Track the companies that matter to you. It's FREE! Click one of these fan favorites to get started: Apple; Google; Ford.



Natural-Gas Highway vs. Electric-Vehicle Highway

Don't let it get away!

Keep track of the stocks that matter to you.

Help yourself with the Fool's FREE and easy new watchlist service today.

The race is on for the next generation of vehicle fuel in this country. Companies such as Clean Energy Fuels (Nasdaq: CLNE  ) , General Electric (NYSE: GE  ) , and Chesapeake Energy are pumping millions of dollars into building a natural-gas infrastructure that will navigate the country's highways. At the same time, AeroVironment (Nasdaq: AVAV  ) , ChargePoint, and PlugShare are contributing to an ever-growing network of electric charging stations.

So which one will win, and which one is worth investing in? Let's look at the trends.

Power availability
One of the challenges of getting fuel to fueling stations is the infrastructure necessary to transport fuel. But both natural gas and electricity have advantages over oil in this factor. Electricity runs to probably every major building in the country, so anywhere a fueling station is needed, electricity is available. Natural gas lines also run all over the country, through neighborhoods and industrial parks alike, so a majority of locations where you may want to build a station would be easily accessible.

Electricity may be a little easier to hook up in some locations, but it isn't as if natural gas is going to have to build a new infrastructure to keep up. Slight advantage to the electric-vehicle highway on this one.

Vehicle adoption
If a fueling highway is going to be built, and worth investing in, you need vehicle adoption to take place. There are really two paths these fuel sources are taking to adoption, and both have had their struggles. Electric vehicles have focused on the passenger market, with mixed success, and natural gas is focusing on trucking and buses.

The passenger EV market has been full of disappointing sales for General Motors' Chevy Volt and Nissan's Leaf. But Tesla (Nasdaq: TSLA  ) has had a lot of success with its Roadster, and the Model S looks promising. Fellow Fool Alex Planes argues that when you put EV adoption into perspective, it's actually pretty impressive. The problem for EV adoption is, the financial commitment is harder to justify for the fuel savings involved.

Natural-gas fueling has focused on the trucking market, where dollars and cents are all that matters. If natural-gas fuel wasn't cheaper than diesel, it wouldn't fly. So when Clean Energy Fuels and Westport Innovations (Nasdaq: WPRT  ) work with their partners to expand natural-gas fuel usage, they have to offer a cost competitive product, not a tree-hugging story. This is why natural gas gets the advantage for vehicle adoption. It's an easier transition to make for owners, and the cost savings are easier to identify.

Range anxiety
If there's been one major knock on electric vehicles, it's range anxiety. Natural-gas vehicles eliminate that worry altogether, but EVs may be catching up.

Oregon opened the first stretch of the West Coast "Electric Highway" last week, and the new chargers allow for fast charging along Interstate 5. The chargers can take an all-electric Nissan Leaf from 20% charged to 80% charged in less than half an hour, enough time to grab a quick bite to eat on the road. When complete, the highway will run all along the West Coast, allowing EV drivers to charge up about every 25 miles.

That will help ease the worry for EV owners, but it still isn't as easy as filling up at the pump. That's what natural-gas vehicles can do, just the same as filling up with gasoline.

The advantage here goes to natural-gas vehicles, which will be quicker and easier to fill even if charging gets faster. And charging a large truck or a semi on even high-powered chargers? Forget about it.

Investing in the future of fuel
So what does all of this mean for investors?

Investors can take a leap of faith and buy a charger maker like AeroVironment or a carmaker like Tesla Motors in a bet on the electric vehicle. But I think the natural -gas vehicle highway will win this battle, and Westport Innovations and Clean Energy Fuels provide a great opportunity for the future.

For another great energy stock, check out our free report called "The Only Energy Stock You'll Ever Need." This company will profit, especially if a natural gas highway becomes a reality.

Fool contributor Travis Hoium has no position in any company mentioned. You can follow Travis on Twitter at @FlushDrawFool, check out his personal stock holdings, or follow his CAPS picks at TMFFlushDraw. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended buying shares of AeroVironment, Westport Innovations, General Motors, Tesla Motors, Chesapeake Energy, and Clean Energy Fuels. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. We Fools don't all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days.

