Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Shorting Oil, Hedging Tesla

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
But does CF really matter that much? A good PEM electrolyzer may have 60k to 80k operating hours of useful life. Suppose for example that you get 80k hours for 200 euro/kW (based on an actual projection one electrolyzer putting out there).
Which electrolyzer is 200/kW? I've heard 300 for some crappy (subsidized?) Chinese ones. Nikola used these kind of numbers and were widely mocked. Did they have it right all along?

RE actually has little incentive to overbuild if the market spends too much time with zero or even negative prices.
Great point. The articles celebrating negative prices in TX or wherever get it entirely wrong. Zero and negative pricing is terrible for renewable penetration.

Thus if the fleet of electrolyzers has sufficient MW capacity, it can consume cheap power and keep the price of power from falling too far below 20 euro/MWh,
Massive EV fleets hooked to smart chargers during the day (e.g. at work) could happily soak up that 2 cent/kWh electricity. Unfortunately our EV fleet is tiny, and will still be way too small in 2030.

Look at those CA charts. CA electricity and transport could be carbon free today with ~20 GW of baseload nuclear millions of EVs sucking up those 2 cent kWhs at noon and feeding them back during the evening "duck's head" and early AM "duck's tail" using V2H. Of course CA won't build nuclear. Heck, in their bid to out-stupid the Germans they even shut down perfectly good existing plants. They they turn around and squeal about the climate crisis. And pout when Joe Manchin doesn't take them seriously.

The "overbuild and curtail" crowd is only looking at power generation issues, but the real economic solutions are on the demand side.
Absolutely. In addition to EVs , commercial Ice-AC is good demand-side solution.
 
Look at those CA charts. CA electricity and transport could be carbon free today with ~20 GW of baseload nuclear millions of EVs sucking up those 2 cent kWhs at noon and feeding them back during the evening "duck's head" and early AM "duck's tail" using V2H. Of course CA won't build nuclear. Heck, in their bid to out-stupid the Germans they even shut down perfectly good existing plants. They they turn around and squeal about the climate crisis. And pout when Joe Manchin doesn't take them seriously.


Absolutely. In addition to EVs , commercial Ice-AC is good demand-side solution.

You're misunderstanding something. Although nuclear is indeed zero-emissions, it isn't environmentally friendly, nor cost-effective. San Onofre was the trigger that brought about the demise of nuclear in CA. With Fukushima still fresh in everyone's minds, the leak found in San Onofre, followed by the failure of Mitsubishi to provide functional cooling pipes for the steam generators proved that aging nuclear power plants were undependable.

There are no new nuclear plants anywhere in the US, and the ones in CA are at least 30 years old. Although their "design life" might say 50 years, the reality isn't anywhere near that. And unlike fossil-fueled power plants, a nuclear plant breakdown isn't something that can be fixed/patched overnight. Releasing radioactive steam into the cooling seawater (which ends up out in the ocean) isn't an "oops" moment either. With that kind of track record, why is it so unreasonable to decommission the rest of them?
 
EV fleets hooked to smart chargers during the day (e.g. at work) could happily soak up that 2 cent/kWh electricity. Unfortunately our EV fleet is tiny, and will still be way too small in 2030.
I believe @jhm is referencing interseasonal imbalances, and not necessarily the duck curve situation which can be flattened out with batteries and EVs.

In other words, when you flatten out the duck curve, it would come out at different levels for different seasons and thats where electrolyzers come in.

Agree it will be a few years before balancing the seasonal imbalance comes to the fore, and addressing the duck curve is where it's at.

While CAISO does a good job of publishing the duck curve, I guess we will be seeing similar but more pronounced curves where temperature variations are much higher than the mild Californian weather.

