NG expected to hit approx. $1.6 per unit.
What's the NG trade at that point ?
I've been making some good coin on LNG shares. Much of that has been due to the fall of NG prices. However, the NG price is irrelevant until Cheniere starts exporting... which is likely still three years away.
LNG should take a breather at $19.5/$20... I'll sell there and look for a re-entry.
Is the trade still FSYS CLNE & WPRT ?
here is a NG play:
I wish I would have acted earlier, I traded this stock years ago. I'm thinking about getting back in if the share price takes a hit.
At this point the share price has pushed far above the 50 & 200 day averages... no thanks.
Hey guys, My main issue with electric is the false sense that they don't pollute. The coal burned/used to generate the electricity is far greater than the promoters of electric cars will admit.
It's the smokestack.
http://www.gavinshoebridge.com/electric-cars/dirty-electric-cars-powered-by-dirty-coal/ I hear both sides of the debate, so I'm not sure of the facts.
As to the CNBC host(Joe)...who asked him?
What are his credentials in terms of understanding the issues surrounding this subject matter?
He obviously has a thing against hydrocarbons and thinks renewable EV's are the ONLY way to go.
Thing is, the EV's are hardly renewable when batteries and other related issues are taken into account.
The energy and power to mine the materials that goes into making the batteries has to come from somewhere... as does the power to charge the batteries.
Then there are enviro considerations with the materials that goes into EV's and generating alternative energy.(rare earths are highly energy intensive to mine and process as well as having other rather large enviro drawbacks during mining, i.e. contamination related issues from radioactive materials that are often associated with some rare earths )
I'm all for renewable energy sources but when the wind turbines are whacking endangered birds out of the sky at the rate they already do, I wonder about the renewability of the bird populations if we were to increase windpower generation to power just 2% of the nation's autos.
As to using solar energy for charging vehicles through the grid, solar is already prohibitively expensive energy.
Why would we want to layer on additional costs and put added pressure on the grid to make that possible?
Individual solar installations to charge an EV in an urban setting are also not economically practical since the avg. individual does not have enough scale to keep installation costs down... and subsidies are hardly the answer.
the avg urban dweller also does not have enough room to install enough panels to charge a car and for the person that works days, a solar installation to charge an EV isn't much good unless a second battery that can easily be changed on a daily basis. Hmmm
Of course, when the sun doesn't shine or is not of enough intensity, the whole idea of solar as a reliable source of energy falls flat on its face and back up power of some sort needs to be maintained.
Who should pay for that back up capacity that sits idle and needs to be maintained ?
As to taxes: If the masses do convert to NGV's (or EV's), the govt will need to make up for the taxes it would lose from reduced gasoline sales so any cost comparisons vs gasoline should exclude the burden that gasoline currently carries.
Either that or input a similar tax burden for the alternatives.
That is unless govt is willing to forego these lost fuel taxes in order to achieve it's green /environmental agenda...even though it's hardly green when examined in depth.
Just my opinion but a lot of these so-called green solutions 'may' actually have worse environmental impacts than the current way we do things if implemented without a full understanding of all that's involved.
Joe for instance probably knows little about what EV's really entail for the environment if adopted by the masses and my guess is he probably doesn't realize how challenged EV's currently are WRT maintaining creature comforts in hot or cold weather while not sacrificing range of travel.
Personally, I hate scraping windows with a snow shovel (I much prefer high efficiency defrost powered by IC engine) and my guess is if you ever did get temporarily stuck in the snow on your way home in an EV your chances of getting home might be greatly reduced.
Imagine the gridlock with a bunch of EV's stuck on the freeway all with dead batteries on a cold snowy day?
Many Obama voters might freeze to death hugging their dead batteries so I guess there is a bright side!!
$9-10K seems expensive and I don't think will ever fly for the masses. I also question the claim as to 80 mpg.
Would that be factoring the equivalent mileage using cheaper NG vs the more expensive gasoline distance equivalent?
Or is the vehicle in NG mode more efficient in converting BTU's such that for an equivalent BTU input, the vehicle goes that much further with NG vs gasoline?
I'm thinking the former and a clue might be what this dual fuel vehicle gets in MPG when running in gasoline mode.
I just don't see the NG fuel conversion kit adding that much to fuel efficiency of the ENGINE.(80 mpg??)
Bottom line, the automakers need to give us the CNG/LNG option at a cheaper price because NG is a fuel that we should be able to make more use of.
CNG vehicles should cost no more than 1500 extra IMO.