Microsoft co-founder and clean energy advocate Bill Gates has long trumpeted the horn of how nuclear power should play a key role in fighting climate change. Recently, he's gone to Capitol Hill to lay out that vision for lawmakers and convince them to fund the next decade of important pilot projects to test designs for new nuclear reactors.

The challenge laid out by Gates was this: if Congress provides the billions of dollars of funding needed to test new designs for nuclear power reactors for a pilot of his company's never before used tech, he'll agree to personally invest $1 billion of his own fortune and raise another $1 billion in private capital.

Gates has made his nuclear energy advocacy known widely, recently noting in a public letter:

Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that's available 24 hours a day. The problem with today's reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation.

Advocates agree that nuclear power could be the key to decarbonizing the energy mix more rapidly, replacing the baseload generation required from coal and natural gas, and arguing that the risks can be mitigated.

On the other hand, opponents point out that nuclear power, especially newly built, is extremely costly. One study finds that:

The levelized cost of nuclaer power is relatively high compared to other energy sources: minimum cost per megawatt hour to build a new nuclear plant is $112, compared to $40 for utility-scale solar, $41 for combined cycle gas, and $29 for wind.

What's your take-- is nuclear energy the golden goose of clean power? How can it be made more cost competitively? What do you make of Bill Gates betting big on this idea? Let's discuss in the comments!