>

If you use solar to charge your car then it makes even more sense over ice.
This isn't true, "on average across the US, light-duty EVs have approximately 64% lower cradle-to-grave life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than ICE vehicles" as found by a university of Michigan study, you can read about it here. 
So they have lower emissions, over their lifetime generally lower cost, they're better for the environment and you can do almost everything an ICE car can do. Seems very useful. >

A power plant burning natural gas and fossil fuels and sending the electricity through the grid to charge the car is much more efficient than an ICE car burning gas. 
Simply put, it is better for the environment to have 100 electric cars powered by a fossil fuel plant than to have 100 ICE cars. >

They're obviously not useless: they can be used to get from one place to another.
It seems like you mean they don't really do anything to help the environment.

Now this last point I made is only not true for countries or states/provinces who use clean and renewable energy (like hydroelectricity)

Individual homes can also use renewable energy in the form of solar panels.
Do you know how much coal or gas needs to be used to charge a car enough to go 100 miles compared to how much gasoline needs to be used to get a similar car the same distance?
And finally, if nothing else, they are a required stepping stone to the next iteration of environmentally friendly vehicles. It's not like you get the ultimate product when a technology that complicated is just getting started. >

If you use solar to charge your car then it makes even more sense over ice. >

This isn't true, "on average across the US, light-duty EVs have approximately 64% lower cradle-to-grave life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than ICE vehicles" as found by a university of Michigan study, you can read about it here. 
So they have lower emissions, over their lifetime generally lower cost, they're better for the environment and you can do almost everything an ICE car can do. Seems very useful. >

A power plant burning natural gas and fossil fuels and sending the electricity through the grid to charge the car is much more efficient than an ICE car burning gas. 
Simply put, it is better for the environment to have 100 electric cars powered by a fossil fuel plant than to have 100 ICE cars. >

They're obviously not useless: they can be used to get from one place to another.
It seems like you mean they don't really do anything to help the environment.

Now this last point I made is only not true for countries or states/provinces who use clean and renewable energy (like hydroelectricity)

Individual homes can also use renewable energy in the form of solar panels.
Do you know how much coal or gas needs to be used to charge a car enough to go 100 miles compared to how much gasoline needs to be used to get a similar car the same distance?
And finally, if nothing else, they are a required stepping stone to the next iteration of environmentally friendly vehicles. It's not like you get the ultimate product when a technology that complicated is just getting started.