Hertz Buys 100000 Teslas $4.2B +50 000 for Uber. Avis expanding EV too

[sandalcandal]

Didn't really want to start a new thread elsewhere and no one else has posted it. Hertz has announced their order for 100 000 Tesla Model 3s by end of 2022 along with an ad campaign.
https://www.hertz.com/blog/electric-vehicles/tesla/
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/10/25/hertz-orders-100000-teslas-tom-brady-face-of-the-news/



Apparently they paid full market price ($US 4.2 Billion) for the order too which is surprising.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-25/hertz-said-to-order-100-000-teslas-in-car-rental-market-shake-up
https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/hertz-buys-100000-teslas-market-cap/
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1452794619410927625

[Note: The cost of Tesla vehicles (and pretty much all vehicles from all makers) have gone up over the past months so 4.2B/100k=42k is a bit less than the current price if you go to the Tesla website. There seemed to be some confusion about that floating around.]

Will potentially be a big injection of EVs into the used car market. Speculation that they will probably keep the vehicles for longer than standard for ICE rental cars however. Despite that longer leasing use, also suspect the used-discount/deprecation will be less than other vehicles.

Also, Tesla market cap has exceeded $1T and kept up there (so far). 

[james_s]

I'm very surprised to hear that they did not get a substantial discount on such a large purchase.

I wonder if the cars will have their performance electronically limited? Even the base model is a lot more sporty than a normal rental car.

[nctnico]

I'm very surprised to hear that they did not get a substantial discount on such a large purchase.

They must have gotten a much better deal. Tesla really needs the advertisement from people using their cars. Where there is serious competition on the BEV market, Tesla is not selling at all. In the NL Tesla sales dropped by 90% relative to their sales peak in 2019.

[EEVblog]

I'm very surprised to hear that they did not get a substantial discount on such a large purchase.

They must have gotten a much better deal. Tesla really needs the advertisement from people using their cars. Where there is serious competition on the BEV market, Tesla is not selling at all. In the NL Tesla sales dropped by 90% relative to their sales peak in 2019.

Woah, 90%?
I presume that's because of more competition at better bang-per-buck prices?
I believe they even lowered the price here, but I think sales numbers are hidden here.
Maybe it's not trendy to own a Tesla any more?

[EEVblog]

I think this topic is best split to its own thread.
Wow, no discount on 100,000 cars. Why would you do that?
I presume Tesla's are more expensive than other alternatives, in which case they must think they'll get more rentals beign Tesla's than say Hyundai or some other brand?

[EEVblog]

Also, Tesla market cap has exceeded $1T and kept up there (so far). 

They will get totally wrecked in any market correction.

[TimFox]

The business details are fascinating:  usually, rental companies keep the cars for a short time before selling them as used.  With the current strange shortage-induced markets for new and used cars, they may have some deal with Tesla for that part of the contract.

[james_s]

They must have gotten a much better deal. Tesla really needs the advertisement from people using their cars. Where there is serious competition on the BEV market, Tesla is not selling at all. In the NL Tesla sales dropped by 90% relative to their sales peak in 2019.

That's surprising. Here they have essentially no competition, there are other EVs but none of them are anything like a Tesla in terms of performance. This region is crawling with them, I see them every day. It's unusual to go to a parking lot in a shopping center or supermarket and not see 5 or 6 of them parked there. Lots of wealthy software people around here though.

[sleemanj]

Wow, no discount on 100,000 cars. Why would you do that?

Last year Tesla produced 500,000 vehicles, it might manage 750k this year.  It's a product that Tesla has no problem selling at it's current production level, there's little incentive  to give a big discount to a bulk buyer, it's the same amount of work and if they could just as easily drive them off the line to the "general sale" lot instead of the "deliver to Hertz" lot.

[f4eru]

it's due to a drastic change in incentives and taxes, and is more or less just a market fluctuation, nothing to do with long term.
Basically 2019 was a rush year, before a big cutoff of incentives.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/777866/sales-volume-of-tesla-in-the-netherlands/

In average, tesla's market share on cars in general  increases exponentially, while it's market share in EV segment reduces a little, or stays stable.... strange statistics, but, yeah, a growth of +70% per year is nice.
https://insideevs.com/news/542220/tesla-market-share-2021q3/

[Bassman59]

Also, Tesla market cap has exceeded $1T and kept up there (so far). 

They will get totally wrecked in any market correction.

Even with the number of cars they project to sell there is no possible justification for this stock price. How many more cars does Ford sell, at what profit, and look at Ford's market cap.

The stock market is insane.

[f4eru]

They will get totally wrecked in any market correction.

Could be, could be not.
But I think "They" refers to investors and speculators.
Tesla doesn't care it's market cap. Not relevant, as they have no need for extra cash.

[Bud]

Teslas, not Tesla's 

[Bassman59]

They will get totally wrecked in any market correction.

Could be, could be not.
But I think "They" refers to investors and speculators.
Tesla doesn't care it's market cap. Not relevant, as they have no need for extra cash.

That is true for every public company.

Once they go to the market at IPO, they get all the cash from investors that they'll ever get from equity.

That is, unless they decide to dilute insiders' shares (and also publicly-owned shares) by issuing more shares of stock.

It's all funny money at some point, anyway.

[Bassman59]

Teslas, not Tesla's 

EGG-ZACKLY.

Who wrote the first post, Treez?

[james_s]

Even with the number of cars they project to sell there is no possible justification for this stock price. How many more cars does Ford sell, at what profit, and look at Ford's market cap.

The stock market is insane.

I realized the stock market is anything but rational years ago. Look at the P/E ratio of any of the big tech companies, it makes absolutely no sense at all. It is what it is though.

[james_s]

Teslas, not Tesla's 

EGG-ZACKLY.

Who wrote the first post, Treez?

Could have been posted on a smartphone, autocorrect loves to make changes like that. Or it could just be a typo, that is hardly the worst grammatical sin I see on a daily basis.

[f4eru]

Not a native English writer. You understood well enough.

[Bud]

They will get totally wrecked in any market correction.

Could be, could be not.
But I think "They" refers to investors and speculators.
Tesla doesn't care it's market cap. Not relevant, as they have no need for extra cash.

Is that the cash Tesla got from selling their bitcoins? Nice way to bullshit their investors.

[sandalcandal]

Teslas, not Tesla's 

EGG-ZACKLY.

Who wrote the first post, Treez?

Could have been posted on a smartphone, autocorrect loves to make changes like that. Or it could just be a typo, that is hardly the worst grammatical sin I see on a daily basis.

Holy hell guys. It's a small typo and for the record not even mine. Dave split the topic off and wrote the title for me.

[sandalcandal]

They will get totally wrecked in any market correction.

Could be, could be not.
But I think "They" refers to investors and speculators.
Tesla doesn't care it's market cap. Not relevant, as they have no need for extra cash.

Is that the cash Tesla got from selling their bitcoins? Nice way to bullshit their investors.

Tesla bought $2B of bitcoin and they have $16B in cash equivalents [$19.3B end of last year] with $2.1B debt in their latest quarterly financial reporting.
https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/TWPKBV_TSLA_Q3_2021_Quarterly_Update_SI1AKE.pdf?xseo=&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D%22TSLA-Q3-2021-Quarterly-Update.pdf%22
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/elon-musk-is-a-delusional-moron/msg3569411/#msg3569411

[sandalcandal]

They will get totally wrecked in any market correction.

Could be, could be not.
But I think "They" refers to investors and speculators.
Tesla doesn't care it's market cap. Not relevant, as they have no need for extra cash.

That is true for every public company.

Once they go to the market at IPO, they get all the cash from investors that they'll ever get from equity.

That is, unless they decide to dilute insiders' shares (and also publicly-owned shares) by issuing more shares of stock.

It's all funny money at some point, anyway.

That's patently not true. Last year they raised >$12B from common shares sales https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/elon-musk-is-a-delusional-moron/msg3569411/#msg3569411

Companies raise money from share issues all the time past IPO. They also get "rewarded" for doing so with further share price increases as a result (given they are doing so for growth and not we f'ed up reasons). https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/elon-musk-is-a-delusional-moron/msg3570164/#msg3570164

[nctnico]

I'm very surprised to hear that they did not get a substantial discount on such a large purchase.

They must have gotten a much better deal. Tesla really needs the advertisement from people using their cars. Where there is serious competition on the BEV market, Tesla is not selling at all. In the NL Tesla sales dropped by 90% relative to their sales peak in 2019.

Woah, 90%?
I presume that's because of more competition at better bang-per-buck prices?

Yes. There are also some tax incentives at play where Tesla has missed the boat by keeping the prices too high. The BEVs from Volkswagen are much cheaper and sell like hot cakes.

[sandalcandal]

I'm very surprised to hear that they did not get a substantial discount on such a large purchase.

They must have gotten a much better deal. Tesla really needs the advertisement from people using their cars. Where there is serious competition on the BEV market, Tesla is not selling at all. In the NL Tesla sales dropped by 90% relative to their sales peak in 2019.

Woah, 90%?
I presume that's because of more competition at better bang-per-buck prices?

Yes. There are also some tax incentives at play where Tesla has missed the boat by keeping the prices too high. The BEVs from Volkswagen are much cheaper and sell like hot cakes.

Overall EU sales for Tesla are very strong, NL is more of an exception. Not sure about what's going on in NL but it reasonable to assume as you say some issues with not hitting tax incentive thresholds in the NL. [They have plenty of sales elsewhere so not much incentive to reduce prices just for NL unfortunately.]


Source: https://eu-evs.com/bestSellersCharts/ALL/Brands/Line-Cumulative/All-time-by-Quarters
Tesla market share [based on fleet] has been pretty steady in EU relative the other legacy auto tracked above since it jumped up in Q4 2019.

