Maybe that's just not the resource efficient way going forward. Maybe in the future people will laugh at the idea of buying 2 tons of steel to sit around doing nothing for 95% of it's lifetime.
I'd like to believe a "rentier" future will empower renters with even cheaper options due to efficiency of utility. As you say, having a big chunk of capability sit there most of the time is wasteful in a sense.
However it also feels like it entrenches the rich with further options of rent-seeking.
And it doesn't take much cynicism to think that any benefits due to efficient use of resources will go to the owners pocket, not the customer/renter.
It's so bad that it was cheaper for me to buy a wide format printer than it was to pay a print shop for prints to submit to the planning department.
To me it'd be worth a premium to not have to buy, store and dispose of something I know I'd rarely use, to the point that for some things I might well be fine with paying full purchase price if I can just avoid the hassle.
Renting in those instances would be more about avoiding annoyances than saving money.
At the same time I'd assume the amount of time specialized tools lay idle but lock up capital and storage space for providers of rented capacity means you need to recoup a lot of cost per rental event.
I own my home so that I can do what I want with it, and I own my car so that I can take it off road, leave my stuff in it, and work on it.
Rental services are bland as fuck. I can organize my music and movies way better than Spotify and Netflix so that it meets my exact preferences.
No. I don't want to live in the rental economy future, and I find it hard to relate to those that do.
But renting a car that would show up at my door and can drive it self back? Man, that would be cool. Would just need it a few time per year.