

Why is Bill Gates selling nuclear tech to China? - nickolai
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/why-is-bill-gates-selling-nukes-to-china/2010/12/20/gIQA3FPmuO_blog.html

======
jonnathanson
Because Bill Gates realizes that China is the world's largest consumer of
energy, and its share of total global energy consumption will continue to rise
in the coming decades. It is the biggest and most lucrative market for a
nuclear technology startup's products and services. (Comparatively, the U.S.
is very slow and/or unwilling to invest heavily in nuclear power).

On a "greater good" level: China's enormous fossil fuel appetite can have
disastrous environmental and economic consequences, and the depletion of
resources could lead to regional or even global conflicts -- whether cold or
hot -- in the not-too-distant future. (Many wars are, at their most basic
level, contests over the division of scarce resources). So, if we don't help
China develop alternatives to fossil fuels, the world loses in a big way. Oil
prices spike, economies reel, and the environment takes it in the backside.

I'm not naive enough to assume that the "greater good" argument is at the
heart of what Bill Gates is doing. It's not. It's a nice consequence, but the
goal here is profit. And it stands to reason that Gates and his startup will
go where the profit is. If the U.S. was the buyer, they'd just as soon sell to
the U.S.

Finally, the headline of the article is a bit sensationalist. The way it's
phrased, it gives the immediate, emotional impression that Gates is selling or
developing nuclear _weapons_ technology to China. That is obviously not the
case, but it's what many people would infer, even if subconsciously, when they
see the phrase "selling nuclear technology to China."

~~~
CountHackulus
From what I know of the technology proposed here, nuclear weapons aren't even
possible with the fuel or byproducts. Only really dirty bombs would be
possible, but I'd say that's a problem regardless of nuclear technology.

I say go for it, it's good for the environment, and good for the bottom line.

~~~
jbooth
Also, China's had nuclear weapons since the 1960s. Not like this is a
proliferation situation here.

------
johnohara
Time to come up to speed on TerraPower:

[http://www.terrapower.com/Technology/TravelingWaveReactor.as...](http://www.terrapower.com/Technology/TravelingWaveReactor.aspx)

<http://www.terrapower.com/WhoWeAre.aspx>

Local power solutions garnered recognition a few years back, riding the coat
tails of the housing boom. Paying $50,000 for a home power plant seemed
reasonable. At least Toshiba thought so:

<http://www.toshiba.co.jp/csr/en/highlight/2005/fuelcell.htm>

The events of 2008 may have changed the discussion but the idea still has
merit.

Edit: fixed link

------
king_magic
Good for Bill Gates. It is very sad that this is not happening first in the
US. Pretty depressing, actually.

------
zht
Long story short.

It's easier to get things done in China in certain areas because the
government there is more receptive and willing to provide funding. While their
system of governance isn't perfect there's no opposition party screaming at
them about socialism or government spending.

------
Rickasaurus
Why not go for a less provocative title: Bill Gates, Arms Dealer or Communist?
You Decide.

------
JoeAltmaier
Because they are not our enemy? And the US has enormous obstacles to adopting
any new nuclear technology.

~~~
jerf
Did you read the article? You post suggests you only read the headline.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I was indeed responding to the headline, which was an attention-grabbing slur
on Bill Gates - "Why would he do that awful thing!"

~~~
jerf
No, it's not.

Please read articles before commenting.

~~~
revscat
To be fair, the headline _is_ somewhat inflammatory, if subtly so. The phrase
"selling nuclear technology to X", where X is {Iran, China, Cuba, Russia,
North Korea}, tends to elicit a defensive response in Americans.

The contents of the article, of course, show this response to be incorrect
here. I imagine the title was picked _because_ of the response it would
generate. It's catchy.

~~~
jerf
While true, I don't consider it a defense for bad commenting. I would consider
actually reading the article before commenting to be a basic requirement of
participation on HN. (Within reason; occasionally, entire books or a semester
of lectures are linked.)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Ok, point taken. For instance, when somebody wastes everbody's time picking
nits about oh, a comment about a bad title, I'll downvote them and post
followon comments backpedaling and deliberately not getting the point.

------
tlear
So how will terra power prevent their technology from being stolen and local
competitor sponsored by the gov used to drive them out of the market?

