Slashdot Mirror


As China Option Fades, Bill Gates Urges US To Take the Lead in Nuclear Power, For the Good of the Planet (geekwire.com)

In his year-end letter, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates says his to-do list for 2019 includes persuading U.S. leaders to regain America's leading role in nuclear energy research and embrace advanced nuclear technologies such as the concept being advanced by his own TerraPower venture. From a report: "The world needs to be working on lots of solutions to stop climate change," Gates wrote in the wide-ranging letter, released Saturday night. "Advanced nuclear is one, and I hope to persuade U.S. leaders to get into the game." Gates acknowledged that tighter U.S. export restrictions, put in place by the Trump administration, have virtually ruled out TerraPower's grand plan to test its traveling-wave nuclear technology in China. "We had hoped to build a pilot project in China, but recent policy changes here in the U.S. have made that unlikely," Gates wrote. He said "we may be able to build it in the United States" if regulations are updated and the investment climate for nuclear power improves.

2 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. Re: But if you take out the Lead by dfghjk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Some want government to solely fund the entirety of healthcare costs."

    You post would be more interesting if it didn't include off-topic comments that give away your game. You might also consider including actual content in the analysis.

    Furthermore, regarding your off-topic content, the government "solely funding" healthcare costs is grossly misleading. The people solely fund healthcare costs one way or the other, the issue is the most effective way to accomplish it. It would be helpful for you to understand what's to be accomplished and how best to accomplish it, not merely how one piece looks based on your world view.

  2. Re: But if you take out the Lead by smoot123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...none of this changes the fact that nuclear is stupidly expensive and uneconomical.

    It's expensive because we make it expensive. The whole point of the current research efforts is to show we can make inexpensive and reliable nuclear power plants which are as safe or safer than conventional fossil fuel plants. The safety part isn't that hard since no one has ever died from a nuclear power plant (exceht Chernobyl), which you can't say about any fossil fuel.

    The problem is we're so frightened of nuclear power we're unwilling to dispassionately listen to plausible arguments. I'm not saying they're right, just that they ought to get a fair hearing.