Read/Post Comments (24) | Recommend This Article (36)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On March 31, 2012, at 7:58 PM, gsned57 wrote:

    Natural gas may be available but if I bought a Nat Gas car today where would I fill it up? I have no idea and that's a BIG +1 to the EV since I've got close to 100 charging stations at my house (OK i didn't count but I have a lot of outlets). The beauty of the Volt is you can charge the battery in about 8 hours on a standard outlet and don't NEED an aerovironment charger. The other beauty of the Volt is that if Nat gas stations pick up the range extender generator can be swapped out from a gas engine to a nat gas generator. GM execs have gone out and said sales should be much higher this month for the Volt (I hope so because it's been disappointing to date).

    One thing you didn't mention was that in California Honda has been selling a natural gas Civic for a few years now and sales of that car have been around 2,000 a year or 1/4th of the volt sales in 2011. Most American drivers (fleet/businesses aside) aren't going to make a switch if it is less convenient. If they can't find filling stations it is less convenient and range anxiety will keep them away. If the Volt sales don't turn around and start really picking up I'm not sure the American car buying public will make the switch to anything until we have gas lines like we did in the 70's. It doesn't get much easier than plugging a cord in your garage at night then filling up at a gas station every few months.

  • Report this Comment On March 31, 2012, at 8:59 PM, AjitC wrote:

    On a BTU pre-tax basis, the cost of natural gas is about 1/10 of gasoline. A passenger automobile like the Honda Civic can use natural gas compressed to 5000 psi which is no big deal. However, there are costs associated with the natural gas station due to limited volume. Also the range of the NG auto is limited to 190 miles, versus 300+ miles for the gasoline version. In addition, most of the trunk of the car is taken by the NG tank. The killer is the extra $6,000 extra per car.

    For trucking, natural gas use gets complicated. It needs Liquified Natural Gas at cryogenic temperatures and around 260 psi. Filling a truck is a complicated operation, got to use a protective mask, coveralls, cryogenic gloves, boots, etc. Needs special training. Operating the truck is different. Unused NG evaporates the truck can not be stored in a garage with the NG inside. Additional costs and the BTU advantage shrinks. No wonder it is taking so long.

    The Tesla is an expensive car and the battery has questionable life expectancy... good for a niche market at best. However, if there is a battery breakthrough that double the capacity at half the price, and allows for fast charging, then the electric drive train become compelling.

    I suspect that advances in hydrofracturing, tertiary recovery applied worldwide will increased the oil production leading to lower prices. The BTU gap with NG will shrink as well.

  • Report this Comment On April 01, 2012, at 8:17 AM, NanushNanush wrote:

    Natural gas cars and filling stations exist in my country, tho their popularity is limited. Two big problems exist for drivers: NG vehicles are banned from underground parking and from tunnels.

    Thus, NG might make sense for urban buses, which have regular routes, but can not be used for suburban NJ buses, that cross under the Hudson to NY.

  • Report this Comment On April 01, 2012, at 12:21 PM, gotmyleaf wrote:

    As an investor, I'm going with both.

    As a consumer; electric.

    I own an electric vehicle and unless I drive 50 miles, one-way, I only charge at home. CNG is exactly like gasoline as far as a consumer is concerned. It's too dangerous to want to fuel-up at home, so gas stations are required.

  • Report this Comment On April 02, 2012, at 11:17 AM, F2JP wrote:

    CNG still uses an ICE

    Stil Environmentally unacceptable to produce n and burn.

    EV Range issues don't apply to over 90% of vehicle miles driven.

    Battery improvements are being made.

    Fuel Cells will become an option.

    Do The Math.

    CNG, No Way!!!

  • Report this Comment On April 02, 2012, at 11:18 AM, F2JP wrote:

    GE is also heavily invested in EV charging stations, The Watt Station, etc.

  • Report this Comment On April 02, 2012, at 11:59 AM, JohnnieBD wrote:

    So a 4 hour trip in an ICE engined car becomes an 8 hour trip in a Nissan Leaf utilizing the progressive coastal "Fast" recharging stations along the journey. Where does the line form ? Behind the tooth fairy ? PUHLEEZZZZZZZZZ

  • Report this Comment On April 02, 2012, at 3:41 PM, F2JP wrote:

    Over 90% ov all vehicle miles driven are less than 100 miles.


  • Report this Comment On April 02, 2012, at 5:00 PM, DirkHolthusen wrote:

    An advantage for Nat Gas fueled Vehicles is at the end of the cars battery life, you don't need a "Superfund site" to dispose of "one" battery. For those who are worried about burning fossil fuel, the Electric car will still need "charging" and Nat Gas will be burned to charge the car.

