America's Fuel of the Future Is Here

Photo credit: Flickr/Gamma Man.

Imagine a future where Americans can drive coast-to-coast on a fuel that's made in America. It's clean, affordable, and fueling an economic competitive advantage that's the envy of the whole world. That future isn't some dream. It's available to us today if we only embrace it.

Thanks to one little-known company, we now hold the key to the explosive power of the coming "no choice fuel revolution." Curiously, that fuel is not what you might expect. More complete details on that fuel and the company that is unlocking its power is available in an exclusive report from The Motley Fool, which is available for free by clicking here.

Instead of rehashing what's in that report, what I'd like to do instead is to debunk the thought many have that electric vehicles are what will take our nation to the promised land of energy independence. Sure, last month Tesla Motors (NASDAQ: TSLA  ) was able to sell 1,470 of its award-winning Model S electric cars. Meanwhile, that same month General Motors (NYSE: GM  ) sold 1,788 of its plug-in hybrid Chevy Volts. The problem is that this is just a tiny slice of the overall U.S. auto market, where Detroit's Big Three alone sold more than half a million units last month. Clearly, there's a market for electric vehicles as the technology behind them becomes more than just a dream. The problem is that an EV future is still a long way from becoming a reality.

The battery packs required to fuel EVs are incredibly heavy and expensive. Tesla's Model S weighs in at a fairly hefty 4,560 pounds, with what's estimated to be a battery pack in excess of 1,000 pounds. The weight is one reason the body of the Model S is aluminum, which weighs about a third less than steel. It really is a tricky proposition, because less weight increases the range, but not to the same degree as adding more batteries. That's why Tesla has opted for the higher end of the market, where its customers can afford to pay up for the battery power required for the longer range that really has set Tesla apart from the rest of the smaller-sized EVs on the market. 

Currently, there's a big enough gap in the battery technology to keep the EV market pretty much relegated to city driving. Despite Tesla's Supercharger stations and battery swap options, the system won't be nationwide until 2015, and even then, Tesla owners would need to stop for a half-hour every 200 miles by going with the Supercharger option. While the charge is free, it's not exactly convenient. 

On the other hand, one company has already built the highway of the future. Clean Energy Fuels (NASDAQ: CLNE  ) expects to have 150 natural gas refueling stations open by the end of the year as part of its plan to build America's Natural Gas Highway. These stations would refuel a truck in the same amount of time as conventional gasoline. So when compared with Tesla, which currently has only about two dozen Supercharger stations open, natural gas is faster and more readily available.

In addition, natural gas has two critical advantages over electric. First, it's cheap. Even spending the $10,000 to get the next-generation Ford (NYSE: F  ) F-150 equipped for natural gas, consumers who drive 1,000 miles per month would enjoy a five-year return on that investment of 98% at current prices, thanks to a $2.17-gallon-of -gasoline equivalent savings enjoyed by switching to natural gas.

The other clear advantage to natural gas is that it's powerful. The battery power necessary to power a Ford F-150, let alone an 18-wheeler, would be astronomically expensive and take up important towing space. On the other hand, towing and hauling ratings aren't reduced when a truck is powered by natural gas.

The final consideration is the sheer abundance of natural gas. We have an estimated 100-year supply, though more of it is being found each and every day. It's cleaner than gasoline or diesel, and it's in abundance in America. The bottom line is clear: Natural gas is our "no choice fuel." To learn more details on the fuel and the company that's unlocking its power, just click here.

Read/Post Comments (86) | Recommend This Article (18)

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 August 25, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Chollymike wrote:

    What is so new about that? Here in Texas we have been powering a lot of our work trucks with natural gas for decades. The conversion doesn't cost $10,000,000 either, more like a couple of thousand dollars. Another "Oh Wow" from city folks over something we country bumpkins have done for decades!

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:54 PM, jeangodard wrote:

    Here's my dream...Nice cozy house with solar panels,well and an electric car like Tesla S or GM Volt...not forgetting the land where the house will be is in the country with almost or even zero property tax...No power or water companies and no stop at the gas's coming...

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:04 PM, 1941oldie wrote:

    $10,000 is probably a factory install but they charge $4000 or more for a $1000 GPS system.

    The only downside is that as soon as the states start losing gAS TAX MONEY THEY WILL TAX NATURAL GAS.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:04 PM, ljcarta wrote:

    It dosen't cost 10,000 to convert a fuel burning vehicle to NG burning... Google it and you will see it's at most a few 1,000 if that, the only reason I have not converted my car is the infastructure needed to refuel NG vehicles on the highway isn't there yet....looks like it might be in the next couple of years....YEAH!!!!!

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:12 PM, karlsmq wrote:


  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:13 PM, denniskim wrote:

    rural America is already equipped & ready! there are natural gas stations in every small town & home delivery everywhere! we just need an affordable vehicle or conversion kit.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Freddbe wrote:

    Natural gas Is not the future fuel, it is the repeat of big oil sucking people back into there rip off over priced fuel world. It wasn't that far back when this fuel was 70 cents a gallon. Use it and learn to need it and it will do you what gasoline is doing to you now. Renewable is the right road to the future.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:15 PM, OrigJockhead wrote:

    Exxon and Shell have been making their way into natural gas. With the amount of service stations already in place, they can add natural gas as an additional pump. While I think CLNE has been working hard at developing I would be concerned going up against the big boys here as an investor. There will be room for both electric and natural gas with service stops made easy. With most of the smaller vehicles in city fleets (buses, dump trucks etc.) already in use, I think we see more conversion of commercial vehicle's to natural gas over electric. Keep an eye on Kenworth and Peter Bilt

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:15 PM, WalfordS wrote:

    DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINKS IN THE STORY. It redirects you to a flash video that plays for half an hour AND NEVER TELLS YOU WHO THIS COMPANY IS.

    The company they never tell you about is Westport Innovations (WPRT).

