Nano Nuclear Energy Stock

Greetings. Welcome to the NANO Nuclear Q3 2026 Financial Results and Business Update Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note this conference is being recorded. I will now turn the conference over to [ Matthew Barry ].

Thank you and good afternoon everyone. Joining me on the call today are Jay Yu, NANO Nuclear's Founder, Chairman and President, James Walker, our CEO, and [ Jason Garcha ], our CFO. Please note that today's press release and slide presentation to accompany this webcast are available on our website. Before moving ahead, I'll quickly address forward-looking statements made on this call. As reflected in more detail in slide 2, today's presentation contains forward-looking statements about NANO's future that are made under the safe harbor provisions of the applicable federal securities laws. We caution that actual results, including without limitation the results of NANO's microreactor development activities, our plans for vertical integration, customer acquisition and other strategies and plans, timelines for achieving goals and other matters relating to our future operations may differ materially and adversely from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

Important risks and other factors that could cause to differ from those in our forward-looking statements are contained in our filings with the SEC, including our annual report on Form 10-K filed this past December, which you're encouraged to review. The forward-looking information provided today is accurate only as of today, and NANO disclaims any obligation to update any information provided except as required by law. With that, I'll turn the call over to Jay Yu, NANO's Founder, Chairman, and President.

Thank you, Matt, and thank you to everyone joining the call today. I'd like to begin the call by reminding investors what differentiates NANO Nuclear and why we believe we're well positioned to capture value in the advanced nuclear industry. We've intentionally built our strategy around 6 factors we believe will determine commercial success at scale. First is our technology. Kronos is built upon high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology, which has been demonstrated through decades of global deployments. The TRISO fuel used by Kronos also benefits from extensive qualification work under the U.S. DOE's AGR program, contributing to our confidence in building upon mature advanced reactor technology. At the same time, Kronos' enhanced safety profile using helium as coolant and TRISO fuel positions it well for applications requiring colocation with the customer, including AI data centers, industrial applications, military installations, and remote mining operations.

The second is design maturity and fuel flexibility. Kronos' high TRL is backed by substantial historic investment over a decade of development. Our confidence in Kronos' design maturity is supported by the NRC's formal acceptance of the University of Illinois construction permit application for review, making NANO Nuclear the first commercially ready microreactor developer building a full-scale unit, and one of only a handful of Generation 4 advanced reactor developers to reach this stage. Our reactor is also designed to utilize LEU+ fuel that's commercially available today, while maintaining the flexibility to utilize HALEU in the future without redesign once HALEU is available and economically viable. Next is scalability. We believe success will be measured by the ability to manufacture a standardized design economically and at scale. Kronos, this small modular architect, is intended to support standardized manufacturing and repeatable deployment. We expect this approach to provide one of the clearest pathways to benefit from new expedited licensing pathways, including Part 53 and proposed Part 57, and deployment schedules and economies of scale.

Fourth is commercialization. Our first full-scale prototype development at the University of Illinois is advancing through formal NRC licensing with a clear pathway towards first power around 2030. Our commercial pipeline also continues to grow. We recently completed a feasibility study assessing the potential to deploy up to 1 gigawatt of power with [ Berupon ]. And at the same time, we are advancing discussions with potential strategic collaborator and customer advancing planned gigawatt AI data centers in the U.S. and internationally. These discussions continue to progress, and we see a potential to soon reach an initial framework identifying NANO Nuclear as their preferred nuclear technology provider. In parallel, we're exploring strategic alignment mechanisms, which could include milestone-based investments tied to define commercial and project development milestones we believe would drive meaningful value for shareholders. This proposed structure is designed to align long-term interests and incentivize our joint success.

Separately, we are advancing discussions with nuclear power project developer and AI infrastructure company to jointly evaluate several projects. And lastly, we're also seeing strong interest from earlier stage discussions with potential defense, mining and industrial customers. We believe these opportunities provide visibility into multiple gigawatts of potential commercial deployments. Next is vertical integration. We believe one of the greatest challenges facing advanced nuclear industry over the coming decade will be execution across a broader nuclear fuel cycle, which is why we're strategically focused on expanding our capabilities in that area. Our recently announced acquisition of Secure Transportation Services, or STS, has accelerated our progress by providing the ability to transport nuclear fuel and spent fuel. Our team has already identified opportunities to leverage STS's specialized expertise to de-risk Kronos' advancement and our expansion across the fuel cycle. Equally as important, STS has demonstrated a history of profitability, and our team is excited for several significant opportunities to grow the business organically, as well as through an additional M&A opportunity currently under evaluation.

We also continue to advance M&A and partnership discussions targeting fuel facility assets to further de-risk the nuclear fuel cycle. And lastly, execution requires both capital and the right team. We ended the quarter with approximately $580 million of liquidity, providing what we believe is one of the strongest balance sheets among advanced reactor developers. A strong financial position provides the financial flexibility to advance our first deployment, while also pursuing strategic acquisitions and partnerships across the nuclear fuel cycle. Equally as important, we've assembled an experienced team from the DOE, the NRC, U.S. National Labs, the U.S. military, and advanced reactor developers. Our team has grown significantly over the past year, with our headcount increasing to 85 employees and contractors as of the end of our third quarter, from 31 one year prior.

And we have expectations for significant growth. We believe this combination of technology, financial strength, and industry experience has built one of the industry's strongest foundations for long-term value creation. Our team looks forward to additional progress and remains excited for both short and long-term opportunities to create further value for shareholders. With that, I'll turn over the call to our CEO, James Walker, who will provide additional details on our progress and recent developments.

Thank you, Jay. NANO Nuclear has established a strong foundation within the advanced nuclear industry, and we continued converting that foundation into tangible execution during the third quarter. In May, the NRC formally accepted for review the construction permit application for the deployment of the Kronos MMR at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, initiating formal review activities. The NRC subsequently announced its expectation to complete its environmental assessment in Q1 2027 and its safety evaluation in Q3 2027. These projected milestones remain consistent with our expectation for the review process to complete in 2027, providing the opportunity to begin initial construction activities in the second half of 2027. In parallel, we're advancing several critical engineering work streams. We recently announced progress with an engineering collaboration with FORTIL, an internationally recognized engineering and consulting firm, to advance Kronos' fuel handling and storage system. This system is an important element of both our first deployment and our broader commercialization of the platform.

We're also advancing an engineering collaboration with another globally recognized engineering firm to advance Kronos' primary helium circulator. This firm has decades of experience supporting gas-cooled nuclear reactor programs, and this collaboration has now advanced into the detailed design phase. Together, these advancements reflect progress across several critical path work streams. They are helping us mature key reactor subsystems, reduce first-of-a-kind execution risk, and establish repeatable designs for future standardized commercial deployments. Another significant area of progress during the quarter was the continued expansion of our vertically integrated nuclear platform. As Jay highlighted, we completed the acquisition of STS in May. STS is a globally operating nuclear logistics, transportation, and services company with a history of profitability.

With more than 20 years of experience supporting the movement of radioactive and nuclear materials, STS supports both commercial nuclear customers and critical missions for the U.S. DOE, and NNSA. By bringing these capabilities in-house, we can reduce reliance on third-party providers, accelerate our expansion across several aspects of the fuel cycle, and accelerate future reactor deployments. At the same time, we've made strong progress advancing several synergistic acquisition and partnership opportunities across the nuclear fuel cycle. These include an additional fuel transportation business and nuclear fuel facility assets. We see potential for more than 1 announcement in the coming months, subject to further diligence and closing conditions, with 1 position to contribute revenue upon closing, and another offering more meaningful revenue potential in or around the 2030 timeframe. The third key area of progress came from the expansion of Kronos' commercial pipeline. During the quarter, we continued progressing our deployment opportunity with [ Berupon ] by completing the previously announced feasibility study, which evaluated a phased deployment of up to 1 gigawatt of Kronos MMR capacity. We view this as an important milestone, and we're advancing discussions towards initiation of the NRC licensing process.

We're concurrently advancing discussions towards an initial framework with a potential strategic collaborator and customer to support their planned multi-gigawatt pipeline of data center projects. If finalized, the framework could position NANO Nuclear as the preferred nuclear technology provider. While terms remain under discussion, we believe this framework and future collaboration could significantly strengthen our path towards commercialization by aligning NANO Nuclear with an experienced infrastructure developer with a strong track record of developing, financing, and executing large-scale projects. We're also evaluating mechanisms to align interests through future investment in NANO Nuclear energy ties to defined commercial milestones we believe could drive substantial value for shareholders. Moreover, we believe this collaboration could be a meaningful validator of our technology and our commercialization strategy, while also providing visibility into a multi-gigawatt deployment pipeline, which could help accelerate Kronos' commercialization. We also signed an MOU with Supermicro to evaluate the integration of Kronos with Supermicro's AI server and data center infrastructure platforms, as well as potential joint go-to-market opportunities and off-grid deployments for next-generation AI infrastructure. By engaging early, we can jointly evaluate how in the future nuclear-powered data centers may be designed as integrated systems rather than treating the power source and computing infrastructure as separate development decisions.

Moreover, we continue to advance several opportunities within and outside of the data center market, further demonstrating the breadth and scale of the market opportunity for Kronos. To this end, we were recently selected for an SBIR Phase I award by AFWERX, the innovation arm of the Department of the Air Force, to advance the Kronos MMR for the U.S. Air Force. The latest award further expands our opportunity set with the Department of the Air Force following the company's previously announced direct Phase II SBIR award for Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, which continues to progress on schedule. We recently submitted our fourth contract line item deliverable, with the remaining 4 deliverables expected to be completed over the next 12 to 18 months. Lastly, we further enhanced our strong balance sheet by raising approximately $26 million in net proceeds from our at-the-market or ATM facility. At quarter end, we held approximately $580 million in liquidity. Overall, the quarter included substantial progress across each of our principal strategic priorities.

I'd now like to provide additional color on our recent acquisitions of STS, the progress we've made since completing the transaction, and the opportunities we see to create long-term shareholder value. Our acquisition of STS represents more than a fuel transportation business. Beyond its established operating business, regulatory appearances, experienced personnel, and longstanding customer relationships, STS provides a strategic platform to expand our capabilities across the nuclear fuel cycle, helping to further de-risk Kronos' deployments. Since joining NANO Nuclear, STS has continued demonstrating the strength of its platform by supporting several important DOE and NNSA missions, including the successful transport of HALEU from Japan to the United States, the removal of highly enriched uranium from Venezuela, and additional domestic transportation campaigns supporting the U.S. nuclear industry. We believe these missions reflect both the highly specialized nature of STS's capabilities and the confidence key government agencies place in the organization. Looking ahead, we believe STS is exceptionally well positioned to benefit from the continued growth of the nuclear industry. Increasing reactor deployments are expected to drive demand for fuel transportation and related fuel cycle services.

And STS is one of the established leaders in this specialized market. Under the NANO Nuclear umbrella, STS is already advancing initiatives to broaden its capabilities in anticipation of that growth. STS also strengthens NANO Nuclear beyond transportation and logistics. The team includes personnel with decades of experience supporting the industry. We believe this expertise can support future reactor operations while further strengthening our relationships with key government organizations. We've also been encouraged by the feedback we've received from prospective customers, several of whom view our ability to offer a more integrated solution as a meaningful differentiator compared with other reactor developers. STS provides a successful standalone operating business we expect will continue generating a solid base of revenue while offering multiple avenues for significant organic growth.

At the same time, we're already evaluating a complimentary acquisition we believe could meaningfully expand STS's capabilities, geographic footprint, and revenue base. We look forward to sharing updates on our progress in the coming quarters. And with that, I'll hand over the call to our CFO, [ Jason Garcha ], to discuss the financial highlights.

Thank you, James. I'll now provide a brief overview of our financial performance for the third quarter and the year-to-date period. Our acquisition of STS provides NANO Nuclear with a revenue generating fuel transportation business with a demonstrated history of profitability. STS generated approximately $3.9 million of unaudited revenue during the first 6 months of calendar year 2026, including $200,000 from the May 22nd closing of the transaction through June 30th. Operating expenses totaled $15.9 million, driven by higher G&A and R&D expenses as we continue to advance Kronos development, progress Kronos through the formal NRC licensing process, advance activities at the U of I, and expand capabilities across the nuclear fuel cycle. As expected, operating expenses increased versus the prior year period as we scale our engineering, regulatory, commercial, and fuel cycle workstreams. Our Q3 net loss was $10.1 million compared to $7.6 million in the prior year quarter. The increase reflects higher op-ex, partially offset by higher interest income driven by our larger liquidity position.

Year-to-date net loss totaled $25.8 million, an improvement versus the $32 million in the prior year period, benefiting from substantially higher interest income and lower equity-based compensation. Year-to-date net cash used in operating activities was $18.7 million, primarily reflecting the year-to-date net loss, partially offset by non-cash equity-based compensation. Year-to-date net cash used in investing activities was $297.6 million, driven by our approximate $281 million purchase of short-term investments, approximately $10 million in plant, property, and equipment additions, and approximately $6 million related to the STS acquisition. At quarter end, we held $580 million in liquidity, an increase of roughly $11 million from the prior quarter. This increase reflects approximately $26 million in net proceeds from our ATM program, partially offset by capital deployed to advance Kronos development, NRC licensing activities, and broader fuel cycle initiatives. We believe our balance sheet is among the strongest in the advanced nuclear energy sector, providing a clear competitive advantage as we progress toward our first-of-kind deployment. Our strong financial position could be further enhanced by several non-dilutive funding opportunities for the U of I project, which we believe could meaningfully reduce the capital required.

