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

[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.