Someday. Maybe. Meanwhile, right now, here in the real world, if you plug in an electric car, there's a 71% chance it's being recharged by burning something, and another 20% chance it's being recharged by nuclear power.At the momment that may be true but alternatives exsist and will continue to be developed.
In the future you willl be able to plug your car into a meter in every parking place instead of a parking meter.
Charge while you park at work and at home.
If every house had solar and wind capability things would be VERY different.
There simply is no renewable source as yet that will scale up sufficiently to replace fossil fuels or nuclear power. I'm not saying we shouldn't explore alternatives, but let's not kid ourselves that electric vehicles do anything besides relocate the problem, mmmkay?
I drive a Prius. I bought it used at a great price. I get about 450 miles to a tank (maybe 500, but I never let it go there) at a price of about 22 bucks to fill up. I can't help but LOVE my savings.
That said, I also know that the impact to the environment to both make the batteries and dispose of them when they die, is huge. I agree with your first assumption about nuclear powered grid systems that could someday efficiently power everything, including transportation. This is where our investment in technologies should be going.
Even though much electrical generation is done by burning fossil fuels, it's still much more efficient than burning gasoline or diesel in your car. As for nuclear, I'd like to see some data that proves the waste from batteries is actually worse that than that from nuclear plants. Battery waste can be neutralized or re-cycled on a chemical basis, nuclear waste cannot. That brings me to my final point which is that the investment in technology should be directed toward fusion power, NOT fission.
ITER - the way to new energy or
Department of Energy - Fusion