Argument from fallacy on your part. The world rejected batteries then for the same reason they should be rejected now. The cost of the vehicle is higher compared to internal combustion. The charging time is unacceptably long. The batteries don't last and are expensive to replace.
In fact, the Edison electric car was popular and a good seller until internal combustion engines running on gasoline began to compete with them. Then the practicality of gasoline motors demolished the battery car market.
Since then, they have been tried repeatedly each time failing. The only reason they are even marginally competitive today is that government is heavily subsidizing them. When the subsidies end, the battery car market ends.
Tractors improved on horse drawn farm equipment markedly. So markedly that farmers saw the advantage and bought them. There is no particular advantage to buying a battery powered car other than possibly virtue signaling. Without large government subsidies, the vehicles wouldn't sell at all. There were no government subsidies for buying farm tractors back when that market first began to emerge.
What fallacy are you accusing me of making?
The initial cost of an electric vehicle may be higher than that of an ICE vehicle but that ignores the total cost of the vehicle over its lifetime.
If we compare the 2022 basic Ford F-150 with the basic Ford F-150 Lightning, the cost over 10 years is likely less for the Lightning even though its purchase price is $10,000 more assuming 12,000 miles per year.
F-150 ICE - Cost $29,900, 10 years of oil changes - $1000, 2 complete brake jobs - $1200, 60,000 mile tuneup and other routine maintenance - $2500, 25mpg at 120,000 miles and $3 per gallon = $14,400. Total cost for the ICE vehicle - $48,800 over 10 years.
F-150 Lightning - Cost $39,974 - No oil changes or tuneups required. assume 1 brake job - $600, no 60,000 mile tuneup, air filters, radiator flushes etc, .5kwh per mile at 120,000 miles and .13 per kwh cost (US average is .105/kwh) = Total cost of $48,374
Even assuming electric is more expensive than it currently is and gas is cheaper than it currently is the Lightning still costs less over that 10 years. I also assumed the high end of the mpg for the ICE and the low end for the Lightning. I also didn't include the $7,500 tax credit in my calculations so your claim that when that goes away EVs will is horse shit. EVs are here to stay and their cost will come down.
Caredge lists the 10 year maintenance cost for an F-150 at just over $10,000. That means we have about $5,000 to spend on the Lightning before it costs more than the ICE version.
Charging at home every day takes less of the owner's time than it does to drive to a gas station 3 times a month to fill up the vehicle with gas. The F-150 will give more than 200 miles of driving with an overnight charge. It's rough that you don't sleep at night like other people. The average mileage for most people is less than 100 miles per day so the charging is not an issue for most people.
The batteries don't last is a red herring. ICE engines don't last forever nor do transmissions. 75 years ago it was rare for an ICE engine to survive to 100,000 miles without a ring job or other major repair. It seems you want to claim batteries have not gotten better at the same time you accept that ICE has improved.
Does that mean an EV will work for everyone today? No, I never said that. However it will work for the majority of the people starting today since the majority of people don't drive more than 100 miles per day and it will be cheaper for them in the long run. Amazon, UPS and other delivery companies aren't moving to EVs because they are getting subsidies. They are doing it because they see how it will save them money.