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:20 PM, WalfordS wrote:

    The company's stock symbol is doubleyou pee are tee. Motley Fool will not tell you who it is, because they are trying to pump the stock.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:20 PM, jamesdan567 wrote:

    Natural gas for vehicles is far more efficient when burned at large plants, converted to electricity to charge EV car batteries. No gas stations required, no trucking Nat Gas around on the highways needed. Nat Gas burned in small vehicle engines is just another way to continue to have most of the consumer's money go out the exhaust pipe and ensure the consumer's money goes to the evil oil companies.

    Its a far better world without gas stations at all.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:22 PM, TJB63 wrote:

    I personally don't see Any Advantage towards Electric cars, They simply take the Owner out of the "Consumer" equation, Instead of filling the tank with Fossil Fuel thus using up resources, Instead they Plug into an Outlet, Meanwhile the Guy at the Power has to shovel a few more Tons of Coal into the Boilers that in turn Make Electric current and also pump more carbon emissions into our Air, But the Average Citizen feels Good because They Don't see what it takes to make it. Now maybe if the US embraced Nuclear rather than 95% Coal fired Power Plants, Maybe then We would be stepping in the right direction.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Jerry1423 wrote:

    Oh for heaven's sake have times changed . . .

    It seems like only yesterday that corn was the fuel of the future and the answer to our "problems".

    I agree with others who stated that natural gas has been around for a really long time and not really a futuristic fuel. It is some good and practical.

    We just need more filling stations.

    We also need to do something to stop the dispensing of corn in our gas tanks. There is nothing good about it . . . except for the investors.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:26 PM, WalfordS wrote:

    Motley Fool and David Gardner have been pumping-&-dumping this stock since at least as early as 2011. I thought that sh** was illegal?

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Rotomoley wrote:

    Good article and it could work for a while. Once we start exporting in large quantities and attendant executive bonuses start rolling in the price will go up. Compressed natural gas is wonderfully explosive when a leak develops in someone's garage. Makes more sense to me convert it into GTL's and use in Diesel engines. I should also restrict export of US produced natural gas. We really need to develop our energy resources mostly for our use.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:30 PM, btc909 wrote:

    You're local politicians will tax the holy hell out of CNG. If that doesn't pan out look for more toll lanes and road taxes driven per mile. Car Pool lanes will become toll lanes.

    If you can design freeways to load up with traffic this is how you will get drivers into the toll lanes. Lots of ways on making this happen BTW but it isn't that hard to figure out.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:32 PM, syzygysyzygy wrote:

    in accident it can explode easier it is still a fossil fuel which will run out eventually----- when will all you non engineers learn this fact??

    it is not the answer-------- in fact there IS no answer!!

    eventually humanity will die in the billions and few remaining will live llike in middle ages - a short nasty brutish existence

    I wont be here thank god!

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:44 PM, wankap wrote:

    The Lithium ION Battery has already been upstaged!

    A new Battery that stores energy calorically then recreates electrical energy to order, until the stored energy runs out. It may then be refueled in 15 minutes from a regular 115V outlet. It has a projected lifetime much greater than any current vehicle's lifetime (20-50 years), it weighs less and does not pose a danger to the environment or personnel.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:47 PM, devoish wrote:

    What is the cost of building an LNG refueling station vs plugging in a battery charger?

    Does one technology or the other have licensing and zoning issues that the other technology does not?

    Are new technology hating environmentalists more worried about one of these energy sources than the other?

    Current visioning has tractors with engines and the fuel supply moving trailers of cargo. Could electric provide enough power simply by moving the fuel supply between the frame rails of the trailer?

    I think natural gas for transportation had to execute before electric transportation tooled up and it is failing to do so despite the investment that has been put into it.

    Nat gas really is not cheap or cleaner than oil and will soon be a niche technology. As the passenger transportation fleet turns over and reduces oil consumption through doubling mpg's and electric alternatives the price of oil will be capped by efficiency and electric competition.The cost of investing in the thousands of nat gas refueling stations past CLNE's 150, vs the existing diesel/gasoline infrastructure plus the environmental realities of fracking, plus the alternatives of rail transport and making things closer to home it is probably finished before it got started.

    Just my thoughts,

    Best wishes,


  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:50 PM, speculawyer wrote:

    MF has a hard-on for natural gas. But it is not a good fuel for light-duty commuter vehicles. There are not enough fueling stations and home NG filling stations are expensive, noisy, use electricity, and require annual maintenance such that they are impractical. Just burn the natural gas in combined cycle power plants and power electric cars. You don't need to drive across the country, you just need to drive to work and to the store. Fly across the country, duh. Use PHEVs and hybrids for long car trips . . you can get them renting, borrow, carshare, or as a 2nd car.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:52 PM, mortmain wrote:

    It's absolutely free and it comes from Washington DC... It's called Hot Air.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:52 PM, speculawyer wrote:

    Interesting point on the taxing issue . . . yeah, they can start taxing natural gas if it gains traction. But good luck trying to tax the electricity from my solar PV array! Are you going to tax the vegetables grown in my home garden too?

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:56 PM, BatteryWaste wrote:

    Can Motley imagine the I-495 expressway on Long Island packed with electric cars running out of so called fuel. Left abandoned on the road side during their 3 hour trip back home from Manhattan.

    Waiting 45 minutes of more in lines of a thousand or more to get a recharge. Yeah, reality and Motley never seem to mix. To liberal to see past their green agenda!

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 4:01 PM, constructive wrote:

    The fact that CLNE and ??? are unprofitable should give you a hint that the economics of CNG aren't that great.

    Meanwhile biodiesel companies like DAR and REGI are very profitable. And electric car companies like TSLA and BYD (1121.HK) are at least breaking even.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 4:05 PM, sirock wrote:

    Obama will never let this happen. It would put his Arab brothers out of business. Plus the Gov get Billions from the Gas Taxes

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 4:09 PM, djconklin wrote:

    >To liberal to see past their green agenda!