Another whole ball of wax is the heating needs north of 40° where winter insolation is low and heating demand is high. Hope we find better solutions here, though a lot of these might be a function of finding the right business model than technology itself (HVDC, Geothermal heat pumps, Wind, etc.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhm and mspohr
……Heck, in their bid to out-stupid the Germans they even shut down perfectly good existing plants. They they turn around and squeal about the climate crisis. And pout when Joe Manchin doesn't take them seriously.
steps outside, notes fusion reactor 1AU away is still functioning
TVA nukes, ran out of cooling water a few years ago, bit of a problem (tennessee valley authority)

turkey plant nuke near Miami, oops , cooling canals getting kinda “leaky”

South Anna nuke plant, 70 miles S of Washington DC, “where the heck did that earthquake come. from that came close to cracking the dome if it had been a tiny bit more powerful

2-3 nukes on Mississippi/Missouri river confluences that had to be sandbagged like 10ft or so, so the flooding rivers didn’t wash them “downriver”

3 mile island on the Susquehanna, which flows into the Chesapeake Bay, by Baltimore, Washington DC and Norfolk/NewPort News (navy base)(Hershey Pennsylvania, “what melts in the ground?”

Chernobyl, over 100gigawatts released in 2 weeks, “chicken Kiev, take a few 900 pound, multiple eyed chickens”

Fukushima, they ignored or forgot the reasons people put in stone tablets, loosely translated as “if you build below here you will die” quakes around 0AD, 800AD, 1700AD, 1927AD, few years ago.

the mistakes cost more to clean up than the energy, ROI
 
Last edited:


Nice thread on the impact of RE transition on mining demand. A mix of RE can deliver the same electricity output as coal for about 80% less tons of mining.

Nuclear advocates should also appreciate the the chart in the second link. Energy output per tonne or per cubic meter is highest for solar PV, second for nuclear and third for wind. While I am not a fan of nuclear, efficient use of mining resource is truly a good thing. But to this point solar is truly amazing while wind at least I much more efficient than any fossil fuel.
 
Which electrolyzer is 200/kW? I've heard 300 for some crappy (subsidized?) Chinese ones. Nikola used these kind of numbers and were widely mocked. Did they have it right all along?


Great point. The articles celebrating negative prices in TX or wherever get it entirely wrong. Zero and negative pricing is terrible for renewable penetration.


Massive EV fleets hooked to smart chargers during the day (e.g. at work) could happily soak up that 2 cent/kWh electricity. Unfortunately our EV fleet is tiny, and will still be way too small in 2030.

Look at those CA charts. CA electricity and transport could be carbon free today with ~20 GW of baseload nuclear millions of EVs sucking up those 2 cent kWhs at noon and feeding them back during the evening "duck's head" and early AM "duck's tail" using V2H. Of course CA won't build nuclear. Heck, in their bid to out-stupid the Germans they even shut down perfectly good existing plants. They they turn around and squeal about the climate crisis. And pout when Joe Manchin doesn't take them seriously.


Absolutely. In addition to EVs , commercial Ice-AC is good demand-side solution.

200 euro/kW for electrolyzer capex is aspirational. Indian entrepreneur wants to build a hydrogen gigafactory in India to achieve this. It's a combination of choosing the best tech and scaling up to achieve learning curve cost declines. Several other companies have similar aspirations. Getting to the multi GW scale is critical.

Absolutely agree on using EV fleet to solve duck curve. We need much more policy support around transferring incentives to EV operators and building out mid-day charging infrastructure. I believe we will see advances here because the economic fruit is so low hanging.

EVs however do not solve the seasonal balancing problem because seasonal EV usage is not really aligned with seasonal surpluses of RE. You'd need EV driving to go way in the spring. Cabin AC and heating energy demand within EVs goes up in the extremes of summer and winter, which coincides with similar demand for HVAC in homes and businesses.
 

The most important lesson from this energy shock is that the conventional, gradual path to renewable energy is risky, not safe. A slow transition extends the period during which fossil fuel shortages or other volatility drivers can erupt, and stretches out the process by which expanding clean energy capacity lowers energy costs. Increases in the cost of gas afflict Norway and Sweden, with grids powered more than 50% by renewables, far less than Belgium and the Netherlands, which are still overwhelmingly dependent on coal and gas.