  • Report this Comment On April 02, 2012, at 6:06 PM, pink3 wrote:

    I live in California, and on a long holiday weekend, will make the ~400-mile trip from L.A. to Sacramento on the I-5. In my regular Camry, driving 85 mph, I can make the trip with one stop for fuel. Normally, it takes 5 minutes to refuel. On the worst Thankgiving drive ever, it took 20 minutes to get a turn at the pump (4 cars in front of me, at each one of 12 pumps), then 5 minutes to re-fuel. Suppose those were 5 EVs doing a 30-minute quick charge? Then how long to re-fuel? Hours before my turn?! Then add in re-fueling 3 times along the way, instead of one. For this, I have to pay an extra $10K to buy the car, and maybe have a charging station installed in my garage.

    America's love of the automobile is all about freedom: jump in your car, day or night, hop on the highway, and you can be anywhere in no time, and all things considered, for a relatively small amount of money. EVs have a long way to go to replace that convenience. So does NG. And if people cared enough about the environment to go through these kinds of hassles, they would already be taking the bus. Check the traffic in L.A., and you can see the one-occupant car is still king. The economics and convenience rule the masses.

  • Report this Comment On April 03, 2012, at 4:07 AM, rapnjoe wrote:

    Everyone has a valid point, I own shares of both Clean energy and Tesla motors because i believe they both have a future, all I ask is that the consumer be given a choice other than Gasoline and CLNE and TSLA are striving to do so which give me the Freedom to use the energy of my choice, for some EV's work out perfect and for others gasoline works out perfect and for certain markets Nat Gas will be what works, its about freedom of choice and I myself so far have been able to do 90% of all my driving on a Electric car powered by 90% energy form the Arizona sun off my 5.1 kw roof mounted solar system and for the other 10% of my driving I use a gasoline powered truck for my once a week recreational vehicle which I'm happy to also choose from our freedom of choice however economics tell me its less expensive to lease a solar system for $5000 upfront payment to fuel my EV than to pay $50,000 average in 20 years to fuel my gasoline car.

  • Report this Comment On April 03, 2012, at 11:12 AM, JohnnieBD wrote:

    American auto manufacturers have been giving Americans these "CHOICES" as far back as the 80's Yes, boys Ford EXP electric the GM EV1 ...."Chev S10 pickup all electric" all manner of diesel small trucks and cars as well as CNG variants have at times been made available to the buying public. ALL OF THEM FAILED IN THE MARKETPLACE FOR THE SAME REASONS THEY ARE FAILING AND WILL CONTINUE TO FAIL TODAY. Don't start with that business about poorly built. badly engineered stuff these were put out by people with the finest credentials for the time. I spent 42 years in auto retailing on all levels. THE PUBLIC WILL NOT ACCEPT THEM IN SUFFICIENT NUMBERS TO JUSTIFY THEIR CONTINUED PRODUCTION. Do your homework you get an A. Don't do it you get an F. Grow up.

  • Report this Comment On April 04, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Hawmps wrote:


    1) raise your hand if you think it is a good idea to have the potential for Johnny do-it-yourself to try to fill up the natural gas car from the same natural gas that comes to and heats your home. I'm not much of a gambler, but I'd put money on Johnny do-it-yourself trying just that and blowing a hole in the neighborhood taking 10 other houses with him. If you have ever personally filled a propane tank, that's about how you'd have to fill your car with LNG. If it gets on your skin it's nearly instant frost bite.

    2) how often would you honestly make the trip from LA to Sacramento? Now imagine that you do not have to go to the "gas station" and wait in line to charge your car because electricity is just about everywhere and I would suspect that you would eventually see a few charging stations at every McDonald's along the way... swipe your debit card, plug it in, and go get a Big Mac. Adding 30-40 minutes to a 400~ mile trip once or twice a year will not make or break a market. Personally, I usually drive about 30-50 miles per day for normal driving with na occasional longer trip.

    3) every morning when you drive away from your home in your EV, you have a full tank. Curently, I have to go to the gas station to fill the tank and then if I happen to let three or four drops of gas from the nozzle drip onto my shoe, pants, or get it on my hands, I get to stink like gas for a while, in adition to having to smell/breath the fumes as the gas is being pumped into the tank.

