No, i would NOT. Putting this in perspective - i hold a MSEE [master of science in electrical engineering]. The problems are many, but leading the list are the following: a> the energy storage capability of any battery in existence (even the exotic ones) is vastly inferior to that obtainable from liquid fuel. This is why (in my opinion), liquid fuel has been used since nearly the beginning. Gaseous storage is also grossly inferior. This was shown by the gas powered buses in use during WW2 in europe. b> in addition to the tiny storage capacity, you have the charging problem. Today, in many industrialized areas, power companies have trouble keeping the lights on when there is any significant load from air conditioning. As nearly all new buildings are built with 'non-opening' windows, in other than an arctic climate, cooling is needed a significant part of the year. In some areas, it is needed nearly year round. If you consider the power requirements of even a 'tiny' commuter vehicle - that goes 20 miles one way to work and returns - the 'overnight' charge time would roughly double the power load of the average house. This would require the power grid to transport roughly double the power that it does now. The 'production' vehicles that are 'on sale' now - are basically 'golf carts'. Sales propaganda states that they will go: "40 to 50 miles per hour", and 'up to' 20 miles. Of course - 2 miles qualifies as 'up to' 20 miles - 'up to' means "less than". What the literature does NOT state, is that they will go 50 miles per hour FOR 20 miles. They clearly cannot. Speed and range are inverse. The faster you take energy out of a battery, the less you can get out. You can go (basically) 45 miles per hour for 1 mile, or 18 miles at 1 mile/hr. Somewhere in between is also possible - with some combination of speed and distance.
Whilst you are 'electricing about' - the energy you use has to be generated by a (probably) petroleum or coal fired power plant somewhere in the countryside. When you include 'transmission losses' - you would be further ahead (in a pollution standpoint) in burning the coal or oil in the car directly. The only way to get around these problems that is apparent to me (in 2019), is to run the car with an 'on board' nuclear plant - somewhat akin to a "Snap". It would have to have considerably higher output than a Snap though. Another problem is - i don't think the 'greenies' would accept nuke powered cars running about. Cheers.