Investing more ambitiously in the cheapest, most secure and least volatile energy sources — which chiefly means wind and solar power — and embracing rather than slow-walking the energy transition, is the key to ending this supposed energy crisis. It will minimize the economic costs of future price volatility, begin to solve the climate crisis and largely eliminate the curse of air pollution.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: adiggs

Nice to see are friends at OilPrice.com writing such glowing things about Tesla.
Leading EV company Tesla Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) has lately been hogging the limelight after the company delivered yet another stellar quarterly report that cemented its status as one of the most disruptive technology companies in the world.

Tesla shone on all key metrics: The company built 237,823 cars (+64%) and delivered 241,391 (+73%), finishing Q3 with $1.3 billion in free cash flow and $16 billion in cash and cash equivalents. Revenue of $13.76B marked 56.9% Y/Y growth while GAAP net income of $1.6B was good for a 389% Y/Y increase.

However, it's the company's latest dealmaking exploits, rather than the quarterly scorecard, that has captivated Wall Street's imagination and brought the clean energy sector back into focus, again.

Tesla has become the first clean energy company to attain a market valuation of $1 trillion after inking a deal to supply 100K EVs to car rental company Hertz Global (OTCPK:HTZZ) by the end of 2022. Tesla has now joined the rarefied air shared by the likes of Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL), Microsoft Inc. (NASDAQ:MSFT) and Amazon Inc. (NASDAQ:AMZN) and Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) which all boast a valuation of $1T+. The development is being viewed as an indication of the advantage that Tesla has in signing deals before General Motors (NYSE:GM) and Ford (NYSE:F) ramp up their EV lineups.

In an interview with CNBC, Wedbush Securities managing director Dan Ives has said that Tesla has reached a "watershed moment" by passing the $1T market cap mark, as the company remains in the early innings of a "green tidal wave."

I do think that solar stock are due for a full recovery from highs earlier in the week. Congress extending the ITC would be supper, but not necessary. Raging methane gas prices are a massive boost to solar if it needed one. Additionally, integration with batteries and backup generators are becoming a hot thing in residential and small scale solar as it has been with utility scale. For example, SolarEdge is coming out with a Power Hub inverter system that combines 200% oversized DC PV with battery. The inverter can deliver 10.6kW direct solar power and 10.2kW stored power. This is similar to utility scale systems that get double duty from an inverter where about half of the DC solar generation is stored. But the key differences is that this configuration is optimized for a single home. This makes home solar systems more valuable and more cost effective at the same time. Since residential roofs have limited capacity from solar panels, this development into 2:1 DC:AC ratios suggests a boost to demand for higher efficiency panels. Rather than cheap 19% efficiency panels, the economics could favor upgrading to ~25% efficiency. This would mean 32% more Watts of PV on a roof for the same dimension array of panels, and for the same installation labor and mounting hardware cost. So, I'm becoming more bullish on Maxeon which has had a long-term focus on high efficiency panels for rooftop deployment. Enphase is also stepping up what their inverters can do so as to be able to run as a microgric, generating solar while off grid, with or without battery, with or without a backup generator. So they have a slightly different angle on this from SolarEdge, but both inverter makers are advancing the ability to use solar in backup mode, enhancing value and reducing costs. So I'm pretty bullish about my holdings in SunPower, SolarEdge, Maxeon, and Enphase, along with Tesla, which also bundles home install, high efficiency panels, smart inverter, and battery into a high value package.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr


A leading critic of the petroleum industry behind the hearing by the House oversight committee, Representative Ro Khanna, said the executives’ testimony has the potential to be as significant as the 1994 congressional hearing at which the heads of the big tobacco companies were confronted with the question of whether they knew nicotine was addictive. They denied it and that lie opened the door to years of litigation which resulted in a $206bn settlement against the cigarette makers. Khanna told the Guardian that the oil company chiefs face a similar moment of reckoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhm
I don't understand why an oil company should be obligated to tell the truth about their products. Does Snickers really satisfy? Does Geico really save you 15%?