    I think EVs and LNG vehicles both have a place in the future. LNG for more heavy commercial use, EV for consumer use. Schwan's has been powering their delivery trucks with propane very successfully for well over ten years and that could be converted to LNG easily. I could see this for wide spread commercial trucks at some point similar as to how Schawn's uses propane. But this is a fleet application and the refueling risks are limited by specific protocols on how to do it correctly at their distribution center. This could be implemented at truck stops but I would suspect that it would not be "self serve". It would be a very bad idea to have an average consumer fill up a LNG tank (when you go to get propane for your grill, do you physically fill it up? no, you exchange the tank. why? liability)

  • Report this Comment On April 06, 2012, at 12:19 PM, Scriborg wrote:

    "you exchange the tank."

    That would be the way to do it then, wouldn't it? Why risk life and limb trying to refill a pressurized tank when you can just swap it out for a full one and get credit for what's left in your old one.

    It would seem to make a lot of sense to be able to swap out your batteries, too, instead of having to buy a burger every hundred miles or so, along with the thousands of other stranded motorists. No need to worry about getting old worn-out batteries, either, which is the usual argument against it. Just meter the usage on board. If a station gives you a set that doesn't last so long, you pay less.

    As previously mentioned, none of this is as convenient and sensible as a Volt with a choice of alternative on-board generators, as well as the ability to plug it in at home. They just have to make them way cheaper, or do better than selling a basic family car at luxury car prices. They're not as cheap and nasty as a Prius, but for the money they should be much nicer.

  • Report this Comment On April 06, 2012, at 12:36 PM, swittwer wrote:

    Gasoline was considered dangerous in the beginning too - hence gas station attendants. Eventually technology made it safe - now you pump your own. Nat Gas will have to go through the same transformation. Once the bugs are worked out in commercial fleets, personal transportation will jump on the bandwagon.

    EV's are also viable because of the short distances most of us travel on a regular basis. Most people, however, are not going to be able to have 2 cars: 1 for commuting and 1 long distance travel.

    This is the issue the Chevy Volt attempts to solve. It is the best of both worlds. Put an NG engine in place of gas & you can have both. Price is stil an issue for this type of platform but eventual prices will come down.

    After all The Starship Enterprise has impulse and warp engines. Why can't we.....

  • Report this Comment On April 06, 2012, at 2:41 PM, fool4theciti wrote:

    The architecture exists to solve the range problem for EVs. Better Planet has a quick change battery system that allows users to change the car batteries similar to changing the batteries in a flashlight (with rechargables that is). The customer gets credit for the charge left on the battery and pays the difference for the full charge. The way I see it is the technology needs to mature and, the auto manufacturers would need to agree to a quick change system which will probably be the sticking point. Perhaps the Japanese or European manufacturers could agree to a system which may force American manufacturers to adopt it also. Here's hoping something sensible can be worked out!

  • Report this Comment On April 06, 2012, at 3:00 PM, count456 wrote:

    Comparison of energy from the source shows that electricity converted from coal, oil or natural gas is reduced to 88 MMBtu, then through distribution is reduced to 29, and delivered to your home is 27 MMBtu. Natural gas, same 100MMBtu, from the source, is reduced to 92 through distribution, and delivers 90 MMBtu to your home. CO2 emissions from a typical household for electricity is 108% and natural gas is 7.1%. Back in Nov, 2010, there was an article appearing in the Wall Street Journal that showed some figures about countries with the most natural-gas vehicles. "Pakistan led with 2.3 million, while Iran, Argentina, Brazil and India together accounted for six million more." It's a different story here in the USA, and one might wonder because many of these developing countries obtain their units from General Motors, Suzuki, Fiat, according to the W.St Journal article. The lack of fuel stations presents a challenge, certainly. Certain states have been progressive. We need to urge our elected officials to reverse their attention from special interests, and respond to the people who are working to making wise energy choices that will benefit all of us and our planet.

  • Report this Comment On April 06, 2012, at 10:53 PM, volcan357 wrote:

    We are running out of oil so something has to change. If the price difference between natural gas and gasoline or diesel increases which it probably will then there will be an increased incentive to use natural gas. Since the USA has lots of natural gas and a limited supply of oil it seems like it eventually has to happen. Of course natural gas can be used to produce electricity which in turn can power electric vehicles. So do we continue to use internal combustion engines using natural gas instead of gasoline or do we go to electric vehicles? I think with the present technology it would be cheaper to use vehicles that burn natural gas. Of course if the method of storing electricity is improved or becomes a lot more efficient than electric vehicles could become more popular. Right now I would bet on natural gas. When gasoline prices get high enough then natural gas vehicles will start to become very popular. And we don't need the government to help since as always the market is going to determine what happens.

