By that same reasoning, a Tesla would need about 8-10 times more battery than it actually has. A common battery size for a Tesla is around 65 kwh. A gallon of f

By that same reasoning, a Tesla would need about 8-10 times more battery than it actually has. A common battery size for a Tesla is around 65 kwh. A gallon of fuel is about 31kwh. So by your reasoning, a Tesla should have the range of a car with only a 2 gallon tank. And of course they have quite a bit more range. They do about 4-5 miles per kwh. That's the equivalent of a car that does 120-150 miles per gallon. Good luck finding such a car. ICE cars are super inefficient. Even hybrids that use a generator to power their batteries (as opposed to dual electrical and ICE drive trains) don't come close to those kind of efficiencies. Most of the energy in a gallon of fuel is converted into noise and heat. Most of the energy in a battery gets used by the engine for its intended purpose. So, battery energy density should be a lot closer to what is needed than what you calculate here. It's still not ideal of course. As for the engine, I would expect an equivalent electrical motor (in power output) to actually be smaller and lighter than a petrol engine. If you take electrical semis as an example, you can actually pick up the motor and carry it around because it's small and light. Forget doing that with a typical diesel or petrol engine in even a small car. As for the battery you mention, that was first launched in 2015. It's an old battery design. Hardly state of the art at this point. And probably not even back then. Husqvarna could probably update that with more modern cells and more than double the energy density. Going to solid state they could push it even further. There are some products with solid state batteries coming on the market now. I saw a review of a portable generator recently, for example. I think it's probably more cost constrained than technology constrained. But this stuff is definitely coming now.