One of the beauties of EVs is you don't need charging stations. I leased a Nissan LEAF 2 years ago, and it almost only gets charged at home.
You can't really know whether EVs are going to take over or not, it depends on too many factors. If our government gets bamboozled with Hydrogen the way they did with Ethanol, then yeah Hydrogen cars could become more popular than EVs.
But I would argue that even in that world, EVs are the better choice. They are lower maintenance and like I said, you don't need refueling stations. Your car refuels while it's parked in your garage.
[edit: yes, I know it's an anachronism. I still dial phones, too.]
Also think what does this do to the Electricity Grid if a non trivial amount of EV's are put on charge every night.
The grid would prefer a another demand curve, so overnight charging is helpful.
Additionally, being giant batteries, electric cars have the means to charge when most advantageous to the national grid. Most electric cars already have an option to wait to charge until off peak rates happen. (Off peak rates being cheaper because low overall demand.)
But electric cars may be useful to the grid as giant surge protectors for things just like that cup of tea electric kettle break. Under some of the "smart grid" proposals, the electric companies would be able to not feed electricity to a vehicle in those brief moments of high demand on the grid, prioritizing immediate needs like people's kettles. Furthermore, "smart grid" ideas could even use electric cars as battery backup options, "leasing" already stored energy back from the car and paying it back later, as changes in demand happen.
Even if some of those "smart grid" ideas don't get nationalized, you could still theoretically take advantage of some of those kinds of things in your own home.
So if anything, electric cars may be surge stabilizers rather than surge causers.
So not only do you need to own a charging station you also need a house and a garage, got it.
You also don't need a garage, as they charge just fine outdoors (been charging mine in my driveway for 1.5 years), but that's just arguing semantics at this point.
And that's actually the point of switching cars to electricity: we have many sustainable ways of making electricity, and zero ways of sustainably making gasoline. Get cars running on electricity, then continue building out the infrastructure.
This is untrue, actually. You can depolymerise virtually anything carbon-based into oil. It's currently more expensive than digging it out of the ground, but we'll never run out of oil.
What's more, assuming the carbon in the feed stock originally came from the atmosphere, burning the resulting product is carbon-neutral.
Something to think about, given the unbeatable energy density of gasoline (barring nigh-magical battery technology).
First, the idea that it is carbon neutral is absurdly wrong. If you're pulling the carbon out of anywhere but the atmosphere (and you are), then it's no more carbon neutral than pumping oil out of the ground and burning that.
Second, it's hugely inefficient. If you're manufacturing fully synthetic petroleum, then that synthetic petroleum is acting like an energy storage medium, a liquid battery, rather than as a true fuel (a source where you're getting more energy out than you put in.)
Any kind of battery source which has to be physically moved around via other sources of transportation is hugely inefficient compared to EVs with actual batteries where the energy merely has to be sent down transmission lines and the like. The losses involved in moving electricity around are far, far less than moving synthetic petroleum or hydrogen or any other "pseudo battery".
Lastly, internal combustion engines are extremely inefficient themselves, especially compared with electric motors. They require tremendous upkeep and have energy losses that are three times that of EVs. So even if you could make the claim (which you can't) that your synthetic petroleum energy storage medium is 100% as efficient as moving power around, the ICE is going to result in needing to use up 3x as much energy to move your vehicle from Point A to Point B compared to an EV.
Synthetic petroleum is a really, really bad idea and should not be pursued.
Disadvantages?
1) Erm. There's only really two places you can get carbon - the ground, or the atmosphere. Any biofuel eventually comes from plants or algae, which get their carbon from the atmosphere. I don't really know where else you had in mind.
2) That doesn't make it inefficient. The whole point is that it's acting as storage rather than fuel. That's what makes it carbon-neutral - the carbon comes out of the atmosphere, then goes back (instead of out of the ground and into the atmosphere).
3) Not sure I buy that. Electricity distribution is hardly lossless (and what powers the power station?). Our best grid-scale storage solutions run about 75% efficient, while car-scale batteries leak charge much faster than a gasoline tank leaks gasoline. And both a gasoline car and an EV have to carry around heavy energy storage - the difference is the gasoline tank gets lighter as it empties.
4) To be fair, you have to compare the efficiency of the ICE to the combined efficiency of the motor, power station, and all intermediate storage (every time the power moves from one battery to another, you lose some, while gasoline can be stored and dispensed fairly losslessly). Transmission costs also have to compared like-for-like - grid scale distribution runs about 95% efficient, while oil tankers are 97-98% (though you have to factor in last-mile, and trucks are ten times as thirsty). I don't think the calculation is as clear-cut as you're making out.
It's also worth querying what exactly "efficiency" means. If the source is sustainable (and biofuel is), raw energy wastage is less important than gross environmental impact and safety. It's not clear to me that mining nuclear materials and dealing with the waste, or mining rare earth metals to carpet the land in solar panels, are necessarily better or more sustainable solutions that carpeting the land in fast-growing, high-energy crops and fuelling all of society that way. Perhaps it is a bad solution - it depends on how the numbers fall exactly on things like land use, (and possibly your values regarding safety decisions). If it's already been thoroughly analysed and found wanting, then I'd love to read that. But at the moment you've not really made an argument commensurate with the strength of your opinion.
We don't do it because currently oil is so obscenely abundant and cheap, that it's not economically worthwhile to seriously consider alternatives to just pumping some more oil out of the ground.