You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Let’s talk about the Ramcharger 1500 — and why it’s different from a plug-in hybrid.
The American car buyer is a hard one to satisfy.
The freedom of the open road is embedded in our consciousness in a way it is in few (if any) other countries. A typical American consumer may want to be able to embark on a summer road-trip across the United States’ vast distances, to cram in a family of five and all their camping supplies (and maybe a dog and a canoe!), or to hitch up a trailer to haul a boat or RV wherever they might want to adventure.
We may not use all those features most of the time, but we don’t want to make a major purchase like a car, truck, or SUV to meet the average use case; if we can afford to, we buy for the edge case.
That’s why I can’t stop thinking about a recent announcement made by Stellantis, the Euro-American conglomerate behind brands like Dodge, Jeep, Ram and Alfa Romeo.
For model year 2025, Stellantis will electrify its full-size Ram 1500 pickup, following in the footsteps of GM and Ford. But unlike its rivals, Stellantis will offer the Ram 1500 REV in both an all-electric model (with 350-500 mile range) anda "range extender" Ramcharger 1500 that features around 140 miles of electric range — plus a V6 engine mated to a generator to power the vehicle when the battery is depleted.
I think it’s brilliant.
This kind of range-extended EV seems like the ideal near-term product to satisfy some of the trickiest American market segments to electrify: namely the uniquely American demand for full-size pickups and massive SUVs.
I’ve been a critic of plug-in hybrid vehicles as a bridge to an electrified future in the past. But I’ve leveled that critique against the popular “parallel” plug-in hybrid architecture, which features both a conventional internal combustion engine and mechanical transmission plus a battery and electric motor/generator.
Despite Toyota’s reputation for hybrids, Stellantis is actually the undisputed king of plug-in hybrids in the U.S. already, with plug-in hybrid versions of popular models like the Jeep Wrangler and Cherokee and the Chrysler Pacifica minivan selling at a record pace in recent months.
While this common plug-in hybrid architecture could be right for many Americans reluctant to fully electrify (especially those without access to dedicated Level 2 charging), they suffer from one big drawback: they carry around the full drive train — and all the baggage and cost — of both a conventional gas-burning vehicle and a full battery EV. Duplicate drivetrains means they’ll never be cheaper than a pure internal-combustion or electric car. And with limited space on board to cram in a big battery, these vehicles sport a modest 20-40 mile all-electric range.
(Listen to this recent episode of Shift Keyfor more on my problems with plug-ins and a discussion of recent U.S. electrified vehicle trends)
In contrast, a “range-extended EV” or “series” plug-in hybrid (or whatever we start calling this other third thing) like the new Ramcharger is a fully electric-drive vehicle. There’s no mechanical transmission to power the wheels. It simply has a compact gasoline engine, tuned to run at a single, most-efficient speed, married to a generator that can produce electricity to run the electric motors when the battery is depleted.
Thanks to the extended range provided by the gasoline generator, these vehicles can drop battery mass and cost, squeeze in a gasoline engine and fuel tank, and still come out comparable on cost as a pure EV with substantially longer range than parallel plug-in hybrids.
The Ram 1500 EV needs a massive 229 kilowatt-hour (kWh) pack to deliver an as-advertised 500 mile range. (The 168-kWh battery for the 350-mile-range version is also huge, 85% larger than the pack in my extended range Mustang Mach-E which gets about 300 miles range.)
In contrast, the Ramcharger has a 92 kWh pack and offers about 145 miles of all-electric range.
The range-extended series hybrid thus sheds 137 kWh of batteries vs. the 500 mile range EV. At about $100+ per kWh to manufacture and assemble those incremental battery cells, that saves Stellantis at least $14,000 to manufacture the truck. A new V6 engine costs about $5,000-10,000 retail and surely much less for an automaker to manufacture, so swapping batteries for the V6 nets a significant cost savings.
The economics and capabilities of a range-extended EV thus make a lot of sense, especially for massive vehicles like the full-size trucks and SUVs so many Americans love. And they squash any concerns about range anxiety that might give buyers pause — especially those interested in towing something, which decimates the range of the all-electric pickups on the market today.
At the same time, more range-extended EVs on the road would reduce demand for D.C. fast chargers — which are especially scarce in the more rural areas of America where the full-size pickup is king. You can still charge these vehicles at a D.C. fast charger (if you can find one), but you can also pull into any gas station to extend range on road trips.
Meanwhile, a 100+ mile electric range is sufficient to cover around 99% of trips taken in personal vehicle in America. Plus, even when running in generator mode, a series electric drive train with regenerative braking is more efficient than a pure internal combustion drive (especially when the internal combustion generator can bypass the battery to directly power the electric motors, as it can in the Ramcharger). Near-term adoption of range-extended EVs could deliver substantial reductions in both emissions and gas use.
