I see many people excited about the fact that electric cars can be powered by renewables, and efficiency gains automation can bring, without acknowledging the downsides of an auto-dominated society.
What it does not solve is:
* The energy spent producing a 2000kg+ car (there's 255 million cars in the US alone, 797 for every 1000 people) [1]
* That that 2000kg+ car in the US is moving on average less than 2 people per trip [2]
* The energy spent moving single commuters on hour long commutes (average of 25minutes each way [3]). I see many comments discussing how drivers will be productive on long automated commutes, while not addressing the inefficiency of that commute to begin with
* The destructive and wasteful development patterns of auto-oriented cities - (sprawl, destroyed agricultural lands, the enormous health costs of sedentary lifestyles)
* The resources required and pollution generated for the production/maintenance/powering of all these vehicles, renewable or not - renewables only produced ~13% of all electricity in 2015 [4]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_Unit...
[2] http://energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-613-march-8-2010-vehicl...
[3] https://www.google.com/search?q=number+of+cars+in+the+us&ie=...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United...
Shifting the problem is a sometimes a good thing.
In this case, because it means the energy can now come from effective sources (nuclear) instead of carrying petrochemicals in the vehicle.
As in math, transforming one problem into another is often just as good as finding a direct solution.
1. It decouples transport from fossil fuel use.
2. It achieves greater efficiency per unit energy input than combustion-based systems, if using non-thermal (nuclear-excepted) fuel. Carnot's Law limits heat engines to ~20 - 45% efficiency, max.
On the negative side:
1. Tesla doesn't fundamentally change the dynamics of land-use which lead to massive amounts of personal transit being necessary.
2. Thermal energy (coal, gas, oil, biomass, and even nuclear, though without the CO2 emissions) still has a peak generating efficiency of only about 45%.
3. It's possible that synfuels might prove a better route for portable energy storage. Carbon-neutral synthetic petrol, kerosene (jet fuel), deisel, and methane would be infinitely miscable with current fossil-based liquid and gas fuels, and would require no replacement of extant transport, refining, dispensing, or utilisation capital. (The cost would be higher, though there's an accounting argument to be made there as well.) Energy densities (by volume and weight), handling properties, safety, and very, very long-term storage capabilities (tens to hundreds of millions of years, proven) make this attractive.
4. The entire system is predicated on economical sources of lithium (or other battery substrate). Lithium is not an abundant mineral, and present recycling rates are low. Even with 90% recovery, the stock of material would fall by 80% in 15 generations. Most metals see recycling rates of closer to 30%, if that.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/recycle/rec...
Powering a car without fossil fuels, by contrast, is not on the table for most people. Quality, budget electric cars stand to 'shift' the resource problem over to one we've already dealt with, which sounds like a huge win to me.