I hate to correct @elonmusk, but his assertion that it takes 20 years to replace the vehicle fleet is wrong. This thread tries to describe why. 1/

His 20 year replacement timeline is based in the normal rate of car manufacturing/car retirering and total global fleet size. Both of these will be disrupted 2/
Whilst I don't expect total car manufacturing rate to increase much, with the introduction of cheap autonomous taxis networks, the number of cars being retired will increase very fast especially with people living with urban settings where these networks will become ubiquitous 3/
And in the more rural / commuter belt 2 car families will become 1 autonomous car families.
This will drasticaly decrease the total size of the global car fleet as the rate of cars retirering will be at least twice the size of the cars being retired 4/
As time progresses, legislation increasing taxes on polluting cars (ICE) and restrictions on where those cars can travel to will make them increasingly stranded/decreasing value assets on a household and further increase the retirering rate of ICE vehicles 5/
Finaly, when 100% of cars being manufactured are electric, with every passing year, the economics of gas pumps become unviable and these start to close/being repurposed. As fuel stations close they scarcity will mirror today's pain points of lack of charging infrastructure 6/
And this again puts further pressure on ICE owners that will start retirering their cars and a faster rate.
This becomes a feedback loop what will both decrease the vehicle fleet and collapse the value of ICE cars. 7/
This means that the total fleet refresh will not take 20 years as it occurs today. 8/
I expect that from the year when the majority of cars sold are EV the transition will take 10 years & we'll end up will a smaller fleet (average of less that 1 car per household) & where the large majority of miles driven per year will be done by autonomous taxis end/
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from Tech

These past few days I've been experimenting with something new that I want to use by myself.

Interestingly, this thread below has been written by that.

Let me show you how it looks like. 👇🏻


When you see localhost up there, you should know that it's truly an experiment! 😀


It's a dead-simple thread writer that will post a series of tweets a.k.a tweetstorm. ⚡️

I've been personally wanting it myself since few months ago, but neglected it intentionally to make sure it's something that I genuinely need.

So why is that important for me? 🙂

I've been a believer of a story. I tell stories all the time, whether it's in the real world or online like this. Our society has moved by that.

If you're interested by stories that move us, read Sapiens!

One of the stories that I've told was from the launch of Poster.

It's been launched multiple times this year, and Twitter has been my go-to place to tell the world about that.

Here comes my frustration.. 😤
There has been a lot of discussion about negative emissions technologies (NETs) lately. While we need to be skeptical of assumed planetary-scale engineering and wary of moral hazard, we also need much greater RD&D funding to keep our options open. A quick thread: 1/10

Energy system models love NETs, particularly for very rapid mitigation scenarios like 1.5C (where the alternative is zero global emissions by 2040)! More problematically, they also like tons of NETs in 2C scenarios where NETs are less essential.
https://t.co/M3ACyD4cv7 2/10


In model world the math is simple: very rapid mitigation is expensive today, particularly once you get outside the power sector, and technological advancement may make later NETs cheaper than near-term mitigation after a point. 3/10

This is, of course, problematic if the aim is to ensure that particular targets (such as well-below 2C) are met; betting that a "backstop" technology that does not exist today at any meaningful scale will save the day is a hell of a moral hazard. 4/10

Many models go completely overboard with CCS, seeing a future resurgence of coal and a large part of global primary energy occurring with carbon capture. For example, here is what the MESSAGE SSP2-1.9 scenario shows: 5/10

You May Also Like

These 10 threads will teach you more than reading 100 books

Five billionaires share their top lessons on startups, life and entrepreneurship (1/10)


10 competitive advantages that will trump talent (2/10)


Some harsh truths you probably don’t want to hear (3/10)


10 significant lies you’re told about the world (4/10)