    And that's a sample of the non-green agenda.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 4:12 PM, weaponz wrote:

    The 1,470 Tesla Model S last month? Those numbers have been proven wrong. Tesla sold around 2000 last month.

    Also, natural gas makes sense for 18 wheeler truck, completely agree. But for cars, the fuel of the future is electric.

    The problem with NG is simple, its only a minor improvement to gasoline. Spending trillions of dollars building out NG infrastructure for a minor improvement makes no sense. With electric the improvements are world changing. The minor issues such as battery cost, weight, range and speed of recharging will be sorted out by the end of this decade and give us a superior car all around.

    And best of all, 90% of the electric infrastructure is already there. And it is cheap to build out.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 4:20 PM, weaponz wrote:

    @TJB63 - I don't know what country you live in, but coal only makes up 37% of the grid, not 95% here in the US. (In my state coal uses up only 5%)

    @BatteryWaste - Why would people wait 45 minutes? why not just charge at home?

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 4:31 PM, banditdcat wrote:

    When are they going to work on anti-gravity? That is the future!!!

    Then we don't need those cheaply built highways that can't stand up to the weather.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 4:39 PM, constructive wrote:


    Unfortunately antigravity would introduce new problems, kind of like stealing plutonium from Iranians to power your flux capacitor.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 5:00 PM, kholmann wrote:

    Long life batteries seem to still be off in the future somewhere and natural gas, although plentiful is still controlled by big oil. How about hydrogen? Hydrogen can easily be made by inserting aluminum into a mixture of lye and water, or exciting the aluminum with electricity in pure water and hydrogen will boil off and can be used in an engine. The by product is steam from the exhaust and the waste in conversion tank will be aluminum oxide. This can be salvaged and sent back to be recycled into aluminum once more. Natural gas also has some undesirable toxic gasses from the exhaust also.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 5:00 PM, sagehopper wrote:

    Electricity is a good option...but until battery technology is And electricity has to be generated. From where? burning fossil fuels , nuclear, wind, and hydro. Solar can generate some, but for cars? Not much. Hydrogen packs a lot of power, and just leaves water vapor when it is burned. And it can be made from water and a small current..Just need to build the motor to handle the gas safely..Don't need another Hindenburg..But a tank of compressed hydrogen can be made to be impervious to puncture or valve loss..

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 5:04 PM, constructive wrote:

    Hydrogen's energy density is too low. Cars don't have room for 90 gallon fuel tanks.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 5:09 PM, plange01 wrote:

    a leaderless and failing america is not capable of dealing with its own oil and natural gas.just the whisper of energy independence and speculators arrived like flies driving prices far above the level its worth while using.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 5:10 PM, mikeflores2000 wrote:

    Even we foolish readers don't believe this story

    from fool dot com.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 5:16 PM, OrigJockhead wrote:

    All this green talk makes me want to watch "The Saint" Long live cold fusion!! (and Elizabeth Shu!)

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 5:19 PM, saabhubby wrote:

    I thought the the writers here are supposed to have some economic knowledge. I see that they are forgetting econ 101, supply and demand. Look, not only is there a big push to go to Natural Gas for autos, but also to produce electricity. Under the current EPA regs, coal fired (read cheap electricity) are being shut down and the power companies are replacing that with more expensive natural gas fired generators. Yes, I know they are also trying to tie in "green" energy sources, but it is not reliable enough, so they are forced to go to natural gas. Now, you add to that increased demand natural gas run cars/trucks and you will see the price of natural gas skyrocket as there is no way I can see supply outpacing the increased demand. In a couple of years, people will be paying more for natural gas than we do crude. I don't understand why educated people don't see this. It ain't the be all and end all they are touting it to be. Lastly, when states start to lose tax money from gasoline, they will start charging "minlage" taxes, which will just up the cost even more.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Elbowpong wrote:

    What is it with The Motley fool that the writers feel the need to constantly dismiss the future of electric vehicles?

    At this point, there's no stopping it. We're not going to convert our cars to natural gas because it's too expensive, and not everyone has a gas supply readily available to refuel. Electricity is everywhere. The major infrastructure to deliver the "fuel" for electric vehicles is already in place. Also, it's a lot safer to plug in a car than connect a gas line, since electricity isn't explosive. Same goes for storage in the vehicle. I'd rather drive around with a nice, safe battery pack than a fuel that can explode in an accident.

    As for the economics, it is far more economical to burn natural gas to spin a generator, than to propel a vehicle. Electric vehicles convert about 60% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels — conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 20% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels, and natural gas powered vehicles will be comparable in efficiency to gasoline powered vehicles.

    Another significant consideration... internal combustion engines are expensive to operate, and prone to far more problems than electric motors. They require air filters, emission control sensors, internal lubrication, coolant, a sophisticated fuel delivery system, an exhaust system, a transmission, drive shaft and differential, and they have numerous moving parts which can fail. They are also sensitive to temperature extremes. Look at a commercial parking lot. See all the oil stains on the ground where the cars park? That's untold amounts of oil leaking into the environment on a daily basis. Lastly, vehicle engines are noisy.

    With minimal maintenance, electric motors can run for decades with no issues, no emissions, and little noise. Yes, there are battery challenges, but once the auto industry switches over, and puts the full might of its R&D into the problem, you will see solutions quickly appear.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 5:30 PM, EdHamox wrote:

    Someone, has to pay for the roads we drive/ride on, there are no 'Free Rides' boys and girls. So, when the MPGs rise, taxes have to respond. The only thing improved is the health of the planet, hopefully.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 5:40 PM, speculawyer wrote:

    Sagehopper, you are just wrong. The solar PV on my roof provides enough electricity for both my home and my commuting needs with an electric car. It works great. I've got my transport fuel and home electricity already paid for for the next 25 years. :-) Only cost me $12K in PV parts . . . $8.5K after the tax-credit.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 5:56 PM, BarnatW wrote:

    The current US consumption (annual) of Nat Gas in the US is 25,502,251 Million Cubic Feet. Of that....32,940 Million Cubic Feet is used in vehicles / transportation. Nat Gas has about 1000 BTU per cubic foot. are the BTUs

    Total Nat Gas BTU Consumption = 2.6 E16 BTU

    Vehicle Nat Gas BTU Consumption = 3.37 E13 BTU

    Vehicle/Trans usage = 0.13%!

