You keep changing your argument as the facts unfold.
My argument points toward two objectives; more hybrid vehicles and more nuclear energy. Both make sense from both economic and environmental perspectives. Because wind and solar are subject to diurnal cycles and are somewhat episodic in their outputs, we need a baseload of adaptable 24/7 power sources to maintain the voltage on the grid. How much capacity is required for this ? Tough question, but most people in the industry believe it is about 70% with the capacity to do ~ 90% (on a dark & windless night).
We will approach that limit on wind solar and hydro in a couple of decades, and if we don't build more nuclear plants we will limit wind, solar and hydroelectric to about 30% of capacity - less than twice what we have now. Moreover most of our potential for new sources of hydroelectrical power are exhausted, and environmentalist are staunchly opposed to new dams. Most people don't consider these facts.
Tesla represents but a minor advance in battery technology, and the aircraft manufacturing industry is already well ahead of them in this area. Musk is trying desperately to take his company private before the market in his stock tanks. I wish him well, but recognize that the real driver for his current sales is a A $7,500 Federal subsidy on each vehicle sold ( even more in California). The Federal subsidy expires soon.
In addition he has yet to solve the problem of quick recharge of his cars. Several hours are currently required, thus limiting the vehicle to city commutes - admittedly a large fraction of the market. However, it is very hard to take a long trip in a Tesla - though they will sell you a (big and bulky) fast charge kit for only $15K.