[sandalcandal]

I'm very surprised to hear that they did not get a substantial discount on such a large purchase.

They must have gotten a much better deal. Tesla really needs the advertisement from people using their cars. Where there is serious competition on the BEV market, Tesla is not selling at all. In the NL Tesla sales dropped by 90% relative to their sales peak in 2019.

Woah, 90%?
I presume that's because of more competition at better bang-per-buck prices?
I believe they even lowered the price here, but I think sales numbers are hidden here.
Maybe it's not trendy to own a Tesla any more?

As per OP they didn't seem to get any discount. [I see you read that part later but continuing for elaboration]

Tesla has always been supply constrained. Not much incentive to give a rental company which would ultimately flood the market with lower cost 2nd hand cars a discount to begin with. They've even dropped all their referral programs recently.
https://electrek.co/2021/09/17/tesla-ends-referral-program-everything-except-solar-roof/

Hertz on the other hand is a company in need of "reinventing themselves" after their recent bankruptcy. Interview with Mark Fields, Hertz CEO (former Ford CEO) explaining the move here:

[sandalcandal]

The business details are fascinating:  usually, rental companies keep the cars for a short time before selling them as used.  With the current strange shortage-induced markets for new and used cars, they may have some deal with Tesla for that part of the contract.

Maybe part of the deal is that they'll actually get 100 000 BEVs in the next ~1yr unlike trying to buy from less established, lower experienced, lower production volume makers? The reasons given in the Oct 28 CNBC interview seem to cite Tesla's capability as the reason for picking Tesla.

[sandalcandal]

Also, Tesla market cap has exceeded $1T and kept up there (so far). 

They will get totally wrecked in any market correction.

Even with the number of cars they project to sell there is no possible justification for this stock price. How many more cars does Ford sell, at what profit, and look at Ford's market cap.

The stock market is insane.

Plenty analysis by large professional investment firms that put the target price around where it is now. All do analysis of Tesla not following the same business model as legacy auto. You need to account for greater vertical integration and resultant profit margins for vehicle sales then add on their other business lines (Solar, insurance, AI etc.) and speculate they will also be successful.


Source:https://youtu.be/KgdjfV6gcZY

TLSA closed at $1114 today!! $1.1T market cap!

[sandalcandal]

Hertz also entering partnership with Uber to offer 50 000 Teslas for Uber drivers in the US
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/uber-partners-with-hertz-offer-50000-tesla-rentals-us-ride-hail-drivers-2021-10-27/
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/uber-rent-tesla-partnership/

Also looks like they plan to increase the fleet size further to 150 000 over the next 3 years in response to the deal with Uber and public interest
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/hertz-says-it-could-provide-150000-teslas-uber-up-an-initial-50000-2021-10-28/
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/hertz-says-it-may-expand-supply-of-teslas-to-uber-to-150000-2021-10-28

Tesla Model 3 also topped overall vehicles sales (not just electric) in EU for the last month and not by a small margin. That's a vehicle that's not even made in the EU currently.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/25/22744481/tesla-model-3-tops-sales-charts-europe-electric-vehicles

Some opinions and commentary from Sandy Munroe on Hertz purchase.

[nctnico]

Hertz also entering partnership with Uber to offer 50 000 Teslas for Uber drivers in the US
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/uber-partners-with-hertz-offer-50000-tesla-rentals-us-ride-hail-drivers-2021-10-27/
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/uber-rent-tesla-partnership/

Also looks like they plan to increase the fleet size further to 150 000 over the next 3 years in response to the deal with Uber and public interest
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/hertz-says-it-could-provide-150000-teslas-uber-up-an-initial-50000-2021-10-28/
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/hertz-says-it-may-expand-supply-of-teslas-to-uber-to-150000-2021-10-28

Tesla Model 3 also topped overall vehicles sales (not just electric) in EU for the last month and not by a small margin. That's a vehicle that's not even made in the EU currently.

I've found that table too but as you can see from the other graphs sales number vary wildly. If you look up April's graph, you'll notice Tesla isn't even in the top 10 where other models show sales increases of 400% to 500%. All in all you can only draw a conclusion from numbers that summarise sales from an entire year. The monthly sales can be highly skewed due to things like shipping frequency. What if Tesla's cars for Europe all arrived in September to be delivered to waiting customers which ordered the car long before?

[sandalcandal]

I've found that table too but as you can see from the other graphs sales number vary wildly. If you look up April's graph, you'll notice Tesla isn't even in the top 10 where other models show sales increases of 400% to 500%. All in all you can only draw a conclusion from numbers that summarise sales from an entire year. The monthly sales can be highly skewed due to things like shipping frequency. What if Tesla's cars for Europe all arrived in September to be delivered to waiting customers which ordered the car long before?

August 2021 numbers

https://twitter.com/JATO_Dynamics/status/1444917811822796802/photo/1

<71% decrease (<350% increase) maximum difference in the Tesla Model 3 quarterly sales at the most in the past ~2 years (11 quarters)

Source: https://twitter.com/JATO_Dynamics/status/1454380061423964160

The point is more that the strength exists and there is change occurring.

https://www.jato.com/evs-outsell-diesel-vehicles-in-europe-in-august-for-the-first-time-ever/
https://www.jato.com/ev-revolution-hits-new-milestone-as-tesla-model-3-becomes-europes-best-selling-car-in-september/
Yes sales vary significantly but never before has an EV outsold ALL other new vehicles in a month, that makes it a milestone. So happens it was also a Tesla that did it.

[nctnico]

The point is more that the strength exists and there is change occurring.

Up to a saturation point where there are no more buyers for which a BEV makes sense. Also the graph for low emissions includes (gasoline) hybrids and fuel cell vehicles.

[3roomlab]

wut? JP morgan? $215? 

[sandalcandal]

The point is more that the strength exists and there is change occurring.

Up to a saturation point where there are no more buyers for which a BEV makes sense. Also the graph for low emissions includes (gasoline) hybrids and fuel cell vehicles.

But the trend it not one showing saturation. Different stat but the Tesla Model 3 is also most definitely not a hybrid or fuel cell vehicle.

[nctnico]

The point is more that the strength exists and there is change occurring.

Up to a saturation point where there are no more buyers for which a BEV makes sense. Also the graph for low emissions includes (gasoline) hybrids and fuel cell vehicles.

But the trend it not one showing saturation. Different stat but the Tesla Model 3 is also most definitely not a hybrid or fuel cell vehicle.

No, but the chart you posted includes a wide variety of low emission vehicles which includes hybrids and hydrogen cars as well so it doesn't prove an increasing market share for BEVs.

[sandalcandal]

But the trend it not one showing saturation. Different stat but the Tesla Model 3 is also most definitely not a hybrid or fuel cell vehicle.

No, but the chart you posted includes a wide variety of low emission vehicles which includes hybrids and hydrogen cars as well so it doesn't prove an increasing market share for BEVs.

And you have evidence that BEVs aren't increasing market share and it's all driven by hybrids and hydrogen?

[f4eru]

includes hybrids and hydrogen cars as well so it doesn't prove an increasing market share for BEVs.

You can continue denial, and living in the past, we don't care.
FYI, it includes PHEVs only, not old style dumb hybrids, because those are powered exclusively by gas.

hydrogen ... market share

Hydrogen and market share in the same sentence. 

[nctnico]

But the trend it not one showing saturation. Different stat but the Tesla Model 3 is also most definitely not a hybrid or fuel cell vehicle.

No, but the chart you posted includes a wide variety of low emission vehicles which includes hybrids and hydrogen cars as well so it doesn't prove an increasing market share for BEVs.

And you have evidence that BEVs aren't increasing market share and it's all driven by hybrids and hydrogen?

No, you are not reading correctly what I wrote. I wrote: the graph you linked to doesn't prove an increasing market share for BEVs. That is it. After looking up some numbers is seems the ratio PHEV / BEV is 40% / 60% but this may easely shift if more hybrids are sold with a plug (due to tax incentives).

[Siwastaja]

That's surprising. Here they have essentially no competition, there are other EVs but none of them are anything like a Tesla in terms of performance. This region is crawling with them, I see them every day. It's unusual to go to a parking lot in a shopping center or supermarket and not see 5 or 6 of them parked there. Lots of wealthy software people around here though.

Exact same here, Tesla3 is #1 selling battery EV which can be seen both from statistics, and on the streets. Maybe Netherlands (I still can't write NL because that means Soviet Union in Finnish so it's just too confusing) is a special case or nctnico is just dreaming. Next thing that happens is that Tesla declares bankrupt and all cars on the streets run on hydrogen. In the dream, that is.

[nctnico]

That's surprising. Here they have essentially no competition, there are other EVs but none of them are anything like a Tesla in terms of performance. This region is crawling with them, I see them every day. It's unusual to go to a parking lot in a shopping center or supermarket and not see 5 or 6 of them parked there. Lots of wealthy software people around here though.

Exact same here, Tesla3 is #1 selling battery EV which can be seen both from statistics, and on the streets. Maybe Netherlands (I still can't write NL because that means Soviet Union in Finnish so it's just too confusing) is a special case

The Netherlands is a special case indeed; it is the leading / most mature BEV market off the world. What happens here, is going to happen in the rest of the world at some point.

[wraper]

The Netherlands is a special case indeed; it is the leading / most mature BEV market on the world. What happens here, is going to happen in the rest of the world at some point.

Did you ever hear about existence of Norway?

[james_s]

The point is more that the strength exists and there is change occurring.

Up to a saturation point where there are no more buyers for which a BEV makes sense. Also the graph for low emissions includes (gasoline) hybrids and fuel cell vehicles.

We are a long, long way from that. Millions of cars away from that saturation point. Cars wear out, they get wrecked, gasoline cars hit a saturation point probably 70 years ago at which point nearly every family had a car and yet cars have continued to sell.

