Senate, House Bills Aim to Kill $7,500 Electric Vehicle Tax Credit, Add New EV Tax

Discussion in '[H]ard|OCP Front Page News' started by Megalith, Feb 9, 2019.

  1. Megalith

    Megalith 24-bit/48kHz Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,890
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Lawmakers have proposed new legislation this week that is sure to sour any EV owner’s day. While they have “little chance of passing,” bills were filed Wednesday that would not only terminate the $7,500 EV tax credit but introduce a new “highway user fee” for alternative-fuel vehicles because “they are immune from gasoline taxes and ensure the money collected on a user's tax return goes into the Highway Trust Fund.” Supporters claim the EV tax only benefits the elite.

    Opponents say the program disproportionately helps wealthy car buyers. "Rural America's taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bill for others to drive high-end electric vehicles," Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., said in a statement about the bill he authored. "The Electric Vehicle Tax Credit has benefited the wealthy at the expense of everyday Americans just trying to get by. It's time to end this wasteful subsidy and help rebuild our nation's infrastructure by ensuring every driver contributes to improving the roads we all use."
     
    Jarod888 likes this.
  2. GlowingGhoul

    GlowingGhoul Whines about Whiners

    Messages:
    443
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    I knew from the headline, this was the work of HardOCP's in-house leftist. Notice he has chosen to use the word "tax" in this instance, and not "subsidy" to the electric car industry, which more accurately describes what the credit was.
     
    Dahkoht, Nightfire, Dayaks and 12 others like this.
  3. illli

    illli [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,181
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Reminds me of a few years ago when GA used to have very nice ev incentives. Too many people were getting them so they ended it and introduced a new ev tax to offset loss of taxes at the pump.
     
  4. Twisted Kidney

    Twisted Kidney 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,480
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Good subsidies are for ICE car makers, not new garbage, yesterday was awesome! We're going back to the past!

    Pollution is just a left wing, communist conspiracy against our freedom anyway.

    We all know that China invented the pollution narrative as an attack on horsepower.
     
  5. GlowingGhoul

    GlowingGhoul Whines about Whiners

    Messages:
    443
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Describe, in detail, what precisely are the subsidies you claim are available to ICE powered cars? And to answer the rest of your rant, "Oh, it's got Green in the name, so it must be motivated by a desire to save the earth" rather than enrich certain companies that support the "correct" politicians. The US emits lower carbon emissions than it did 40 years ago, with a much smaller population. In the meantime, China, India, and the third world are rapidly increasing their emissions.

    The net pollution that results from rare earths mining, the high level of loss in electric transmission, and the emission resulting from the only reliable source of power, ie, fossil fuels, do not add up to "green" anything. See Europe's 40 year self delusion regarding the environmental benefits of diesel fuel, and the incredible amount of additional expense forced on their populations, for what turned out to be far worse for the environment. Follow the money first, and not stupid slogans and shallow thinking.

    You want to be green? Support modern, safe, nuclear power generation, like pebble reactors.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
    shansoft, Liver, AlphaQup and 21 others like this.
  6. Gorankar

    Gorankar [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,099
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    I am all for eliminating subsidies for wealthy people to buy expensive cars. Which is pretty much exactly what the $7.5k credit is. When the question being asked is "Tesla Model S or BMW M5?", we should not even be considering a subsidy.

    Now, it sort of makes sense when we are talking about the low end electrics, since without the credit there are few electrics regular people can afford to, or are going to buy when they can get 30-40mpg for $10k or more less out of the same car with an ICE. However, they need to improve the tech, or make it cheap enough where it can compete on it's own, not subsidize it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
    AlphaQup, sleepeeg3, Armenius and 6 others like this.
  7. Derangel

    Derangel [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    16,627
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    IF a tax like this could only go for fixing highways and the like I don't think charging EV owners a few extra bucks a year on taxes would be the worst thing. However, we all know the extra taxes would just go to line some politicians pockets or get used for something else completely and highways would see the same funding that they do now.
     
    /dev/null, Armenius and dvsman like this.
  8. darrpara

    darrpara Gawd

    Messages:
    668
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    The biggest problem with the subsidy is that it really only lets wealthier people (who could already afford the car) buy it for cheaper.
     
    AlphaQup, sleepeeg3, Armenius and 7 others like this.
  9. DukenukemX

    DukenukemX [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,238
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    I'm sure this makes sense to someone but the auto market isn't doing well and EV's are super over priced, much like the rest of the auto industry. Imposing a tax will likely hurt EV auto sales. They could just tax companies who abuse the roads with heavy trucks that literally tear up the roads and create pot holes. Especially SUVs where they typically weight 6,000 lbs and Americans have a hard on for SUVs and not cars lately.
     
