Electric cars are one of those save-the-world proposals that haven't a snowball's chance of anything but very limited application. As you know, electricity is not free; you have to make it. And making it usually involves burning fossil fuels.
More to the point, every vehicle that is not tethered to a short fixed route must carry its own energy supply. In the 19th century, the great French engineer, Sadi Camot, developed the concept of thermal efficiency, and showed that internal combustion was inherently more efficient than any other energy conversion scheme.
Moreover, since we operate in an oxygen atmosphere, an internal combustion vehicle need not carry its oxidizer, only the fuel. That is fortunate because the typical reaction involves about 16 pounds of oxidizer for every pound of fuel.
Zero-emissions vehicles, unfortunately, must carry the equivalent of 100 pounds of fuel to make a reasonable trip, but also the 1,600 pounds of oxidizer (or other reagent) to react with the fuel.
They then must convert those reagents to 1,700 pounds of reaction fuel, which they must transport back to the recharging station. That's as light as the equivalent battery pack can ever be, 17 times the weight of gasoline.
Modern engines are about 25 percent efficient (35 percent if they are diesel). Since it must carry 17 times as much propellant, the zero-emissions vehicle must be 17 times as efficient (425 percent) to compete.
It would probably be more productive to look for a way to take the reaction products out of the air than to try to carry them around and reprocess them. We could have huge un-power plants that take carbon dioxide out of the air, plants that absorb carbon dioxide and it into something useful, like ummm ... wood.
The writer is a mechanical engineer.