[nctnico]

The Netherlands is a special case indeed; it is the leading / most mature BEV market on the world. What happens here, is going to happen in the rest of the world at some point.

Did you ever hear about existence of Norway?

That isn't a normal country as in (low) population density and wealth. An outlier like Luxembourg. AFAIK most people in Norway already have an outlet for their cars to keep the cars heated during the winter. Electricity is also cheap due to hydro power. That makes adoption to BEVs much easier. But still, Norway is a special case which you can't compare to other countries.

The point is more that the strength exists and there is change occurring.

Up to a saturation point where there are no more buyers for which a BEV makes sense. Also the graph for low emissions includes (gasoline) hybrids and fuel cell vehicles.

We are a long, long way from that. Millions of cars away from that saturation point. Cars wear out, they get wrecked, gasoline cars hit a saturation point probably 70 years ago at which point nearly every family had a car and yet cars have continued to sell.

You are missing the point. At some level the people for which a BEV is a sensible option to buy run out due to limits in the charging infrastructure and high cost of charging. Peope for which a BEV makes no sense will either buy gasoline (hybrid) or fuel cell car.

[wraper]

At some level the people for which a BEV is a sensible option to buy run out due to limits in the charging infrastructure and high cost of charging;

As if charging infrastructure does not evolve. For example Tesla is going to triple it's supercharger network within 2 years. Also the main mode of charging BEV is doing so at home.

those people will either buy gasoline (hybrid) or fuel cell cars.

Mentioning the latter while being concerned about charging cost and lack of infrastructure for EV charging is a bit ridiculous.

[james_s]

I guess it was inevitable that this thread turns into another one of those. Hydrogen is dead, that is obvious to anybody who looks objectively. I have never seen a hydrogen car on the road, not even one. I have never seen a hydrogen fueling station, there is a negligible number of them across my entire country, the vast majority are in a single state, California. The technology is irrelevant, it lost the "format war" years ago. Hydrogen fuel cell has as much chance of going mainstream as HD-DVD. Electric charging infrastructure is expanding rapidly, hydrogen is not expanding at all.

[nctnico]

At some level the people for which a BEV is a sensible option to buy run out due to limits in the charging infrastructure and high cost of charging;

As if charging infrastructure does not evolve. For example Tesla is going to triple it's supercharger network within 2 years. Also the main mode of charging BEV is doing so at home.

No, the main mode of charging is not at home (which I translate to: charging from your own outlet). Certainly not in densily populated countries like the Netherlands. You really have no idea on how much charging infrastructure is needed. About 30% of the charging points of the EU is located in the Netherlands. The Netherlands has by far the best charging infrastructure of the entire EU. Probably in the entire world. And yet it is not enough. Not by a long shot. Planners say that about 3 million charging points are required in the Netherlands which translates to 1 charging point per 3 cars if all cars are BEVs. At the moment there are only 80000 public charging points in the Netherlands. That number would need to increase over 35 times to support a fleet of 100% BEVs. Tesla doubling their super charger network may sound nice but it is a drop in the bucket. In order to interpret statistics you really need to put the numbers into the perspective of the big picture.

those people will either buy gasoline (hybrid) or fuel cell cars.

Mentioning the latter while being concerned about charging cost and lack of infrastructure for EV charging is a bit ridiculous.

Don't shoot the messenger. You can ofcourse have a personal opinion but (for example) there is an article in a newspaper today saying that the Dutch government wants to speed up lowering CO2 emissions from cars and hydrogen was specifically mentioned. Also the car industry still sees a future in hydrogen (see the annual KPMG automotive outlook). BMW is going to launch a new X5 model fuelled by hydrogen at the end of 2022. Germany is actually quite far with a nation wide hydrogen fuelling network. Based on those facts it is utterly foolish to think that there is no future for fuell cell cars. You simply can't reach that conclusion based on how things are evolving right now. There is too much going on.

[ejeffrey]

I'm very surprised to hear that they did not get a substantial discount on such a large purchase.

I wonder if the cars will have their performance electronically limited? Even the base model is a lot more sporty than a normal rental car.

Tesla makes a pretty big deal about one price for everyone and it is listed on their website. They don't haggle, give employee discounts, or let their local showrooms set a different price than the website.  They do have the affiliate program but it is available to everyone and listed on their website.  So I'm not surprised they didn't offer hertz a discount.  Practically they are also still somewhat battery production limited so agreeing to sell a large volume at a low price would just cost them money.

[sandalcandal]

After looking up some numbers is seems the ratio PHEV / BEV is 40% / 60% but this may easely shift if more hybrids are sold with a plug (due to tax incentives).

Got a source for that? Indeed, government incentives heavily biasing PHEVs (as with the latest policies in the USA) could see shifting PEV market more towards PHEVs unfortunately. However, the current trend is strongly towards greater market share from BEVs. In the absence of questionable government policy and with the rapid pace of advances in battery technology making battery electric vehicles more affordable, I don't think PHEVs have a strong future.

IMO PHEVs are a mediocre transition technology for lowering (but not eliminating) emissions compared to BEVs at best and at worst a crutch for legacy auto to cling to profitability whilst struggling to make progress to zero emissions.

Here's a source from me on BEV/PHEV split. Ironically, Netherlands is actually even stronger than EU in growth of BEV vs PHEV.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_Europe

And another one:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/625010/electric-vehicle-market-share-in-eu-annual/

[nctnico]

After looking up some numbers is seems the ratio PHEV / BEV is 40% / 60% but this may easely shift if more hybrids are sold with a plug (due to tax incentives).

Got a source for that? Indeed, government incentives heavily biasing PHEVs (as with the latest policies in the USA) could see shifting PEV market more towards PHEVs unfortunately. However, the current trend is strongly towards greater market share from BEVs. In the absence of questionable government policy and with the rapid pace of advances in battery technology making battery electric vehicles more affordable, I don't think PHEVs have a strong future.

IMO PHEVs are a mediocre transition technology for lowering (but not eliminating) emissions compared to BEVs at best and at worst a crutch for legacy auto to cling to profitability whilst struggling to make progress to zero emissions.

Which zero emissions? In many countries a BEV is emitting way more polution compared to a hybrid. With the electricity mix in the Netherlands a Tesla model 3 emits 5 times more SO2 compared to a Toyota Prius. NOx shows a similar picture. SO2 and NOx cause people to get sick and/or die right now. And for those claiming that a BEV doesn't emit inside a city: several cities in the Netherlands have beacons installed which make hybrids switch to full battery mode (if the hybrid is equiped with a receiver ofcourse).

[sandalcandal]

After looking up some numbers is seems the ratio PHEV / BEV is 40% / 60% but this may easely shift if more hybrids are sold with a plug (due to tax incentives).

Got a source for that? Indeed, government incentives heavily biasing PHEVs (as with the latest policies in the USA) could see shifting PEV market more towards PHEVs unfortunately. However, the current trend is strongly towards greater market share from BEVs. In the absence of questionable government policy and with the rapid pace of advances in battery technology making battery electric vehicles more affordable, I don't think PHEVs have a strong future.

IMO PHEVs are a mediocre transition technology for lowering (but not eliminating) emissions compared to BEVs at best and at worst a crutch for legacy auto to cling to profitability whilst struggling to make progress to zero emissions.

Which zero emissions? In many countries a BEV is emitting way more polution compared to a hybrid. With the electricity mix in the Netherlands a Tesla model 3 emits 5 times more SO2 compared to a Toyota Prius. NOx shows a similar picture. SO2 and NOx cause people to get sick and/or die right now. And for those claiming that a BEV doesn't emit inside a city: several cities in the Netherlands have beacons installed which make hybrids switch to full battery mode (if the hybrid is equiped with a receiver ofcourse).

Please either source or substantiate claims. The previous claims have not been well backed up.

[nctnico]

After looking up some numbers is seems the ratio PHEV / BEV is 40% / 60% but this may easely shift if more hybrids are sold with a plug (due to tax incentives).

Got a source for that? Indeed, government incentives heavily biasing PHEVs (as with the latest policies in the USA) could see shifting PEV market more towards PHEVs unfortunately. However, the current trend is strongly towards greater market share from BEVs. In the absence of questionable government policy and with the rapid pace of advances in battery technology making battery electric vehicles more affordable, I don't think PHEVs have a strong future.

IMO PHEVs are a mediocre transition technology for lowering (but not eliminating) emissions compared to BEVs at best and at worst a crutch for legacy auto to cling to profitability whilst struggling to make progress to zero emissions.

Which zero emissions? In many countries a BEV is emitting way more polution compared to a hybrid. With the electricity mix in the Netherlands a Tesla model 3 emits 5 times more SO2 compared to a Toyota Prius. NOx shows a similar picture. SO2 and NOx cause people to get sick and/or die right now. And for those claiming that a BEV doesn't emit inside a city: several cities in the Netherlands have beacons installed which make hybrids switch to full battery mode (if the hybrid is equiped with a receiver ofcourse).

Please either source or substantiate claims.

Just look up the total electricity production in the NL and the SO2 + NOx emissions (as registered by the government) due to electricity production from http://emissieregistratie.nl. I have shown the calculation before.

[sandalcandal]

Which zero emissions? In many countries a BEV is emitting way more polution compared to a hybrid. With the electricity mix in the Netherlands a Tesla model 3 emits 5 times more SO2 compared to a Toyota Prius. NOx shows a similar picture. SO2 and NOx cause people to get sick and/or die right now. And for those claiming that a BEV doesn't emit inside a city: several cities in the Netherlands have beacons installed which make hybrids switch to full battery mode (if the hybrid is equiped with a receiver ofcourse).

Please either source or substantiate claims.

Just look up the total electricity production in the NL and the SO2 + NOx emissions (as registered by the government) due to electricity production from http://emissieregistratie.nl. I have shown the calculation before.

