Why is Bill Gates selling nuclear tech to China? | Hacker News Reader

Why is Bill Gates selling nuclear tech to China?

washingtonpost.com

33 pointsnickolai20 comments

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."

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.

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

Nuclear weapons aren't possible with this technology, and to those of us in the HN community, that is obvious. But it's not obvious to the average American reader, and that's what troubles me about the headline.

Writing is an exercise in human psychology, whether intentional or unintentional. And the phrase "selling nuclear technology to China" carries heavy emotional connotations. Psychologically speaking, it's scary. The typical, quasi-informed, American reader will infer nuclear weapons, even if it's neither stated nor implied.

This is why I hate sensationalist headlines, and why I give journalists no quarter in my critiquing them. I get that it's all about pageviews, and sensation drives pageviews. But somewhere along the way, responsibility and integrity should enter into the calculus.

Political will is another big one. If China wants to do something, it does it. That certainly has its benefits when you're trying to create a nuclear technology startup I imagine. All those issues of 'not in my neighborhood' simply become moot.

> I'm not naive enough to assume that the "greater good" argument is at the heart of what Bill Gates is doing.

Why would that be naive? Hasn't Gates essentially committed to devoting his entire fortune to the greater good?

Sure, but in this case, the startup is a for-profit company. There's a profit motive every bit as much as there's a nonprofit motive. Don't get me wrong; I don't see those things as mutually exclusive. And I certainly believe Gates doesn't. I give him a lot of credit for doing what he's doing with his fortune. He and Warren Buffett are to be applauded for their perspectives on how people of tremendous wealth can put their resources to amazing use.

Good business and good works can go hand in hand in cases like this, and it's to the benefit of both.

Here Here!

Why? 1) Lower Barrier to building Nuclear reactors (No Not-in-my-backyard in China) 2) Government fast-mover advantage. China's government can ram through approvals in a year for what would take a decade in the USA. 3) Highest DEMAND. Energy consumption is SKYROCKETING in China. 4) biggest environmental benefit- shift coal burning heaters to electric, reducing pollution. 5) Stabilize region energy competition. The more renewable/sustainable energy available, the less likely they are to conflict over resources with neighbors or the global market.

Time to come up to speed on TerraPower:

http://www.terrapower.com/Technology/TravelingWaveReactor.as...

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

No, it's not.

Please read articles before commenting.

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.

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.)

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.

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com