Taken together, this liquidity profile not only positions us well to advance our first-of-kind prototype, but also provides the flexibility to pursue value-accretive acquisitions across the fuel cycle while continuing to advance Kronos towards commercialization. We will continue to deploy capital strategically to de-risk Kronos development and commercialization, and prudently in line with prior successful value accretive investments, such as the acquisition of the Kronos MMR assets and STS. Overall, we remain confident that our financial strength positions us exceptionally well to execute on our growth strategy. With that, I'll turn the call over to the operator for Q&A.

[Operator Instructions] One moment while we poll for questions. Our first question comes from Sameer Joshi with H.C. Wainwright. Please proceed with your question.

Hey, good afternoon James, Jay, Jason and Matt. Congratulations on the progress. The CPA acceptance was a real achievement and the STS acquisition also fits nicely in your strategy. So my first question is about just as the regulatory process goes through with the safety valuation and environmental assessment, on the other side, you said you're working with FORTIL and another engineering firm. Are there any long lead items that you might need to order now to start construction in the second half of 2027?

So the initial construction fortunately focuses more on things like the installation of the citadel. So if you think about a big subterranean concrete structure for which the reactor will sit in. For instance, technically right at the start of the construction period, we don't need any reactor related components. That doesn't mean we haven't started sourcing them already and we're into the construction vendor negotiations with regard to costs and delivery schedules and all that. But the initial construction isn't waiting on those. Once we get the approval and the turnaround from the NRC, the federal regulator, we'll proceed straight away with the ground excavation followed by concrete pouring and steel installation for that portion of the project that will house the nuclear reactor.

The other parts of the actual system, the Kronos system overall, include the thermal energy storage system, which is the solar salt, so the thing that which converts that thermal output to electric. Now none of that is nuclear at all. And a lot of those components are very standard. So you're thinking turbine systems, solar cells, don't even need to wait for NRC approval. We can get constructing on those straight away and those are more off the shelf components. So there's a lot we can do even before we procure components. But we do want to, by the time we get the approval next year, be in a position where we know where everything is coming from, the costs of everything, and we have everything like find out in terms of the pathway to the full build out of the reactor system.

That is reassuring and good to know. My next question is about the acquisition you spoke about, of course, STS is in the bag. You spoke about adjacent acquisition and maybe another one. Have you allocated any budget, particular amount, dollar amount that you want to spend during 2026 or you are more likely to be opportunistic and strategic about this?

So it's not that there's a ceiling on the limit to which we're about to spend on acquisitions, but we are very capital conscious. And I think that's important because we don't want to go off to big acquisitions that are in the order of like hundreds of millions of dollars, even if it was to acquire a big revenue generating businesses for NANO internally. The focus has always largely been on acquisitions that provide us that in-house capability that will facilitate the rollout of our reactor systems. And a lot of the time, all that means is acquiring small companies. And so for instance, even with STS, I think the initial payment as part of that acquisition, we're only in the region of about $7 million with some future payments for retention allowances factored in. But that's kind of emblematic of the other acquisitions that we're considering at the moment.

They are small scale, it's to bring in-house capabilities to us. The only contradiction to that might be a fuel facility that we are looking at. But again, that fuel facility, there's no acquisition cost exactly. Our equity position in that would be earned through investment into the completion of that facility. So it does need to all be very strategic, and all of these acquisitions are of course to facilitate the rollout, the mass rollout of the reactor systems. But we don't want to spend big money on acquisitions, the revenue is obviously beneficial and it does de-risk the company to some degree, but it's in-house capabilities. And it's partially also to take advantage of the massively expanding nuclear market.

That STS acquisition already, we're looking at all sorts of contracts that are way in excess of contracts that STS has been able to solicit for before because it needed more capital backing, which we can now give it. So there's the expansion potential that exists for these small entities, but succinctly to the question, no, we're not looking to have big outlays for big acquisitions.

And Sameer, I would also just add as well that if there are acquisitions that have a bigger outlay relative to some of the acquisitions we've executed upon thus far, we're very conscious of that as James highlighted in terms of the capital outlay. And we also are ideally evaluating several different funding mechanisms to reduce that, whether it's like government programs or other mechanisms to reduce that capital outlay. And also, if there were other larger type acquisitions, it would be safe to say that those capital outlays would occur over a number of years rather than all up front.

Understood. Thanks for that, Kaila. And thanks. I will step back in queue.

Our next question comes from Craig Irwin with Roth Capital Partners. Please proceed with your question.

Good evening. So I wanted to ask about the project outlook, right? So your prepared remarks make it very clear the UIUC project is on track, construction start by the end of next year. And you've announced a particularly interesting relationship with Ameresco that I don't think is appreciated appropriately by the market. So Ameresco has 8 enhanced use leases from the Navy, actually bidding for leases right now from the Army where this gives them land and access to easy permitting or much faster permitting than commercial or non-military land for power projects to support data centers that would be used both by hyperscalers and by the military itself. You know, they've talked publicly about a $10 billion near-term pipeline. You know, the billion and a half in bookings they had this last quarter, a very large chunk of that actually came from data center. And, you know, I understand the actual number is, you know, mid-20s is sort of the medium term.

Mid-20s billion is the medium term power opportunity they're looking down. You know, given that they can move faster and they probably have access to DOE and DOD licensing pathways for nuclear power. This could be one of the most interesting customers in the market. Can you maybe expand on your relationship with Ameresco? Have you been in discussions with them about potentially using these alternative pathways for construction approval, for plan approval, given that these would be DOD projects. You know, they've talked about 70% funded by third party debt. And I think there are names that are big names that are lined up and competing for those slots. Anything you can share about your conversations with that company that can help people understand the real value there.

Sure. I'm happy to give some background and color on that. So the challenge for NANO is that we're a technology company, we've got a great reactor system. But when we start commercially deploying the reactors, we're going to be looking at dozens of different sites and many different reactors that will be deploying all around the place. That means a lot of components coming from a lot of different sources and going to 1 place. It's going to require a lot of EPC work. So the initial conversations with Ameresco were based around that engineering procurement and construction work, the coordination of that because it is a big operation in and of itself, especially considering the size of the potential scale of some of these operations that we're looking at. Now, Ameresco, I think they're clean energy projects.

When they're looking at things like DOD, it's almost similar to how we're dealing with the Air Force and our Air Force contracts. Now, they are also the different DOD pushing in the direction of trying to get these systems online so they can have that energy sovereignty. But it is, even for the DOD, these are new endeavors. They have a lot of familiarity with naval reactor systems, aircraft carriers reactor systems, but even this is a bit new territory for them. So it's also, whether it's through Ameresco's projects or it's through the Air Force, we still need to go through that feasibility study analysis similar to how we're going through with the Air Force. I wouldn't say that Ameresco's projects could expedite us hugely, just given, say, our existing experience of what we're having to go through at the moment in terms of providing the necessary information for the military to get comfortable with the installation of reactors at their sites. Now, they do need to defer to the NRC on some things, just given these are new reactor systems, I think even for Ameresco's projects, where they'll be looking at the introduction of nuclear reactors onto their sites, it's still, no matter how you slice it, a new endeavor for the DOD that they will need NRC assistance and they do benefit from projects like the UIUC project, the University of Illinois construction project, because they can see it being constructed.

They can see the NRC working through the process and it does provide more reassurance, and they are in that phase now where they are trying to analyze the real players in this because there are really only a few handful on that sort of commercial path. And they're distilling that down as they get more expert now at understanding this sort of advanced reactor industry in total. So it's not to convolute the answer but effectively it's really a factor of conventional licensing frameworks that need to be worked through for reassurance and the ability to fast track them is rather minimal.

Yes, and I just wanted to add with Ameresco, we are in active talks with them. They do have a robust nuclear kind of group there. So we're working with them actively and we are looking at different strategies with them. So just to reinforce what you said, they are looking at different areas, and one of their areas is nuclear, and there are synergies there, as you mentioned. So we are ongoing and talking with them about these possibilities.

Thank you for that. So my second question is about [ Deoxitec ], right? So there's been public coverage out there that NANO Nuclear proposed a $230 million investment structured in 2 phases. You know, I think it's fairly obvious that that didn't come from you, but it is out there in the public domain. So maybe that increases the bandwidth or the opportunity for you to maybe discuss this potential investment. You know, I know it was a proposal and that there's a negotiation going on and that, you know, you don't necessarily, like there could be other parties that might win the bid in this process. But can you maybe just give us a little bit of color from your perspective where things stand at the moment, you know, and how this could be a strategic fit for NANO over the next couple years?

Sure. So, yes. Well, I could quickly answer that. You know, our proposal is currently under review and we hope to have an update in the coming months. But we can't really touch on that right now. But we are looking to be vertically integrated, obviously, so this would be a big consideration, kind of achievement for us, but right now it's still under review, so we don't really have too much comment on that.

Understood, completely understood. My last question, if I may. You know, it's not easy to hire people with nuclear expertise, right? And NANO has done a fantastic job bringing on experienced executives, bureaucrats, engineers from the industry, people with decades of experience, many of them. Can you talk about your hiring plans over the next year? Would you expect the growth in employees to continue at the similar rate that it's been materializing over the course of the last year? And do we need to see double in the total number of employees in the medium to longer term to have the capabilities that you foresee and that you're planning for the broader NANO Nuclear energy capacity and execution potential.

It's a good question actually because NANO has obviously transitioned from a small company to a medium-sized company and what came with that was a big reorganization of how we actually run things and integrate the departments. The technical team does still need further expansion and we need to create, we need to do that essentially to help have that in-house infrastructure to carry a reactor project forward from advanced all the way through to an actual physical operating reactor system. So already, I'm calling from the University of Illinois today. And that's even the conversations today with the chancellors and the deans involve significant amount of personnel and technical work being required. So even over the next few months, you'll probably see a big upscaling in technical staff as we bring on more people. And over the next couple of years, that will expand even further. That expansion is very necessary. And that's only specific to the reactor system.

There are additional acquisitions that will bring in additional people in other departments of the nuclear industry as well, including transportation. The other areas that we have alluded to already around fuel supply chain, that we are also making additional recruitment in those areas as well. So, NANO is expanding very quickly. I think the most important part though is to be very sensible in the hiring process because over employing and not having the organization in place with the correct reporting lines can quite quickly result in personnel that are not allocated properly and do not have designated tasks that are specific to NANO's mission. So we're trying to do it as carefully as we can, but the pressure is on us to upscale as quickly as we can.

Our next question comes from Nate Pendleton with Texas Capital. Please proceed with your question.

Good afternoon. In your prepared remarks, you talked about advancing discussions toward a framework with a strategic collaborator and customer for a multi-gigawatt pipeline. Can you provide some insight into what that kind of structure would look like, what it could unlock from a commercialization perspective for you, and maybe what attracted the customer to NANO specifically?

Sure. So we haven't publicly released a huge amount of information there, but I can speak in sort of high levels to the sort of the framework that's been put in place that is being put in place at the moment with this big partner. They establish a lot of data center campuses. They're looking to integrate NANO systems into these data center campuses over time. They would provide things like finance, the campuses, power infrastructure, and NANO would provide things like the reactors, fuel, licensing support, and operational capabilities. The way we have structured this is that we have looked at how other companies have structured PPA agreements. And the reason why a lot of these are deficient is that they don't require investment from the potential customer that they're going to be servicing. And that can create some level of weakness because any agreement that's non-binding that says if you build a reactor system and it costs this much money for power, sure we'll buy it. If it doesn't meet this requirement, we have no obligation.

That is an insufficient model, I think, for how reactor companies are going to successfully market and deploy their reactor systems. So the way we are structuring this is that the partner in this question will have an ability to receive equity grants and warrants in NANO, but also give them the ability to invest tens of millions, if not $100 million into NANO as part of like a development and reactive purchase, as development and reactive purchase milestones are achieved. So it's a very incentivizing arrangement where we can even, even NANO for instance, could invest in the nuclear data center project itself. So we could have equity in that position. So again, it could lead towards additional revenue being generated for the company once nuclear, and once nuclear construction actually begins. This way, we are more bound up with the technology partner. And that co-level of investment de-risks both sides and provides a way for us both to double dip almost into, and ability to raise revenue on both sides.

But that synergistic partnership is essentially what we're aiming for with this project, this new framework that we're deploying for Kronos in collaboration with the data center.

And also, if I could just jump in and just add some additional color as well. So this potential partner is a global infrastructure investment and development firm, has experience building, owning and operating large infrastructure projects globally, which they expect will translate well to some of their ambitious goals, you know, plans for some gigawatt scale AI industrial campuses in the U.S. and also internationally. And so I'd say, as James highlighted, close to finalizing an initial framework where NANO could be their preferred nuclear technology provider. This would be structured, obviously James talked about seeing some of the challenges with types of agreements, whether it's PPA agreements or other, this would be potentially structured a little bit differently as this company would look to purchase NANO's reactor, so given their experience with some of these large scale infrastructure projects, experience identifying land, procuring power, and sort of executing on these. They're very adept and also financing them as well. They're very adept at all of that, which would be very complimentary to us. And so they would purchase our reactors in what we envision.

But as James highlighted, there would be an opportunity for things like, you know, options to potentially have equity interest in some of that, you know, nuclear, you know, company that would be selling the power, which is really interesting. And then lastly, as James highlighted, yes, I think the potential to have an arrangement where there is a level of investment in NANO not only signifies additional capital potentially in the future, but also signifies a level of seriousness to this and a level of, I'd say, belief and confidence in NANO Nuclear and how strongly positioned we are in terms of being the first microreactor developer building a full scale prototype to enter formal NRC licensing and obviously having, being able to procure fuel that's commercially available today and having a design that has had significant investment and so I think it also signifies confidence in NANO as a company and I think also important is that given the potential planned pipeline, potential multi-gigawatt opportunity for NANO, I think it would really be, you know, accelerate potentially our commercialization as well and obviously it being with a credible partner I think is also makes it really, really important so hopefully all that kind of helps.