Could you please just link the data? [Or your previous calculation?]

I don't see anything on emissions per kWh in NL (just gross emissions for energy sector at best which doesn't say anything of renewable energy fraction) or Toyota Prius emissions let alone anything showing how you got your figures.

[themadhippy]

Netherlands is actually even stronger than EU in growth of BEV vs PHEV.

wonder if its because they build fun  vehicles instead of the boring tin box

[james_s]

That does look fun, though incredibly dangerous. Making a 3 wheeled contraption is a loophole around the crushing weight of safety regulations that squeezes most of the soul out of the car industry though.

[ozsavran]

I'm very surprised to hear that they did not get a substantial discount on such a large purchase.

They must have gotten a much better deal. Tesla really needs the advertisement from people using their cars. Where there is serious competition on the BEV market, Tesla is not selling at all. In the NL Tesla sales dropped by 90% relative to their sales peak in 2019.

Exactamentos. Whenever you see something like this that doesn't make sense, think "kickbacks".  Executives getting something out for themselves from the companies that they were supposed to protect. It happens.

[sandalcandal]

I'm very surprised to hear that they did not get a substantial discount on such a large purchase.

They must have gotten a much better deal. Tesla really needs the advertisement from people using their cars. Where there is serious competition on the BEV market, Tesla is not selling at all. In the NL Tesla sales dropped by 90% relative to their sales peak in 2019.

Exactamentos. Whenever you see something like this that doesn't make sense, think "kickbacks".  Executives getting something out for themselves from the companies that they were supposed to protect. It happens.

This is the "Tesla is not selling at all. In the NL Tesla sales dropped by 90% relative to their sales peak in 2019." More like everyone that can get a Tesla in NL has already bought one until the next model or significant price drop occurs [or the next government incentive change].

https://eu-evs.com/bestSellersCharts/NL/Brands/Line-Cumulative/All-time-by-Quarters

As others have already said in this thread, there are many more logical reasons for this deal than some corruption conspiracy.

[nctnico]

Which zero emissions? In many countries a BEV is emitting way more polution compared to a hybrid. With the electricity mix in the Netherlands a Tesla model 3 emits 5 times more SO2 compared to a Toyota Prius. NOx shows a similar picture. SO2 and NOx cause people to get sick and/or die right now. And for those claiming that a BEV doesn't emit inside a city: several cities in the Netherlands have beacons installed which make hybrids switch to full battery mode (if the hybrid is equiped with a receiver ofcourse).

Please either source or substantiate claims.

Just look up the total electricity production in the NL and the SO2 + NOx emissions (as registered by the government) due to electricity production from http://emissieregistratie.nl. I have shown the calculation before.

Could you please just link the data? [Or your previous calculation?]

I don't see anything on emissions per kWh in NL (just gross emissions for energy sector at best which doesn't say anything of renewable energy fraction) or Toyota Prius emissions let alone anything showing how you got your figures.

I did this calculation a while ago so I used numbers from 2019

First you need a few numbers:
- electricity used by an EV: put a realistic number at 200Wh/km (from EPA looking at various EVs)
- gasoline consumed by an efficient hybrid (like the Prius): a realistic number is 0.05l/km (from a website which keeps track of actual mileage)
- SO2 emitted in a year: 2400 metric tonnes in 2019 (https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/83390NED/table?ts=1610469052046)
- electricity produced in a year: 121 TWh in 2019 (https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2020/12/elektriciteitsproductie-naar-recordhoogte)
- sulfur content of gasoline: 10ppm (https://www.fuelseurope.eu/interactive-graph/maximum-gasoline-sulphur-limits-2018/)

First gasoline emissions:
Gasoline has a density of 0.72kg/liter. 10ppm of 720gram of gasoline is sulphur: 720 * 10u (u = micro) = 7.2 milligram of sulphur per liter of gasoline. SO2 consists of 1 sulphur atom and 2 oxygen atoms. The two oxygen atoms are about equal in weight compared to the sulphur atom so the 7.2mgram of sulphur going in, results in 14.4 mgram of SO2 at the exhaust of a car. Per km: 14.4mgram * 0.05 =720 ugram per km.


EV emissions:
2400 tonnes is 2.4Ggram
2.4Ggram / 121TWh = 19.8 ugram per Wh. With 200Wh/km this means the emission is: 19.8ugram * 200 = 4mgram per km.

4mgram / 0.72mgram = 5.6 . This means that an EV resulted in 5.6 times more SO2 emissions compared to an efficient hybrid in 2019 while driving in the Netherlands.

[sandalcandal]

I did this calculation a while ago so I used numbers from 2019

First you need a few numbers:
- electricity used by an EV: put a realistic number at 200Wh/km (from EPA looking at various EVs)
- gasoline consumed by an efficient hybrid (like the Prius): a realistic number is 0.05l/km (from a website which keeps track of actual mileage)
- SO2 emitted in a year: 2400 metric tonnes in 2019 (https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/83390NED/table?ts=1610469052046)
- electricity produced in a year: 121 TWh in 2019 (https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2020/12/elektriciteitsproductie-naar-recordhoogte)
- sulfur content of gasoline: 10ppm (https://www.fuelseurope.eu/interactive-graph/maximum-gasoline-sulphur-limits-2018/)

First gasoline emissions:
Gasoline has a density of 0.72kg/liter. 10ppm of 720gram of gasoline is sulphur: 720 * 10u (u = micro) = 7.2 milligram of sulphur per liter of gasoline. SO2 consists of 1 sulphur atom and 2 oxygen atoms. The two oxygen atoms are about equal in weight compared to the sulphur atom so the 7.2mgram of sulphur going in, results in 14.4 mgram of SO2 at the exhaust of a car. Per km: 14.4mgram * 0.05 =720 ugram per km.


EV emissions:
2400 tonnes is 2.4Ggram
2.4Ggram / 121TWh = 19.8 ugram per Wh. With 200Wh/km this means the emission is: 19.8ugram * 200 = 4mgram per km.

4mgram / 0.72mgram = 5.6 . This means that an EV resulted in 5.6 times more SO2 emissions compared to an efficient hybrid in 2019 while driving in the Netherlands.

Thanks for sharing. This study has some major issues however, (hopefully unintentional) cherry picking of metrics and misleading analysis.

This study only looks at SO2 emissions. Whilst SO2 is certainly a pollutant, it is not total GHG CO2 equivalent emissions which is the focus when discussion "zero emissions targets". Compounding this, you only look at the sulphur limits in the highly refined end-product gasoline. When considering GHG emissions for technology/policy path, you need to consider the complete embodied emissions not just "tail pipe emissions" e.g. you can't run cars on grey hydrogen then claim they are "zero emissions" particularly when at the same time you count the power station emissions for BEVs. Here you only only counted the tail pipe emissions from refine gasoline whilst comparing to bulk SO2 emissions from power sources which presumably burn "dirtier" fuels e.g. Coal or minimally processed natural gas.

You need to account for the emissions from extracting, transporting and in particular refining the gasoline.

If you could do a similar calculation using GHG CO2 equivalents and use total embodied emissions for petrol instead then I'd consider the study more valid.
Example embodied CO2 figure: 3140 grams CO2 per litre https://innovationorigins.com/en/producing-gasoline-and-diesel-emits-more-co2-than-we-thought/
Feel free to use higher quality alternative sources if you can find them.

[Someone]

EV emissions:
2400 tonnes is 2.4Ggram
2.4Ggram / 121TWh = 19.8 ugram per Wh. With 200Wh/km this means the emission is: 19.8ugram * 200 = 4mgram per km.

4mgram / 0.72mgram = 5.6 . This means that an EV resulted in 5.6 times more SO2 emissions compared to an efficient hybrid in 2019 while driving in the Netherlands.

US data will make you sad:
https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/power-plant-emission-trends
2020:
SO2 0.303 g/kWh
NOx 0.285 g/kWh
CO2 607 g/kWh

The upside is power plants tend to be away from population centres in the US (good for health, bad for district heating).

[wraper]

- SO2 emitted in a year: 2400 metric tonnes in 2019 (https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/83390NED/table?ts=1610469052046)
- electricity produced in a year: 121 TWh in 2019 (https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2020/12/elektriciteitsproductie-naar-recordhoogte)

As I see from that table, number for petroleum industry is more than 3 times higher than from electricity production, whatever that means.

Gasoline has a density of 0.72kg/liter. 10ppm of 720gram of gasoline is sulphur: 720 * 10u (u = micro) = 7.2 milligram of sulphur per liter of gasoline. SO2 consists of 1 sulphur atom and 2 oxygen atoms. The two oxygen atoms are about equal in weight compared to the sulphur atom so the 7.2mgram of sulphur going in, results in 14.4 mgram of SO2 at the exhaust of a car. Per km: 14.4mgram * 0.05 =720 ugram per km.

As if gasoline is pumped out from Earth as is and do not cause any pollution besides when burned in vehicles. Its production supposedly has net zero energy consumption and zero emissions.

[sandalcandal]

EV emissions:
2400 tonnes is 2.4Ggram
2.4Ggram / 121TWh = 19.8 ugram per Wh. With 200Wh/km this means the emission is: 19.8ugram * 200 = 4mgram per km.

4mgram / 0.72mgram = 5.6 . This means that an EV resulted in 5.6 times more SO2 emissions compared to an efficient hybrid in 2019 while driving in the Netherlands.

US data will make you sad:
https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/power-plant-emission-trends
2020:
SO2 0.303 g/kWh
NOx 0.285 g/kWh
CO2 607 g/kWh

The upside is power plants tend to be away from population centres in the US (good for health, bad for district heating).

Yeah there seems to be a pretty big difference between countries.