Here's hoping this little dip in WTI passes and we can keep prices riding high into Thanksgiving. If we can keep up the narrative of tight oil supply afloat that long, the shorting opportunities will be glorious. The world is waking up to the actual state of things tho.....and covid is fading.

Fun game of chicken we got going! Meanwhile everyone is paying through the nose at the pump and MSB gets to sit in his chair at least another year.


Saudi Net Foreign Assets Rise to Highest This Year on Oil Prices​

 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr
Does Geico really save you 15%?
Any auto insurance carrier can factually make the claim. The statistic is based on customers who switch. There is enormous pricing inefficiencies in auto insurance industry. So many people do find lower rates if they get enough quotes. The carrier with the winning bid is on average about 15% less than the shopper's current policy.
 

Apparently the solution to high price is high prices. Winter forecasts warm up, demand falls off, and Putin backs off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr
All this talk about electrolyzers made me dig further into methane fuel cells (because storing H2 is a huge issue). And I found this:

They're articles 4 years apart, but about the same process of converting CO2 to ethanol (C2H5OH) via a copper-and-carbon catalyst. Ethanol fuel cells ( Direct-ethanol fuel cell - Wikipedia ) might simply not be ready yet. Is this a case of not enough research dollars being spent, or a laboratory method that has too many issues to commercialize?

Anyway, if it can be scaled, then ethanol synthesizers can be sited with the solar/wind farms for seasonal load shifting. The question is far into the future do we have to wait?
 
1635598506952.png


Did we miss this blog when it came out last December? There's very important information here that helps to explain the rush to EVs in the present moment.

Specifically, BNEF was reporting in 2020 that $100/kWh packs we starting to emerge in the battery market even though the average pack level cost was $137/kWh in 2020. The low cost chemistry was LFP with cell cost at $80/kWh. If you couple that with a pack for $20/kWh, you can get to a full pack level cost of $100/kWh.

Or if you are Tesla, you figure out how to build a structurally integrated pack design that has no incremental cost to the cost of the vehicle. In this case cell cost alone is all that matters. Thus in 2020 Tesla could have found its way to $80/kWh pack level cost. This explains how Tesla now has an enormous appetite for LFP cells and is queueing up supply ASAP.

Tesla and other EV makers have already crossed the magic $100/kWh threshold, and the EV market is exploding.

This illustrates the problem with BNEFs methodology which reports the average battery cost at $137/kWh in 2020. It's the marginal, lowest cost batteries that drive the industry, not the older, more costly batteries still in play that hold up the average. Of course, BNEF can "see a path to $101/kWh by 2023" because cheaper new entrants are already in the market. Bringing down the average is simply scaling up cheaper cell, and relegating the more expensive batteries to an ever smaller share of the market. Certainly as the market shifts to a cheaper mix of existing battery option, the technology and manufacturing efficiencies will continue to improve as well. So newer, cheaper, more compelling batteries will keep arriving each year.

In my view BNEF's methodology should focus more on the lowest cost entrants. For example, report out the average costs for the cheapest 10% battery packs currently in production. The cheapest 10% in one year has the potential to triple, quadruple or more in the coming year. So the economics of the most competitive 10% tells you where the industry is headed. Meanwhile the the least competive 50% of the current market will decline substantially. For example if the battery supply doubles, what was the most expensive 50% likely falls to 25% just by volume doubling, and below 25% by being replaced by cheaper alternatives. So the most expensive 50% of the battery tells you what is now obsolete or very niche (e.g. expensive, but small hybrid batteries).

