Impractical compared to what? The U.S. burns about 4 million barrels of gasoline and about the same amount of diesel per day, mostly just pushing ground vehicl

Impractical compared to what? The U.S. burns about 4 million barrels of gasoline and about the same amount of diesel per day, mostly just pushing ground vehicles around. That sort of works, but I wouldn't call it practical in the long run. Converting to EVs is the obvious alternative, but batteries are expensive and we haven't scaled up battery manufacturing yet to the degree necessary to replace ICE vehicles. We can get more EVs on the road though if the average EV can get by with a much smaller battery. On some level it's an optimization problem: using the U.S. as an example, there are about 280 million cars/trucks currently registered. Is it cheaper/better to build about 280 million EVs with about 60kwh of batteries each on average, or build 280 million EVs with about 30kwh of batteries each and electrify our major highways? If batteries cost $100/kwh, then 280 million * $100 * 30 = 840 billion dollars. If electrifying the major highways can be done for under $840 billion dollars, then it makes sense to do. The interstate highway system is about 50,000 miles. Sweden spent about a million euros per kilometer to electrify a section of road using the slot-embedded-in-the-road system. That's about $1.7 million per mile, or $86.5 billion. You'd probably need to do more than just the interstates, but then at the same time you don't need to electrify 100% of the length of those highways. Maybe just 10% or 20%, as long as electrified section come at regular intervals. This is all kind of simplistic and hand-wavey, but it seems like it passes the threshold of "we should at least consider doing this."