Sound familiar? That’s because this was exactly how the original Chevy Volt and BMW i3 range extended option were configured way back in 2011. Why GM didn’t continue down this path to electrify their massive Silverados, Sierras, and Escalades is beyond me.
Stellantis isn’t the only automaker going down this path. Mazda has struggled to get a competitive EV out, with their MX-30 offering a paltry 100-mile range. So they’re launching a range-extended version with a compact 830cc rotary engine (one of Mazda’s core IPs), which could turn the compact SUV into a truly viable product. Across the Atlantic, Nissan also offers a series hybrid drivetrain marketed as e-POWER in Europe and the U.K.
Building range-extended battery EVs is also a good way for manufacturers to develop experience with all-electric vehicle architecture and achieve economies of scale in production. A series hybrid can ride on the same all-electric platform as a full battery electric variant — as in the case of the Ram 1500 REV and Ramcharger — which is key to keeping manufacturing costs low. (Several Chinese automakers took this route.) In contrast, a parallel plug-in hybrid always shares a platform with its pure fossil fueled siblings.
Finally, the U.S. is embarking on a strategic effort to onshore and “friend shore” the whole EV battery and critical minerals supply chain. It’s going to be a serious challenge. Cutting the size of battery packs in electric full-size pickup and SUVs in half makes that a lot easier.
So are range-extended EVs with 100 mile range the electrified vehicle Americans are waiting for? If they're demanding big vehicles, towing capacity, and long-distance travel away from cities and interstates — e.g. exactly the segments hardest to satisfy with a pure EV — the answer might be yes.
Editor’s note: A previous version of this article used “personal vehicle miles traveled” instead of trips taken in personal vehicles. It’s been updated.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
From Kansas to Brooklyn, the fire is turning battery skeptics into outright opponents.
The symbol of the American battery backlash can be found in the tiny town of Halstead, Kansas.
Angry residents protesting a large storage project proposed by Boston developer Concurrent LLC have begun brandishing flashy yard signs picturing the Moss Landing battery plant blaze, all while freaking out local officials with their intensity. The modern storage project bears little if any resemblance to the Moss Landing facility, which uses older technology,, but that hasn’t calmed down anxious locals or stopped news stations from replaying footage of the blaze in their coverage of the conflict.
The city of Halstead, under pressure from these locals, is now developing a battery storage zoning ordinance – and explicitly saying this will not mean a project “has been formally approved or can be built in the city.” The backlash is now so intense that Halstead’s mayor Dennis Travis has taken to fighting back against criticism on Facebook, writing in a series of posts about individuals in his community “trying to rule by MOB mentality, pushing out false information and intimidating” volunteers working for the city. “I’m exercising MY First Amendment Right and well, if you don’t like it you can kiss my grits,” he wrote. Other posts shared information on the financial benefits of building battery storage and facts to dispel worries about battery fires. “You might want to close your eyes and wish this technology away but that is not going to happen,” another post declared. “Isn’t it better to be able to regulate it in our community?”
What’s happening in Halstead is a sign of a slow-spreading public relations wildfire that’s nudging communities that were already skeptical of battery storage over the edge into outright opposition. We’re not seeing any evidence that communities are transforming from supportive to hostile – but we are seeing new areas that were predisposed to dislike battery storage grow more aggressive and aghast at the idea of new projects.
Heatmap Pro data actually tells the story quite neatly: Halstead is located in Harvey County, a high risk area for developers that already has a restrictive ordinance banning all large-scale solar and wind development. There’s nothing about battery storage on the books yet, but our own opinion poll modeling shows that individuals in this county are more likely to oppose battery storage than renewable energy.
We’re seeing this phenomenon play out elsewhere as well. Take Fannin County, Texas, where residents have begun brandishing the example of Moss Landing to rail against an Engie battery storage project, and our modeling similarly shows an intense hostility to battery projects. The same can be said about Brooklyn, New York, where anti-battery concerns are far higher in our polling forecasts – and opposition to battery storage on the ground is gaining steam.
And more on the week’s conflicts around renewable energy.
1. Carbon County, Wyoming – I have learned that the Bureau of Land Management is close to approving the environmental review for a transmission line that would connect to BluEarth Renewables’ Lucky Star wind project.
2. Nantucket County, Massachusetts – Anti-offshore wind advocates are pushing the Trump administration to rescind air permits issued to Avangrid for New England Wind 1 and 2, the same approval that was ripped away from Atlantic Shores offshore wind farm last Friday.
3. Campbell County, Virginia – The HEP Solar utility-scale project in rural Virginia is being accused of creating a damaging amount of runoff, turning a nearby lake into a “mud pit.” (To see the story making the rounds on anti-renewables social media, watch this TV news segment.)
4. Marrow County, Ohio – A solar farm in Ohio got approvals for once! Congratulations to ESA Solar on this rare 23-acre conquest.
5. Madison County, Indiana – The Indiana Supreme Court has rejected an effort by Invenergy to void a restrictive county ordinance.
