Cherif et al. (2021) provides a significant analysis, and is a valuable addition to the literature. I really like the conceptualization of vehicle technological diffusion and their relevant implications for international oil dependency. Cherif et al. illustrate a critical problem for human civilization and its energy choices.

In more detail, Cherif et al. (2021) provide a novel experimental approach that demonstrates a new role for a specific historic analogy – the technological penetration of horse‐driven, petroleum‐driven, and electric vehicles (EVs) and what that means for the level of fuel demand – by forming their Methods I and II. Cherif et al. who seek to identify similarities in the penetration of different technologies, actually provide a first estimate of how quickly a new motor technology, EVs, could be available in the market. Furthermore, Cherif et al. complete a subsequent examination on what the fast catch‐up of EVs could mean for the international oil market, which implies that an anthropologic energy transition may take place, if the historical technology paradigm shifts. Cherif et al. suggest the role of oil may become as obsolete as coal did in the early 20th century.

It would be more informative if Cherif et al.'s comparative findings between various vehicle technologies explicitly explained why the similarity in the penetration rates happens, considering that the different factors that may influence the uptakes between distant historic facets, like the policy, market, and information contexts behind the change from horse‐driven to petrol vehicles, and the case of petrol‐driven vehicles to EVs may demonstrate an incongruity. This aspect of Cherif et al. opens up an argument for investigators to debate the role of governments and market leaders (paying particular attention to the scale of the automobile industries' role in the modern global market) in stimulating technological diffusion, and what are the motivations of the market (and consumers) in accepting the given new technology in the early 20th and 21st centuries.

This, in turn, particularly induces a debate as to whether and to what extent the direct comparison with a historical technological penetration rate is relevant. This particularly demands care to see how manufacturers learned from history in setting the initial prices of their products: they may start selling or introducing the vehicles at high enough prices to establish an exclusive brand status, or well below the profit making level until the market grows, or they may even expect profits from means other than the sales of vehicles. Currently, for example, some automobile manufacturers are intending to combine their main business with auxiliary services, for example, sales of batteries, electricity, and even photovoltaic facilities to optimize their profits and customers' benefits (Suwa & Igichi, 2020). These new business models and marketing strategies, though may have a significant impact in comparative cost studies, are not fully discussed.

Also, I would like to suggest that Cherif et al. include a discussion to elaborate on the macroeconomic significance of their analysis. The price of oil may drop as the technology substitution progresses, but oil is a strategic resource in which the international giants, both political and economic, have massive interests. These stakeholders may exercise a strong influence upon the market to lower (or increase) the price level of oil, with the fear of losing sales and value. Also, it may be interesting to include a discussion of how a lower oil price would potentially lead to a resurgence of petrol vehicles, especially in the internationally emerging economies. Cherif et al. actually touch upon differences between Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and non‐OECD countries, but they should provide a discussion of the implications of these differences.

Furthermore, perhaps more attention needs to be paid to the demand for oil that is not motor vehicle related, that is, the demand for the secondary products of crude oil, even though it is less than 40% of global consumption, it still constitutes a big portion of the oil demand. When crude oil is distilled to gasoline, the process also produces naphtha and other chemical feedstocks. A lower demand for gasoline will have a combined effect on the demand for these chemicals and their prices.

It is difficult to predict how it works, the chemical feedstocks may become abundant, or the entire demand for crude oil is reduced to the extent where the chemical feedstocks become rare and expensive (which may spur innovation for alternative feedstocks, e.g. cellulose technologies). It is important to have a deliberation on how the prices of and demands for gasoline and chemical feedstocks interact, given an estimated reduction in gasoline demand.

Having pointed out some reflections, Cherif et al. is a clear, concise, and well‐written paper. Cherif et al. make a systematic contribution to the research literature in this area of investigation, and I personally look forward to seeing oil becoming just a commodity, rather than strategic resource on which world geopolitics has been historically dependent upon.

Cherif等。（2021）提供了重要的分析，并且是文献的宝贵补充。我真的很喜欢车辆技术扩散的概念化及其对国际石油依赖的相关含义。Cherif等。说明了人类文明及其能源选择的关键问题。

更详细地，Cherif等人。（2021）提供了一种新颖的实验方法，该方法通过形成以下形式，展示了特定历史类比的新作用-马力驱动，石油驱动和电动汽车（EV）的技术渗透以及这对燃料需求水平的意义他们的方法一和二。Cherif等。他们试图确定不同技术在渗透方面的相似之处，实际上是对新的电动汽车技术EV在市场上的投放速度进行了初步估算。此外，Cherif等。完成有关电动汽车快速追赶对国际石油市场意味着什么的后续研究，这意味着，如果历史技术范式发生转变，则可能会发生人类能源转型。Cherif等。这表明石油的作用可能像20世纪初期的煤炭一样过时了。

如果Cherif等人在各种车辆技术之间的比较结果明确地解释了为何发生渗透率相似的原因，那将提供更多信息，因为考虑到可能影响遥远的历史方面（例如政策，市场，以及从马车转向汽油车背后的信息背景，以及从汽油车转向电动汽车的情况，可能显示出不一致之处。Cherif等人的这方面。为调查人员展开辩论，以辩论政府和市场领导者在刺激技术扩散中的作用（特别关注汽车行业在现代全球市场中的作用规模），以及市场（和消费者）的动机是什么）在20世纪和21世纪初接受给定的新技术。

反过来，这尤其引起了关于与历史技术渗透率的直接比较是否相关以及在何种程度上有意义的争论。这尤其需要关注制造商在设定产品初始价格时从历史中学到的知识：他们可以以足够高的价格开始销售或引入车辆以建立独家品牌地位，或者远低于获利水平，直到市场增长为止。 ，或者他们甚至可以从汽车销售以外的其他方式中获利。例如，目前，一些汽车制造商打算将其主营业务与辅助服务相结合，例如电池，电力甚至光伏设施的销售，以优化其利润和客户利益（Suwa＆Igichi，2020年）。）。这些新的业务模型和营销策略尽管可能在比较成本研究中产生重大影响，但并未进行充分讨论。

另外，我想建议Cherif等人。进行讨论，以详细说明其分析的宏观经济意义。随着技术替代的发展，石油价格可能会下降，但是石油是国际和政治巨人都拥有巨大利益的战略资源。这些利益相关者可能会对市场施加强烈影响，以降低（或提高）石油价格水平，而担心会失去销售和价值。同样，讨论低油价如何可能导致汽油车的复苏，尤其是在国际新兴经济体中，可能是有趣的讨论。谢里夫等。实际涉及经济合作与发展组织（OECD）与非OECD国家之间的差异，但它们应该讨论这些差异的含义。

此外，也许需要更加关注与汽车无关的石油需求，即对原油副产品的需求，尽管它的需求量不到全球消费量的40％，但仍构成了石油需求的很大一部分。当将原油蒸馏成汽油时，该过程还会产生石脑油和其他化学原料。汽油需求减少将对这些化学品的需求及其价格产生综合影响。

很难预测其工作方式，化学原料可能变得丰富，或对原油的整体需求降低到化学原料变得稀少和昂贵的程度（这可能会刺激纤维素等替代原料的创新）。考虑到汽油需求的估计减少，重要的是要考虑汽油和化学原料的价格和需求如何相互作用。

Cherif等人指出了一些思考。是一篇清晰，简洁，写得很好的论文。Cherif等。在这一调查领域为研究文献做出了系统的贡献，我个人希望看到石油只是一种商品，而不是世界地缘政治历来依赖的战略资源。