Source: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/en08-emissions-co2-so2-and/emissions-co2-so2-and-nox
[2015 numbers here https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/country-comparison-implied-emission-factors]

Fortunately for myself at least, we have had "100% renewable" for a while where I live. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02804-0

[nctnico]

I did this calculation a while ago so I used numbers from 2019

First you need a few numbers:
- electricity used by an EV: put a realistic number at 200Wh/km (from EPA looking at various EVs)
- gasoline consumed by an efficient hybrid (like the Prius): a realistic number is 0.05l/km (from a website which keeps track of actual mileage)
- SO2 emitted in a year: 2400 metric tonnes in 2019 (https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/83390NED/table?ts=1610469052046)
- electricity produced in a year: 121 TWh in 2019 (https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2020/12/elektriciteitsproductie-naar-recordhoogte)
- sulfur content of gasoline: 10ppm (https://www.fuelseurope.eu/interactive-graph/maximum-gasoline-sulphur-limits-2018/)

First gasoline emissions:
Gasoline has a density of 0.72kg/liter. 10ppm of 720gram of gasoline is sulphur: 720 * 10u (u = micro) = 7.2 milligram of sulphur per liter of gasoline. SO2 consists of 1 sulphur atom and 2 oxygen atoms. The two oxygen atoms are about equal in weight compared to the sulphur atom so the 7.2mgram of sulphur going in, results in 14.4 mgram of SO2 at the exhaust of a car. Per km: 14.4mgram * 0.05 =720 ugram per km.


EV emissions:
2400 tonnes is 2.4Ggram
2.4Ggram / 121TWh = 19.8 ugram per Wh. With 200Wh/km this means the emission is: 19.8ugram * 200 = 4mgram per km.

4mgram / 0.72mgram = 5.6 . This means that an EV resulted in 5.6 times more SO2 emissions compared to an efficient hybrid in 2019 while driving in the Netherlands.

Thanks for sharing. This study has some major issues however, (hopefully unintentional) cherry picking of metrics and misleading analysis.

This study only looks at SO2 emissions. Whilst SO2 is certainly a pollutant, it is not total GHG CO2 equivalent emissions which is the focus when discussion "zero emissions targets". Compounding this, you only look at the sulphur limits in the highly refined end-product gasoline. When considering GHG emissions for technology/policy path, you need to consider the complete embodied emissions not just "tail pipe emissions" e.g. you can't run cars on grey hydrogen then claim they are "zero emissions" particularly when at the same time you count the power station emissions for BEVs. Here you only only counted the tail pipe emissions from refine gasoline whilst comparing to bulk SO2 emissions from power sources which presumably burn "dirtier" fuels e.g. Coal or minimally processed natural gas.

You need to account for the emissions from extracting, transporting and in particular refining the gasoline.

If you could do a similar calculation using GHG CO2 equivalents and use total embodied emissions for petrol instead then I'd consider the study more valid.
Example embodied CO2 figure: 3140 grams CO2 per litre https://innovationorigins.com/en/producing-gasoline-and-diesel-emits-more-co2-than-we-thought/
Feel free to use higher quality alternative sources if you can find them.

Well, you can shuffle numbers around a lot and even calculate for specific areas but the conclusion will stay the same. IMHO it is a huge mistake to only look at CO2 emissions and forget about the rest. With China and the east coast of the US in mind, where SO2 pollution is huge due to electricity production, you can't go around and saying BEVs have a zero emission. It simply isn't true. Coal is horrible stuff to use for electricity production if you look at the death rate per unit of energy: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ SO2 can be filtered from the exhaust from a power plant (which does happen depending on local regulations) but this is only economical up to a certain point.

And you can make a similar calculation for NOx output which shows that a BEV sits around the maximum euro6 emission level based on the Dutch electricity production in 2019. A cursory look tells me that the hybrids from Toyota are well below the limit. On top of that the euro7 emission limits will be applied in a few years which are likely cutting the NOx limits by half. Reducing SO2 output is relatively simple: stop using coal for electricity production. However NOx reduction is much harder; the primary alternative fuel for coal is natural gas and that causes formation of NOx as well.

My point is that you have to look at the bigger picture to make sure that a solution to one problem doesn't cause a new problem (or prolongs an existing problem). There is a good reason why there is a maximum of 10ppm sulphur in road transport fuel which has been adopted by all countries in the northern hemisphere (including China). In the past the Dutch government has granted a lot of subsidies for burning bio-mass. However they forgot/overlooked that burning bio-mass causes a lot of pollution so it is not a good solution to reduce CO2 emissions. Fortunately somebody woke up and raised awareness about the pollution from burning bio-mass and subsidies where halted immediately.

[sandalcandal]

Well, you can shuffle numbers around a lot and even calculate for specific areas but the conclusion will stay the same. IMHO it is a huge mistake to only look at CO2 emissions and forget about the rest. With China and the east coast of the US in mind, where SO2 pollution is huge due to electricity production, you can't go around and saying BEVs have a zero emission. It simply isn't true. Coal is horrible stuff to use for electricity production if you look at the death rate per unit of energy: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ SO2 can be filtered from the exhaust from a power plant (which does happen depending on local regulations) but this is only economical up to a certain point.

And you can make a similar calculation for NOx output which shows that a BEV sits around the maximum euro6 emission level based on the Dutch electricity production in 2019. A cursory look tells me that the hybrids from Toyota are well below the limit. On top of that the euro7 emission limits will be applied in a few years which are likely cutting the NOx limits by half. Reducing SO2 output is relatively simple: stop using coal for electricity production. However NOx reduction is much harder; the primary alternative fuel for coal is natural gas and that causes formation of NOx as well.

My point is that you have to look at the bigger picture to make sure that a solution to one problem doesn't cause a new problem (or prolongs an existing problem). There is a good reason why there is a maximum of 10ppm sulphur in road transport fuel which has been adopted by all countries in the northern hemisphere (including China). In the past the Dutch government has granted a lot of subsidies for burning bio-mass. However they forgot/overlooked that burning bio-mass causes a lot of pollution so it is not a good solution to reduce CO2 emissions. Fortunately somebody woke up and raised awareness about the pollution from burning bio-mass and subsidies where halted immediately.

You've really done no convincing "you can shuffle numbers around a lot and even calculate for specific areas but the conclusion will stay the same". Even if you want to shift the discussion to just looking at NOx and SO2, you completely ignore production and transport emissions for refined petroleum and that's not even considering the ability to move away fossil fuel grid to "zero emissions" production. This lack of "bigger picture" consideration which you point out with your bio-fuel example is exactly what your analysis lacks [I agree bio-fuels are generally terrible].

[Jeroen3]

Not any vehicle is good for the enviroment. But EV's in cities are at least good for the people who live and work there.

... I have never seen a hydrogen car on the road, not even one.

I have seen a hydrogen bus once! It's like a normal bus with an backpack. I guess they do this because refeuling is slow. Most other busses here drive on natural gas.
Also, a hydrogen bus burnt down last week.

Back to Hertz, I guess they could get a discount, but they also wanted some fleet management features to be developed?

[f4eru]

Thanks for sharing. This study has some major issues however, (hopefully unintentional) cherry picking of metrics and misleading analysis.

'Cherry picking metrics is kind of a signature of Nctnico.
Appart from that it's clearly invalid.
SO2 emissions figure used is global, not only for electricity generation. This figure contains also a lot emitted by a lot of industry process.
Also, like SO2 is not the only relevant metric.

[nctnico]

Thanks for sharing. This study has some major issues however, (hopefully unintentional) cherry picking of metrics and misleading analysis.

'Cherry picking metrics is kind of a signature of Nctnico.
Appart from that it's clearly invalid.
SO2 emissions figure used is global, not only for electricity generation. This figure contains also a lot emitted by a lot of industry process.

No, the SO2 emission number is specifically for electricity production only. Not for all industry processes. So nice try, but no sigar for you.

[nctnico]

Well, you can shuffle numbers around a lot and even calculate for specific areas but the conclusion will stay the same. IMHO it is a huge mistake to only look at CO2 emissions and forget about the rest. With China and the east coast of the US in mind, where SO2 pollution is huge due to electricity production, you can't go around and saying BEVs have a zero emission. It simply isn't true. Coal is horrible stuff to use for electricity production if you look at the death rate per unit of energy: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ SO2 can be filtered from the exhaust from a power plant (which does happen depending on local regulations) but this is only economical up to a certain point.

And you can make a similar calculation for NOx output which shows that a BEV sits around the maximum euro6 emission level based on the Dutch electricity production in 2019. A cursory look tells me that the hybrids from Toyota are well below the limit. On top of that the euro7 emission limits will be applied in a few years which are likely cutting the NOx limits by half. Reducing SO2 output is relatively simple: stop using coal for electricity production. However NOx reduction is much harder; the primary alternative fuel for coal is natural gas and that causes formation of NOx as well.

My point is that you have to look at the bigger picture to make sure that a solution to one problem doesn't cause a new problem (or prolongs an existing problem). There is a good reason why there is a maximum of 10ppm sulphur in road transport fuel which has been adopted by all countries in the northern hemisphere (including China). In the past the Dutch government has granted a lot of subsidies for burning bio-mass. However they forgot/overlooked that burning bio-mass causes a lot of pollution so it is not a good solution to reduce CO2 emissions. Fortunately somebody woke up and raised awareness about the pollution from burning bio-mass and subsidies where halted immediately.

You've really done no convincing "you can shuffle numbers around a lot and even calculate for specific areas but the conclusion will stay the same". Even if you want to shift the discussion to just looking at NOx and SO2, you completely ignore production and transport emissions for refined petroleum and that's not even considering the ability to move away fossil fuel grid to "zero emissions" production. This lack of "bigger picture" consideration which you point out with your bio-fuel example is exactly what your analysis lacks [I agree bio-fuels are generally terrible].