Absolutely. Sounds really exciting. So I'll stay tuned on the specifics. And then maybe for my follow-up, going back to your prepared remarks on the supply chain, fuel availability tends to be a key critical path item that a lot are focused on right now. Can you provide an update on how your conversations with commercial enrichment providers and TRISO fabricators are progressing? And what does that availability look like based on your commercialization timelines at UIUC and beyond?

This is, I think, an intrinsically important question for every reactor company at the moment. Conversations with enrichment and fabricators are very different conversations, but on the enrichment front, I think the big advantage we have over most of our competitors is the fact that we can use low enriched uranium. So fuel that can actually be manufactured today. Companies like Urenco, we've already started conversations with them about them being able to provide us the enrichment that we would need for the mass rollout of systems. So that's obviously different from the University of Illinois project where we're obviously sourcing the fuel that's necessary for that first of a kind initial reactor system. There are a number of fabricators on that side that I'll discuss in just a second. But the enrichment part is fortunately plays into our favor. Now, when HALEU is available, and there are a number of companies that we are already speaking with, groups like Centrus, that do intend to make HALEU fuel, we will take that fuel. We will be able to refuel our reactors without modification with that HALEU fuel that will allow for longer periods between refueling.

But the advantage is we want to get to market soon. We want to get to market sooner and the ability to actually utilize enrichment companies that don't need any site amendment, license amendment to make our fuel is a big one. So those conversations thankfully, they do come, they've been very positive, the capacity exists to do that. And the other reactor companies that are looking at utilizing HALEU, they're not having those conversations with existing enrichment companies because they would not be able to source their type of fuel from them. Now on the fabrication side of things, the interesting part of this is that there are emerging players in this market. So everyone's probably familiar with BWXT, they've already been manufacturing TRISO for many years. They are looking now for a commercial arm of that venture where they would establish a Category 2 site, principally because their Category 1 site creates far too many overheads to make a competitive product.

And then there are groups like [ Standard Nuclear ] partnered with Framatome and even TRISO-X with the subsidiary of X-energy. The nice part is that as there are more and more players involved in this space, we are in a nice position to negotiate and find the best prices. So with everybody that I've mentioned, we are speaking to all of them at the moment and we are trying to lock down long term contracts. Ability to fabricate the fuel that we need for the first of a kind reactor system already exists. We aren't worried about getting that fabrication done and meeting our timelines because that capacity and that capability is already there. Now, the long-term strategy could look a bit different as we look at bigger bulk loads and with escalating production of reactors over time. And there still might have to be some element of NANO that we would bring online in the future to manufacture certain elements of the fuel, like the SNM that's necessary for our fuel. It could be that we want to be more involved in that and we establish joint ventures in that department through for a long-term de-risking but the important part is those are considerations I think for the future as we want to de-risk the mass rollout of reactor systems. First of a kind is fine, both on enrichment and fabrication.

I think we already, we've turned our focus towards 2030 and beyond where we want to be in a position where we hit that timeline and we can mass manufacture reactors with mass fabricated fuel.

Our next question comes from Craig Shere with Tuohy Brothers. Please proceed with your question.

Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. So in a peer SMR industry earnings call, an argument was made that most deployment opportunities that take advantage of both the power and thermal applications can utilize 400 to 450 degree fast reactor technology as readily as high temperature gas cooled reactors, and that HTGRs are only uniquely optimally suited for perhaps niche applications. Now, we've kind of made a bigger deal about the HTGR technology differentiation though, noting X-energy's most advanced deployment is with Dow. And that NNE in particular has a great many opportunities from Korea to the Middle East, to those remote off-grid cold weather Canadian markets, whether they be communities or mining operations. Can you chime in on just how important that higher temperature run rate, even versus metallic-fueled fast reactors, may actually be?

Sure. So as a bit of technical background, and thankfully, you know, I've got a nuclear engineering background to speak to this somewhat. So the background to what was said about high temperature gas reactors is that they have been previously deployed in the past. There's been many deployed internationally around the world and people are very familiar with their operating profile. The only criticism really of them is that the capacity factors were low because the time to ramp up power and ramp down power could be fairly long. And so for industrial applications where you might have fluctuating demand, it could be ill suited. So in the advanced reactor systems like ours, the solar salt loop acts as an energy storage. So the reactor can actually just maintain constant output.

And it's the thermal energy storage system that you can take up and take down and fluctuate demand in enormously. So that's been specifically designed around that operating history that's given us that information. The problem with fast reactors, though, if you're, if you are comparing the two is that they've never been deployed commercially and in order to, if I'm just going off the top of my head, to actually deploy a fast reactor you would need a very enriched central core of fuel which would either have to be some sort of HALEU fuel or some sort of blend of plutonium. The problem with both of those is 1, HALEU is not available and it might not be available for a long time. Commercial company being allowed to handle some plutonium is also not allowed, but also require legal changes. So if you had to choose from the two of them, you would choose a high temperature gas reactor or a fast reactor any day of the week at the moment, especially given the fact that it lacks operating history and commercial deployment. The reason why high temperature gas reactors would be better as well for industrial applications, giving the thermal energy storage system is that they do produce a high thermal output, which would be ideal for foundries, but it doesn't require fuel that is just not available. It's available now. And the other part is if you make a fast reactor, you really, the bigger the better. And the reason why is that you have a lot of neutrons and you're not moderating it.

It's called a fast reactor because the fast fission that takes place as a result of the fission incident, you are compacting your core with things like uranium-238, which isn't that fissile, but with enough neutron flux, you can create that fission reaction. But on a small scale, it's difficult. So you need a big reactor system. If you're making a massive reactor system, like to cater towards the efficiencies of fast reactor, you're already limiting the flexibility of your deployment because you cannot make them as small and as mobile and as portable and as modular as you can a high temperature gas reactor. Very different strategies. I would say if you put me into a fast reactor company today, 1, I would have to look at the fuel straight away and trying to come up with a solution. 2, I would be targeting bigger, going bigger, almost straight away. So it's, I think you would be being very selective with your information if you said fast reactors had an advantage over high-temperature gas reactors when it came to thermal output for industry.

Very difficult to make that case unless you're being very carefully selective.

Very helpful. My second question, some of this has already been touched on when you were responding to questions about the potential strategic developer partner relationship and the fee-based versus some retained equity ownership partnership potential. But I'm interested in kind of the tension between those two across your entire business. We've got kind of like on the one end the [ AHQA ] ownership PPA model and then on the other and then a few others, X-energy and Newcleo, Terrestrial Energy with more of a fee-based or fuel sales model. Now I realize you're open to both and that probably the fee-based approach may ultimately comprise the lion's share of deployments, but is there a geographic distinction where you may be, for example, more likely to provide services versus retained ownership internationally?

That's a very interesting question. Actually, funnily enough, it kind of ties into your first question, because we have a lot of interest coming from countries like South Korea and a lot of their interests is around industrial heat for manufacturing operations because they don't have access to the same level of gas or coal or oil that the U.S. might have or other countries. The long-term de-risking of their own heavy industry is they're looking at nuclear as being a solution. Because they are looking at nuclear as being a solution, there is more of an interest I think there of being able to do mass deploy these reactor systems and so for the nuclear industry there is a bit of a mix there between wanting ownership of those systems and so you don't have to worry about the long-term payments of those reactors. You would just have to pay for servicing, maintenance, and refueling. I would still say that is a minority even compared to just paying a monthly or quarterly agreed contractual price for the power. Because a lot of these industries, even though they are heavy industries trying to de-risk their long-term security, they still are not as interested in owning and operating them in a reactor and being responsible for it. They are still happy to put in capital investment into these projects.

But they ultimately want the responsibility to sit with somebody else, but they just want that long-term de-risking power to come in.

Our next question comes from Jake Sekelsky with Alliance Global Partners. Please proceed with your question.

Just circling back to STS and the $7 million or so in revenue last year, can you provide any color on how we should think about this heading into 2027. I'm just wondering if you have plans to scale the business in the near term here, or is it better viewed as a complementary business to succeed?

Fuel transport, so it is both like that we, we were always very commercially focused as a company like we've all even from the, even from inception we were looking at how we really get reactors out there. It became very clear that it's a very specialized industry and the ability to move yellow cake to a conversion facility, uranium hexafluoride to enrichment, enriched uranium hexafluoride to deconversion, deconverted fuel to fabricators, fabricators fuel to a reactor. Every single component of that requires some level of transportation capability. And when we realized that there were very few players in this space and that as the advanced reactors advanced towards deployment of the reactor systems, that would be squeezed substantially. We realized we had to go after a transportation capability to have that ability in-house so we didn't get stuck at that juncture. Now, the advantage here is that because it is going to be a big growth, a growth area, we can grow that business very substantially and look STS is incredibly expert company, but they have more experience in the back end of the fuel cycle. We are looking at acquisitions at the front end of the fuel cycle to complement what they do and give us a more holistic business that account that can do everything in the nuclear industry for us internally but to also it, it just taps into that ability to grow that business very substantially, you know, this decade before the reactors are actually even out. But yes, it did begin as a de-risking operation for the deployment of reactor systems, but we see the massive potential for business to be generated through the growth of that industry.

Okay, that's helpful. And just to follow up on M&A opportunities, realizing you can't speak to specifics, but can you maybe just touch in broad strokes on some of the areas of the supply chain you're honing in on and seeing the most opportunity from a vertical integration standpoint?

Yep, absolutely. So I think Jay and I, when we were building the company up, we realized at a very early stage the fuel supply chain was going to be a major issue just because of lack of investment over the previous decades in to bolstering that and with more reactors coming online that being squeezed even more. Because of that, we have made very strategic investments into things like, [ Stainless Technologies ] is an example, is a related transaction company. It does specialize in enrichment. It was old Cameco tech with very decent results in the 90s, that also got mothballed just because cheap Russian material was available. Having that partnership is, you know, it is a great call option if they are successful in their ventures for the owner enrichment side. Either side of that, we are looking at both conversion and deconversion projects at the moment. One was referred to earlier on in this call today, but we want to solidify that and get those contracts under place and get that in-house capability to control certain parts of the fuel supply chain, not just to de-risk our reactors, but it also is going to be massive growth area for our own business over the coming years. And everyone's going to need fuel, no matter what kind of reactor you're going to put in place, everyone's going to need that fuel supply, whether you're a fast reactor, a molten salt, or a high-temperature gas reactor.

It's going to be very crucial to have some level of control over that fuel supply chain to ensure that you can mass manufacture reactors. So a lot of the acquisitions and investments we're making at the moment are centered around those particular areas to de-risk, not mining so much, I would say, but the yellow cake industry exists to a certain extent that we are comfortable with, we can source the material as we need it, but beyond that, heavily heavy industry, heavy infrastructure is going to be necessary.

Our next question comes from Jeff Grampp with Northland Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.

Yes. In the prepared remarks, you mentioned some potential non-dilutive funding opportunities to potentially help finance the U of I deployment. I was just hoping to get a little bit more detail on what kind of opportunities, if there's any kind of ranges of quantum of capital that could be out there to help fund this.

Sure. Hey, Jeff. Oh, go ahead. I can just chime in really quick. So I think there's a couple of different opportunities we're evaluating, things like, you know, investment tax credits. I think the U of I project's a pretty unique project in that we're building our first unit next to the Abbott Power Plant there. So, you know, there is potential not only for a base, you know, 30% ITC for that project, but also potentially an extra 10% Energy Community bonus. It's things that we're evaluating. So I think that's number 1.

Also, obviously evaluating DOE programs to potentially pay for portions of the fuel as well as opportunities, whether it's with our partner in this endeavor, the U of I or the state of Illinois to potentially support us. Obviously, given that this is a research reactor, we are saving on the NRC licensing fees. So I think that's something we've been very proud of that we've been very mindful about capital allocation here. But yes, we're very excited about some of these other funding opportunities as well to potentially significantly reduce the capital costs of the project.

Got it. Thanks for that. And to my follow up with [ Farooq Khan ], can you guys update us on just the project a bit more? I know you can't speak, you know, too specifically for them, but you mentioned the potential licensing application. Any preliminary estimates of when that could be and what are the main drivers there that dictate the timing of maturing that project a bit further?

Hey, I'm sorry Jeff, can you repeat that? I apologize. We got something broke off.

Yes, sure. So, the question was on [ Berupon ] and the potential licensing application that you guys referenced. Just wondering, you know, if there's any preliminary estimates of the timing of when that project could be in a position to submit a licensing application and what are the factors that dictate that potential timing?

Sure. So James actually just, he got cut off so I can quickly answer this. I'd say, obviously we completed the feasibility study there. We're excited about the opportunity we've vied upon and continuing to engage in discussions with them. As we said in the prepared remarks, evaluating the beginning of the licensing process, evaluating project timelines, working towards, you know, early stage projects development activities. At this point in time we don't want to put a definitive timeline on any of this because discussions are ongoing, but we are obviously discussing initiation of the licensing process. I think obviously given where we are with the U of I project, we still have a few years and time is on our side, but obviously we would look to move as quickly as possible. So hopefully in the coming quarters, we'll have additional updates there.

Our next question comes from Adam Kelsey with Titan Partners. Please proceed with your question.