Bottom line, the sub $100/kWh EV battery has arrived and is massively scaling up in 2021. We should look forward to BNEV updating this report in December 2021. I have a hunch the will have to move up their $100/kWh target date yet again from 2023 to 2022. A couple of years ago they had a target date of 2026, which they seem to walk back a year each year. Eventually, they'll have to stop this walk back from overly "conservative" forecasts because $100/kWh will have arrived. 2022 is going to be a brutally disruptive year for automakers and oil industry. The disruption that people thought would happen after the magic threshold in 2026 is happening now.
 
View attachment 727441

Did we miss this blog when it came out last December? There's very important information here that helps to explain the rush to EVs in the present moment.

Specifically, BNEF was reporting in 2020 that $100/kWh packs we starting to emerge in the battery market even though the average pack level cost was $137/kWh in 2020. The low cost chemistry was LFP with cell cost at $80/kWh. If you couple that with a pack for $20/kWh, you can get to a full pack level cost of $100/kWh.

Or if you are Tesla, you figure out how to build a structurally integrated pack design that has no incremental cost to the cost of the vehicle. In this case cell cost alone is all that matters. Thus in 2020 Tesla could have found its way to $80/kWh pack level cost. This explains how Tesla now has an enormous appetite for LFP cells and is queueing up supply ASAP.

Tesla and other EV makers have already crossed the magic $100/kWh threshold, and the EV market is exploding.

This illustrates the problem with BNEFs methodology which reports the average battery cost at $137/kWh in 2020. It's the marginal, lowest cost batteries that drive the industry, not the older, more costly batteries still in play that hold up the average. Of course, BNEF can "see a path to $101/kWh by 2023" because cheaper new entrants are already in the market. Bringing down the average is simply scaling up cheaper cell, and relegating the more expensive batteries to an ever smaller share of the market. Certainly as the market shifts to a cheaper mix of existing battery option, the technology and manufacturing efficiencies will continue to improve as well. So newer, cheaper, more compelling batteries will keep arriving each year.

In my view BNEF's methodology should focus more on the lowest cost entrants. For example, report out the average costs for the cheapest 10% battery packs currently in production. The cheapest 10% in one year has the potential to triple, quadruple or more in the coming year. So the economics of the most competitive 10% tells you where the industry is headed. Meanwhile the the least competive 50% of the current market will decline substantially. For example if the battery supply doubles, what was the most expensive 50% likely falls to 25% just by volume doubling, and below 25% by being replaced by cheaper alternatives. So the most expensive 50% of the battery tells you what is now obsolete or very niche (e.g. expensive, but small hybrid batteries).

Bottom line, the sub $100/kWh EV battery has arrived and is massively scaling up in 2021. We should look forward to BNEV updating this report in December 2021. I have a hunch the will have to move up their $100/kWh target date yet again from 2023 to 2022. A couple of years ago they had a target date of 2026, which they seem to walk back a year each year. Eventually, they'll have to stop this walk back from overly "conservative" forecasts because $100/kWh will have arrived. 2022 is going to be a brutally disruptive year for automakers and oil industry. The disruption that people thought would happen after the magic threshold in 2026 is happening now.
Battery costs have decreased but EV prices have increased. Tesla's margins have increased.
Some other explanation for increase in EV sales?
 
Last edited:
Battery costs have decreased but EV prices have increased. Tesla's margins have increased.
Some other explanation for increase in EV sales?
Demand is strong. Some of this is just Covid rebound in demand meeting Covid supply chain problems. But from an automaker perspective, the coincidence of strong consumer demand growth, cheaper batteries and widening margins is huge motivation to ramp EV production aggressively. This is why I see 2022 as an enormously disruptive year. I think think the race to bring competitive BEVs to market will not quench demand for EVs; just the opposite, it will inflame demand for EVs. But doubling the cumulative production of EV batteries will whack another 28% of the cost of cells. So growing demand will drive battery costs down. If demand growth is strong enough all BEV margins (on competitive models) will continue to widen. This could continue until BEVs have come to dominate the auto market.