Which bio-fuel example? That hasn't come up in this thread.
Alternatively you try to shift back to CO2 emissions only which is not painting a complete picture. Removing SO2 is part of the refinery process. That likely makes it less efficient where it comes to CO2 output but in the end CO2 is a not an immediate problem. SO2 and NOx are problems that negatively affect health right now. Again, it is a huge mistake to put sole focus on CO2 because there are other important emissions that need attention. That should be pretty clear without doing lots of calculations that lead to the same conclusion in the end.

[Siwastaja]

I agree that CO2 isn't the only metric. EVs shine especially in reduction of all the cancerous or poisonous crap from where people live.

Filtering, scrubbing, chemically converting particulates, NOx and sulphur compounds is obviously easiest to do in a large centralized facility which can run the process continuously, invest into the required machines (which will see high duty cycles of use), and monitor that the process is is control. Authorities can also monitor if the companies follow the regulations. Also efficiency is colossally high like 60% just for electricity production and then some of the waste heat used for district heating.

Compare to cars, where we have smoke&mirrors for "cleaning" emissions, which need special software to detect when the emissions are being measured to fake the results. The systems can't be expensive as the duty cycle of Average Joe's car is a few % so any expensive process is going to be a colossal waste of resources. Also efficiency is like 20%.

Burning energy sources is in all regards so much easier done on the industrial scale. The fact that it's messy in certain countries is purely political.

[sandalcandal]

Well, you can shuffle numbers around a lot and even calculate for specific areas but the conclusion will stay the same. IMHO it is a huge mistake to only look at CO2 emissions and forget about the rest. With China and the east coast of the US in mind, where SO2 pollution is huge due to electricity production, you can't go around and saying BEVs have a zero emission. It simply isn't true. Coal is horrible stuff to use for electricity production if you look at the death rate per unit of energy: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ SO2 can be filtered from the exhaust from a power plant (which does happen depending on local regulations) but this is only economical up to a certain point.

And you can make a similar calculation for NOx output which shows that a BEV sits around the maximum euro6 emission level based on the Dutch electricity production in 2019. A cursory look tells me that the hybrids from Toyota are well below the limit. On top of that the euro7 emission limits will be applied in a few years which are likely cutting the NOx limits by half. Reducing SO2 output is relatively simple: stop using coal for electricity production. However NOx reduction is much harder; the primary alternative fuel for coal is natural gas and that causes formation of NOx as well.

My point is that you have to look at the bigger picture to make sure that a solution to one problem doesn't cause a new problem (or prolongs an existing problem). There is a good reason why there is a maximum of 10ppm sulphur in road transport fuel which has been adopted by all countries in the northern hemisphere (including China). In the past the Dutch government has granted a lot of subsidies for burning bio-mass. However they forgot/overlooked that burning bio-mass causes a lot of pollution so it is not a good solution to reduce CO2 emissions. Fortunately somebody woke up and raised awareness about the pollution from burning bio-mass and subsidies where halted immediately.

You've really done no convincing "you can shuffle numbers around a lot and even calculate for specific areas but the conclusion will stay the same". Even if you want to shift the discussion to just looking at NOx and SO2, you completely ignore production and transport emissions for refined petroleum and that's not even considering the ability to move away fossil fuel grid to "zero emissions" production. This lack of "bigger picture" consideration which you point out with your bio-fuel example is exactly what your analysis lacks [I agree bio-fuels are generally terrible].

Which bio-fuel example? That hasn't come up in this thread.
Alternatively you try to shift back to CO2 emissions only which is not painting a complete picture. Removing SO2 is part of the refinery process. That likely makes it less efficient where it comes to CO2 output but in the end CO2 is a not an immediate problem. SO2 and NOx are problems that negatively affect health right now. Again, it is a huge mistake to put sole focus on CO2 because there are other important emissions that need attention. That should be pretty clear without doing lots of calculations that lead to the same conclusion in the end.

See highlighted.

Even then, you haven't given evidence [total] pollution from petrol use is better than BEVs for GHG in general (note GHG CO2 equivalents include NOx and other pollutants) or SO2/NOx by themselves. Even then you haven't done any quantification of reduction benefits for SO2, >30 years years ago SO2 and NOx with resultant acid rain was a problem and action was taken but I doubt they should considered a "priority" still.

Even then the problem is clearly with "dirty" power stations which will require replacement independent of vehicle usage.

There's so much ridiculous cognitive bias and lack of intellectual honesty here I'd better stop wasting my time.

[Siwastaja]

There's so much ridiculous cognitive bias and lack of intellectual honesty here I don't I'd better stop wasting my time.

I'm sorry to say but that's almost always that way when dealing with this person, sadly, because I know he could do better. Often there is some very actual point which would be worth discussing about, but it's hidden inside some pretty twisted logic and weird emphasis which magnifies trivial problems to make them appear colossally difficult, or the other way around, twist actually hard problems into "almost there" future tech to believe in.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I think this topic is best split to its own thread.
Wow, no discount on 100,000 cars. Why would you do that?

Because they don't need to. They can sell every car they make and then some.
I'm sure VW & others would have bent over backwards to get that deal.
For a rental company, I'm sure the supercharger network was a major deciding factor.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Also, Tesla market cap has exceeded $1T and kept up there (so far). 

They will get totally wrecked in any market correction.

Even with the number of cars they project to sell there is no possible justification for this stock price. How many more cars does Ford sell, at what profit, and look at Ford's market cap.

The stock market is insane.

Tesla is not just a car company. The market is only just starting to wake up to their potential for future revenue.
Most legacy auto comapanies just don't know what's coming, and are heading to bankrupcy in a decade.

[nctnico]

Well, you can shuffle numbers around a lot and even calculate for specific areas but the conclusion will stay the same. IMHO it is a huge mistake to only look at CO2 emissions and forget about the rest. With China and the east coast of the US in mind, where SO2 pollution is huge due to electricity production, you can't go around and saying BEVs have a zero emission. It simply isn't true. Coal is horrible stuff to use for electricity production if you look at the death rate per unit of energy: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ SO2 can be filtered from the exhaust from a power plant (which does happen depending on local regulations) but this is only economical up to a certain point.

And you can make a similar calculation for NOx output which shows that a BEV sits around the maximum euro6 emission level based on the Dutch electricity production in 2019. A cursory look tells me that the hybrids from Toyota are well below the limit. On top of that the euro7 emission limits will be applied in a few years which are likely cutting the NOx limits by half. Reducing SO2 output is relatively simple: stop using coal for electricity production. However NOx reduction is much harder; the primary alternative fuel for coal is natural gas and that causes formation of NOx as well.

My point is that you have to look at the bigger picture to make sure that a solution to one problem doesn't cause a new problem (or prolongs an existing problem). There is a good reason why there is a maximum of 10ppm sulphur in road transport fuel which has been adopted by all countries in the northern hemisphere (including China). In the past the Dutch government has granted a lot of subsidies for burning bio-mass. However they forgot/overlooked that burning bio-mass causes a lot of pollution so it is not a good solution to reduce CO2 emissions. Fortunately somebody woke up and raised awareness about the pollution from burning bio-mass and subsidies where halted immediately.

You've really done no convincing "you can shuffle numbers around a lot and even calculate for specific areas but the conclusion will stay the same". Even if you want to shift the discussion to just looking at NOx and SO2, you completely ignore production and transport emissions for refined petroleum and that's not even considering the ability to move away fossil fuel grid to "zero emissions" production. This lack of "bigger picture" consideration which you point out with your bio-fuel example is exactly what your analysis lacks [I agree bio-fuels are generally terrible].

Which bio-fuel example? That hasn't come up in this thread.
Alternatively you try to shift back to CO2 emissions only which is not painting a complete picture. Removing SO2 is part of the refinery process. That likely makes it less efficient where it comes to CO2 output but in the end CO2 is a not an immediate problem. SO2 and NOx are problems that negatively affect health right now. Again, it is a huge mistake to put sole focus on CO2 because there are other important emissions that need attention. That should be pretty clear without doing lots of calculations that lead to the same conclusion in the end.

See highlighted.

Ah. You got me on the wrong track there because in my mind bio-fuel is liquid and bio-mass is solid.

There's so much ridiculous cognitive bias and lack of intellectual honesty here I don't I'd better stop wasting my time.

I'm sorry to say but that's almost always that way when dealing with this person, sadly, because I know he could do better.

Well, to be more clear I'd would need to start writing books instead of short posts. But since I don't have time to write books you have to make do with the short posts. And I will admit I'm not the best communicator out there. People either get it or not.

[ejeffrey]

I think this topic is best split to its own thread.
Wow, no discount on 100,000 cars. Why would you do that?

Because they don't need to. They can sell every car they make and then some.
I'm sure VW & others would have bent over backwards to get that deal.
For a rental company, I'm sure the supercharger network was a major deciding factor.

Also Hertz is coming out of bankruptcy and looking to get attention and draw customers in.  A fleet of Teslas does that in a way that a fleet of VW ID.4 doesn't.  The only thing even close to the noteriety at the price point is the mustang Mach E.  Hertz is probably also concerned about the residual value.  They probably aren't going to keep these forever.
 Go look up the market price for a 2 year old tesla vs any other EV and Tesla will come out ahead of most if not all other long range EVs when talking about a rental fleet.

[james_s]

I think this topic is best split to its own thread.
Wow, no discount on 100,000 cars. Why would you do that?

Because they don't need to. They can sell every car they make and then some.
I'm sure VW & others would have bent over backwards to get that deal.
For a rental company, I'm sure the supercharger network was a major deciding factor.

I guess a better question is as a rental car company, why would you buy a massive order of cars with no discount when as you say, a company like VW probably would have bent over backwards and provided a huge discount.