Great, thank you. Plenty of ask and answer already, so just two quick ones for me. I know you already touched on the NRC process, but it's obviously a major near-term driver for the stock. I'm curious if there are any upcoming visible signals or checkpoints between the major milestones that would demonstrate that NRC process, that process remains on schedule.

Hey Adam, yes, so I think there's a couple of different milestones we're evaluating as the NRC publicly put out there's an environmental assessment in I think February of 2027 is based on their public timeline and then obviously a safety analysis slated for September of 2027, and obviously, those aren't the only two big milestones. When we think about this review, it is an iterative process. We're going through audit questions as we speak, receiving questions from them, providing answers, to address areas where the NRC is looking to have more completeness and a better understanding. I think the two big milestones I just touched upon are two of the big ones, but there's obviously, this is, like I said, an iterative process, and we're obviously going to keep engaging with them. And I think ultimately, as we, in our prepared remarks, the timeline that the NRC put out is in line with our expectation to begin construction in the second half of this year and as seen in some other construction permit applications with some other public peers or private peers hopefully there's an opportunity to maybe even compress that licensing timeline from what the NRC has publicly slated.

Great, thanks. And any additional insight on where you sit in terms of their staff's bandwidth or prioritization?

Just based on conversations we've had internally with our NRC licensing team, I mean, we have not heard any issues regarding staffing. I think we continue to engage with them quite frequently. And so I don't think we have yet to see any instances where someone is saying, hey, staffing has prevented continued engagement with them. I mean, we've been engaging with them pretty actively since June, as I mentioned earlier, answering some of their audit questions and things like that. And we've actually been having ongoing weekly meetings with them and supplementing that with additional interactions as necessary to close any gaps that are identified. Yes, I think it's been pretty constructive dialogue with them thus far.

Our next question comes from Sherif El-Sabbahy with BTIG. Please proceed with your question.

First question, STS gels pretty nicely with some of the work you're already doing in fuel, and you've touched on how you might look to grow your fuel footprint. But when it comes to M&A and Kronos, how are you thinking about strategic opportunities that might help get Kronos built and commercialized?

Sure. So, Sherif, obviously when we think about commercialization of Kronos, there's many different aspects to that. I'd say the acquisition of STS, I think, really importantly adds a couple of key things. The team has decades of experience supporting the industry. They even have people who have experience operating reactors. When we think about having those capabilities in-house and even think about some projects that we have at this point and we're looking to build reduced scaled mock-ups of Kronos in our Oak Brook demonstration facility and are actually advancing plans there, having this expertise in-house can support us in some of these endeavors, whether it's, you know, obviously their experience operating, but some of these other endeavors. And then also, obviously, fuel is integral to deploying future commercial units, but obviously even our first of a kind unit and obviously evaluating DOE programs. I'd say STS has great relationships with not only national labs, but the DOE and the NNSA. And so we think some of those relationships as well could potentially benefit us.

And lastly, obviously STS has experienced not only handling spent fuel but also transporting fuel across the cycle. And so I think all of this experience can not only help us with future commercial deployments, but even just advancing development of Kronos, having this additional expertise in-house, can enable us to in each of these areas, enable to support us in each of these areas.

Thanks, Matt. And then a process question that would be helpful for my understanding, which might make it a James question. But if I start a Kronos reactor on conventional fuel and later switch to HALEU, is there a, is there any power plant retooling associated with that, or is that just a matter of dropping in the new fuel?

So unfortunately James got kicked off the call, but our understanding is based on conversations with the technical team that we really could just plug and play and remove the LEU+ fuel and replace it with HALEU fuel.

Okay, super helpful.

And we would not need a redesign. I think that's of the Kronos MMR design. So I think that's really, really important is that we can do that without redesign and not really provides us the flexibility to not only use fuel that's commercially available today, but once HALEU is available and economically viable to use, we could basically plug and play.

Yes, it's good to hear. Thanks again.

Our next question comes from [ Christopher Selder ] with Truist. Please proceed with your question.

Hey guys, thanks for taking my questions here. Great to hear some of the advanced discussions with the project developer and AI infrastructure company. Is that something you think we might be getting more clarity on this year? Level set like, you know, the, I guess, how intense the conversations are and where we see those kind of evolving from here in the near term.

Yes, I appreciate the question, Chris. I think there's two elements to this. Obviously, there's the opportunity with the strategic, potential strategic partner and data center developer for their plan, you know, multi-gigawatt pipeline, I'd say. We're excited about the potential to, and we've been advancing discussions with them. It's a near term, the things to look out for would be, and obviously there's no way to guarantee timelines on any of this, but I'd say a near term, you know, potential framework agreement that outlines the potential relationship that we discussed. And then obviously including potential things like milestone investment opportunities tied to key value creating commercial milestones. And so that would be like, initially I'd look out for a framework agreement, and then obviously from there we'd look to obviously make a great deal more progress on more definitive agreements, whether that's things like joint development agreements for specific sites.

I think there's a number of, the way we've envisioned this at this point in time, there's a number of different ways development milestones, but ahead of potential milestones relating to actual firm commercial purchase orders. So I think there's a number of development milestones potentially, whether it's like I said, joint development agreements, securing site, initiating the NRC licensing process, doing things like characterization and drilling that can clearly demonstrate that there's a strong partnership and progress being made ahead of firm purchase commitments in more definitive agreements. So I think that's the way to look at that one. And then separately, as we highlighted in our prepared remarks, we are evaluating potential opportunities with an AI infrastructure company, as well as another nuclear project developer. And this potentially could be us evaluating amongst the three parties joint opportunities, which I think given that these two companies are pretty credible and have each bring their own unique experience in the space, it could be something that's pretty exciting. So I'd say keep out in the near term potentially for things like an LOI or things like that there, assuming we can continue to advance discussions.

Got it. That's super helpful. And maybe just how should we think about you guys entering the NRC process, which and, you know, upcoming construction as, you know, catalysts for customers as they're looking for proof of execution and de-risking of future commercial developments. You know, are you seeing kind of increased inbound or, you know, credibility on your end around being able to kind of enter that process with a, you know, real project here that you're going to be starting construction, you know, basically a year from now.

Yes, Chris, I could tell you the answer is absolutely. We've gotten direct feedback after we submitted the construction permit application and it was accepted for review. We've gotten direct feedback from several potential customers for several opportunities that we're working on that they view NANO as being very credible just given by the fact that we're really the first, as we said earlier, microreactor developer advancing building a full scale commercial unit. Well, it's technically a research reactor, but it'll be a full-scale 15 megawatt electric unit. Just by that alone, given where we are in the licensing process, is viewed very favorably. And so we've gotten that feedback. And complementary to that, we've also gotten direct feedback regarding the acquisition of STS and having the in-house capabilities not only to transport the fuel, but also have a clear plan for spent fuel, people in-house who also have those capabilities. So yes, it's something we're very excited about.

We've already seen, I'd say, growing interest, whether it's from mining companies or even military-related opportunities. There's been mentioning of the fact that we're in formal NRC licensing and there appears to be clearly a direct path to commercial license relating to, you know, that a commercial license would be very easily achievable once the U of I project, we receive that operating license. So yes, I think we're very excited about our progress and some of these opportunities.

This now concludes our question and answer session. I would like to turn the floor back over to Jay for closing comments.

I want to thank everyone again for joining us on today's call. We are very grateful for your continued support, and we have never been more excited for NANO Nuclear's future. We look forward to additional progress and updates in the coming quarters. Have a great evening.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation. This does conclude today's teleconference. Please disconnect your lines and have a wonderful day.

Greetings, and welcome to the NANO Nuclear Q2 2026 Financial Results and Business Update Call. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Matthew Barry. Thank you. You may begin.

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Joining me on the call today are Jay Yu, NANO Nuclear's Founder, Chairman and President; James Walker, our CEO; and Jaisun Garcha, our CFO. Please note that today's press release and slide presentation to accompany this webcast are available on our website.

Before moving ahead, I'll quickly address forward-looking statements made on this call. As reflected in more detail on Slide 2, today's presentation contains forward-looking statements about Nano's future that are made under the safe harbor provisions of the applicable federal securities laws. You are cautioned that actual results, including without limitation, the results of Nano's microreactor development activities, our plans for vertical integration, other strategies and plans, time lines for achieving goals and other matters related to our future operations may differ materially and adversely from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Important risks and other factors that could cause actual results to differ from those in our forward-looking statements are contained in our filings with the SEC, including our annual report on Form 10-K filed this past December, which you're encouraged to review. The forward-looking information provided today is accurate only as of today, and Nano disclaims any obligation to update any information provided, except as required by law.

With that, I'll turn the call over to Jay Yu, Nano's Founder, Chairman and President.

Thank you, Matt, and thank you, everyone, for joining the call today. NANO Nuclear remains well positioned as a leading microreactor developer focused on vertical integration across key aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, and we're delivering against the key strategic milestones we've outlined over the past several quarters.

Our KRONOS MMR is a high TRL, high-temperature gas-cooled reactor design backed by nearly a decade of investment and development and decades of high temperature gas-cooled reactor operating history. These advantages position us with a high degree of design maturity, underpinning our ability to advance KRONOS towards construction, licensing and commercialization.

Our confidence was recently validated by the formal submission of a construction permit application to the U.S. NRC under Part 50 by the University of Illinois. The submission for our KRONOS MMR deployment on the University of Illinois campus required years of pre-licensing activities, thousands of pages of technical documentation and several months of pre-application engagement with the NRC. As a result, Nano became one of only a handful of Generation 4 advanced reactor developers to reach this stage and the first commercially ready microreactor to submit a CPA to the NRC, reflecting the maturity of KRONOS MMR's design, the growth and expertise of our team and our strong position as a leading microreactor developer.

Alongside our well-established technical foundation, our KRONOS MMR system also offers several advantages in its design and deployment profile. First, we expect a small size and our design philosophy to enable factory fabrication, repeatable construction and learnings that can accelerate deployment time lines and drive economies of scale. Second, KRONOS benefits from a superior safety profile as a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor using helium and inert gas as a coolant and TRISO fuel, which is engineered to retain fission products at extremely high temperatures. This safety profile is expected to enable a favorable footprint that's ideal for colocation and off-grid deployment, unlocking high-value applications previously unavailable to traditional nuclear. And third, KRONOS can leverage LEU+ fuel that is commercially available today, supporting our ability to deploy at scale while maintaining the flexibility to use HALEU fuel once commercially available.

We pair this foundation with a focus on vertical integration across critical aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, which we expect to provide an advantage versus our competitors, positioning us to accelerate reactor deployment, enhance long-term economics of our reactors and benefit as a key supplier to the industry.

Our progress to date, differentiated technology and strategies have positioned us to be a key beneficiary of global nuclear renaissance. Electricity demand tied to AI data centers and other power-intensive applications is expanding faster than the new generation and transmission can be delivered, creating rising concerns around power availability, grid expansion and energy affordability. Expected demand will require additional grid-independent energy sources capable of delivering high uptime and resiliency. And at the same time, climate mandates and decarbonization goals are driving preference for clean energy.

In this environment, advanced reactors like our KRONOS MMR are best positioned to address these high-value challenges, driving unprecedented bipartisan support in the U.S. and growing support globally.

We're continuing to see strong policy momentum supporting advanced nuclear deployment and development in the U.S., most notably, progress towards establishing a new risk-informed NRC licensing pathways under Part 53 and recently proposed Part 57 framework are expected to significantly streamline licensing for microreactors like KRONOS. Part 53 is designed to provide a more flexible performance-based framework tailored to non-light water technologies, while Part 57 intensive enable a highly streamlined pathway for lower risk standardized microreactor designs, including features such as a combined or closely aligned construction and operating license processes, reduced review scope and fleet-wide standardization benefits.

In parallel, the establishment of the Defense Production Act Nuclear Fuel Consortium to strengthen the domestic capabilities could help accelerate our vertically integrated strategy across the nuclear fuel cycle. And we also see potential benefits from initiatives like the Genesis Mission and federal actions related to nuclear power for space. Taken together, we're confident our KRONOS MMR system is competitively well positioned to deliver reliable baseload power across a range of applications and benefit from increasingly supportive policy backdrop.

I'll now highlight several recent milestones and provide an overview of additional potential milestones in the coming quarters. Last quarter, we outlined 4 potential catalysts offering the opportunity to drive shareholder value: regulatory advancement, commercial progress, expansion of our vertical integration across the nuclear fuel supply chain and strategic partnerships. And we've made strong progress in each during our second quarter.

First, the recent CPA submission to the U.S. NRC for our full-scale prototype at the University of Illinois represented a substantial milestone, validating our design maturity and offering the potential for initial construction activities to begin in mid- to late 2027.

Second, we completed the feasibility study evaluating our KRONOS MMR providing up to 1 gigawatt of power to BaRupOn's AI data center and manufacturing campus in Texas. As a result, our KRONOS MMR solution is designed to reach their desired 1 gigawatt needs in stages over time. And we're now advancing work on project time lines and licensing. We also continue to see potential for additional commercial announcements in the coming quarters as our pipeline of opportunities continues to grow.

Third, we're advancing M&A and partnership discussions focused on commercial opportunities across the nuclear fuel supply chain, including areas like nuclear fuel transportation and fuel supply chain facilities. And we're in late-stage discussions for one such opportunity.

And equally as important, we're advancing discussions around strategic partnerships we believe can accelerate and derisk large-scale deployment of our reactors. Our recent MOU with Supermicro represents an important step towards aligning advanced nuclear power with next-generation AI and data center infrastructure by exploring opportunities for our KRONOS MMR solution to pair with one of the leading providers of high-performance computing and liquid-cooled data center systems.

