-awesome acceleration due to instant torque and no gearbox
-amazing handling due to low centre of gravity (heavy batteries at the bottom)
-quieter
-minimal servicing / repair costs due to much simpler drive train with fewer moving parts and no fluid
-more internal space (no crank shaft etc - especially in the back row this makes the middle seat so much more comfortable without a big bulge between your feet)
-more external space (e.g the Tesla S has a front trunk (frunk) where the engine normally is)
-safety factor - extra crumple space with the frunk and no engine to go into your legs in front on collision
-cheaper to run especially in high gas cost areas like Europe
-some areas have perks like using the HOV or bus lane
-convenience factor of 'filling up' at home
The environmental stuff is all goodness (and other responses have illustrated how this still holds even in coal dominated areas) but for many is not the driving factor.
Obviously EVs are not for everyone. My analogy is that they are like SSDs - better in every way except size (range) and cost, and therefore not viable for some...but that will rapidly change as the technology moves on.
The only renewable resource that can power a car directly, without transitioning through electricity, is solar, and there just isn't enough power in the solar radiation that strikes the roof area of a car to be practical.
Natural gas vehicles are actually a good stepping stone to reducing CO2 emissions, since methane (CH4) has roughly half the carbon per unit of energy. There is renewed interest these days in developing natural gas vehicles, but I personally think electric vehicles will win the race.
[1] http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php [2] http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/MT_electric.cfm
This is a problem that cries out for math.
On average, the CO2 intensity of US electricity is 690 g/kWh. This makes the Model S the CO2 equivalent of a car getting 37 mpg. This is a lot higher than comparable cars.
Of course CO2 isn't the only pollutant. It would also emit 0.43 g/mi of NOx (blowing the limit by nine times), 0.011 g/mi of NMOG (1/7th the limit), 0.015 g/mi of PM10 (the limit is 0.01 g/mi), and 0.13 g/mi of CO (a miniscule 1/27th of the limit). So it's a mixed bag.
Caveat: I used the average US energy mix, but electricity production is highly regional. Here's a map Tesla made regarding pollution from electricity: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#electricity Some states also let you choose where your power comes from, and of course rooftop solar is currently available (unlike rooftop oil wells).
Sources: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_ca.php http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/38617.pdf
A secondary factor - driving a car like a Tesla communicates an image of environmental responsibility. Even if the government and energy companies aren't supporting renewable fuels, you are. When there is a wind turbine on every corner, and a solar panel on every roof, you will be ready with your Tesla. You're a good citizen, and a forward-thinker...
Modern internal combustion engines with mandated emission controls are really very clean. Very likely cleaner than coal plant smokestack exhaust.
Since I use a 7kw charger at home almost exclusively then actually running the car (not including it's production) is actually extremely "green".
The owner friendly side of the deal is that I never visit gas stations, never change oil or other fluids, don't have to do anything much to it outside of tire rotation. Maintenance is both very cheap and very convenient (since there isn't much of it).
Their business practices are cancerous. Sadly, we don't have a choice in requiring energy - and while Enron is a perfect example of absolute corruption in the energy industry, if I can cut out at least vehicle gas requirements from my wallet, I'd be a happy man.