An EV that will go 300 miles on a charge and the ability to quick charge does not present a range problem. That’s about five hours driving non-stop. Just because a dual tank GMC can go even further on a tank doesn’t mean that 300 miles at a whack isn’t a long way. Yes, temperature / driving patterns can reduce range, and that is why the 100 mile Nissan Leaf causes range anxiety. However, if you start off with 300 miles of range, and even if you give up 100 miles due to extreme could, blasting the heater, you are still left with 200 miles of range, which would be more than adequate for most drives, even without factoring in the ability to fully recharge, while you grab a cup of coffee. The problem is the cost of electric vehicles that can drive 300 miles on a charge, and then another 250 after a 30 minute charge cost at least 70, 000. And Conversion efficiency and regenerative braking aren’t things that are “optimized for” that otherwise reduce range. Conversion efficiency and regeneration capability are simple characteristics of the electric motor and attached inverter / controller. The ability to have a long range battery is not in conflict with either conversion efficiency or regenerative braking.
A $70K sell price excludes 99% of the buying public.
Conversion efficiency is certainly something that is optimized for, along with durability, servicability, emission, power, range, operating cost, immunity to environment, etc etc etc. There's a long list of competing factors that must be balanced in order to optimize the vehicle. Letting one factor dominate creates a niche vehicle: a supercar, or an econbox, etc. My point was that electric vehicles place a lot of emphasis on power conversion efficiency, to detriment of other real world factors, and they carry a huge cost. The costs do not exceed the benefits, and I doubt they ever will for general purpose transportation for one final reason. When it comes down to it, electricity is not a fuel. It is an energy storage medium.