> theoretical limit of energy density for lithium batteries is already too low to be economically viable for most trucking applications

Curious to see a source for this.

That’s not true. 500 mile range semi trucks are feasible with careful engineering. That’s long enough where drivers have to stop for regulator rest anyway. See: https://selenianboondocks.com/2017/11/tesla-semi-part-1/

More for lithium sulfur.

What are the chances of a Tesla megacharger exactly at the closest exit when you hit your 8 hour mark, and also not being used by any other trucks? Real life usage requires buffers.

This really isn’t a problem.

8 hour is the MAXIMUM you can legally drive at a time. 11 hours is the daily maximum driving time total. So as long as there’s a mega charger between your 3rd and 8th hour, you’re fine. Then charge overnight slower.

Lithium sulfur (or a smaller load) enables no need to charge during the day at all. Could go the full 11 hours driving each day and charge at mere Supercharger (or CCS) speeds overnight.

Economic viability can be massaged through subsidies or taxes, if the break even point isn't too far away from the current point.

>Economic viability can be massaged through subsidies or taxes

Wow - we have subsidies than can alter the laws of physics? Neat! Why didn't we deploy that before now!

No, but just think about an extreme case. What if there was a tax on any liquid hydrocarbon based fuel of $1000/gal starting 1/1/2023? What would the reaction be? Obviously truckers would want to buy something so they didn't have to drive a diesel truck any more. If battery powered trucks were more expensive per lb*mi than the diesel at the old price, the switch would cause general prices for goods to go up, granted, but the case for non-diesel trucks would be there because it wouldn't go up enough to cause the demand for trucks to collapse.

The reaction would be the political party that passed that tax would lose overwhelmingly by a landslide in the election.

If you want to do some form of tax that is large enough to make a difference you first need to make the alternative to paying that tax viable enough that people will switch. Hydrocarbons are massively more energy dense than any other practical fuel. (nuclear is of course more energy dense, but not currently practical for trucks) If you want to get rid of them, then you need an alternative that works well enough for people to actually switch. There are a number of them, but batteries are not one, and never will be.