    D-Money, britjh22, Rebel44 and 2 others like this.
  10. Term-X

    Term-X 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,402
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Agreed. There should be a income check (only individuals under a certain threshold can apply). Though, there would have to be some other mechanisms to prevent abuse of just having a rich guy get his poorer friend to buy it then sell it to him.
     
  11. FreeLow

    FreeLow n00b

    Messages:
    9
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Rural taxpayers receive a higher percentage of benefits than they contribute.
     
  12. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,861
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    That's already built into the gasoline tax, due to the conventional wisdom that heavier vehicles use more fuel and thus pay more in gasoline taxes.

    Also, the "hard on" is for crossovers at the moment, which typically weigh in the 3800-5000 lbs range. Not too far off from the regular sedan that weighs 3500-4500 lbs. There's also the obsession with pickup trucks, but they're generally far less aerodynamic and thus pay more in gasoline taxes due to that as well.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  13. darrpara

    darrpara Gawd

    Messages:
    668
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    I mean, in a way there is an income check but it is regressive because you have to have $7500 in tax liability to get the full amount 'refunded' Same issue exists for solar panels.
     
  14. YeuEmMaiMai

    YeuEmMaiMai Death Incarnate

    Messages:
    12,850
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    lets see

    already have

    car property tax (depends upon state)
    tolls (depends upon state)
    inspection fees (depends upon state)
    registration fees
    wheelage tax (depends upon state)
    gas tax

    and states cannot make this work?


    LET ME GIVE YOU A CLUE: quit spending money on stupid stuff like bridges to nowhere, light rail, bike trails (unless you want to tax the bike riders), etc that are all money wasters. Bussing can be added in there as well, time to charge people what it actually costs to run/maintain them...
     
    Liver, AlphaQup, /dev/null and 10 others like this.
  15. Lakados

    Lakados [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,172
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2014
    Remove the tax from the gas and place it on the tires. Or on all vehicle sales right out the gate have the tax not based on vehicle cost but weight then it doesn’t matter what is fueling it.
     
    sleepeeg3 likes this.
  16. Twisted Kidney

    Twisted Kidney 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,480
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    The subsidies are to the companies. I notice that you very carefully misquoted me, but that's cool, because my tone was mocking and deserved some ire.

    GM pays a negative tax rate overall, plus they live on gubbybux in every state they make a vehicle in. On top of that, the greasy fuckers are making fewer and fewer vehicles with less and less people in the plants that are still in the developed world as they wind down first world manufacturing.

    I confess, though, I'm not a fan of per-vehicle subsidies. Especially on expensive cars for wealthy ass hats. Plus there is going to be some kind of fee on EVs to replace the HW tax on fuel at some point, it's a matter of time. It's probably too late to stop the rise of EVs either way.

    This is all about Tesla getting out lobbied though, if everyone's subsidies and breaks went away it would look more honest. If gas, oil and automaker subsidies all went away tomorrow Americans would be absolutely shocked at just how much money they get. Also most of them would close. So we give them huge breaks and lots of cheques so we can tax the fuck out of their workers instead.
     
  17. DukenukemX

    DukenukemX [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,238
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Sports car owners whose cars typically eat more gas will suffer, even though most of these cars are far lighter. Older car owners who usually have lighter and less fuel efficient cars will also pay more. If the vehicle is a hybrid, not only does it consume less gas but typically weighs more because of the battery. So gas = tax doesn't really seem fair.
     
    sleepeeg3 likes this.
  18. Vader1975

    Vader1975 Gawd

    Messages:
    766
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    I remember Prius's access to the HOV lane as planet savers. Now you have to upgrade to a electric. Every "perk" gets removed in the end.
     
  19. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,861
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    That doesn't account for use though. We have a big 3/4 ton pickup truck, and it's only used for towing boats and hauling things, which is maybe once every other weekend on average.

    Also, certain tires wear faster than others by design. Sporty tires which are designed to grip the road are often used on light sports cars and will wear out faster than touring tires used on heavier sedans. Heck, the LT tires on my truck comes with a 70,000 mile guarantee.

    That is true, and I've made that point before in other threads. The fairest way of doing it is based on mileage and weight, but then that introduces the problem of getting owners to accurately report mileage. However, the biggest problem is highway taxes going into the general fund instead of solely being dedicated to maintaining the roads.
     
  20. Disco_Stu_04

    Disco_Stu_04 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    417
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Your tribalism is showing.

    ps "Tax" was used in the article, in case you didn't read it. So your resident leftist didn't put anything in there that wasn't in the source doc.
     
