I say go for it, it's good for the environment, and good for the bottom line.
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.
Why would that be naive? Hasn't Gates essentially committed to devoting his entire fortune to the greater good?
Good business and good works can go hand in hand in cases like this, and it's to the benefit of both.
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.
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."