Our recently announced collaboration with EHC Investment also reflects this strategy, creating a path toward a joint venture in the UAE with a partner that brings strong regional presence, decades of experience with large-scale energy infrastructure projects and an in-house EPC capabilities.

Furthermore, our collaboration with DS Dansuk represents an important step towards supporting KRONOS deployment and localization efforts in South Korea, including the potential development of a reactor core manufacturing facility and component production capabilities within one of the world's most advanced nuclear and industrial markets.

With that, I'll turn the call over to our CEO, James Walker.

Thank you, Jay. Turning to our Q2 highlights. We continue executing across all areas of the business, making important progress towards advancing KRONOS. As Jay mentioned, a CPA was formally submitted to the U.S. NRC by the University of Illinois for our first full-scale KRONOS MMR prototype. This marked a critical milestone as we transition from engineering design to construction on the campus of the U of I. The CPA submission required years of engineering development, thousands of pages of technical documentation, coordinated input across reactor design, safety analysis, environmental review and regulatory compliance and a viable supply chain.

With the submission, NANO Nuclear becomes one of only a handful of Generation 4 advanced reactor developers to reach this stage and the first commercially ready microreactor developers submit a CPA to the NRC. We anticipate an approximate 12-month review period following formal acceptance of the application, providing the opportunity to initiate initial construction activities at the U of I in mid- to late 2027.

In parallel, we're advancing discussions with supply chain partners for long lead components. In addition to enrichment and TRISO fuel suppliers as we work towards solidifying formal agreements, we also made notable progress with 2 partners focused on advancing the design of our refueling system and helium circulator.

It's important to highlight our expectation that KRONOS design philosophy, modularity and assembly strategy should enable greater use of commercially off-the-shelf components relative to the larger SMR designs. We believe this expands the pool of qualified suppliers able to manufacture key components, strengthening our position in commercial negotiations. Overall, this progress reflects continued execution on critical path items, further positioning Nano for initial construction and future commercial deployment.

On the commercial and strategic partnership front, we've completed the previously announced feasibility study with BaRupOn, evaluating up to 1 gigawatt of power generation with our KRONOS MMR solution, demonstrating the scalability of our platform for large energy-intensive applications such as AI data centers. The study confirmed our KRONOS MMR solution is designed to reach their desired 1 gigawatt needs in stages over time with potential to even expand from there over time. And we are now jointly moving the project toward the initiating the licensing process.

We also continue to grow our pipeline of commercial opportunities across data center, industrial and defense-related customers and continue to see strong interest from credible strategic partners highlighted by previously announced MOUs with Supermicro, EHC Investment and DS Dansuk. Collectively, these relationships reinforce the strategic interest in our technology and strategy, support our path towards commercialization and create a potential pathways to broader long-term partnerships over time.

As it relates to our focus on vertical integration across key aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, which we believe is a key differentiator between us and our competitors, we're advancing efforts to address key bottlenecks within the nuclear fuel supply chain, including progress towards solidifying acquisitions and partnerships for nuclear fuel supply chain facilities and fuel transportation. As Jay mentioned, we are in a late-stage discussions for one such opportunity and see strong potential to announce additional progress in the near term.

From a financial perspective, our balance sheet remains strong with cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments totaling approximately $569 million. And in March, the SEC declared effective our $900 million shelf registration statement, including a $400 million at-the-market facility. While we are extremely well funded for our near-term cash needs, our S-3 approval provides additional flexibility to access capital markets opportunistically in the future, further strengthening our ability to advance KRONOS towards commercialization.

Building on this progress, I'd now like to provide additional detail on several recent strategic announcements that, we believe, collectively strengthen our commercialization strategy and help to derisk future KRONOS MMR deployments.

A great example of this strategy is our recently announced collaboration with Supermicro, a global leader in AI infrastructure, high-performance servers and advanced liquid-cooling data center systems, serving many of the world's leading hyperscale enterprise and cloud computing customers. Through this MOU, we plan to explore strategic collaboration opportunities focused on integration of NANO Nuclear's KRONOS MMR with Supermicro's industry-leading AI server and data center platforms, explore joint go-to-market strategies and evaluate off-grid deployment opportunities for next-generation grid-independent AI infrastructure.

Importantly, we believe this collaboration further reinforces KRONOS' positioning as a potential long-term power solution for AI data centers and high-performance computing infrastructure, which represents one of the largest emerging electricity demand markets globally. By combining our advanced reactor technology with Supermicro's leadership, we believe there is meaningful opportunity to support future deployment and commercialization efforts through strategic collaboration with a leading technology infrastructure provider.

More broadly, these efforts reflect our strategy of aligning with highly credible strategic partners to help accelerate commercialization, reduce execution risk and expand long-term deployment opportunities for KRONOS. At the same time, our recently announced MOU with EHC Investment reflects another important component of our strategy, establishing regional partnerships that can help accelerate and support future reactor deployments.

EHC Investment is a diversified Abu Dhabi-based investment holding company with a portfolio spanning energy, infrastructure, safety and advanced technologies with a strong track record of operating and expanding strategic infrastructure and energy businesses. Notably, we signed an MOU to explore a joint venture focused on deployment of our KRONOS MMR platform in the Gulf region. This includes working together to evaluate market entry opportunities, assess pathways for establishing a localized nuclear supply chain, identify potential end users and host sites and engage with key stakeholders across regulatory, financing and commercial frameworks.

What makes this collaboration particularly compelling is the combination of EHC's capabilities and regional positioning. They bring decades of experience executing large-scale energy infrastructure projects in the UAE and broader Gulf region, offering the potential to materially accelerate project development time lines. EHC also benefits from in-region engineering, construction and project delivery capabilities, creating a strong foundation of execution at scale. And importantly, their broader platform across energy, safety and advanced technologies, along with their regional relationships, position them as a strong partner for executing on future KRONOS deployments. Taken together, we believe this collaboration offers the potential to significantly derisk and accelerate our entry into one of the most attractive emerging markets for advanced nuclear.

While the progress we've outlined in expanding strategic partnerships is important, it's ultimately enabled by the strength of our underlying technology, which we're confident offers clear advantages. First, we believe our KRONOS MMR reflects a high TRL level platform focused on integrating proven technologies into a compact modular system optimized for licensing and deployment. KRONOS builds on high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology that has been deployed and validated across multiple countries for decades.

Core elements of the design, including TRISO fuel, helium coolant and graphite moderation, are mature technologies supported by real-world operating data. The platform itself is supported by a strong technical foundation, including nearly a decade of prior development and more than an estimated $120 million of historical investment. Beyond the reactor, our balance of plant strategy prioritizes commercially proven systems such as steam generators, turbines and thermal energy storage technologies already used in concentrated solar plants. We also expect to operate with conservative temperature and pressure parameters aligned with successful historical deployments.

Second, the safety profile is fundamentally different from other reactor types. TRISO fuel retains fission products at extreme temperatures. Helium is an inert coolant, and the design relies on passive heat removal. As such, we don't expect a credible meltdown pathway, and the core can shut down itself without reliance on active safety systems.

Third, prismatic high-temperature gas-cooled reactors are inherently simple. There are few active systems and high-stress components and a substantial number of components are commercially off the shelf rather than safety grade. The core configuration itself has no moving parts other than the control rods, and the materials are inert and well understood, contrasting with the complexity of certain other advanced designs.

Fourth, prismatic high-temperature gas reactors like KRONOS are especially well suited for export. The use of TRISO fuel presents minimal proliferation risk compared with other fuel technologies. And the strong safety case may support more streamlined engagement with international regulators.

Fifth, we believe this architecture is particularly flexible with the standard design able to be deployed for smaller capacities by adjusting operating pressure, allowing KRONOS' output to scale without redesign. The standard design can also use different enrichment levels without redesign as well.

And lastly, we believe these characteristics should enable stronger economies of scale, and an inert coolant, passive safety and advanced fuel, reduce the need for complex chemistry controls and high maintenance systems. Combined with a simpler design and greater use of commercial components, we see potential for lower operating costs, reduced maintenance requirements and favorable cost scaling over time.

With that, I'll turn the call over to our CFO, Jaisun, to provide financial highlights.

Thank you, James. I'll now provide a summary of our Q2 financial performance. Our overall liquidity position remains robust, ending the quarter with approximately $569 million in cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments. This was a slight decline from the prior quarter as we continue to fund development of our KRONOS MMR and related fuel cycle initiatives.

During the quarter, our previously filed $900 million shelf registration became effective, including a $400 million at-the-market facility, or ATM, enhancing our financial flexibility and ensuring we have efficient access to capital as needed in the future. While we have yet to use the shelf or ATM and while they do not reflect immediate financing needs, they provide us with flexibility to be opportunistic in the future as we execute on key milestones and further demonstrate the value of our technology, strategy and platform.

At the same time, we believe our current cash and short-term investments positions us well to support the development and advancement of our full-scale U of I prototype through construction and commissioning. This position is further strengthened by our ongoing evaluation of several nondilutive funding opportunities, which we believe could reduce the capital requirements associated with the project. Taken together, this positions us with significant financial flexibility, not only to fund our core development efforts, but also to selectively pursue value-accretive opportunities, including potential transactions across the nuclear fuel cycle that could enhance our competitive positioning and vertical integration over time.

Turning to the income statement. Q2 net loss totaled $9.2 million, an increase of approximately $3 million from the prior quarter. This primarily reflected higher headcount and associated expenses as we continue to advance development and licensing of our KRONOS MMR, highlighted by submission of a CPA to the U.S. NRC, while also pursuing strategic growth opportunities.

Looking ahead, we expect expenses to trend higher as we continue to scale our team and initiate procurement of long lead items and testing equipment in support of our engineering and demonstration facility.

Q2 net loss declined by approximately $12 million from the prior year comparative period, primarily due to an increase in interest income and decline in equity-based compensation. Year-to-date net cash used in operating activities increased by approximately $4 million from the prior year period to $9.3 million, primarily due to an increase in personnel fees, excluding equity-based compensation and an increase in professional fees. And year-to-date net cash used in investing activities increased by approximately $368 million to approximately $381 million, primarily driven by an approximate $371 million increase in short-term investments to earn a higher yield on our cash balance.

Before turning the call over to the operator for Q&A, I'd like to reemphasize we are well positioned to execute our strategy of advancing our KRONOS MMR toward commercialization, while also enhancing our vertical integration through partnerships and M&A. As we look ahead, we will remain disciplined in deploying time and capital towards opportunities that are strategically accretive and offer compelling return on investment.

With that, I'll now turn the call over to the operator to open up the call for Q&A.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Nate Pendleton with Texas Capital Bank.

Congrats on the continued progress. Regarding the BaRupOn feasibility study, can you provide some more detail around the potential timing of that 1 gigawatt of capacity and what the next steps look like from here?

Yes, I'm happy to do that. So that's going pretty well, actually. Down -- we've finished the feasibility study, and we've wrapped that up now. And so now we're in discussions with them about the next stage, which is examining the licensing requirements that would go into it. So you might have seen very recently at UIUC, we submitted a construction permit application.

Now there's going to have to be a similar sort of process done at the BaRupOn site where we would follow up with drilling and gathering geotechnical work, and that would feed into the entire submission for construction permit at the site. So now that the feasibility study is done and they're happy with that, now we're into discussions about the next stage, that licensing process.

I mean the good part now is that the reactor construction at UIUC, that will gift us obviously a commercial product that we can deploy and is subsequently licensed, but still the licensing process for the site itself needs to be done. So that's what we're working on with them at the moment, and we're working out the step, the involvement, the contributions and the partners that will be involved in that geotechnical work as well with BaRupOn.

So how -- and after that stage, once the construction permit application is done, then you can start moving into the point where you can start site prepping. But it would go off to the NRC. The NRC would go through an examination process similar to UIUC of just examining the geotechnical data. And then once approved, you would be authorized to start construction.

Now it's still going to be dependent on the licensing process happening at UIUC for the ultimate deployment of the reactor systems. But we can get everything in place. And one of the nice parts about future operations similar to BaRupOn is that once the reactor is licensed and it's more of a known quantity with the NRC, you could even expect an expedited CPA approval process given that when we give them geotechnical data for the specific sites the reactor launch to. But that's how it's going to look now, feasibility study done, moving into examining licensing for the particular site. And then once the reactor is commercially ready for deployment, it can go straight into construction at the deployment site.

That's great. I appreciate all that detail, James. And then maybe for Jaisun, you called out evaluating non-dilutive funding opportunities. Can you provide more details about what those opportunities are and directionally the size of the potential opportunity there?

Sure. So we're looking at government programs or incentives such as DOE fuel under project qualifications, items such as ITCs and potential avenues with the state and universities. So in terms of size, we haven't quantified the exact amount we'd be looking at. We do have substantial runway with our own liquidity. But as things get more moving forward to different time lines, we'll be looking at kind of quantifying that more and getting them nailed down.

Our next question comes from the line of Sherif Elmaghrabi with BTIG.

The new regulatory pathways for the NRC, Parts 53 and 57, is that something that could expedite UIUC? Or do you view this as more of like a commercial opportunity?

I would say it's very, very -- especially Part 57. I can go into a bit of both of them. But the reason why it's very important commercially is that Part 57, in particular, I mean, it's already focused on microreactors, which falls exactly into our ballpark. But it's really focused on fleet deployment. And what they're trying to do here is that the -- if you look at nuclear historically, you've got long deployment time lines for singular large systems. And for an anticipated market of small modular reactors and more in particular, microreactors, which is what that Part 57 is focused on, how do you deploy dozens or hundreds of these things on an annual basis without being held up by that extremely long historic licensing and construction process?

