Not even remotely. Batteries have some of the worst energy density both by unit of volume and mass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#/media/File:Ene....

Not to mention global annual battery production amounts to less than 1 hour of the USA's national electricity usage.

Your first point is valid, but I think the second is using the wrong measure — as batteries are rechargeable, surely the measure should be total existent batteries not annual production of batteries?

(I would be surprised if this was viable even with my suggested measure, no argument there!)

Liquid natural gas freightliners are also refillable. I'm not sure what you mean by this. A cargo ship filled to the brim with batteries still has orders of magnitude less energy as a ship filled with the same mass of natural gas.

Global annual battery production has to be first integrated with respect to time and then multiplied by the turn-around time to calculate global annual capacity to ship electricity by way of charged batteries.

I absolutely accept that this is a poor solution, and that I am quibbling over a factor of perhaps 500 at most when it’s short by a factor of ~250,000.

The value of the electricity can be measured by comparing it to the value of a petroleum product. transportable energy can be made using from CO2 in the air using Fischer-Tropsch.

It's energy intensive, and uneconomic - which is why people are stringing HVDC links across bodies of water - Denmark/Sweden, Australia/Tasmania, NZ North/South Islands instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_proces...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects

LNG tankers are today’s energy equivalent of station wagon full of tapes. In the future we might do the same by liquefying hydrogen (or ammonia) to distribute energy from renewable-rich countries to renewable-poor ones.

I highly doubt this. According to wikipedia[1], three high voltage towers can transmit 7079 MW of power. To beat that with lipo batteries you'd need to move 26,713 metric tons worth of batteries per hour[2], and that's not even including time to charge. I don't think any sort of freight transportation method can do that cheaper than some transmission towers.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission

[2] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=7079+MWh+%2F+265Wh%2Fk...

Well, this is technically true, and already being done today with gas and petroleum.

Converting it back-and-forth to electricity isn't easy nor very efficient, though. Hydrogen is a bit easier, although still lossy. I'd say it's doable, and not as bad as it sounds, if you really have excess production.

inb4 compressed air supertankers.

That said, it will in most cases be less expensive to use it as close to the originating point as possible if you can find a need for it.

The most effective (relatively safe, relatively energy-dense, easy to handle) way to store energy is in a hydrogen-carbon bond. If only there was some way to transport that across oceans in large tankers....

OK, shipping batteries between continents is far from feasible now.

But what about electrifying a small collection of households by batteries that are replaced from a truck every N weeks, instead of building many miles of power lines through (perhaps flammable) wilderness?

Remember, lithium ion batteries are demonstrably effective bombs. Shipping big piles of bombs around is a well-established power distribution method, although not usually electrical power.

Batteries are heavy - unless you are sending these station wagons downhill, its probably not such a great idea.

A 747 as a giant lithium battery with wings

Sneakernet 4.0