> But it’s always going to require a substantially greater number of batteries than trucks. I already addressed this is my comment. It's a loss that applies j

> But it’s always going to require a substantially greater number of batteries than trucks. I already addressed this is my comment. It's a loss that applies just as well to batteries that cannot be attached to vehicles, so it's not an argument against detachable batteries. > Also, truck batteries are going to be much bigger than car batteries. A long-range truck pack will weigh several tonnes. Stations already have massive underground infrastructures for dealing with fuel, which has an effective energy density that is less than a factor of two smaller than batteries. And unlike fuel, which must be stored on-site for the entire time between fuel shipments (~24 hours), you don't need to store a comparable number of batteries on site, just enough to have them continuously charging. > A station that can swap these quickly in a semi-automated way is likely to be a substantial, expensive undertaking. Putting in miles and miles of overhead charing capabilities is, I claim, significantly more expensive. But I'm not interested in having a detailed conversation on the expense of swapping machinery if we can't even agree on the simple point about utilization rates of swappable batteries being as least as large as non-swappable ones.