  • Report this Comment On April 07, 2012, at 11:58 PM, pastabelly wrote:

    We have propane (LP) powered forklifts in the factory where I work. We have about 10 tanks in a rack outside. When you run out of propane you take a full one off of the rack and put the empty one in. A gas company comes once a week and takes the empties and replaces them with full ones.

    I think a NG car could carry more than one tank, so one could carry extra fuel much like we do on our RV's that use gas for their stove, heat, fridge etc.. There are safety conerns but we already carry propane in our vehicles and I don't recall hearing of any serious accidents.

    Isn't 90% of normal driving going back and forth to work? We may have to have electric for normal commuting should gas become prohibitively expensive. Maybe they would be smaller cars and therefore more efficient than what we are driving now. You can still have your gigantic SUV but only use it when neccessary.

    Am I the only one who thinks it is extremely selfish for one person to drive a gas guzzling SUV 30 miles to work each day? Isn't this a total waste of this finite resource that will run out one day? As far as I know planes still need jet fuel and can't fly on NG or electric.

    These companies are important to the future and I definitely want to invest in them. If people were more responsible than they would be a no brainer but we seem to preach irresponsibility so who knows how they'll do.

  • Report this Comment On April 09, 2012, at 7:55 AM, jegwe wrote:

    I like the Better World concept of EV, developed in Israel and now re-headquartered in California. This uses a rechargeable battery which is sufficient for most journeys, but if you go on a long trip, you pull into a battery exchange station where you swap the empty battery for a fully charged one. It takes about the same time as filling a tank.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2012, at 10:59 AM, dlinkeg wrote:

    CNG stations are easy to find, though not nearly as prevalent as necessary for mass adoption. To locate stations, simply surf online to the US Department of Energy alternative & advanced fuels website (

    We refuel our CNG Honda Civic in our garage overnight, taking approximately 12 hours to give us up to just under a 300 mile range of highway driving. No, the range is NOT limited to 190 miles, unless you have constant stop-and-go driving on city streets with trips of no longer than a couple miles each time you start the car. We are consistently in the 240 mile range for our Civic, but have reached 290 to 300 miles on highway trips, keeping our speed under 65mph. As to any supposed danger refueling an NGV at home, we are much safer with a CNG vehicle than driving on a rolling gasoline bomb. Over 270,000 gasoline car fires each year, with over 1,200 major injuries and nearly 200 deaths. No fires, injuries, or deaths related to OME natural gas vehicles!

    The Honda Civic NGV does not compress to 5000psi. Only Fuel Cell Vehicles are compressed to that degree. Light duty NGVs are currently unable to use Liquid Natural Gas, which would greatly extend range, but is not realistic for light duty vehicles (only for long-haul trucks). Unused LNG does not "evaporate", it outguesses from cylinders if the pressure becomes too great, therefore, LNG tractor trailers are not refueled until they are at the start of a long haul, meaning NO outgassing to reduce pressure buildup (also the reason why LNG for cars is not a good idea).

    There are no bans on NGVs in underground parking or tunnels in the US. What country bans them? The better question to ask is why are they banned… were these NGVs unsafe and unregulated conversions using propane tanks which were never expected to contain the pressures of CNG? Are these backyard conversions, rather than OMG built NGVs?

    As to Tesla battery life expectancy, I have friends who have owned their Tesla Roadsters for well into the 100K mile range, but are still reaching 220 miles of range, slightly less than their original 240 mile range. I don't see how this is "questionable". Deal with real world results, not supposition.

    If Volt and LEAF sales have been "disappointing", how can the author remark that Tesla has had a lot of success when they have sold a fraction of the number of Volts and LEAFs which have been sold in only a few months? Poor choice of words and inaccurate comparison!

    Yes, CNG is cheaper than diesel, but it is also cleaner than diesel and keeps internal engine components much cleaner as well, reducing maintenance. Particulate exhaust is a fraction of any other internal combustion engine on the market. "Clean Diesel" is not clean when compared to CNG.

    Yes, refueling a CNG vehicle at a public pump is much faster than recharging an EV, though the more efficient slow fuel CNG compressors give a much better fill. We gain roughly 40 to 50 miles of range refueling overnight at home and pay less than $1.20 per gas gallon equivalent (less than half what is charged at our local CNG stations).