  21. thecold

    thecold Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    238
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2017
    So the answer is to not tax electrics and tax truck/suv's more?
     
  22. gamerk2

    gamerk2 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,488
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Would be unconstitutional as the Constitution explicitly bans indirect taxation. That's why a graduated income tax needed a Constitutional Amendment to be considered a Direct Tax in order to pass Constitutional muster.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  23. AtomClock

    AtomClock [H]Lite

    Messages:
    66
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2018
    I can tell from your comment that you are both intelligent and young. Your comment makes prefect sense unfortunately, no taxes go away. So, if they added a tire tax then you would be paying a fuel tax, an EV tax and a tire tax.
     
  24. piscian18

    piscian18 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,053
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    I love how much people get labeled around here. At any rate, while I appreciate the intent of the tax credit, but I don't think propping up industry, however noble, should be the federal governments purview. I think the mph increase requirements are more what the government should be focusing on. Focus on environmental, consumer, and economic protections and regulations, not meddling in the market place. Credits, be it consumer focused or direct to industry only end up lining stockholder pockets. Its an ecosystem with a big gaping hole in it.

    As for the taxation on EV. That seems just as moronic and anticonsumer as the soda tax, but I'm sure here those two things will somehow seem completely different.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
  25. sfsuphysics

    sfsuphysics I don't get it

    Messages:
    13,601
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Lets see yes the ev tax credit disproportionately helps wealthier people lets get rid of it... oh wait the standard deduction disproportionately helps poorer people lets get rid of that too!!

    But ok the ev tax because they dont pay for road maintenance. So lets make a system where the federal government collects money to redistribute to states because that has always worked out well and never has a President threatened to withhold money from states if they don't fall in line with what the President wants.

    Personally I say lets completely remove the federal gas tax, let states figure out how to fund maintenance and construction of roadways, if states want to increase their own gas tax to pay for it fine, if they want to simply take it out of the general fund and increase sales, income, or property tax that that's fine. But let states deal with their own funding, and then there's no more bitching and moaning about how state X pays more than it gets. And ultimately lets squash the notion that drivers should only be the ones who pay for the roads, because if anyone thinks they don't benefit from roads then they need to think long and hard about how most of the shit they consume gets to their house. And who knows... maybe some states will realize how expensive roadways are and possibly change up the financing side of things down to the worker, like paying those the guy $25/hr just to stand around holding a sign that says "SLOW"
     
  26. Jarod888

    Jarod888 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,304
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Good. Get rid of the credit and get people who buy these electric vehicles to pay a use tax to drive on the roads. While they are at it, they should force bicyclists over 18 to register, licence and insure their bikes. Unless you want to walk everywhere - everybody needs to pay to travel.
    BTW, no sarcasm here, I really believe this is how things should be.
     
  27. DukenukemX

    DukenukemX [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,238
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    I'd personally like it be based on vehicle weight. You drive a SUV or crossover then your registration costs more because these vehicles are heavier. This would hopefully encourage manufacturers to use lighter materials since vehicles have gotten heavier due to safety regulations.

    But more importantly to tax fleet vehicles since their trucks are far more heavier and financially benefit more from other people paying road taxes. Especially with all the Uber and delivery trucks running around, which just eat up the roads more. It's expensive enough to drive a car, they don't need to go after regular people.

    Tax by weight, not by fuel type.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
    Wrecked Em likes this.
  28. Inglix_the_Mad

    Inglix_the_Mad Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    339
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    I've subsidized old fossil fuel vehicles (and their attendant infrastructure, pipelines and such, not roads) for decades so quit making a fool of yourself. What? You didn't think the fossil fuel industry got massive subsidy breaks? How about the big vehicle manufacturers?

    You remind me of the rural morons I gleefully called out who voted for Scooter Walker. The man who (with the Republican assembly and senate) then cut school funding. Then those same people cried for big gubbermint help when their school districts couldn't afford transportation funding. I wrote many a letter demanding that no Republican or Demoncratic member give special funding to "failing school districts" that "couldn't even mange money properly to transport their students" and that if there was a problem "those failing school districts should just be combined/collapsed until the funding issues were solved". I received many a howling derpy response about how it wasn't their fault. (hint: look who you voted for and what they passed morons, schools were fine prior, then again cause and effect is not their strong suit) Not that the Republicans weren't going to give those rural districts money, even though it was 100% contrary to their stated position they were going to give them money, because they couldn't let their constituents suffer from exactly what they voted for in the first place.