I think the auto rental fleets are a very good barometer of mass market high pressure front. BEVs had to get good enough and cheap enough for Hertz to dive into BEVs as a mass market rental car. But soon I expect all major car rental companies to dive in. We will see ICE as proportion of the rental fleets drop off rapidly. By the end of 2023 we could see BEVs as take up half of the rental car fleet. I think this will have a transformative impact on BEV demand. The majority of travelers will have had an opportunity to rent a competitive EV like the Model 3 or Model Y, and they will have been able to see how the charging infrastructure works along with the cost and convenience. So barriers to switching to BEVs will come down rapidly for mass market car buyers. And there is really no turning back because the price quality BEV will drop below ICEVs. Eventually, car buyers will have to pay a premium for an ICE car. But here again rental car fleets will be very telling. Car rental companies will buy more of the vehicles that have higher profit margins for them. So they are very sensitive both the operating cost and capital cost of their fleet along with whatever their clients are willing to pay for a nice rental. So fueling cost and maintenance costs are baked into their rental margin. The generally try to pass the fueling cost onto the customer, but that fueling cost does factor into what the clients is willing to pay for daily rent. So if the BEV saves you about $5 per day on fuel, you're willing to pay roughly an extra $5 per day to the rental company for rent. Some renter expect to do more driving than others, and the one who drive the most miles will tend to be most sensitive to fuel cost differential and they will expose the rental company to the most wear and tear (maintenance and resale value) costs. Indeed the car rental companies are very exposed to vehicle depreciation. So the ability of BEVs to hold value over the first couple of years is really key to rental profitability. As BEV come to dominate the rental fleet it will become obvious to mass market consumers that BEVs are a better value than ICE. I've heard that Hertz's flee is about 420k cars. They've got 100k Model 3 coming, and my hunch is that they'll order 50k Model Y in 2022 as well. So by the end of 2022 1/3 of their fleet could be BEV. By then end of 2023, 2/3 of their fleet could be BEV, and nearly 3/3 BEV by end of 2023. If their competitors are just 12 to 18 months behind Hertz in this transition, then the total rental fleet hits 50% BEV in 2023. Additionally, @TheTalkingMule can tell us about ways that the business models of the car rental business could transform in the coming years. In broad economic term, if Hertz can figure out and harness the TCO efficiencies of BEVs before mass market consumer can, they can profit from the TCO spread between BEV and ICEV. That is, their rental fleet as a share of the total auto fleet could grow. The deliver electric vehicle miles at lower cost than consumers can own private ICEV or think they can own private BEV (they still think its more expensive than Hertz knows that it is). This gain in market share of owned vehicles basically means that more people realize they don't need a marginal car, but use car sharing services (rentals) to fill in the gap for one less family vehicle. Hertz's negotiation with Uber shows one way to do this. I expect Hertz's fleet can grow much larger than 420k vehicles with this sort of partnership in play. But there are several other plays open to Hertz and other car rental companies. Owning and operating a Tesla is much more cost effective that most buyers of ICE presently understand, and Hertz can leverage this to their competitive advantage.

Sorry about the digression, but I've been trying to sort this out lately.
 
Demand is strong. Some of this is just Covid rebound in demand meeting Covid supply chain problems. But from an automaker perspective, the coincidence of strong consumer demand growth, cheaper batteries and widening margins is huge motivation to ramp EV production aggressively. This is why I see 2022 as an enormously disruptive year. I think think the race to bring competitive BEVs to market will not quench demand for EVs; just the opposite, it will inflame demand for EVs. But doubling the cumulative production of EV batteries will whack another 28% of the cost of cells. So growing demand will drive battery costs down. If demand growth is strong enough all BEV margins (on competitive models) will continue to widen. This could continue until BEVs have come to dominate the auto market.