    Total US oil consumption (annual) is 7.0 Billion barrels. 70% of that is used for transportation. There are 5.78 million BTUs of oil in a barrel of oil.

    Total Oil BTU Consumption = 4.0 E16 BTU

    Vehicle Oil BTU Consumption = 2.8 E16 BTU

    The conclusion? Anyone who thinks that natural gas is a viable solution is a complete moron, or utterly delusional and unable to face reality. Nat gas is not scalable. Diverting enough Nat Gas to transportation to make a meaningful impact will drive Nat Gas prices to the moon.

    There is NO replacement for oil...except economic breakdown, famine, war, chaos. Pretty much hell on earth is what we will be facing in 20-30 years.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 6:06 PM, jroxx1121 wrote:

    people are under the impression that electric cars are the way to go. except they forget one thing. the energy it takes to make the electricity to charge the cars. oil fired power plants use the gas that would normally used in our tanks, coal fired plants are 10 times worse for the environment, they both spew pollutants into the air. the real wave of the future will be hydrogen, when we find a cheap way to extract it from water, there'll be plenty of fuel forever.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 6:15 PM, agitcam wrote:

    More corporate propaganda. The US is the 3rd largest oil producer in the world. Trouble is they ship overseas to make more profit. Using natural gas in cars is just another way for gas companies to stay in power and making money. They stay in the fracking biz destroying more of the earth. If it the gas came from anerobic digesters (methane) that might be different but it won't. More worthless trivia.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 6:15 PM, weaponz wrote:

    @jroxx1121 - nobody is forgetting anything. You are correct that coal is more harmful then oil, but your inflating numbers way too much, it is not 10x. More like 2x.

    There is a few things to note:

    1) coal plants in the US are heavily regulated, the emissions of coal plants go down every year due to stringent regulations.

    2) Most power plants run 24/7, you can't just shut off a plant as it will cost you more to shut it off then to keep it running. Most of the capacity EVs will use up will be wasted capacity anyways.

    3) Coal only makes up 37% of the US grid. Most states that do adopt EVs are even less. My state for example is less then 5% coal.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 6:18 PM, weaponz wrote:

    @jroxx1121 - forgot to add that no matter if you burn 100% coal or 100% oil in a power plant and use it in an EV. It would be more efficient than an oil powered car.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Terikan wrote:

    with current tech, electric vehicles are a niche solution, as is nat gas. Though the latter could replace gas. I'm not convinced it will be much cheaper, but it's quite likely at some point our demand of oil will outstrip what the earth can provide.

    The most efficient solution is a highway embedded charging system. No need for huge batteries, just a smaller emergency one, or generator with a couple gallons.

    Might happen, but humanity will try all the hard ways first.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Tyson1501 wrote:

    And where do people think this power for plug in cars is coming from???? In the near future most all electricity will be generated from clean burning natural gas

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 6:52 PM, rocket7777 wrote:

    Natural gas is not that clean as you think.

    They are ignoring fracking potential for ground water contamination for the sake of economy.

    Other than that, once enough cars are sold, price will go up.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 7:07 PM, SLTom992 wrote:

    For those touting solar panels - sorry charley but the courts just said that electric companies DO NOT have to buy electricity back from consumers at retail prices. That means that solar panels will never repay themselves in their working lifetime. What's more without the tax incentives in the first place they are so expensive that it makes not the slightest sense to install them and the associated batteries and DC/AC inverter.

    If there's NO other way of obtaining electricity such as having a home in the middle of Death Valley or something like that, panels make sense. But the idea that we can somehow beat the prices of fossil fuel with solar in insane. In the US solar panels and windmills are simply silly.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 7:10 PM, SLTom992 wrote:

    rocket7777 - I suggest you learn where natural gas comes from. Fracking makes sense in some location for pure natural gas wells but every oil well contains huge amounts of natural gas.

    Please stop writing about ground water contamination as if you knew what you were talking about.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 7:12 PM, NEPA18704 wrote:

    Natural gas is not going to take over gas , diesel or electric. Natural gas is not comparable to gasoline in price because NG has far less BTU 's than gas or diesel. Anyone that has ever used a propane powered fork lift knows full well the unreliability of the fuel especially in the cold. Natural gas is OK for fixed route servive like buses or mail carriers etc but it will never fly with the public. The infrastructure to support NG is years away, costly and will be competing for customers again from gas, diesel and electric. Electric vehicles have no pistons, rings, camshafts, needs no regular oil changes, has no expensive exhaust to replace , is faster from the get go than either gas or diesel and electric will beat either of them in a flat out race.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 7:24 PM, weaponz wrote:

    @SLTom992 - It is not insane, solar is actually cheaper than fossil fuels by today's market prices. The problem comes down to installation costs.To install solar costs 4x more then the cost of the panels. The subsidy mostly pays for installation costs.

    That said, even without solar being bought back by utilities, solar still pays for itself. But so you know, the court ruled in favor of the solar, check again.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 7:26 PM, 8James38 wrote:

    Natural Gas is NOT a "Clean Fuel". It is a "Less Dirty" fuel. While it is much less polluting than Coal or Oil, in reality it is just a slower way to destroy the Climate - since ALL fossil fuels put more CO2 into the atmosphere.

    If we generate our electricity with LFTRs (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors) we can make better use of electric vehicles.

    In the meantime, replacing Coal and Gasoline with Natural Gas is only an interim strep toward a carbon free energy system.