    --edit

    I should add I pointed out in the letter that I moved into a high performing school district for my kids, with the attendant taxes of such a district. I also added that I didn't feel that my tax dollars should be redistributed to failing rural districts instead of my kid's district, and that the locals should cough up the cash for their own districts. Funny thing is it seems Republicans believe in "common good" when it suits them, because I got so many "common good" responses from Republicans in office I wanted to barf. Usually they tie common good to socialism or communism, and to invoke it in response was not only dishonest it was disingenuous.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
    Staples, FreeLow and Rebel44 like this.
  29. Aioeyu

    Aioeyu [H]Lite

    Messages:
    67
    Joined:
    May 24, 2017
    I'm a huge proponent of alternative fuels, but the EV subsidy needs to die. It only benefits the wealthy, and hinders road maintenance. I'm all for creating an EV tax, anyone following EVs has known an EV tax would have to come eventually. I'm lucky to live in an area with cheap electricity, thanks to an abundance of natural gas and coal and huge solar potential. I can buy a CNG vehicle, which I plan to do next fiscal year as I begin to buy new fleet vehicles for my business . There are CNG stations all over the region my fleet drives. It's about aa two year break even point for me, definitely doesn't make sense for all, on vehicles that will be used for at least 5 to 10 years. That's 3 to 8 years of basically driving for free compared to petroleum. Our energy use needs a huge overhaul, with more options and alternatives available. EVs are part of those alternatives, but there's no reason they should be subsidized any more.
     
    Nightfire and Lakados like this.
  30. Lakados

    Lakados [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,172
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2014
    And shortly after some sort of tax for usage based on your insurance policy I’m sure. Government costs don’t go down so when they cut a tax somewhere they have to add another somewhere else.
     
  31. Lakados

    Lakados [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,172
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2014
    I agree it needs to die, but not because of who it benefited but because I believe any item that needs to be propped up with a tax break is a failed venture. If somebody managed to lobby the government that their product should be exempt and not all the others as well then there has to be some back room deal we aren’t aware of. Those are never good for the little guy.
     
  32. Gavv

    Gavv [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,198
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    A few states are experimenting with a use (mileage) tax. Either by self reporting or by GPS. For some of us this would be great.

    As to the cyclists comment. A lot of us already insure our bicycles, many or most already have a license we pay the state and registration/licenses on one or many vehicles. I don’t mind licensing on bicycles if it comes with three things. First police the asshat car/truck drivers that make it dangerous for everyone. Second police the asshat cyclists who make it unsafe for everyone. Third there needs to be dedicated cycling lanes that we can travel on all roads. You want to tax me then provide some benefits. As it is walking paths have a speed limit (which most cyclists exceed) and most walkers are oblivious to rules or think they don’t apply to them. Like dogs on leashes.

    Lastly. We should tax walkers to. They should be registered and licensed as they cause problem just the same as vehicles and bikes. Tractors and farm equipment should be taxed also as it’s annoying to actually have to slow down to be courteous to someone else.

    Forced GPS in vehicles Is coming. I don’t doubt in 20 years you won’t be able to travel without reporting back to big brother. I support use tax over gas taxes but sadly I think we will end up with all of them due to government mismanagement.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
  33. mullet

    mullet [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,591
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    It's all mute, there is enough oil and natural gas for 5 lifetimes. It's only going to get better with time. EV's are a make you feel good novelty. With normally aspirated gas engines getting more and more efficient and oil becoming more and more available.

    Now if you can come up with a battery that is super cheap and can get 500 miles from a charge and can be swapped out in less then 4 minutes with an automated machine, then you have something but until then mehhh. I don't give 2 shits about green but I do care about $$$$.
     
  34. Inglix_the_Mad

    Inglix_the_Mad Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    339
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    I actually support a fuel tax because it's still typical that the heavier vehicles do consume the most fuel and cause the most road wear on average. However I think we should probably be logical and just flat fee the darn thing for vehicles in tiers.

    Your vehicle runs on petrol/diesel? You pay the lowest tier of registration/plate fees, based on an average mileage of 15k miles for personal cars, but the most fuel taxes, and as we all know taxes go up over time.

    Your vehicle is a hybrid? You pay X middle tier flat fee to plate it. This is based on an average mileage of 15k miles a year, a bit more than the average, but less fuel taxes.

    You own an electric vehicle, you're in the top tier for costs to plate, again based on a 15k mile a year usage and that's it. Why? You don't pay fuel taxes.

    This streamlines things and doesn't generate new uncertainty. One could still see it driving people from pure petrol, to hybrid, to electric vehicles while not substantively disadvantaging poorer people who have older vehicles. Separate rules would have to be created for commercial vehicles, like interstate trucking.

