Just a few weeks ago in an interview with an Audi executive about the future of electric cars and desirable range (sorry, link not recorded), if I recall correctly, 500Km of practical range (in Germany) was stated to be an absolute minimum.
Do not listen to a single word anyone at Audi says about EVs. They are at best incompetent, and at worst hostile to the idea of electric cars. This quote, all their quoting of range numbers for gas cars (irrelevant), all their made-up EVs which get announced and then cancelled, all of it is deliberate nonsense meant to hold back the automotive industry and maintain the status quo - because the status quo has them on top, and they don't want to see it shaken up. Their motivation is nothing more than that.
And as for everyone else, it seems that the problem is that the "infinite range" crowd thinks range can be added with zero downside to the rest of the car. If there were some magic button we could press for infinite range, fine, press it. But it is not the case now, nor will it ever be. No matter how many hundreds of times better energy density we get, there will always be weight cost efficiency and space penalties to adding more batteries. It may be that at some point they become irrelevant, but that will be long into the future, when the transportation paradigm has changed enough that any predictions are rendered moot.
Also, using the Golf as an example, a car from the only manufacturer who is pushing "range on a tank" and who, as mentioned above, is hostile to EVs, as some sort of "proof" that the only way you can make a car popular is by adding unusably huge amounts of range is simply wrong. The Golf sells well because it is a cheap car, made in Europe, which works well, looks good, and is in a very popular segment in the region.
The situation is not that you need to "convince" people they don't need that much range. The reality is that they don't need that much range whether they realize it or not (not to mention the other reality that it's hard to convince consumers to pay tens of thousands of dollars more for something they don't need). When EVs had 100 mile range, the people who thought they needed more said "get back to me when it's 200" - I experienced this plenty, driving a 100 mile EV in 2009. Now with a 265 mile range Tesla, you have yourselves saying "get back to me when its 400." For luddites, this behavior will continue. I use the word luddite in the most specific way possible - these are people who think the only product they can ever use is one which is exactly like the product they currently use. For people who are aware of their own driving habits, it won't. Because an extremely vast minority require anything more than the current range numbers on the Tesla. And that includes populations in Texas (note that the person above specified *West* Texas, Texas actually has many EVs, and the triangle is supercharged, and city-to-city distances are well within the S' range anyway).
Further, to correct the person talking about 90% of driving situations, the number is not 90%. It is over 99.9%, and that's *not* counting public charging or supercharging. I posted the statistics above. I can manufacture .1% situations where gasoline vehicles are suboptimal as well.
Anyway, you can argue all you want for infinite range EVs, but they won't happen. Not because they can't, but because they don't need to. Manufacturers won't make them because they do not make sense to make.