    Accurate information is available. Here are some sources:

    Read “Storms of My Grandchildren” by Dr. James E Hansen

    “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway

    “Super Fuel – Thorium the Green Energy Source for the Future” by Richard Martin

    Another excellent book: “Thorium Power Cheaper Than Coal” by Dr Richard Hargraves.

    Also see this presentation by Kirk Sorenson of Flibe Energy:

    Or this reference to the same lecture:

    Thorium: An energy solution - THORIUM REMIX 2011 - YouTube

    Humanity has outgrown the possibility of remaining ignorant of our effect on Earth.

    If we remain ignorant and unaware of our abuse of the planet, we will perish.

    We need to learn to respect our planet.

    It is our only home. It used to seem huge, but it is actually small and fragile.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 8:10 PM, delm31 wrote:

    What of hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells? They were used with the Apollo moon landings. Many of our missiles used hydrogen-oxygen engines. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Any feasibility?

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 8:22 PM, dennismcbk wrote:

    NUTS!!! Natural gas may be an improvement over oil but it's still a dirty fuel, and when used in ever increasing quantities will pollute just as much as our current use of oil. This ballyhoo of natural gas is ridiculous. The future does not belong to carbon based fuels for one simple reason: THERE IS NO FUTURE FOR HUMANS IF WE CONTINUE DESTROYING THE PLANET WITH CARBON BASED FUELS!! Everyone needs to grow up and face reality.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 8:30 PM, speculawyer wrote:

    If natural gas is so great and electric suck then why are there so few Honda Civic GX cars but so many Teslas, Volts, Leafs, Ford Energis, etc.? The market has spoken. Listen to it.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 8:35 PM, speculawyer wrote:

    SLTom992, you are confused. It doesn't matter if the utilities buy-back power . . . all that is needed is net-metering. And net metering is available just about everywhere. The grid has to take your excess electricity and then allow you to get an equal amount of night-time electricity later.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 8:54 PM, fredsvt wrote:

    The car of the future has already been here since 2007. The Honda FCX clarity fuel cell electric.

    It uses hydrogen to power a fuel cell, which generates all the power needed to run the car. You go about 270 miles on a tank, and refill it, just like what we have now.

    Honda also offers a home energy station that uses natural gas to make hydrogen, as well as hot water and heat for you home. They are also making a solar powered hydrogen generator as well.

    With recent developments such as making hydrogen just from the sun, using proprietary alloys that divide the hydrogen from plain water, there will be more options.

    Many manufacturers prior to 2008 had near production ready HFC vehicles, Toyota, GM, Mercedes, Honda.

    When the idiot that is currently occupying the people's house canceled all R&D for HFC, due to it being a favorite project of the former admin, the manufacturers were forced to rethink to the stupid crap battery electric.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 8:54 PM, lanceim59 wrote:

    All you FOOLS are wrong. The fuel of the future is ALGAE! It can "do it all"! You can turn it to fuel. You can turn it into cooking oils. You can turn it into a protein powder supplement. You can turn it into a cosmetic product. Maybe some time in the future, it could even be a commodity!

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 9:01 PM, eboblue wrote:

    Natural gas is NOT the fuel of the future. Thats just the idea that this writer is peddling as he gets a nice kick back check from the company that put him up to it. Most oil companies have heavy stocks in natural gas / propane production.

    I'm a particle physicist and I can tell you what the major "fuel" of the future really is. It's something you take for granted and breathe and drink every day of your life; air and water.

    Powerful engines that run on nothing but compressed air have been used for some time now in both Austrailia and Europe. Air engines use.. nothing but air! Any vehicle that runs on air would not have to pass any heavy regulations for safety that gasoline engines do now. Just google the name; Guy Negre, and you will see it is real and NOW.. only if we will support it here in the US.

    Tata motors in India did not invest millions in Negre's designs just on a whim. It is the true "fuel" of the future, because it pollutes nothing and still gets us where we want to go. Water has been known as a fuel source for over 60 years. Water is H2O. Thats two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. Both are powerful "fuels" wrapped in what covers most of the world. Just google: hydrogen fuel cell

    All the car makers know about hydrogen from water and are only doing nothing about it because big oil companies give them billions of dollars to NOT make a hydrogen powered car. Same with air powered cars. The Electrics have only gained recognition because companies like TESLA have forged ahead without taking the big oil company bribes not to make them. Ford took the bribes for many years, but with the demand so great for electric cars, they thought.. oh, well.. lets make one and see how it goes. So over priced that most people can't afford one. An AIR POWERED CAR? Would cost less, out the door, than a down payment on a gasoline powered car..AND would require no emissions tests and pass safety tests with flying colors. Your smart.. you figure out the rest.. why we can't have affordable green cars in this country. Oil companies think they are God and have been pushing us around for over 100 years. WE have to make the change, by supporting people and companies like Guy Negre and TESLA.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 9:17 PM, devoish wrote:

    "For those touting solar panels - sorry charley but the courts just said that electric companies DO NOT have to buy electricity back from consumers at retail prices."

    They still save me from paying retail prices!

    Best wishes,


  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 9:21 PM, eboblue wrote:

    Lanceun59: I just love Jules Verne!.. But you're thinking more of the world of the year 252,000. Thats how long it will take to get rid of the radiation in the oceans currently polluted by the Japanese nuclear disaster, pouring 10 tons of plutonium waste into the Pacific ocean daily. Thats why they have been hiding what really happened. The Japanese country and race will be extinct in less than 10 years.

    This is why I have been for the shut down of all nuclear power plants worldwide ever since they built the first one. I knew, one day, this would happen.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 9:32 PM, eboblue wrote:

    Stupidity is knowing better, but doing it anyway. We, unfortunately, are still a stupid race of beings, destroying our own planet and killing each other based only nothing more than what we think is power and money. What is the worth of money when you're dead? We still don't have a president that rules this country from the grave. Well, Obama would almost qualify, but.. I would just say this and get out of everyones face... Let US be the change in this world that we would like to see. Anyway, lets just hope that reincarnation is real. That way, we might get another chance at getting it right. But the unfortunate truth is.. we have already screwed the pooch this time around.