So Part 57, maybe it has some benefits on the licensing front for small reactor systems. But the real benefit of that system is it is way more commercially focused. So aligning construction operating licensing processes, the scope of safety characteristics, fleet-wide standardization benefits, the Part 57 is going to be crucial for us because by 2030, when we have the reactor fully constructed, outputting power, licensed and ready to commercially deploy, we want to be in a position, at that point, to deploy these things en masse. And the Part 57 facilitates that a lot. So we've been reading through, obviously, the releases that they've come out. That has been extremely beneficial.

I would say in terms of where we are at the moment is that we were suitably far along in advance that we already had a licensing pathway, and there was no significant benefit to us changing anything we were doing. The Part 50 process that we're going through to get the reactor constructed at the university to get it licensed, there's no real expedited benefit of utilizing anything new. We're on pretty much the fastest pathway, but that commercial advantage is very important.

What I could say is an advantage for the industry, and you could see that the NRC is actually putting in real concerted efforts to facilitate the rollout of advanced nuclear is Part 53 is a different approach in that it's a more risk-informed approach to licensing, where a lot of the responsibility is put back on the reactor developer and the responsibility lies with them. That is a crucial factor difference because it's no longer a thing of the -- proving to the NRC that every single aspect is safe. It's you submit an application where you look at the risk profiles, and that's really what's assessed. And you need to submit all of that information to them, and that's your responsibility.

That should actually shorten things substantially for future licensing processes for advanced reactor systems. I would say it's just less of a benefit for us just given how advanced we were in the process of site characterization, submission of the CPA, the place of where the reactor is in terms of technological development and the fact that we've already had a lot of ongoing licensing engagement with the NRC already. But yes, Part 57, incredibly useful, very, very useful for future mass deployment of reactor systems at fleet level.

That is great color as always. Just one follow-up out of curiosity. Are there similar efforts in Canada to keep pace with what the NRC is doing?

I've got to admit, I don't know. I know that Canada, obviously, they've been very vocal about the need for the introduction of like these advanced systems into Canada, especially because some of the larger nuclear systems are just ill suited for the ring of fire or oil sands projects or remote communities up there. But I haven't seen anything like this so far. Now I don't want to be offside with the CNSC, so they might be doing something very similar. I just don't know.

Our next question comes from the line of Sameer Joshi with H.C. Wainwright.

Just a few on the CPA. I think you mentioned the CPA has been submitted. Any idea on when it will be accepted? And then does the 12-month time line start from acceptance? Or has it already been triggered?

So obviously, everyone saw that we formally announced the submission of that CPA just at the end of March. There is a standard acceptance window. Actually, that window is now. So it could be any time from today, actually, all the way through to early next week where we can really expect that formal acceptance from the NRC. And obviously, I don't want to speak for them. There are always delays with organizations, but that formal acceptance, we also expect imminently. So there's that process. And then obviously, there's the expected 12-month turnaround once formally accepted for the permission to then go and construct. So -- but yes, that formal acceptance is expected very, very soon.

Just switching subjects. I think in the commentary, the M&A opportunities were mentioned, including for transportation and some other areas. Are you looking at specifically transportation partners that will help you transfer nuclear fuel?

So this is a very important question. And to be honest with everybody as well, we did have -- we have some things that we're working on at the moment, and we hope they would have been ready in time for this earnings call so we could speak about them more publicly. But I don't think it's any secret that we've identified that the transportation element of the nuclear industry, especially advanced nuclear industry, will be very crucial to the successful mass deployment of reactor systems and refueling spent fuel, everything like that.

Now we've accepted actually that we're going to have to create more in-house capabilities within Nano to ensure that there's not going to be a bottleneck on operations due to constrictions around the delivery of materials, nuclear materials, fuel, anything like that. So there are acquisitions that we are -- we've already identified. We're in late-stage discussions about. And those late-stage discussions should lead to announcements, I think, in the short term that we can publicly talk about.

I'm just trying to not be offside with what our lawyers advise us on, but it is a very important aspect of the business. It is actually an area of the nuclear industry that is already a bit squeezed, and we are trying to get ahead of that problem right now. And we are very, very close, as I say. It should be a very short turnaround before we can actually formally announce something on this one.

Yes. It is an important aspect because everyone is focused on the reactors and fuel enrichment and other aspects, but transportation has not been a subject of focus so far. So glad you're working on that.

My last question is regarding the proposed Part 57. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the NRC is still accepting comments on this? And if so, are you -- do you have any comments that you may be submitting as part of this process?

So on the Part 57, I mean we are part of a lot of the consortiums. And obviously, I think they're specifically -- I think 57 -- that's sort of physical protection of special nuclear material. It probably is going to be an increasing consideration of ours just because they're going to be involved in some level of transportation.

So even though we're part of the consortiums with the NEI that are examining this kind of thing, I would say, at the moment, until we complete those prospective acquisitions, we probably won't concentrate too much on them. But they, almost certainly, the security aspects of things like that, like 10 CFR Part 57, they are going to be a focus of some of the specialists that we're going to inherit as part of any potential acquisition that will have to focus on these different aspects. But at the moment, I wouldn't say we've allocated any personnel. And what we expect is that the personnel we're going to bring into the company will address these things with the NRC, probably through consortiums run by the NEI.

Thank you. And we have reached the end of the question-and-answer session. Therefore, I'd like to turn the floor back to Jay Yu for closing remarks.

Actually, I'm sorry. We have one more question from the line of Subash Chandra with StoneX.

Sorry, I thought I was in the queue already. The first question, James, I guess, is as you order these long lead items, does your original cost estimates, how are they sort of fleshing out? And when will you have sort of a more fulsome view of what the actual will be versus the estimate?

So actually, kind of near term because now that the technical team has finished with the construction permit application, and that was really occupying almost all of them, like [ 60 -- or 60 number ] of people, whatever number it was, the team has immediately shifted focus on to the supply chain. So the vessels, the graphite fuel, the fabrication, helium circulators, whatever it is, and including the nonnuclear components like the turbine systems, the mechanical, the salts. And we do -- I mean, prior to the submission of the CPA, we already had identified suppliers involved. And so now what is going down is contract negotiation. And that started with all the different vendors. So the subsections, we can get a much more granular appreciation of what the overall cost would be.

I would say at the moment, the estimations that we provided so far, that $300 million to $350 million, which were conservative, are still accurate. And as we get deeper into the examination and the negotiations, that's not shifting. Now I would just preface as well that, that number is not -- certainly not going to be representative of nth-of-a-kind reactor systems. Everything is being bespoke for this particular reactor, and maybe we might double them up if we go ahead with the Canadian project. But the -- yes, so far that initial first-of-a-kind full power, fully operating, power-producing full-scale reactor system at UIUC, the estimates are, so far, looking to be pretty accurate.

That's good to hear. And on BaRupOn, just curious, when do they secure a tenant? Yes, go ahead, sorry.

No, I was just going to say, obviously, that's their business, but we have a very close relationship with them, and they keep us updated. There are actually 2 major hyperscalers that are examining their facility at the moment. And obviously, we -- it's -- I wouldn't say their business is dependent on those 2 being successful, but they're attracting, obviously, a lot of interest to get the tenants onto that particular site.

Now the nice thing about BaRupOn is that they are suitably flexible. And I know that we've learned a little bit about how hyperscalers and data centers operate just through discussions with them. And the nice part is that they do have alternative sites even if the site is considered not ideal for a lot of these different areas. And the nice part is if we -- because we've gone through this process with them anyway, wherever they do deploy, whether it's Texas or Virginia or Wyoming or wherever they're currently looking to deploy these sites and attract tenants, we're already earmarked in to provide the nuclear power for these different sites. So even though we've only publicly spoken about Texas, there are other opportunities with them even beyond that site. But yes, they're currently going through the due diligence process with 2 big hyperscalers at the moment.

Thank you. And now we have reached the end of the question-and-answer session. Therefore, I'll now turn the call back over to Jay Yu for our closing remarks.

I want to thank everyone again for joining us on today's call. The interest and enthusiasm of our investors and market participants is important to us, and we're very grateful for your support. We look forward to providing additional updates in the future. Have a great evening.

And ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference, and you may disconnect your lines at this time. We thank you for your participation.

Greetings, and welcome to the Nano Nuclear First Quarter 2026 Financial Results and Business Update Call. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host.

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Joining me on the call today are Jay Yu. Nano Nuclear's Founder, Chairman and President; James Walker, our CEO, and Jaisun Garcha, our CFO. Please note that today's press release and slide presentation to accompany this webcast are available on our website. Before moving ahead, I'll quickly address forward-looking statements made on this call. As reflected in more detail on Slide 2, today's presentation contains forward-looking statements about Nano's future that are made under the safe harbor provisions of the applicable federal securities laws. You are cautioned that actual results including, without limitation, the results of Nano's microreactor development activities, strategies, time lines and other operational plans may differ materially and adversely from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

Important risks and other factors that could cause actual results to differ from those in our forward-looking statements are contained in our filings with the SEC including our annual report on Form 10-K filed this past December, which you are encouraged to review. The forward-looking information provided today is accurate only as of today, and Nano disclaims any obligation to update any information provided except as required by law. With that, I'll turn the call over to Jay Yu, Nano's Founder, Chairman and President.

Thank you, Matt, and thank you, everyone, joining the call today. Nano Nuclear continues to differentiate itself as a microreactor developer with a focus on vertical integration across the nuclear fuel supply chain. We are advancing our K MMR, KRONOS high TRL high temperature gas cool reactor design backed by decades of operating history and meaningful prior capital investments. which we believe can significantly derisk future construction, licensing and deployment.

We expect the compact modular design of our KRONOS MMR system to support factory fabrication repeatable construction and learnings that can accelerate deployment time lines and drive cost efficiencies over time. Importantly, we believe the inherent safety profile of our Kronos MMR and can enable a smaller footprint, co-location and off-grid deployment, unlocking high-value applications previously unavailable to traditional nuclear reactors.

We paired this foundation with a focus on vertical integration across critical aspects of the nuclear fuel supply chain, which we believe will give us an advantage over our competitors, uniquely positioning us to expedite reactor deployment benefit from growing nuclear renaissance and enhance long-term economics of our reactors. Turning to our Q1 highlights. We continue to make meaningful progress across business during this quarter. Our KRONOS MMR continues to advance towards licensing and construction. We completed site characterization and drilling at the University of Illinois and are incorporating those results into our planned construction permit application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We also signed a formal MOU with the Board of Trustees at the University of Illinois, detailing the next steps as we advance the project. The state of Illinois announced that we will receive $6.8 million in incentive awards, underscoring growing support for advanced nuclear technology.

In Canada, we continue to make progress towards initiating formal licensing following our acquisition of Global First Power, now rebranded as True North Nuclear. And lastly, we're advancing discussions with numerous supply chain partners for key components and low lead items as well as discussions with commercial enrichment provider and Triso manufacturers to procure fuel for our first KRONOS MMR prototypes.

On the commercial side, we signed a feasibility study agreement with BaRupOn to evaluate the potential deployment of many KRONOS MMR systems to provide up to 1 gigawatt of power for their AI data center and manufacturing campus under development. We believe this announcement highlights the potential scalability of our platform for customers with significant energy needs. Nano is also expanding its pipeline of potential data center, industrial and military customers interested in KRONOS for a range of power needs. Nano saw a growing interest from potential strategic partners, highlighted by a recent MOU with DS Danseok to explore localization, manufacturing employment opportunities for KRONOS is reactors in South Korea and the broader Asian region.

DS Danseok is a leading South Korean industrial enterprise with extensive capabilities in energy chemical processing and advanced manufacturing, providing a strong platform to support commercialization of our technology. We also signed an MOU with Ameresco to explore integration of their EPC capabilities for deployments for our KRONOS MMR systems on federal and commercial sites.

These announcements reflect a broader trend of interest from strategic partners, including established companies with decades of experience with large-scale energy and industrial infrastructure projects who recognize the value proposition of KRONOS. As it relates to our strategic focus of vertical integration, we also made progress towards expanding our conversion and transportation capabilities through active exploration partnerships and acquisitions. In addition, our strategic affiliate list technologies received a key radioactive material license for Tennessee's demonstration facility while also announcing plans to invest $1.38 billion over time to build a commercial enrichment facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee supported by its planted laser enrichment technology.

Each of these announcements reinforce our progress in securing our nuclear fuel supply chain. From a financial perspective, we raised gross proceeds of $400 million through an October private placement, significantly strengthening our balance sheet and extending our operational runway. This capital raise included participation from a growing base of institutional investors, reflecting increased confidence in our strategy and execution.

We were also added to the Morgan Stanley National Security Index, further expanding our visibility among institutional investors. Our Q1 progress reflects our continued execution, advancing KRONOS towards licensing construction expanding commercial traction, working to expand our vertical integration across the nuclear fuel supply chain and maintaining our strong financial position to support execution of our long-term strategy. We believe our progress to date differentiate technology and strategy have positioned us to be a key factor of the global nuclear renaissance driven by several durable secular growth trends. These include growth in demand and reliable baseload energy for AI data centers industrial reassuring and the broader electrification, energy, sustainability, independence and climate mandates and unprecedented policy support.

Recent developments in the U.S. power markets are bringing increased focus on each of these trends. electricity demand tied to AI data centers and other power-intensive applications is expanding faster than the new generation and transmission can be delivered. Rising concerns around power availability grid expansion and energy affordability. In January, the administration supported an emergency auction organized by the largest regional grid operator. aimed at driving 15-year power purchase agreements to fund an estimated $15 billion of new generation.

