This seems inevitable in the short term. But then, the trade-offs tilt less in favour of electrification. For example, shorter ranges likely means more trucks, and these trucks will likely be heavier and do more damage to roads.
In the US, "Approximately 50 percent of the weight and 37 percent of the value of goods were moved less than 100 miles between origin and destination in 2015" according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics [0]. This is well within the range of the Tesla Semi. I'm not sure the capacity of the Tesla Semi, though.
[0] https://www.bts.dot.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/FFF_201...
I'm thinking existing truck stops would have a better chance of working than the weigh stations. let's leave the government it, they are barely competent at weighing a truck. Some trucks might not see a weigh station for a week. Some stations are nothing more than a pull out on the side of the road.
I've noticed there is a common theme to arguments against electrification: that they assume it's necessary for an electric vehicle needs to match all the capabilities of a fossil fuel equivalent. i.e. trade offs are not possible.
Why can't the truck just have shorter range (and thus more cargo capacity) and charge more regularly?
If there was proper carbon taxing, the cost of the driver waiting around for charging would be mitigated by the savings made from avoiding carbon tax.
Similarly with electric cars, I'm happy to stop on a very long trip for charging if it means my environmental impact is significantly lower.
I'm assuming the maths in the video is correct. The key figure seems to be that you need 20kg of batteries to achieve the range of 1kg of petrol. Which sounds plausible, but I'm no expert.