    If all keeps going as it is now.. the human race will be extinct in less than 100 years.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 10:28 PM, xxxlove wrote:

    Sigh. More propaganda to prop up a failing administration. Just wait until electric prices skyrocket necessarily.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 10:51 PM, PeakOilBill wrote:

    Don't fall for the fracking hype of "a hundred years of natural gas". The cost of gas will increase a lot sooner than most people realize, as more and more is used to replace coal in electricity generation, and as more is exported as LNG.

    The car of the future will be battery powered because electricity can be produces from so many different energy sources, like wind, photovoltaic, solar collection, nuclear fission, hydroelectric dams, wind farms, coal, natural gas, geothermal, and tidal flow turbines.

    Always remember that there can be a trillion barrels of oil in the ground, but if it takes 1.1 trillion barrels of oil to get it out, it will stay down there.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 10:56 PM, southernshark wrote:

    I like Natural Gas, but honestly prefer DIESEL.

  • Report this Comment On August 26, 2013, at 12:03 AM, BarnatW wrote:

    Does anyone here actually understand basic physics...units of energy...the equivalence of KkW Hours to BTUs, etc? The ENERGY that it takes to move our personal transportation metal boxes around is IMMENSE. The answer is not a new way to move around all these personal metal is not moving them around as much. Electicity? A joke. How are we going to triple...quadruple...quintuple our electric generation in 20 years? We cant. The ENERGY to "generate" electricity has to come from somewhere. The rate of energy use can not be sustained...let alone grown to continue our economic paradigm. Tesla...nothing but a feel good botique company. Natural gas...not scalable. The solution is one that no one wants to hear.... The end of suburbia....mass transportation....and the end of the consumer economy.

  • Report this Comment On August 26, 2013, at 1:23 AM, Firsttexasgal wrote:

    Most people don't know that in Texas they have hit alot of oil and they send it out to sea and they can over price it and say it's from over seas and charge more. Not only that they are selling it to other contries that over price the U.S. for higher prices.

  • Report this Comment On August 26, 2013, at 2:09 AM, HunterofWarrior7 wrote:

    Funny, about 12 years ago, here in Kern County (McKittrick, Taft and Belridge) we use to set fire or try to find safe ways of disposing natural gas which simply didn't pay as much as crude oil (our oil isn't the sweet crude, its different). I recall three 100 to 250 feet walls of fire out in those towns. We used natural gas for cars, but our range was about 25 to 75 miles on CNG. It seems we can go a lot further with electricity. Electricity if 93% efficient, whereas CNG was only 9% efficient while gasoline was about 13% and diesel 17%. That is to say, the energy used to move the vehicle forward is the efficiency factor. CNG simply lost too much efficiency in additional filters and creating heat (lost energy).

  • Report this Comment On August 26, 2013, at 3:06 AM, 8James38 wrote:

    Eboblue, and those touting hydrogen, don't forget to factor in the compressing of air and separating of water for hydrogen.

    Both of those require power, and abundant cheap non-carbon electricity could make both work more or less economically.

    The lowest cost and safest electric power will come from LFTR. (liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors), which are both fail-safe and can use present stockpiles of Nuclear Waste as fuel.

    Much talk is going on about the latest designs of IFR (integral fast reactor) which is touted as "simple and safe". It is neither. It is a complicated sodium cooled solid fuel reactor, and no matter how cleverly designed, it is subject to sodium leaks which can be explosive. There is no advantage to these reactors over the LFTR but that they have been studied more. We can build some, but the important emphasis needs to be placed on the LFTR.

    Of course any decently designed reactor is better than coal.

    Germany has proven that Solar cannot economically replace grid level power. They must recover from the Nuclear Fear and Ignorance lobby, and re-invigorate their excellent reactor program with new emphasis on the LFTR, which runs at atmospheric pressure, and cannot explode.

    I have watched Guy Negre and his air car for many years. It is clever and is probably the best air power possible. However, it cannot regenerate energy from braking.

    For a better design, look at Ingocar, for a hydraulic car that recovers 75% of its energy by braking. This may be the best transportation concept yet, and needs support to go into production. It is lighter, accelerates like a sports car, and is far less expensive to maintain or manufacture. It has a far superior carbon footprint.

  • Report this Comment On August 26, 2013, at 3:23 AM, wankap wrote:

    In Addition:

    The concentrated tracking solar energy collector works for both car and home, when teamed up with the battery storage and generation are rolle into a two or more piece package. Economical and durable.

    There is also a windmill-generator.

    and the solar-reactor unit may also be upsized and used where a full day sun is available without tracking. In addition there's an environmentally soft geothermal input to the battery.

    People that like my stuff, please vote for it on the create the future contest. I need the best chance to win. I already got honorable mention.

    I'm working on the company website currently.

  • Report this Comment On August 26, 2013, at 7:20 AM, EricMJohnson wrote:

    The only reason it costs $10,000 to convert a vehicle to CNG is because of EPA regulations. The tank and hardware should only cost a couple thousand dollars, if that. Nothing magic, just proven technology burdened by government regulations from an agency that is supposed to protect our environment. But the EPA is really about protecting the oil industry, which is part of the cabal of banks and corporations that own our government.

  • Report this Comment On August 26, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Surfer1958 wrote:

    Really? How long do you think it would take for the $2.17 per gallon saving to be eaten up by new taxes, road tolls, and higher NG gas prices. I like the vision of having my electric car being charged up using the solar panels on my roof. Its coming, but the key is to stop electing lackeys to the Oil interests.

  • Report this Comment On August 26, 2013, at 10:03 AM, lm1b2 wrote:

    The fuel of the future is here,but it isn't Electric nor Natural Gas its Hydrogen Gas,the only fuel that is renewable,clean,and can be made cheaply,and we will never run out.The problem is the Oil industry has been blocking the use of this fuel for years,with our corrupt governments help.