    Biomethane production is on par with the cost of drilled CNG in Sweden, and will only become cheaper as efficiencies are developed. Biomethane is also a zero-sum greenhouse gas, while the cost of CNG in our current market has been reduced through fracking, which is not a clean nor sustainable means of production. In response to CNG, No Way, there should never again be a reliance on only one "fuel" for our transportation system. We need a mix, a variety of "fuels" to lessen the impact which supply of any one "fuel" could exert. Burning CNG in our Honda Civic NGV has been cleaner and greener than any other vehicle, even the EV LEAF, until just this year when the Mitsubishi "i" surpassed the ACEEE green score of the Honda for the first time in 8 years! The entire cost of a fuel must be considered from well to wheel, including manufacturing costs alongside environmental costs. It is never a simple calculation, but look into the work done by ACEEE ().

    Are we happy with our nearly 14 year old Honda Civic GX? Definitely. Do we want an EV instead? Sure, however those questions are the wrong ones to ask. The better question is: Are both CNG and EV cars necessary to add to our transportation mix to reduce our dependence on petroleum and clean our air? A resounding YES!

    True, no disposing of batteries at their "end of life", however, they are not disposed of even then, because "spent" lithium cells still have many years of usability for electrical storage after their usability for auto transportation is no longer as efficient as necessary. Repurpose "spent" batteries and they will continue to have a long life well after they are removed from cars. Plus, the lithium in these cells can be readily reprocessed into new batteries. EV batteries have too much value within to be summarily dumped in a landfill. They will be reprocessed and recycled, because they are of too much value to dump.

    One writer is definitely correct about the range of EVs. An EV is perfect for the vast majority of families, because we do not actually drive that far each day on average. When we return home, it is simply a 15 second connection in the garage. In the morning, it is a 15 second disconnect. How is this a problem for anyone, when we do this with our cell phones all the time anyway. As long as we are not expecting to drive across the country, fast charging is not necessary. If a long trip is a requirement, then rent an ICE or range extending EV like the Volt for that rare purpose. If a driver regularly has long commutes, then an EV is currently NOT for you. A CNG car would make more sense. For two car families, CNG and EV are made for each other. Both are significantly cleaner than any gasoline or diesel vehicle and can meet the needs of nearly everyone (once our auto industry builds enough CNG vehicles, similar to what is already available in Europe).

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2012, at 11:02 AM, dlinkeg wrote:

    The URL for ACEEE was left out of my response.

  • Report this Comment On April 24, 2012, at 11:54 AM, FlipperSkip wrote:

    Facts speak louder than conjecture:

    About a 10 to 1 dominance, up from a 5 to 1 dominance last year. Could it be partly because an increasing part of the power coming through the very inexpensive plug-in stations already is natural gas energy?

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2014, at 12:08 AM, jela5958 wrote:

    For those above in favor of electric vehicles please consider that by 2035 it's projected that 80% of the power plants that "make" electricity will be fueled by natural gas. So in effect most/all electric vehicles are fueled by natural gas.

    Now combine the natural gas needed to produce electricity for all of the non-vehicle needs of the world with the natural gas needed to create electricity for a "world" of electric vehicles. Then throw in the inefficiencies associated with converting natural gas to electricity vs. filling a vehicle with natural gas directly.

    Just like electric vehicle fell out of favor at the beginning of the last century so to will electric vehicles fall out of favor in this century. And why? For the same reason. Simply put, electric vehicle are inefficient. it would be different if we could harness most/all of out electricity from something less risky than nukes, less harming than fossils fuels, and more efficient than wind or solar. Unfortunately, as yet, no one has economically taped into something as naturally occurring as lightening. Electric vehicles are also more of an environmental impact than vehicles fueled directly by natural gas. Again, because they indirectly, that is to say inefficiently, burn the same fossil fuel that natural gas vehicles burn directly.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1852276, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/21/2016 8:32:21 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 18,145.71 -16.64 -0.09%
S&P 500 2,141.16 -0.18 -0.01%
NASD 5,257.40 15.57 0.30%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

10/21/2016 4:00 PM
AVAV $22.28 Down -0.08 -0.36%
AeroVironment CAPS Rating: ****
CLNE $4.35 Up +0.07 +1.64%
Clean Energy Fuels CAPS Rating: ****
GE $28.98 Down -0.09 -0.31%
General Electric CAPS Rating: ****
TSLA $200.09 Up +0.99 +0.50%
Tesla Motors CAPS Rating: **
WPRT $1.61 Up +0.02 +1.26%
Westport Fuel Syst… CAPS Rating: ****