Tesla won't want to because they won't want to deal with dead batteries. The trucking companies won't want to because they don't want to deal with dead batteries and the cost to own/operate such specific infra for just their trucks.
The former seems like part of the service, you deal with dead batteries by charging them up and then putting them in the next truck.
The latter is… trickier.
A trucking company presumably would not be happy if they stopped at a swap spot and got a battery that's only good for the next 200 mi because of normal battery degradation.
There's also now the problem of who owns the batteries that come off a truck - if the battery swap station is a generic service provider, that suggests that some battery network actually owns the packs themselves - does that mean that the swap station needs to keep that battery around until another participating truck company contracted with the owner of the pack comes around?
That seems very complicated.
Or maybe the swap station is the owner of the packs (think gas station chains) - in which case they can put the battery on any truck that comes next... but that means duplicative swap stations for every battery chain out there. There's only so much land accessible to highways... so even more complicated that way.
The "pull the battery out and charge it" part of the idea is oddly enough the simplest. The logistics and chain of responsibility is far more difficult.
You're right that it would take multiple swap stations on nearly any given route that doesn't go too far out of an interstate or frequently traveled highway. So smaller towns or out-of-the-way towns will likely be forced to pay higher costs to get the deliveries using a regular fuel-driven truck, at least until they can solve the EV drive distance issue(s).
I think the biggest point of contention over this will be when Mom-n-Pop stores start going under fast due to the barriers of entry to afford so many expensive, large, and very heavy batteries. That's not even considering possible requirements to use specific machines for safety reasons, which I imagine will also jump when Mom-n-Pop try to wing it.
Especially since batteries don't (typically) just end up damaged but rather degrade over time. One day the battery can hold 96% of it's original capacity, the next 90%. It's a natural and uneven process for batteries.
A battery that is unusable for trucking could still have a lot of value in a context where the energy density is less important. Infrastructure, for example. But making sure the incentives and ownership are calibrated correctly to make sure they get put into hands where they are useful might be a big problem.
Or maybe those weren't production cars?
Also, that demo was pretty much there to get some tax subsidies or something. They built the system to comply with the minimum to qualify, and once they got the money they didn't do anything else with it. Those cars weren't really production at all.
There are several problems with that, you end up with a lot more idle equipment than just the battery pack, you've got to either be constantly switching drivers or drivers have to be constantly switching cabs, you need facilities to swap trailers and charge cabs, etc etc etc.
But tractor trailers already have a convenient modularity built in, is all I'm saying.
The same dynamic limits battery swaps.
Would it help if instead of charging, do what you do with a toy car - replace the batteries?
They could then charge and be ready for the next truck.