The same grid operator is also considering co-location generation policies to help large energy users bring supply closer to demand. While these actions are important and reflect a growing recognition of current power bottlenecks they alone are unlikely to close the structural gap between demand growth and reliable supply. Against that backdrop, we believe assets capable of delivering high uptime, long-term cost certainty and operational resilience independent of constrained grid infrastructure are likely to command a meaningful premium in the future. We view our KRONOS MMR as an ideal feature solution to address these challenges, which are expected to intensify in the years ahead.

By offering the potential to provide behind the meter or off-grid baseload power directly to the end users and customers. we can meet expected demand growth without driving higher costs for everyday Americans. In short, the recent actions across the country are reinforcing the need for global nuclear renaissance and highlighting what we have long believed, reliable, clean baseload energy is a strategic necessity.

And we are building our KRONOS MMR as a next-generation solution aligned with national priorities, customer needs and long-term economics of the AI-driven energy future. Before handing the call over to our CEO, James, I'll briefly highlight why we view 2026 as an important year with multiple potential catalysts offering, the opportunity to create shareholder value. First, we expect progress towards regulatory licensing of KRONOS in the U.S. and Canada. We are targeting submission of a construction permit application to the NRC in the coming months to formally begin the U.S. lysis process. This submission will represent a key milestone that could set the stage for initial construction at the University of Illinois in mid- to late 2020.

Second, we see potential for several commercial announcements this year, reflecting growing interest in our KRONOS MMR from customers in several markets.

Third, we're advancing discussions on commercial partnerships and acquisition opportunities across nuclear fuel supply chain, providing the potential to address key bottlenecks in areas like conversion and field transportation.

And lastly, we expect additional progress to our strategic partnerships that could accelerate and derisk large-scale deployment of our reactors while also significantly expanding commercial opportunities globally. With that, I'll turn the call over to James.

Thank you, Jay. Let me start with brief updates of our universe of Illinois prototype project, which will be essential to advancing our KRONOS MMR towards commercial deployment. As Jay mentioned, we've completed site characterization and drilling and also signed an MOU with UI's Board of Trustees to outline the next steps for the design, construction, ownership and operation of our KRONOS MMR system on campus.

We remain on track to submit our construction permit application to the NRC in the coming months under the Part 50 licensing pathway. Our team is working on the application closely with AECOM and other partners and a bigger one engaging with the NRC for several months to ensure alignment on scope and technical requirements.

In parallel, we're advancing discussions to procure key long lead components, including discussions around reactive professional capacity, fuel enrichment application, graphite supply and other key components.

Based on our progress to date, we aim to begin construction in mid- to late 2027 and see a realizable road map to a full-scale prototype online in or around 2030. Our team is also evaluating opportunities to accelerate this schedule and secure additional project funding to reduce overall capital costs. Turning to our growing pipeline of commercial opportunities. We believe growing commercial interest has been driven by KRONOS' compelling value proposition. KRONOS has a strong safety profile that we expect to enable colocation directly at the customer site and provides the option for off-grid power.

KRONOS is also particularly well suited for large-scale multiunit deployments where reactors can be connected and scaled over time to match customer demand. its modular architecture and compatibility with factory fabrication and standardized production create the opportunity to capture meaningful economies of scale as we deploy a larger scales.

We believe manufacturing efficiencies, combined with operational learning curve can position us to achieve highly competitive economics over time, while still delivering the 24/7 reliability and uptime that data centers, industrial customers and other mission-critical users require.

Moreover, KRONOS' patented flexible design also provides the ability to serve projects with smaller power needs, requiring only 1 or several units expanding our served available market to new applications previously unavailable to nuclear energy. During the quarter, we announced a feasibility study with BaRupOn to evaluate the potential deployment of up to 1 gigawatt of power to support their AI data center and manufacturing capital. We are actively advancing the study, which includes the site evaluation, project scoping and time line development.

Following completion, we'll aim to perform EPC cost estimates, begin early project development activities and work towards finalizing a formal agreement to sell our reactors. Beyond BaRupOn, we continue to build a growing pipeline of prospective customers across data center, industrial and military applications.

The consistent theme across these discussions is the need for reliable baseload power particularly solutions with favorable footprints that can be deployed behind the meter to reduce grid dependence and accelerate deployment time lines. Notably, power requirements for these projects range from below 50 megawatts up to 1 gigawatt plus.

We also see meaningful opportunities in additional markets where KRONOS is well suited, including remote communities, mining operations and other energy-intensive applications requiring reliable off-grid solutions. And as Jay highlighted, we're making progress towards several strategic partnerships we believe can further expand our commercial reach and accelerate deployment beginning with our recent MOU with DS Danseok. We recently announced a collaboration with DS Danseok, a leading South Korean industrial company to accelerate deployment of our KRONOS MMR in South Korea.

DS Danseok brings deep capabilities and operational experience across energy, chemical processing and advanced manufacturing, along with long-standing relationships across key industrial and government stakeholders in South Korea.

We're confident their credibility within the Korean industrial ecosystem can facilitate engagement with state-owned entities as well as potential Korean industrial customers seeking reliable, carbon-free baseload energy.

As such, our collaboration with DS Danseok has the potential to meaningfully derisk regulatory licensing as well as accelerate site identification and project development, facilitate introductions to prospective customers and support localization of manufacturing and component production within South Korea. Moreover, we also see this collaboration as a pathway to strengthen project financing opportunities and establish broader strategic partnerships they can accelerate commercialization and deployment in South Korea, 1 of the world's most sophisticated nuclear and industrial markets as well as the broader Asia region. Now that we've touched upon KRONOS' growing commercial momentum and value proposition, I'd now like to elaborate on KRONOS' technical differentiation.

KRONOS is supported by a proven and well-understood foundation with nearly a decade of development and an estimated $120 million invested into its design by its prior owner. We believe this materially derisks the platform and provides a strong technical basis as we advance towards licensing and deployment.

KRONOS' 15-megawatt electric design builds on high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology that has been deployed and validated across multiple countries for more than 5 decades. Core elements of the design, including triso fuel, helium cools and graphite moderation on mature technology supported by extensive real-world operating data.

Beyond the reactor itself, our balance of plant strategy prioritizes commercially proven systems, including steam generators, turbines and thermal energy storage technologies already in use in today's concentrated solar plants. We also expect to operate within conservative temperature and pressure parameters that align with successful deployments. As a result, our focus is not on developing new or experimental reactor technology but on integrating well-understood components into a compact modular microreactor platform that can be licensed, manufactured and deployed efficiently.

With that operating history in mind, I'll now outline the key advantages of KRONOS as a prismatic high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. First, on technology readiness, prismatic, high-temperature gas cool reactors utilize well-characterized materials with established commercial supply chains and the performance data from prior deployments provides a high TR level foundation for our design.

Second, the safety profile is fundamentally different from other reactor types. Triso fuel retains vision products at extreme temperatures. Helium is an inert coolant and the design relies on passive heat removal. As such, we don't expect a credible meltdown pathway and the core can shut itself down without reliance on active safety systems. Third, prismatic high-temperature gas-cooled reactors are inherently simple. There are a few active systems and high stress components and many elements can be commercially off-the-shelf rather than safety grade. The core configuration itself has no moving part other than the control rod and the materials are inert and well understood. contrasting with the complexity of certain other advanced designs.

Fourth, prismatic high temperature gas reactors, like KRONOS are especially well suited for export. The use of Triso fuel presents minimal proliferation risk compared with our fuel technologies and a superior safety case potentially offers streamlined licensing with international regulators.

Fifth, we believe this architecture is uniquely flexible, -- in particular, the standard design can be deployed for smaller capacities by simply decreasing operating pressure. This flexibility allows KRONOS' output to be scaled without redesign to meet the needs of a wide array of customers.

And lastly, we believe these characteristics could enable lower long-term maintenance and stronger economies of scale and inert coolant passive safety and advanced fuel reduced the need for complex chemistry controls and high maintenance systems. Combined with the simpler design and greater use of nonspecialized commercial components, we see opportunity for reduced operating costs, lower maintenance costs and favorable cost scaling over time. Our focus on vertical integration stems from our belief the 1 of the largest constraints to deploying advanced reactors at scale in the reactor technology, but fuel availability.

We're working to gain exposure to several critical stages of the fuel cycle, starting with enrichment through our collaboration with our affiliate list technologies, LIST owns the only U.S. origin patented laser enrichment technology and our relationship with LIST has the potential to provide Nano with a differentiated uranium enrichment solution.

In parallel, we're exploring opportunities to build our capabilities in conversion and fuel transportation through strategic commercial partnerships and acquisitions. Further progress in each of these areas can not only derisk future reactor deployments but also positions Nano to generate revenue across the nuclear fuel cycle while remaining aligned with federal funding opportunities and national energy security needs. With that, I'll turn the call over to our CFO, Jaisun to provide financial highlights.

Thank you, James. I'll now provide a summary of our Q1 financial performance. Our overall cash position increased significantly during the quarter, ending the period with cash and cash equivalents of $577.5 million. This was an approximate $374 million increase during the quarter ended December 31, driven by the net proceeds of our successful October 2025 private placement. We're confident our substantial cash balance and proven ability to raise capital at scale position us well to accelerate development and commercialization of the KRONOS MMR.

Our strong financial position also provides flexibility to pursue value-accretive opportunities via M&A and strategic partnerships to enhance our vertical integration. Turning to the income statement. Q1 loss from operations was $11.6 million.

The higher year-over-year loss resulted from an approximate $8 million increase in operating expenses. A substantial majority of these expenses focused on advancement of our KRONOS MMR and other strategic growth opportunities. Q1 net loss totaled $6.5 million, up approximately $3 million from the comparable prior year period. The net loss was lower than the loss from operations as we earned approximately $5 million of interest income on our larger cash balance. Net cash used in operating activities increased by approximately $1 million from the prior year period to $4 million. This resulted from the aforementioned increase in G&A and R&D expenses. Net cash used in investing activities totaled $3.1 million and included payments for our Oak Brook, Illinois engineering facility.

Before turning the call over to the operator for Q&A, I'd like to reiterate that our strong balance sheet places us in a great position to execute our strategy of advancing our KRONOS MMR and enhancing our vertical integration. As we look ahead, we will continue to generate value for shareholders by allocating our time and capital prudently toward opportunities offering compelling return on investment.

With that, I'll now turn the call over to the operator to open up the call for Q&A.

We will now be conducting a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Sameer Joshi with H.C. Wainright. Please foresee with your question.

So the 1 strategic alliance you announced with the DS Dansuk Group. Are there any sort of milestones or catalysts over the next 12 to 18 months that we should be watching out for?

Sameer. So yes, I'm quite pleased to answer the question about this actually because the plan with DS Dansuk is actually a pretty large one. So what they actually wanted was that they envision massive bottlenecks with regard power for their industry. And so when we went over there and me and the technical team, we were talking to them about how we actually create a manufacturing facility there.

And we've been working them in the interim models to break down the reactor intersections and how we would manufacture those sections, what can be done in Korea, what cannot be. So what's been happening over the last few months is we've been looking at what can be fabricated in Korea. What can be sourced there, where materials were going to be come from? Because one major thing that companies are looking at is that great, you build a reactor and it gets licensed. How are you going to mass manufacture that reactor? So we're obviously turning our attention to that in the U.S., but DS Dansuk wants to do the same thing the reactor of career.

So what we're likely going to see over the coming year is just more development in that direction. We were all going to put together a plan about how we arrive at a centralized local core manufacturing facility to keep the selling market initially, but it's really the whole East Asia region, where there's a huge demand for the product.

So in terms of what you are going to see, you're going to see more engagement with us in DS Dansuk. You're going to see that MOU advancing into more critical planning stages. At some point, you're going to start seeing -- it's difficult to say exactly the time lines now. You're going to end factories that are going to be built for the purposes of mass manufacturing reactors. And you're going to see additional partnerships between us and them. regarding certain key strategic things like partnerships on graphite acquisitions and fuel supply and things like that to get things into place. The other part is where you're going to see is that there's a big demand for this. So you're probably going to see some related news about our interaction with the government with [indiscernible] with big vendors in [indiscernible]. And ultimately, openly, as you'll see, increasing contracts between ourselves and customers in the region regarding offtake agreements for power, PPA agreements, those kind of things as we look to actually [indiscernible] ourselves so that when we hit that period when we have the reactor fully constructed and licensed, we were then readily able to start manufacturing reactor immediately, achieve economies of scale and then start installing those reactors on mass.

Understood. So should we -- I mean we also talk about strategic partnerships worldwide, but also within the U.S. and North America should we also include like an EPC kind of a strong partnership signed in this region?

Yes. So it's -- this is a very good point actually because [indiscernible] now is that we are on the verge of submitting our construction permit. We're very close to finishing that submission. Now when that goes in, that means that we can pivot the technical team to be able to refocus on what the next big stages are. And one of the big next stages is going to have to be how we mass manufacture these things.

Now beyond that, there becomes a larger question. Say we have -- say we have 10 sites, a dozen sites, whatever it is that we need to service. Now that is a lot of local construction crews that need to be coordinated. And so the EPC element to this becomes quite important because when you are doing that kind of digging out well for the reactor to go into [indiscernible] deals at concrete.

That's all stuff that Nano doesn't have to be involved and it can locally contract out. But that's still a huge amount of coordination. So you might have seen partnerships between ourselves and Ameresco and Hatch. And previously, actually, even Hyundai, I think, we were involved in looking at how we deploy this director around the world.

