> If we are being pedantic about it It's not pedantry; you're just taking two roughly analogous things and acting like they have no differences. It IS relevant

> If we are being pedantic about it It's not pedantry; you're just taking two roughly analogous things and acting like they have no differences. It IS relevant that EVs call it "regenerative braking" because it does "magically recharge the battery". > that is what the EV manufacturers want you to think via their marketing. And yet we're in a thread for an article from the U.S. Department of Energy, not a car manufacturer. > Because basic physics dictates that you're playing a net-net zero-sum game ... i.e. what you "generate" you then loose when you next stop at the lights and accelerate again You're missing the point entirely. The point of regenerative braking isn't that it's more efficient than maintaining a constant speed the whole time. It's that it reclaims energy when you would have to stop anyway, traditionally with the brake. i.e. city-driving when you hit stop lights. A 5-10% net gain is an incredible benefit; I don't know why you're downplaying it. If I could make a 10% improvement to my fuel economy solely by coming to a gentle stop (which I already do anyway) it would be amazing.