6. Davidson County, North Carolina – A fraught conflict is playing out over a Cypress Creek Renewables solar project in the town of Denton, which passed a solar moratorium that contradicts approval for the project issued by county officials in 2022.
7. Knox County, Nebraska – A federal judge has dismissed key aspects of a legal challenge North Fork Wind, a subsidiary of National Grid Renewables, filed against the county for enacting a restrictive wind ordinance that hinders development of their project.
8. Livingston Parish, Louisiana – This parish is extending a moratorium on new solar farm approvals for at least another year, claiming such action is necessary to comply with a request from the state.
9. Jefferson County, Texas – The city council in the heavily industrial city of Port Arthur, Texas, has approved a lease for constructing wind turbines in a lake.
10. Linn County, Oregon – What is supposed to be this county’s first large-scale solar farm is starting to face pushback over impacts to a wetlands area.Today’s sit-down is with Nikhil Kumar, a program director at GridLab and an expert in battery storage safety and regulation. Kumar’s folks reached out to me after learning I was writing about Moss Landing and wanted to give his honest and open perspective on how the disaster is impacting the future of storage development in the U.S. Let’s dive in!
The following is an abridged and edited version of our conversation.
So okay – walk me through your perspective on what happened with Moss Landing.
When this incident occurred, I’d already been to Moss Landing plenty of times. It caught me by surprise in the sense that it had reoccurred – the site had issues in the past.
A bit of context about my background – I joined GridLab relatively recently, but before that I spent 20 years in this industry, often working on the integrity and quality assurance of energy assets, anything from a natural gas power plant to nuclear to battery to a solar plant. I’m very familiar with safety regulation and standards for the energy industry, writ large.
Help me understand how things have improved since Moss Landing. Why is this facility considered by some to be an exception to the rule?
It’s definitely an outlier. Batteries are very modular by nature, you don’t need a lot of overall facility to put battery storage on the ground. From a construction standpoint, a wind or solar farm or even a gas plant is more complex to put together. But battery storage, that simplicity is a good thing.
That’s not the case with Moss Landing. If you look at the overall design of these sites, having battery packs in a building with a big hall is rare.
Pretty much every battery that’s been installed in the last two or three years, industry has already known about this [risk]. When the first [battery] fire occurred, they basically containerized everything – you want to containerize everything so you don’t have these thermal runaway events, where the entire battery batch catches fire. If you look at the record, in the last two or three years, I do not believe a single such design was implemented by anybody. People have learned from that experience already.
Are we seeing industry have to reckon with this anyway? I can’t help but wonder if you’ve witnessed these community fears. It does seem like when a fire happens, it creates problems for developers in other parts of the country. Are developers reckoning with a conflation from this event itself?
I think so. Developers that we’ve talked to are very well aware of reputational risk. They do not want people to have general concern with this technology because, if you look at how much battery is waiting to be connected to the grid, that’s pretty much it. There’s 12 times more capacity of batteries waiting to be connected to the grid than gas. That’s 12X.
We should wait for the city and I would really expect [Vistra] to release the root cause investigation of this fire. Experts have raised a number of these potential root causes. But we don’t know – was it the fire suppression system that failed? Was it something with the batteries?
We don’t know. I would hope that the details come out in a transparent way, so industry can make those changes, in terms of designs.
Is there anything in terms of national regulation governing this sector’s performance standards and safety standards, and do you think something like that should exist?
It should exist and it is happening. The NFPA [National Fire Prevention Association] is putting stuff out there. There might be some leaders in the way California’s introduced some new regulation to make sure there’s better documentation, safety preparedness.
There should be better regulation. There should be better rules. I don’t think developers are even against that.
OK, so NFPA. But what about the Trump administration? Should they get involved here?
I don’t think so. The OSHA standards apply to people who work on site — the regulatory frameworks are already there. I don’t think they need some special safety standard that’s new that applies to all these sites. The ingredients are already there.
It’s like coal power plants. There’s regulation on greenhouse gas emissions, but not all aspects of coal plants. I’m not sure if the Trump administration needs to get involved.
It sounds like you're saying the existing regulations are suitable in your view and what’s needed is for states and industry to step up?
I would think so. Just to give you an example, from an interconnection standpoint, there’s IEEE standards. From the battery level, there are UL standards. From the battery management system that also manages a lot of the ins and outs of how the battery operates —- a lot of those already have standards. To get insurance on a large battery site, they have to meet a lot of these guidelines already — nobody would insure a site otherwise. There’s a lot of financial risk. You don’t want batteries exploding because you didn’t meet any of these hundreds of guidelines that already exist and in many cases standards that exist.
So, I don’t know if something at the federal level changes anything.
My last question is, if you were giving advice to a developer, what would you say to them about making communities best aware of these tech advancements?
Before that, I am really hoping Vistra and all the agencies involved [with Moss Landing] have a transparent and accountable process of revealing what actually happened at this site. I think that’s really important.