  • Report this Comment On August 26, 2013, at 10:23 AM, smacunalum wrote:

    CLNE doesn't need passenger cars running on CNG to be successful. They need the trucking industry and that's what they have been going after - that and larger vehicles like buses. They are approaching breakeven even with hardly any of the OTR business. They have been doing a good job of building the business and with the addition of the new facility in New Hampshire is sounds as if they might be treading into pure distribution - but I need to know more about what that deal is. As I've said before, I believe the gas price will stay in the sweet spot for CLNE.

  • Report this Comment On August 26, 2013, at 11:34 AM, cityperson wrote:

    All these new fuels and electric is fine, but the politicians local, tsates and federal will find a way to tax the He>> out of all developed fuels and others things being developed. Plus I know all the taxes will be for the children, once again as usual and dummies will fall for this again and again. Then we have the dummies that love to vote for taxes in various states.

  • Report this Comment On August 26, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Clede wrote:

    For everyone who thinks we should go all electric to, "save the environment", here's a little eye opener for you. Efficient electric motors REQUIRE the use of rare earth magnets, which MUST BE MINED. I am not opposed to electric cars, I even have an idea for a motor that might make it practical for every driver (that is if my idea actually works), but I have no delusion that it will be good or even better for the environment. If we were to start making every new vehicle in the U.S. electric we would HAVE TO find new sources for our REM's. Currently we use all of what we are able to mine to fulfill our current needs. REM's are used in almost all modern electronics as far as I can tell. This includes televisions, cell phones, I-pods, computers, anything with a speaker, most if not all electric motors for household appliances and tools, etc... the list is very long.

    I believe there is room for all of these options (electric, gasoline, natural gas, and even propane). Maybe we should stop trying to find ONE source to answer all of our needs and realize we can use multiple sources to help alleviate the problem. For example, instead of diesel for over the road trucks, trains, heavy duty pickups, and box trucks we could use CNG (condensed natural gas). It's much cleaner, can be just as powerful, and the engine could last just as long. Already fuel efficient mid-size and small cars could continue to use gasoline. Larger cars, light duty pickups, and SUV's could use propane (it is my understanding that if you tweak the engine a bit there would be no loss of power). Finally electric could be used for small to mid-size cars with short commutes. As battery technology improves more and more of these cars could be used for longer commutes.

    I believe this would help control costs across the board and keep us from becoming dependent on any one source of fuel. Yes I realize that gasoline, propane, and natural gas are all from the so called EVIL OIL COMPANIES, but if that's how you really feel then ask yourself, "What is to keep the small alternative energy companies from becoming the BIG EVIL ENERGY COMPANIES if they become our country's primary or only energy source?" Someone has to make your solar panels. Someone has to mine the REM's for your electric motors used in cars, windmills, and household appliances and tools. Someone also has to dispose of the used nuclear material used in nuclear power plants, which by the way I believe can be disposed of in a safe manner.

    People we have to look at the big picture in order to come up with a reasonable affordable solution.

  • Report this Comment On August 26, 2013, at 1:18 PM, zonayork wrote:

    What ever happened to hydrogen-based cars? That seems like such a great idea! The exhaust is pure water and we've got an unlimited supply of hydrogen!

  • Report this Comment On August 26, 2013, at 2:00 PM, atkinskd wrote:

    News Flash - Save for Hydrogen (high energy to extract and volatile to store) anything that burns produces CO2 and H2O if burned perfectly - in the lab. Use the predominantly Nitrogen based atmosphere and the genus of gasses emitted grows. Now, an apples to apples comparison of emissions of current gasoline, E85, Ethanol, and CNG would be helpful but only if cross examined for energy density. That is to say that Ethanol only contains 85% of the raw energy that a gallon of gasoline does. Strip out all the unit conversions and diversionary marketing BS and you'll see that the numbers really don't distinguish one fuel as 'better' than the other. Which is why Bio-Diesel, CNG, Ethanol in any blend all kind of fade into the noise.

    That goes for any of the 'Green' energies. Their underbelly is pre and post process to get to market. Lithium - evil stuff, Neodymium - Ditto, Clean Coal - Still Dirty, Solar panels - Waste hydroflouric acid lace with gallium and Arsenic,, etc, etc,

    About the greenest energy out there is Geothermal. Pipes, radiator, water and fan connected in tandem to existing climate control REDUCES energy needed to reach the comfort zones. We're drilling all these CNG holes, why not some for GT?...Oh because once installed the system doesn't need much in the way of continued support - kills municipal and utility pocketbooks and we can't have that.

    The answer to the energy dilemma - there isn't one. We can't eliminate or replace only reduce so far.

  • Report this Comment On August 26, 2013, at 2:19 PM, JH4O wrote:

    Natural gas is a great first step to an eventual hydrogen economy.

    Hydrogen is just a way of storing water as the elements will return to the water the hydrogen came from if it was electrically broken down. (solar or wind to do the breaking down)

    The problem is that stripping it from oil and gas may be cheaper at first.

    But the storage and fuel talk designs from natural gas are the same science as storing hydrogen and the universal fuel engines and fuel cells can use it.

  • Report this Comment On August 26, 2013, at 2:25 PM, wankap wrote:

    The real terrible thing about existing batteries is the simple fact the technology cannot be recycled! Old batteries are placed into drums then buried! The new battery has no dangerous chemicals, Is very slow aging (ten of years, if that), Is light-weighted and may be scaled to any size. For an average car you only need four to six batteries!

  • Report this Comment On August 26, 2013, at 5:29 PM, BarnatW wrote:

    More complete ignorance of physics. Hydrogen is NOT en energy source...just as batteries are not an energy source. Fuel cells and batteries are NOT sources of energy. They are energy storage mediums. They do nothing so solve the issue of energy supplies.

