobody is using the energy -- so the waste is enormous at these times. But they have to operate that way to be able to quickly ramp up in case of demand spikes. (Like everyone waking up in the morning). What that means is electricity at night is available but not being used (thus wasted). You could power the *entire* state of california's average commuter milage from electricity without building *any* additional power plants or burning any additional coal.

Even if the grid is coal, (dirtiest imaginable source of electricity) the emissions generated from the plants which operate at peak efficiencies and large economy of scale -- is marginally less, that the corresponding emissions generated from tailpipes.

It also moves the pollution to where the power plants are, not your neighborhood (in the case of cities) so when you get up and go for a run -- guess what you aren't breathing any more? Particulate pollution is linked to all sorts of respiratory problems. Get it out of my city thank you!

Electrics are quieter. (noise pollution anyone?)

Electrics require less maintenance.

Give me a car that can go 60 miles on a charge, with a liquid fuel option for distance -- and i'll never buy another car. (till I can go 200 miles on a charge and recharge in 5 min, that technology exists too...)

http://www.google.org/recharge/resources.html
specifically:
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204

-James-

[alex @ Sep 7th 2007 4:51PM]

Yes you can get the pollution source centrally located, but the argument about centralizing and removing particulates in regards to repiratory problems isn't valid. You're simply putting those particulates in the air, and they will come down. So even if the power plant isn't in your city, the particulates could still get there if you are downwind of it. (look at the problems with the northeast polluting Canada. where most of the coal powered plants are located)

[Andrew @ Sep 7th 2007 11:06AM]

As usual the car companies don't have the guts to actually announce and then make a product - 99% of these 'concept' cars are made from cardboard and never make it to the showroom --- what a waste of time!

[Jason Sipes @ Sep 7th 2007 11:59AM]

Concept Cars are created to show off new technologies and design avenues. Your right most concept cars never make it to the showroom floor. But the technology used in the concept cars will end up on the showroom floor one way or another.

[Andrew @ Sep 7th 2007 12:50PM]

imagine though if the tech world operated that way! We'd all go insane! I don't think Apple announced any concept-bollox the other day, they announced that all their new stuff was in the stores before month's end. As I said car companies have no guts.

[Jason Sipes @ Sep 7th 2007 1:08PM]

"imagine though if the tech world operated that way! We'd all go insane! I don't think Apple announced any concept-bollox the other day, they announced that all their new stuff was in the stores before month's end. As I said car companies have no guts."

Apple has nothing to lose. A car company on the other hand has everything to lose if their product fails.

[Andrew @ Sep 7th 2007 1:15PM]

Apple has a lot to lose if any or all of those new products (or which they've presumably already got millions on the high seas from China) fails.

I guess I'm also annoyed by the fact that car companies showing off new technologies in these concept cars reminds me of politicians who go on TV or radio with new ideas to 'float a boat' to see if the public like them.

Apple's attitude is 'we make great stuff which you'll love' not 'we really have no idea, so we'll show you a half-baked idea and see if you write about it, and then maybe put it in a future product in 10 years' --- the car companies are very very last century (by which I mean 1950s!).

[BrettB @ Sep 7th 2007 11:15AM]

Had we not given up on nuclear power in this country, a car like this would make sense. As it is, I must agree with alex, just because you're not burning gas in your car doesn't mean you're not polluting. What we need to be doing is pushing for nuclear power here in the US in the short term, (next 50-70 years), and getting better at truly clean power like solar & wind so we can let that take over for nuclear in the long term.

[Mike @ Sep 7th 2007 11:36AM]

yeah, thats smart, lets put nuclear reactors in peoples cars...we get a drunk driver effectively wiping out an entire city cause he crashed...and so what they use coal, if you have 1 plant out putting pollutants thats not as bad as the billion some odd cars on the road.

[Kurtis @ Sep 7th 2007 11:36AM]

Please agree with someone else. Alex is a retard, as Justin so very well proved. While what you said is correct, saying you agree with someone who thinks "5-10% of the electricity generated actually gets to your house" makes you look kinda dumb.

[Kurtis @ Sep 7th 2007 11:40AM]

@Mike

He's not saying put nuclear reactors in fricken cars, you idiot. He is saying use the electricity produced from nuclear power plants to charge cars because it is cleaner than coal. Get a brain and learn how to read.

[Sean O @ Sep 7th 2007 12:19PM]

On the west coast we use natural gas plants. And the future is going to be far more clean and renewable plants.

If you live in a place that uses coal-fired power plants, that's your fault. Don't blame EV for pollution just because of your community chooses not to elect leaders who care about the planet.

[Paul @ Sep 7th 2007 12:35PM]

On the west coast, your future lies at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. You're right, millions fewer homes and automobiles mean a far cleaner energy footprint...and a far fewer pompous jackasses like you, Sean O.

[Kris Burbidge @ Sep 7th 2007 11:18AM]

Can someone PLEASE tell me how in 10 YEARS we have not progressed past the electric mileage of the EV1?? It boggles my mind.

[Chekote @ Sep 7th 2007 11:24AM]

We have. Tesla Roadster: 200 Mile Range on battery power alone.

[Todd Long @ Sep 7th 2007 11:31AM]

@Chekote

Though it's not even due to ship until July 2008... we will wait and see if it can live up to the hype.

