I've got nothing against nuclear. I think nuclear power can play an important role in our energy future. But if you think '4th gen nuclear power' is necessary OR sufficient to solve our energy problems, you are not living in reality.
There are only a handful of nuclear power technologies that have been demonstrated practically, among them PWR, CANDU, AGR, and a few others. They all have in common the fact that they are obscenely expensive ($4 billion might buy you half a power plant). They are far more expensive than wind or solar on average, even taking into account subsidies, and even taking into account intermittent generation. It's not clear at all if '4th gen' designs - by which I'm assuming you're referring to various fast reactor designs and molten salt reactors - would be any cheaper than what we currently have. In fact all indications are that they would be far MORE expensive! And this is even assuming they can be demonstrated to work, which mostly hasn't been done yet.
Nuclear power has one thing going for it, which is that it provides constant power in large amounts with relatively small space requirements. This makes it cost-effective near dense population centers that don't have ready access to wind or solar in the required quantities.
Nuclear is great but we can do without it if we have to. Solar power is sufficient to provide all our energy needs. In fact it could even happen that solar would provide us with a surplus of energy. Bill Gates is a smart guy. He's figured out that the main barrier to widespread adoption of renewables is storage. However, he's falling victim to the typical techie fallacy of putting all faith in technological miracles. We don't need a technological miracle. We need an organizational and political miracle.