The significantly higher battery requirements for trucks means that the environmental impact of mineral extraction HAS to be taken into account when putting tog

The significantly higher battery requirements for trucks means that the environmental impact of mineral extraction HAS to be taken into account when putting together these numbers. > Fuel ends up being about $4.99. Using all-time-high anomalous pricing as reference cost is not particularly useful. > in the EU, electric semi trucks are allowed to be 2 tonnes (4,400 lbs) heavier than diesel equivalents, while in the US the allowance is 0.9 tonnes (2,000 lbs). (hard to find exact numbers) Note that 2x the weight = ~~4x~~ (correction: 16x!) the road wear. This might lead to significantly higher road-maintenance costs. Besides, this is an apples to oranges comparison. A cheap hybrid setup gives you all the pros of regenerative braking / brake wear. Hydrogen seems to be a much better match for the fast refueling, low road wear and low-pollution constraints of future trucking. Lastly, when your car is on the road 24x7, battery wear is accelerated by a staggering amount and all-season guarantees for battery range become important. Neither of these concerns seem to be taken into account in this analysis. ------- one possible solution----------------- > There are trials of overhead lines (similar to trains) for trucks on highways. That would greatly decrease the need for energy storage and high speed charging. Further down the thread, @nicoburns brought this up. A street-car-esque solution would address a lot of the above concerns. (weight, battery capacity, recharge times).