[Paul @ Sep 7th 2007 11:40AM]

We have. Look at Tesla. But this is not supposed to be an EV. It is a PHEV. This (and similar "series hybrids" like the Chevy Volt) attempt to strike a happy medium between price/weight prohibitive batteries and electric performance. Sure, you only get 50 or so miles before the ICE kicks in, but those 50 miles are enough to power 90% of the daily drives so it operates as an EV 90% of the time. When longer trips are required, then you have a power source that doesn't require hours to charge and can be replenished using an existing infrastructure. I still think this will be price prohibitive in the short term (perhaps a 10-20 mile EV range would be more feasible from a budgetary standpoint), but I think the core concept is a good one.

And to the folks screaming about the fact that electricity is still polluting because of oil and coal plants, 1) most power plants are still cleaner than ICE's mile for mile when powering an automobile, 2) it is far easier to clean up one plant than 100,000 cars as technology progresses, and 3) you can use proven cleaner technologies to generate electricity (nuclear, solar, wind, etc.) but you can't use these to power automobiles. Yes, we need to clean up our electricity generation in general, but at least that can be accomplished using current technology. And lest someone start screaming for "clean" hydrogen power, until we can figure out better ways of extracting, storing, and transporting hydrogen (not to mention converting it to power), it is FAR less efficient than current electricity/battery options.

[aeo @ Sep 7th 2007 11:28AM]

And just because your taking power off the grid doesn't mean that you're getting it from a coal power plant. Where I am, we have a choice between hydro, wind, or conventional (aka coal) with hydro and wind costing a bit more per KWH. However, if you burn gasoline, there's a 100% chance you're burning fossil fuels and supporting people you might rather not.

[randy @ Sep 7th 2007 11:40AM]

Eh, but you're not 'choosing' your power, you're using the coal whilst subsidizing everybody else's use of the solar.

[bob hope @ Sep 7th 2007 11:29AM]

zap has had electric cars for years, they even have a good looking concept w/ their zap-x.

[Kris Burbidge @ Sep 7th 2007 11:39AM]

True, though they aren't being delivered yet. It'll be interesting to see if they can really get costs down and release a semi affordable version. Note to Tesla: We don't need a 2-ton car. Please keep the sedan under 2500 lbs.

[cpu933k @ Sep 7th 2007 11:58AM]

I'd rather use coal-driven energy than to depend on Mid-East oil.

[mza4 @ Sep 7th 2007 12:35PM]

Only a very small percentage of US oil comes from the Mideast. Do your research.

[Bogdan @ Sep 7th 2007 11:58AM]

Finally, hybrid car that looks good.

[morphius @ Sep 7th 2007 12:38PM]

The argument that the power comes from coal plants always bothers me, as we really have lots of different ways to produce electricity, with newer ideas and greater efficiencies to current technologies coming out all the time.

But the thing that bothers me, why flex when diesel give you the most bang for your buck? Flex fuel, I believe, is less efficient then the unleaded we use now, while diesel and bio-diesel are what, 40% more efficient then unleaded? Just seems damn silly to combine the least efficient engine to go with more efficient plug in.

Of course I'm still trying to figure out why we are using corn for ethanol instead of switchgrass which gives you more "gas" per acre.

[Paul @ Sep 7th 2007 1:00PM]

I'm with you, but flex fueled ICE's are significantly cheaper than clean diesel alternatives. Bang for the buck wise, if you're only running the ICE very occasionally, it makes no sense to spend #2-$4 K more for clean diesel for 20%-30% better efficiency in recharging your battery for, say, 2 or 3 hours a month. Now, that said, I do see value for conventional hybrids to use oil-burners since they rely so heavily on their ICE's and can't be finely tuned to run at their "optimal" speed since they are pulling a car, not running a generator. However, cost still is a major negative here. Still, put one of those tiny 1.2L - 1.4L euro diesels in a Prius and you'd have something that saw real-world efficiency figures well above the theoretical numbers the EPA used to tout. Peugeot has something like this getting I believe 70 MPG US or somewhere in that range.

[Don @ Sep 7th 2007 2:09PM]

Talking about pollution...what about diesel? Busses, trucks and even aircraft. Drive behind a bus for a few blocks or look at the smog over an airport. Yuk

[granny down east @ Sep 7th 2007 2:53PM]

I would like to chime in about hybrids. (May be a bit off-thread, but bear with me)

I recently gave up my second Honda hybrid. Why? It wasn't the gasoline efficiency, because I regularly got 50+ mpg driving normally. It wasn't the build quality, because the Honda is a nice vehicle for what it is; a non-pretentious compact. It wasn't even about the fact that it is STILL using gasoline, rather than being a pure electric vehicle.

My hubby and I just could not get the dealership to keep up with the training curve in terms of service after the sale. I am inclined to think one of the reasons alternative-energy-source vehicles are slow to make it to market is---wait for it--

Tech support! The service guys at the dealership were great, but they did not want to deal with troubleshooting the car because they couldn't do a quick diagnostic. Their time is money, and someone has to pay. The car was still under warranty, but they didn't know how to diagnose a simple problem with the battery array display. We were told the company would not pay if there was nothing wrong, and the dealership would have to eat the costs. And I can understand that reasoning.

Oh well, back to Toyotas.

[eakira @ Sep 7th 2007 3:13PM]

this car is going to be amazing...