    There have been ZERO new energy technologies introduced since the mid 1940s. NONE. The last major breakthrough was nuclear power providing heat to drive steam turbines to generate electical power. That is is. All these so called new ideas are nothing but retreads of concepts which have in most cases been around a century.

    Technology is not energy. Technology is the more and more clever USE OF energy. Take away energy..and technology collapsed.

  • Report this Comment On August 27, 2013, at 9:42 PM, JeffNY001 wrote:

    The premise of this article seems to be "Abundant cheap American natural gas is good, therefore electric cars are bad". STUPID. Matthew says "The battery packs required to fuel EVs are incredibly heavy and expensive". WRONG. The battery in the Chevy Volt is only 435 pounds and provides enough reliable power for most peoples daily driving. And batteries are improving and the cost of them are dropping almost daily (look at the historical price per kW of batteries). Lithium Sulfur and Lithium Air batteries should deliver dramatic improvements over that (in the case of Lithium Air up to 1000x over current batteries). The batteries we have today are far better than what we had 10 years ago, and the ones we will use in 10 years will be dramatically better than the ones we use now.

    And the "battery weight" of the Model S? WHO CARES. It does't matter. The car still does 0-60 in about 4 seconds and out performs most sports cars and muscle cars!! Gee, the Ford F-150 (one of the most popular vehicles of all time) weighs over 4,600 pounds (more than a Model S). And I imagine a natural gas version would weigh even more! Yet that doesn't seem to worry Mathew. Only "EV''s". And don't think the tanks to store natural gas in your car at 3000psi and above are "light". Matthew says "The battery power necessary to power a Ford F-150…would be astronomically expensive and take up important towing space." WRONG. A pickup with a battery has already been done, and offers huge financial savings for fleets and their owners. Take a look at

    Mathew talks about the "tiny slice" for the overall market "EV's" are. Hey Mathew, main stream "EV's" (Leaf, Volt, etc) have only been on sale since about December 2010, yet there are now over 120,000 "Plug in EV's" on U.S. roads. Quite a contrast to December 2010 when it was hard to even buy an "EV". And that number continues rising, dramatically now!

    Matthew talks about the "150 natural gas refueling stations open by the end of the year". Yet fails to mention there are over 5,600 public charging stations for EV's (with over 16,000 charging points) in the U.S. alone NOW. And that number continues to grow (see or Almost every home and business in the U.S. is also a potential charging point.

    AND, by the way, electric cars CAN and DO run on American natural gas now anyways!! EV's can also run on American Coal, American Nuclear, American Hydro, American Geothermal, American Solar or American Wind. Whatever is cheaper, and do so without being locked into a single fuel supply. What a pointless article this is.

  • Report this Comment On August 27, 2013, at 11:51 PM, wankap wrote:

    Current batteries are all toxic mixtures and use of them must be curtailed ASAP.for the environment's sake!

    The replacement battery will work for the lifetime of the vehicle, only require a few cells, weigh hundreds of pounds less, and no inverter electronics is necessary only switching! In fact, if there is one battery per wheel, even switching is unnecessary as the batteries are digitally controlled allowing them to drive the wheels directly. The design is complete a pre-prototype is being debugged. Patent is filed.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2013, at 10:32 AM, JeffNY001 wrote:

    A lot of good points above, and a number of "uninformed" ones I would love to reply to. But I don't want to hog the board here. But just a couple more additional points to add to my post above;

    "Clede" said above "Efficient electric motors REQUIRE the use of rare earth magnets, which MUST BE MINED." This is NOT TRUE. The Tesla Model S uses AC Induction motors, which do not require any "rare Earth metals". AC Induction motors are from 85 to 97% efficient, and that's as good as or better than DC motors with magnets. But even so, why the concern for the use of rare Earth metals (which, by the way, are not really "rare")? We mine for coal and drill for oil and gas. Why not use what the Earth has to make magnets or anything else?

    - What happen to Hydrogen? Where do I start? Lets start with the "Hydrogen economy" was just too expensive. It would cost over half a TRILLION dollars to build the pipe line infrastructure, then you have to find a way to make all the hydrogen to put in those pipe lines (there are issues with hydrogen storage and the effects it has on metals over time too). And as pointed out above, Hydrogen is NOT a fuel source. It's only a carrier of energy. Which means if you want hydrogen you need to make it some how, typically with electricity. So if you are going to use electricity to make hydrogen, then put it in a pipe to send to a (very expensive) fuel cell somewhere to then make electricity again, why not just make and use the electricity in the first place (at much lower cost and higher efficiencies)! BTW there appears to be only about "55" hydrogen stations in the U.S., and just "27" were installed *globally* in 2012. So good luck trying to buy a car that runs on (expensive) hydrogen, and good luck trying to find a place to fuel it.

    - Also as pointed out above internal combustion engines are horribly inefficient. Typically only converting about 20% of the energy in gasoline (or natural gas) to mechanical work. The rest is lost to heat and other in efficiencies. Electric motors used in EV's on the other hand are close to 90% efficient at converting electricity to mechanical work (this really changes the "energy density advantage" argument some people like to wrongly use to say gas is better….). It's more efficient to use natural gas to make electricity, that can then be used in electric cars, than to burn it in a combustion engine in a car.


  • Report this Comment On November 08, 2013, at 2:31 AM, mrshelenastewart wrote:

    do you need an urgent loan to raise up your business or a christmas loan if yes contact us with this email;

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: 2608799, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/28/2016 4:43:28 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 18,339.24 110.94 0.61%
S&P 500 2,171.37 11.44 0.53%
NASD 5,318.55 12.84 0.24%

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

9/28/2016 4:00 PM
CLNE $4.52 Up +0.17 +3.91%
Clean Energy Fuels CAPS Rating: ****
F $12.09 Up +0.11 +0.92%
Ford CAPS Rating: ****
GM $31.90 Up +0.30 +0.95%
General Motors CAPS Rating: ***
TSLA $206.27 Up +0.46 +0.22%
Tesla Motors CAPS Rating: **