I think the auto rental fleets are a very good barometer of mass market high pressure front. BEVs had to get good enough and cheap enough for Hertz to dive into BEVs as a mass market rental car. But soon I expect all major car rental companies to dive in. We will see ICE as proportion of the rental fleets drop off rapidly. By the end of 2023 we could see BEVs as take up half of the rental car fleet. I think this will have a transformative impact on BEV demand. The majority of travelers will have had an opportunity to rent a competitive EV like the Model 3 or Model Y, and they will have been able to see how the charging infrastructure works along with the cost and convenience. So barriers to switching to BEVs will come down rapidly for mass market car buyers. And there is really no turning back because the price quality BEV will drop below ICEVs. Eventually, car buyers will have to pay a premium for an ICE car. But here again rental car fleets will be very telling. Car rental companies will buy more of the vehicles that have higher profit margins for them. So they are very sensitive both the operating cost and capital cost of their fleet along with whatever their clients are willing to pay for a nice rental. So fueling cost and maintenance costs are baked into their rental margin. The generally try to pass the fueling cost onto the customer, but that fueling cost does factor into what the clients is willing to pay for daily rent. So if the BEV saves you about $5 per day on fuel, you're willing to pay roughly an extra $5 per day to the rental company for rent. Some renter expect to do more driving than others, and the one who drive the most miles will tend to be most sensitive to fuel cost differential and they will expose the rental company to the most wear and tear (maintenance and resale value) costs. Indeed the car rental companies are very exposed to vehicle depreciation. So the ability of BEVs to hold value over the first couple of years is really key to rental profitability. As BEV come to dominate the rental fleet it will become obvious to mass market consumers that BEVs are a better value than ICE. I've heard that Hertz's flee is about 420k cars. They've got 100k Model 3 coming, and my hunch is that they'll order 50k Model Y in 2022 as well. So by the end of 2022 1/3 of their fleet could be BEV. By then end of 2023, 2/3 of their fleet could be BEV, and nearly 3/3 BEV by end of 2023. If their competitors are just 12 to 18 months behind Hertz in this transition, then the total rental fleet hits 50% BEV in 2023. Additionally, @TheTalkingMule can tell us about ways that the business models of the car rental business could transform in the coming years. In broad economic term, if Hertz can figure out and harness the TCO efficiencies of BEVs before mass market consumer can, they can profit from the TCO spread between BEV and ICEV. That is, their rental fleet as a share of the total auto fleet could grow. The deliver electric vehicle miles at lower cost than consumers can own private ICEV or think they can own private BEV (they still think its more expensive than Hertz knows that it is). This gain in market share of owned vehicles basically means that more people realize they don't need a marginal car, but use car sharing services (rentals) to fill in the gap for one less family vehicle. Hertz's negotiation with Uber shows one way to do this. I expect Hertz's fleet can grow much larger than 420k vehicles with this sort of partnership in play. But there are several other plays open to Hertz and other car rental companies. Owning and operating a Tesla is much more cost effective that most buyers of ICE presently understand, and Hertz can leverage this to their competitive advantage.

Sorry about the digression, but I've been trying to sort this out lately.
if you do a thought experiment, barely formed as of yet.
electric scooters barely existed this go around until about 2016.
(motorized scooters and bicycles have been around at least a century)

the rental paradigm for them is hubless, you just grab one and go, and leave it when done, wherever.

when i queried my millenial daughter about this, and rental cars…(i’m a boomer almost a silent generation)

“dad, we hate rental places, hours of wait, reams of useless paperwork, we are transients, most dont or never will own houses, 1/2 of us will never have children, …..(for about 2 hours))”

i asked about Hertz and Tesla and the same rental paradigm
with another earful and a withering look,
“dad, you are describing Turo, hubless, we flew to Denver, Ubered to a private residence at 11pm, when rental places are closed until the next day, got into our Turo rental, drove off and did the reverse when we left.

it’s already in use, hubless rentals, you just finally noticed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhm and mspohr