[BrokenYugo]

Can anyone else actually deliver 100,000 cars given the current shortages? Can Tesla for that matter? Dealership lots around here that are normally full of new cars are 80-90% empty.

The incentive here may be as simple as Tesla is currently the only automaker willing to guarantee a delivery schedule.

[Jeroen3]

I think this topic is best split to its own thread.
Wow, no discount on 100,000 cars. Why would you do that?

Because they don't need to. They can sell every car they make and then some.
I'm sure VW & others would have bent over backwards to get that deal.
For a rental company, I'm sure the supercharger network was a major deciding factor.

I guess a better question is as a rental car company, why would you buy a massive order of cars with no discount when as you say, a company like VW probably would have bent over backwards and provided a huge discount.

From what I read Tesla still is superior in EV-feature-wise, range, charging, built-in all around dashcam, key management via smartphone. Very nice for rental fleets I suppose.
And, note sure if they will, but they could drive themselves from the parking lot to the office where you rented one, would be awesome right?

Yes, VW and others probably have better overall durability, but I think that maintenance wise the EVs are cheaper anyways.

[sandalcandal]

There's so much ridiculous cognitive bias and lack of intellectual honesty here I don't I'd better stop wasting my time.

I'm sorry to say but that's almost always that way when dealing with this person, sadly, because I know he could do better.

Well, to be more clear I'd would need to start writing books instead of short posts. But since I don't have time to write books you have to make do with the short posts. And I will admit I'm not the best communicator out there. People either get it or not.

The issue is of quality, not quantity (length of posts or details). Maybe I've made it feel like you could be more convincing if you just added a more detail because I'm trying to give concessions where possible give you the best chance of proving your assertions but to make it completely explicit, there is a problem with the quality of thinking behind the posts you made (in my opinion) not quality of writing or quantity of details.

[EEVblog]

Wow, no discount on 100,000 cars. Why would you do that?

Last year Tesla produced 500,000 vehicles, it might manage 750k this year.  It's a product that Tesla has no problem selling at it's current production level, there's little incentive  to give a big discount to a bulk buyer, it's the same amount of work and if they could just as easily drive them off the line to the "general sale" lot instead of the "deliver to Hertz" lot.

The publicity is worth it though. Tesla's are kinda meh these days, the buzz is wearing off.
In this case it worked out, they bought them anyway. But what is they decided to buy 100,000 IONIQ 5's instead?

[EEVblog]

I think this topic is best split to its own thread.
Wow, no discount on 100,000 cars. Why would you do that?

Because they don't need to. They can sell every car they make and then some.
I'm sure VW & others would have bent over backwards to get that deal.
For a rental company, I'm sure the supercharger network was a major deciding factor.

Yes, I suspect so.
You don't want millions of Joe Average's complaining about not being able to charge it.
Still, I guarantee you'll see plenty of this:

[ejeffrey]

Wow, no discount on 100,000 cars. Why would you do that?

Last year Tesla produced 500,000 vehicles, it might manage 750k this year.  It's a product that Tesla has no problem selling at it's current production level, there's little incentive  to give a big discount to a bulk buyer, it's the same amount of work and if they could just as easily drive them off the line to the "general sale" lot instead of the "deliver to Hertz" lot.

The publicity is worth it though. Tesla's are kinda meh these days, the buzz is wearing off.
In this case it worked out, they bought them anyway. But what is they decided to buy 100,000 IONIQ 5's instead?

In the US at least there is still nothing with even remotely the same buzz as Tesla.  Hertz needs the buzz more than Tesla.  As good as I have heard the ioniq 5 is, the average American rental car customer is just going to see it as a boring Hyundai that they don't know where to charge.

[james_s]

Yes, I suspect so.
You don't want millions of Joe Average's complaining about not being able to charge it.
Still, I guarantee you'll see plenty of this:

When I was driving my dad's Tesla there were a a couple of times when the charge was getting low and I was about to drive past a gas station and thought "Oh I should... oh wait..." It's hard to get out of that habit of "I'm low on fuel, I should stop at the next gas station I see."

[james_s]

In the US at least there is still nothing with even remotely the same buzz as Tesla.  Hertz needs the buzz more than Tesla.  As good as I have heard the ioniq 5 is, the average American rental car customer is just going to see it as a boring Hyundai that they don't know where to charge.

I definitely agree there. I've driven several different EVs, Kia, Nissan, Ford and they were perfectly fine cars, felt remarkably like driving any other economy car, nothing wrong with it but nothing remarkable either, just boring transportation appliances that happen to run off electricity instead of gasoline. Tesla on the other hand is in an entirely different class. I've driven a few quite powerful ICE cars, stuff like BMW M3s, one that had an aftermarket supercharger and was really quick, WRX STi, that sort of thing. None of those match the performance of even a base model Tesla, it's not even close. A Tesla 3 or Y is in exotic supercar territory, at least at the speeds a sane person would drive on a public road. The only vehicle that I've ever been on that is even remotely in the same class is a sport bike and that isn't really a fair comparison to a car. As much as I hate the dashboard design of the Tesla, I would just about consider buying one if I still drove enough to be in the market for a newish car. There's just nothing else like them on the road, they have no competition.

[EEVblog]

Yes, I suspect so.
You don't want millions of Joe Average's complaining about not being able to charge it.
Still, I guarantee you'll see plenty of this:

When I was driving my dad's Tesla there were a a couple of times when the charge was getting low and I was about to drive past a gas station and thought "Oh I should... oh wait..." It's hard to get out of that habit of "I'm low on fuel, I should stop at the next gas station I see."

I can see it beign a huge intitial problem with electric hire cars. Only a very small percentage of people are familar with driving an electric car and the potential planing required.

[nfmax]

This should increase the incentive for hotels, conference centres, airports & the like to install Tesla chargers, to attract the business traveller using Hertz cars. Some exchange of funds may take place, though in which direction I'm not sure.

I would expect "Valet charging" to become a thing, as well

[sandalcandal]

Apparently Tesla and Hertz haven't even signed a contract (yet)?? Starting to smell a bit fishy
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1455351085170823169

[...]
I’d like to emphasize that no contract has been signed yet.

Tesla has far more demand than production, therefore we will only sell cars to Hertz for the same margin as to consumers.

Hertz deal has zero effect on our economics.

[EEVblog]

Apparently Tesla and Hertz haven't even signed a contract (yet)?? Starting to smell a bit fishy
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1455351085170823169

 
Maybe they just entered 100,000 into the web shopping cart and got a quote.

[sandalcandal]

Apparently Tesla and Hertz haven't even signed a contract (yet)?? Starting to smell a bit fishy
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1455351085170823169

 
Maybe they just entered 100,000 into the web shopping cart and got a quote.

Maybe it was mostly intended as a PR play? Getting the US grid iron star for their ads probably wasn't cheap but maybe not that much compared to $4.2B?

[EEVblog]

Apparently Tesla and Hertz haven't even signed a contract (yet)?? Starting to smell a bit fishy
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1455351085170823169

 
Maybe they just entered 100,000 into the web shopping cart and got a quote.

Maybe it was mostly intended as a PR play? Getting the US grid iron star for their ads probably wasn't cheap but maybe not that much compared to $4.2B?

With hindsight it's obvious what happened here. Here is hte actual press release:
https://ir.hertz.com/2021-10-27-Hertz-Partners-with-Uber-to-Add-Up-to-50,000-Teslas-to-Uber-Network-by-2023

No where in there does it say htey actually ordered 100,000 Tesla's, but in fact says

On Monday, Hertz announced its most significant investment to offer the largest EV rental fleet in North America and one of the largest in the world. This includes an initial order of 100,000 Teslas by the end of 2022 and new EV charging infrastructure across Hertz's global operations.

That means they will order them but the end of 2022. The media ignores that and runs with the juicy headline.

[Gyro]

I wonder if this means that there will be a glut of second-hand Teslas coming onto the market in a few years time. If so, i wonder when this will be? They normally wait until the engines run out of oil before they offload them. That will be more difficult with EVs, maybe wait until the tires are down to the fabric!

[sandalcandal]

With hindsight it's obvious what happened here. Here is hte actual press release:
https://ir.hertz.com/2021-10-27-Hertz-Partners-with-Uber-to-Add-Up-to-50,000-Teslas-to-Uber-Network-by-2023

No where in there does it say htey actually ordered 100,000 Tesla's, but in fact says

Wrong news piece. Look at the dates and number of Teslas. This happened after the original 100 000 announcement. This is the "(Update: potentially expanding to 150 000)".

Hertz also entering partnership with Uber to offer 50 000 Teslas for Uber drivers in the US
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/uber-partners-with-hertz-offer-50000-tesla-rentals-us-ride-hail-drivers-2021-10-27/
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/uber-rent-tesla-partnership/

Also looks like they plan to increase the fleet size further to 150 000 over the next 3 years in response to the deal with Uber and public interest
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/hertz-says-it-could-provide-150000-teslas-uber-up-an-initial-50000-2021-10-28/
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/hertz-says-it-may-expand-supply-of-teslas-to-uber-to-150000-2021-10-28

Here is the correct one dated 2 days earlier: https://ir.hertz.com/2021-10-25-Hertz-Invests-in-Largest-Electric-Vehicle-Rental-Fleet-and-Partners-with-Seven-Time-Super-Bowl-Champion-Tom-Brady-to-Headline-New-Campaign

As consumer interest in electric vehicles (EV) skyrockets, Hertz today is announcing a significant investment to offer the largest EV rental fleet in North America and one of the largest in the world. This includes an initial order of 100,000 Teslas by the end of 2022 and new EV charging infrastructure across the company's global operations.

[BrokenYugo]

I wonder if this means that there will be a glut of second-hand Teslas coming onto the market in a few years time. If so, i wonder when this will be? They normally wait until the engines run out of oil before they offload them. That will be more difficult with EVs, maybe wait until the tires are down to the fabric!

