I think the goal with the Gigafactory and iterations on battery tech is to keep increasing energy density/efficiency so that the pros outweigh the cons.

The same could be said for solar as well. AFAIK panels are a net negative until their efficiency outweighs the cost of making them.

It's all a means to a noble end. Rather this than continuing to burn and release carbon?

>> The same could be said for solar as well.

Yes but we're talking about Tesla now, not solar.

>> iterations on battery tech

So at one point in time, Tesla _will_ be "good for society"? They are not there yet. But they pinky-swear that they _will_ be?

Tesla has an entire energy (solar) division via the SolarCity acquisition.

Right, right, of course, thx for pointing that out.

Now, how does that make Tesla "good for society"?

I'm not saying they aren't. I'm simply asking, how is mining rare earth minerals (by blowing up one mountain top after the other) to produce solar panels or batteries "good for society"?

How about better for society. Maybe our qualifiers are off. The ceiling for making solar and battery tech green is much higher imo than burning fossil fuels.

Any conversation we have in this realm is relative and we're basing that relative qualification against fossil fuels.

>> better for society.

According to what model?

For the sake of what's best for humanity, according to what model is what Tesla is doing "better"?

Do you know what will happen once we run out of rare earth minerals? Will we launch a space ship and mine Mars? Do you know that Mars contains those minerals that we need in order for Tesla to truly pursue their goal?

Is there science behind this belief, or simply a yearning for your stock to become the next GameStop?