    In this way there would still be a demand for creation / purchase of new technology hybrid and electric vehicles without completely tanking the market for petrol/diesel vehicles overnight by making them super expensive to drive.
     
  35. freeloader1969

    freeloader1969 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,234
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    We just ditched such a subsidy here in Ontario, Canada. IMHO, the only EV that should be getting any type of subsidy are ones that "regular" people can actually afford. If you're plunking down $100K for a Tesla here in Canada, you don't need a subsidy of $12,500 from taxpayers. My next car will be an EV but I'm waiting for prices to match ICE vehicles before I purchase.
     
    TordanGow likes this.
  36. N4CR

    N4CR 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,372
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    Leaky by design nukes & NRC legislation plus million year waste and uranium dust from mining 50s tech isn't a solution either. Nuke shills never live downwind or down stream.
    Put that money into gating the very fabric of space time, do something different than the same bullshit that didn't work?! Multiple people have proven this in history but because you can't meter it, no one can commercialize it or centralize it. Greedy fucks.
     
  37. sfsuphysics

    sfsuphysics I don't get it

    Messages:
    13,601
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Big misconception that road maintenance is paid for by gas taxes exclusively, there has been a pretty big change over the years that have had less and less road maintenance paid for by gas taxes. Quite a bit of the money comes from tolls and various sorts of local taxes (income, property, sales, etc) (each state is different), well guess who pays more of those other taxes? The wealthy! So I'm sure somewhere along the line EV users are paying for roads.
     
  38. Inglix_the_Mad

    Inglix_the_Mad Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    339
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    As to point 1, there is no guarantee of that anymore than there is a guarantee of running out in X years. Always plan for the worst... ALWAYS. There is a reason the US military sees fossil fuels as trouble. Often necessary trouble, but still trouble, and a strategic problem.

    As to point 2: I've seen some interesting design work being done that's similar. Right now it's closer to about 100 miles, but the design team is working on improving that and designing an automated quick swap system. The guy I know read a lot of Larry Niven, and liked the idea of electric cars that could take a high-density battery and have it swapped by a machine. You don't own the battery in that case, it's like a glass milk/juice bottle, you pay a refundable fee to use it and return it. Before you say there's no precedent in vehicles, they've been moving jet engines like this for years: you really are leasing the engine paying per hour.

    There is nothing that's easy though because it's always multi-factor. You see batteries (even quick swap) are "easy" to design. The real trick isn't designing the battery suitable for a car, it's designing the infrastructure support system, e.g. the station design to check/charge hundreds of batteries per hour and getting the manufacturers to agree to a relatively common design.
     
  39. Inglix_the_Mad

    Inglix_the_Mad Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    339
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Actually they've had to move onto other funding because gas taxes tend to be static. Want to raise the gas tax, expect to hear a howl no politician likes. This is like the fuel taxes for aircraft: they don't change very often because various interests howl. So what do they do next? They change it to tolls which is just a tax by another name, but then do everything plausible to make sure every other way (other than the tollway) is at least twice as slow, narrow, and twisty as f***. Another thing they do (and this is even more common) is keep raising the registration costs of vehicles.

    So, as an example, my vehicle used to cost $40 to register/plate every year. However, in the last couple of years, since nobody wanted to raise the gas tax after raiding the DOT budget to pay for other things, so they could pass a tax cut, that registration cost has gone up $35 to $75. That's on top of many municipalities that used to get a share of their road budgets from the DOT, but that was cut back, so they replaced the funds by implementing a "wheel tax" on everyone in certain cities. Actually whole counties are now looking at wheel taxes, as the state was late with payments 3 of the last 4 quarters. We'll see if they feel it's necessary, maybe the new governor won't have the issue, but the legislature (basically unchanged) still looks at DOT coffers as a fund to raid for tax cuts no matter what they say publicly.

    This will be on top of the high interest public bonds issued by the state to cover road construction projects after the DOT fund was raided to cover other costs again, so they could pay for another bribe, er, tax cut. Those bonds start coming due in 2020 I believe.
     
  40. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,861
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Fast reactors can consume uranium waste and convert it into very short lived radioactive materials (radioactivity essentially gone within 200 years) and very long lived, not so radioactive materials (mostly harmless radiation). It's old tech, needs more safeguards to use safely, but doesn't need additional fuel to be mined because it can use current uranium waste. Fast reactors can generate up to 20 times more power from the same lump of fuel as a regular reactor. We've probably got enough waste to power this country for the next thousand years or so on just fast reactors.

    I see more promise in the molten sodium solar power stations though as a long term renewable source. It is one of the few green techs that can actually function as a baseline power source, barring a local volcanic eruption blocking out the sun for weeks on end.
     
    theBrownLlama likes this.