That is an interesting point. I imagine if nothing else they'll dump them past a certain point of battery degradation, people won't be happy if they rent a 300 mile electric car that won't actually do 300 miles. Google says Tesla claims like 90% capacity@200k miles, but that's certainly not accounting for beating on it like rental car and probably level 3 charging whenever available.

[james_s]

It will be an interesting real world test of the cars and I will be curious to see the results if they are made available. I think what is most likely is the cars will be sold off when they start to get a bit tatty looking. Worn upholstery, interior smells, dings and dents, curbed wheels, most rental car companies try to provide clean good condition cars.

[sandalcandal]

Avis jumping on the the EV hype train too

“You’ll see us going forward be much more active in electric scenarios as the situation develops,” Chief Executive Officer Joe Ferraro told analysts on a conference call Tuesday.
[...]
“The reason you haven’t heard from us publicly is because for competitive reasons, we like to execute on our strategy before announcing it,” Chief Financial Officer Brian Choi said on the call.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-02/avis-ceo-says-he-ll-add-more-electric-cars-to-fleet-over-time
https://www.yahoo.com/news/avis-shares-more-double-revenue-141002555.html (free reprint)

[floobydust]

I don't think Tesla can fill these orders anyhow.
4680 battery demand is through the roof, Texas Gigafactory still is not in production and it's been 16 months, still erecting steel.
Gigafactory Berlin looks about in the same state.

Oh yeah, how's the Cybertruck. Did you pay the deposit Nov. 2019 only to to not know the final selling price and wait wait wait lol.
It does take years to build capacity, but the marketing hype and blind investors have the cart before the horse.

How's the resale value of Teslas? I have to confirm but an acquaintance wanted to trade in X P100D two years old and Tesla offered CAD $85K- which is quite the hit.

[EEVblog]

Here is the correct one dated 2 days earlier: https://ir.hertz.com/2021-10-25-Hertz-Invests-in-Largest-Electric-Vehicle-Rental-Fleet-and-Partners-with-Seven-Time-Super-Bowl-Champion-Tom-Brady-to-Headline-New-Campaign

As consumer interest in electric vehicles (EV) skyrockets, Hertz today is announcing a significant investment to offer the largest EV rental fleet in North America and one of the largest in the world. This includes an initial order of 100,000 Teslas by the end of 2022 and new EV charging infrastructure across the company's global operations.

Exactly the same wording. And it's very deliberate to make you think they have just ordered 100,000 Tesla's. Standard marketing trick.

[sandalcandal]

How's the resale value of Teslas? I have to confirm but an acquaintance wanted to trade in X P100D two years old and Tesla offered CAD $85K- which is quite the hit.

Resale value of Teslas is abnormally high from what I've seen. Your acquaintance was probably getting screwed around with a trade-in offer.
https://www.iseecars.com/cars-to-buy-used-study
https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/advice-what-is-my-used-electric-car-worth-120962/
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33935142/tesla-model-3-depreciate-electric-car/

[sandalcandal]

Here is the correct one dated 2 days earlier: https://ir.hertz.com/2021-10-25-Hertz-Invests-in-Largest-Electric-Vehicle-Rental-Fleet-and-Partners-with-Seven-Time-Super-Bowl-Champion-Tom-Brady-to-Headline-New-Campaign

As consumer interest in electric vehicles (EV) skyrockets, Hertz today is announcing a significant investment to offer the largest EV rental fleet in North America and one of the largest in the world. This includes an initial order of 100,000 Teslas by the end of 2022 and new EV charging infrastructure across the company's global operations.

Exactly the same wording. And it's very deliberate to make you think they have just ordered 100,000 Tesla's. Standard marketing trick.

Well, they are doubling down on their claims.

“As we announced last week, Hertz has made an initial order of 100,000 Tesla electric vehicles and is investing in new EV charging infrastructure across the company’s global operations,” she [Lauren Luster] said in an emailed statement. “Deliveries of the Teslas already have started. We are seeing very strong early demand for Teslas in our rental fleet, which reflects market demand for Tesla vehicles.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/02/hertz-says-teslas-already-started-delivering-cars-despite-musk-tweet.html
Musk tossing Hertz under the bus a bit here lol

[floobydust]

Resale data seems to be based only on a "lightly-used" Model 3 at the one website so I am suspicious.
I mention it because rental cars are usually young, they don't keep them around. Not sure how old Hertz' fleet is, but it would be interesting to see how long they plan to run them.

This is hilarious, glad I got the horn fart sound update:
"One reason Teslas defy the high depreciation of the EV segment is because over-the-air software updates help keep even the older versions current. As such, consumers are likely willing to pay higher prices for the Model S and Model X than what they are willing to pay for other used luxury vehicles."

So far this Hertz deal announcement seems premature.

[ejeffrey]

How's the resale value of Teslas? I have to confirm but an acquaintance wanted to trade in X P100D two years old and Tesla offered CAD $85K- which is quite the hit.

I'm not sure what the trade-in value is but the private party resale price and the Tesla used vehicle prices are pretty high, some of the highest in the industry for their segments.  Luxury cars in general do loose a lot of value in the first few years, and especially high trim / highly optioned vehicles vehicles are often worth barely more than the base model.  Still $85k sounds low for such a vehicle unless it was very high mileage or had something wrong with it.

[james_s]

"One reason Teslas defy the high depreciation of the EV segment is because over-the-air software updates help keep even the older versions current. As such, consumers are likely willing to pay higher prices for the Model S and Model X than what they are willing to pay for other used luxury vehicles."

I find frequent updates to my gadgets to be a nuisance rather than a desirable feature. Go ahead and patch security holes but don't screw with the UI/UX. I've been burned so many times (not by Tesla but I don't own one) by updates that broke stuff that I'm extremely hesitant to update anything. Every time I do give in and let something update that breaks something or makes it worse it reinforces that feeling.

[EEVblog]

"One reason Teslas defy the high depreciation of the EV segment is because over-the-air software updates help keep even the older versions current. As such, consumers are likely willing to pay higher prices for the Model S and Model X than what they are willing to pay for other used luxury vehicles."

I find frequent updates to my gadgets to be a nuisance rather than a desirable feature. Go ahead and patch security holes but don't screw with the UI/UX. I've been burned so many times (not by Tesla but I don't own one) by updates that broke stuff that I'm extremely hesitant to update anything. Every time I do give in and let something update that breaks something or makes it worse it reinforces that feeling.

I did an update on my IONIQ. Worst thing I ever did.
They changed a ton of stuff that made it harder to use, and completely removed (as in GONE) a useful driving histogram display I had on the console all the time. I was pissed off.

[EEVblog]

Well, they are doubling down on their claims.

“As we announced last week, Hertz has made an initial order of 100,000 Tesla electric vehicles and is investing in new EV charging infrastructure across the company’s global operations,” she [Lauren Luster] said in an emailed statement. “Deliveries of the Teslas already have started. We are seeing very strong early demand for Teslas in our rental fleet, which reflects market demand for Tesla vehicles.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/02/hertz-says-teslas-already-started-delivering-cars-despite-musk-tweet.html
Musk tossing Hertz under the bus a bit here lol

Anyone can buy a Tesla on the website, including Hertz. They are bullshiting to make it sound like they have done a deal with Tesla which has vastly more PR value.

[james_s]

I did an update on my IONIQ. Worst thing I ever did.
They changed a ton of stuff that made it harder to use, and completely removed (as in GONE) a useful driving histogram display I had on the console all the time. I was pissed off.

It really burns me up when they rip out perfectly working features for no apparent reason. A while back I had to fight in my day job to keep a feature that was going to be removed because data showed it was rarely used. It may be rarely used but it was also fully working and had not required any work in a long time, so why invest effort to remove it? Even if only one customer finds it useful, it's already there, just leave it alone.

[EEVblog]

I did an update on my IONIQ. Worst thing I ever did.
They changed a ton of stuff that made it harder to use, and completely removed (as in GONE) a useful driving histogram display I had on the console all the time. I was pissed off.

It really burns me up when they rip out perfectly working features for no apparent reason. A while back I had to fight in my day job to keep a feature that was going to be removed because data showed it was rarely used. It may be rarely used but it was also fully working and had not required any work in a long time, so why invest effort to remove it? Even if only one customer finds it useful, it's already there, just leave it alone.

Youtube did that with Annotations.
I had hundreds of videos with technical correction annotations on them, all gone in an instant because they claimed hardly anyone used it.

[sandalcandal]

Hertz just re-listed on and did a $1.3B raise on the NASDAQ


Well planned hype, will see if they can execute.

[Bud]

Also, Tesla market cap has exceeded $1T and kept up there (so far). 

They will get totally wrecked in any market correction.

It is coming, baby, 17% down over the last week   

[wraper]

Also, Tesla market cap has exceeded $1T and kept up there (so far). 

They will get totally wrecked in any market correction.

It is coming, baby, 17% down over the last week   

Most likely it's because of Elon's twitter voting if he should sell 10% of his shares.

[Bud]

But that makes no difference to Joe The Investor who gives no shit to how Musk pays taxes, and actually clearly confirms volatility of Tesla stock ! Slightest negative news and it dives nose down.

[f4eru]

Doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

[EEVblog]

But that makes no difference to Joe The Investor who gives no shit to how Musk pays taxes

I watched part of an interview with him the other month, and he said he had paid circa 50% tax on exercising his share options or something.

[mikeselectricstuff]

But that makes no difference to Joe The Investor who gives no shit to how Musk pays taxes

I watched part of an interview with him the other month, and he said he had paid circa 50% tax on exercising his share options or something.

This explains it :

TL;DR he will owe a lot of tax when he excercises is stock options next year, so this sale provides the cash to pay that tax bill. The Twitter poll stuff was just Elon being Elon.