So the EPCM part of this is going to be a fairly large component of how we deploy here. So we have made a few announcements as we begin to look at how we deploy this thing, how it gets coordinated. That is obviously a very separate thing to DS Dansuk where they are going to be an industrial factory partner. So they wouldn't be doing -- but those EPC contractors in the U.S. are going to be very important. In South Korea, they're going to be just as important as well.

Understood. And then just one last one. The construction permit -- should we see any like news prior to your -- like submitting the application, which also is it on track for like first half of this year?

It is on track for the first half this year. It's actually going very well at the moment. We've been quite aggressive about it. So we worked the team pretty hard on this one because it is a very big difference in data. There's actually not many companies there might be a lot of reactor companies that are sprouting up because it's a hot market, but there's nobody putting in for a construction permit because it is a big difference between a paper reactor that you can make in your bedroom and an application to actually build. There's a lot of technical data that need to go into it. I wouldn't say we're going to announce anything prior to the submission specifically on this, but we will announce when it gets submitted because it is important to let the industry know where we are. And it is as well a very good indicator for the market that this is a very credible thing that's being taken forward at a time when there's not a lot of reactors being constructed.

And if we stick to our time lines, we should still be the first company in the U.S. to build a full-scale licensed microreactor system.

Our next question comes from the line of Nate Pendleton with Texas Capital Bank.

Congrats on the continued progress. Staying on the same topic, James, in your prepared remarks, you mentioned looking at ways to accelerate the 2030 time line for the [indiscernible] project. Can you elaborate on the potential pathways there?

Sure. So it's a very good question. So Obviously, there's -- what's happened very recently is that there's been a huge amount of government pressure to come on to the NRC to try and expedite time lines. And you've seen that manifest in things like the formal licensing period being firstly reduced to 18 months and then subsequently 12 months. So there's a possibility that the licensing process is expedited for us.

Now I would say with our 2030 time line, we've not factored into consideration these adjustments because -- we want to be as conservative as possible, but there's so a reality to the assessment of a reactor system for any regulator anywhere in the world. And their principal focus is safety and to do -- to interrogate that property for any design, it is still very difficult to expedite that, even if you throw people at the problem.

So the 2030 time line could be expedited, it's certainly possible. But it's true, nothing for us to stick to that because there is a -- there's been a tendency in recent years of companies to make very ambitious date targets. And I think all of those are going to be missed now or they're just going to keep evaluating and moving things right. we don't really want to be in that situation. If we say 2030, it gets delivered earlier, great. If they're expedited time lines that benefit us as well, fantastic. I would say that aside from those sort of things, obviously, we will work on the construction, get all that excited. Well, we've got a lot of resources already that we can pay to the full construction of this.

A lot of it will depend on industry and supply chains and those kind of things. But those things we're already identifying now and working on. So a lot of it is already derisked. The other thing I would say, too, is that what's missed a bit in the industry is that A lot of companies might be focused very in the near term on getting their first reactor constructed and licensed.

And obviously, that's a very important milestone. But when you hit that period and you have a reactor that can be commercially sold, how do you actually get economies of scale. You need to be able to mass manufacture it. So when we talk about expediting the time lines, it would be very nice to hit 2030 and be in a position where we are actually able to start mass selling the reactor. And that's going to mean that over the next few years, while the reactor is being constructed. We do actually refocus a lot of our attention on reactor for manufacturing facilities, how these things are going to be mass produced? How the EPCM contractors are going to get into place for coordinating localization? So there are 2 answers to the question is One, there's a lot of initiatives that can benefit us and can move our time line forward.

And the other part is that if we really want to expedite ourselves as a business, we need to attack this problem now. So once the construction permit goes in, we really want to focus people's energy on getting these -- what can actually be manufactured in the U.S.? How much can we centralize them? All of these different considerations will come into it. Which partners do we need to bring in to make certain components? Let's centralize their production capacities within this facility as well.

All of this is going to be very important. So we hit the ground running when it gets to 2030, hopefully earlier. But again, the reason why we haven't adjusted those time lines is that we -- myself and a lot of others in Nano, we've done a lot of licensing before. And we're very familiar with what's typically involved. And even though there are pressures on the NRC to expedite things, it still seems prudent to us to keep the longer time lines because the evaluation process, it is difficult to see how it could be shortened substantially from what it currently is.

Got it. That makes complete sense. And then shifting gears a little bit for my follow-up. Can you talk a bit about your decision to announce the request for information for Loki MMR, specifically, what options are your team looking at for that reactor design and have you received any notable feedback?

So we did. So the interesting part about this was that the Loki design can be thought of a bit like a scaled-down KRONOS reactor. So as we work on KRONOS, it has immediate benefits for the advancement of the Loki reactor. But the Loki reactor was originally envisaged as being a solution for space power. Now when we began looking at actually attributing more resources towards Loki. The -- we looked at who the previous interest came from, and that was predominantly things like [indiscernible] NASA, these kind of groups are interested because it was a very advanced pace reactor type. And there was this kind of examination of additional resources being allocated into Loki is coming at the same time when there was an emerging bigger push into space. And we realized, actually, we're in a very advantageous position to produce a working system that could actually supply power for a lot of these initiatives. So whether it was 0 gravity or low gravity because it was a base.

And this could be for a variety of different applications in the space program. But -- we are not a space industry either. We don't have space engineers, people who are involved in that space. So if we are going to pursue this, it needs to be done in partnership with groups that are involved in that space and know what they're doing. So when we put out the RFI, effectively, we were looking for partners already involved in that, and they were looking for power.

So what we can say is that there are a number of companies that were looking for power that were not involved in that base. large companies, people like that. So we did receive a large number of RFIs. And I say, I believe we just completed a submission with one at the moment. Obviously, it's -- these are very early days, and we're just putting our toe in the water of the space industry. And it's not to say that Loki couldn't be applied in terrestrial environment either. But certainly, we want to take advantage of the interest in the space industry. Loki had a big head start on a lot of other space reactor types, years and years and millions of minutes of investment. And so that's that's what precipitated the our interest to partner with people in the existing space industry because nuclear we know very well, space industry built bit foreign to us.

Our next question comes from the line of Jeff Grampp with Northland Capital Markets.

James, I'm curious, with respect to the supply chain and some of the work you guys are doing to engage various partners and strategics there. What's your kind of assessment on the longest lead times or most challenging parts of that puzzle that need to get solved sooner rather than later? And is there any imminent need from your standpoint to solve is, say, in calendar '26? Or would you say you have a little bit of time given the timing with engaging with the NRC getting the permit, that sort of thing?

So this is actually a very good question. I think it's pertinent to anybody involved in the nuclear space at the moment. So what I would say, the advantage we have with KRONOS is the vast majority of components are not that specialized. So the completed adjacent plant, that converts the thermal output of the reactor into electricity as an example, basic turbine systems. Even things like heat exchanges, control rod mechanisms, the Citadel thing, these are all things that can be built independently of any NRC involvement.

Obviously, they need to be up to a certain standard, which we can ensure. But the vast majority of components, we don't need to worry about the long lead times. These are things that can be readily manufactured now or there are immediate solutions that are very obvious that could be put together in short order. Now there are actually components though, that are no longer lead items. So there's a number -- like our reactor and a number of other reactors used like nuclear-grade craft. And I would say that's an item that needs special consideration because there's only -- as far as I know, 3 nuclear grade graphite produces in the world. I think 2 are in China and one is in Japan. Now what that means is that, obviously, there's going to be a lot of demand for these things. But it's also -- it's too much to expect more nuclear-grade graphite to come online anytime soon. The reason why is that principally, a lot of these manufacturers of the substance are located at the mine site. So first of all, you need the graph lag mine.

And then to get yourself to a point where you reach that sort of certification level where you're at an acceptable level of quality, that can take a substantial amount of time. So the time to bring a mine online, to get producing and then get it certified, you could be looking at more than 10 years. So I expect at some point in the future, North America will bring on some nuclear grade graphite line.

But for the next few years, what we expect to do is just buy or even maybe even co-build production lines to make our graphite blocks with these manufacturers. So that's probably going to take us some investment that goes into that. We're obviously talking with them. We know what their prices are. And we're arranging for the first first-of-a-kind second of a kind cause with these with suppliers now. So that's obviously an important part of it. The other major part for the U.S. is the fuel supply. Now the U.S. is obviously throwing money back at the problem. The DOE put billions of dollars back into things like enrichment. But there's bigger bottlenecks beyond that. There's conversion considerations to provide the feed grade. Now is actually investing a substantial amount of labor and involve in the edge, you can have its own medium of fluoride that they can then provide to enrichment companies.

So it keeps ownership of that fuel. But the -- for everybody involved in it, that enrichment capacity to come online, whether it's Centrus or Orano or List Technologies or General Matter or -- even our inco increasing their capacity, the time lines on that are a little bit uncertain. So that's principally also why Nano has opted to use -- to make a reactor, they can utilize LEU because that's fuel that can be manufactured today. Now there's going to be [indiscernible] that's fine because most advances use haleu fuel.

So that means that even -- they might even have much longer wait times to get towards that fuel than we do because when are they going to need a cervical things. They're going to need a category 3 site to be upgraded to a CAT II site. That could take some time by the facility to be licensed up to a level to it So it can handle Cat 2 material, so 10% to 20% material. That could be a long lead time, too. We don't have to wait for that, which is fortunate. We could benefit from Haleu fuel, and the reactor will have the ability to switch out the LEU for Haleu in the future, but we can -- we want to get going as soon as possible. But the fuel supply thing needs a lot of consideration.

And then related to that, it also is the fabrication of the Triso. Now there are several companies that are really leading in this space. I would say standard nuclear in partnership with Framatome. Framatome, obviously has a huge experience with fuel. And BWXT, again, very experienced company, very competent.

So there's no -- I don't think there's any risk that these big companies don't know how to do this kind of thing. What could happen with them is that there could be a bit of a bottleneck on fuel supply just because of the demand.

So getting in now and putting in the orders is going to be very important. And then two, what we're weighing up at the moment is the right contracts because even though we understand the first of a current reactor might be expensive, we need to have a sustainable fabrication toll fee applied to the material that we supply the fabricators. So they can make the Triso. Well -- and this is principally our strategy, too. We're going to invest very heavily into the fuel supply and so we can own our own fuel and supply it to the fabricator. So we don't get stuck.

But they will still have to increase their capacity probably to meet the market expectations. And I would say those are -- there's principally the main the main issues -- not issues, exactly, but longer lead items that need consideration. But beyond those, even the reactor vessel, the capability exists to do that in North America.

It's those longer lead items, the fuel and the graphite, I think, which need more consideration and earlier engagement to de-risk.

Great. I really appreciate that answer, James. You kind of hit on the follow-up that I was hoping to ask on the fuel side of things. you guys have been seemingly increasingly vocal about some acquisition or strategic opportunities to put some capital to work there. So I was just hoping to get a little bit of an update on, I guess, level of maturity or intensity of conversations with different companies in that endeavor? Or just any kind of, I guess, update on what we can see from you guys in that avenue of the cycle.

Sure. So I'm going to be a little bit careful because obviously, it's not public information at the moment. But I don't think it's any great secret that we've been very concerned about the fuel supply chain. And because -- we're obviously very focused now as we get on into advancement about mass manufacturing reactor. We want to make sure the fuel suppliers in place. And part of that over the last few years is involves looking at fuel supply options.

And that involves, obviously, we had a related party transaction called list technologies that we were behind the creation of -- and that was obviously -- that is a separate entity that we have a partnership with for enrichment. It's old Cameco tech. It had very good results in the 90s. So that has reasonable levels of confidence that we'll get that to a place where it can eventually enrich. But the lead time on that is still going to be after when we want to get going with the mass manufacture reactors. So that means that we need to be working with companies like Urenco that are enriching now. They can enrich LEU, which is the fuel that we need for our reactor. But even then, if you look at enrichment and you look at all the build-back in Richmond, that actually creates the next bottleneck, which is the uranium hexafluoride. So we identified this, I think, back as early as 2023.

And for a while, we were in discussions with countries like Namibia, which are large Iranian producers about potentially building facilities in country to take yellow cake and make it into that Uranium hexafluoride product for export. I don't mind saying that we have found better options than that, and we've made substantial progress with the government, the national governments on the acquisition of some of these facilities.

I can't give us a lot more details at the moment. But I would expect you will see some time this year some big announcements in that space as we complete some of those discussions and acquisitions.

Next question comes from the line of Sherif Elmaghrabi with BTIG.

I missed a little bit of your response on Leu versus haleu fuel, but I thought it was pretty interesting. So a couple more on that. From a regulatory point of view, are we talking about a separate regulatory process at NRC or CNSC to use 1 versus the other? Or is it kind of 1 approval to run at any enrichment level?

It's a good question because when we do get the reactor license we'll almost certainly get it licensed so we can demonstrate that it could operate with Haleu fuel. We're in a nice position to be able to do that. And the reason why is the operating parameters that we use for our reactors are enormous. So for instance, if we're operating at like 600 degrees centigrade, the melting temperature is 1,800.

Now when you've got that kind of margin, then the safety case that you submit to the NRC for a higher enriched fuel is fairly straightforward. I don't think a lot of companies are in that kind of advantage position. So when they are licensing their reactors, they will do it as have level directly, whereas our safety parameters basically allow us to do it simultaneously. The main challenge, I think, with the halo is that it's not that it can't be done. Like it's -- we've been [indiscernible] higher up to ATU levels for decades. It's really the fact that in the U.S. at the moment, there's no commercial Cat II site. I think BWXT does have a Cat I site, but obviously that's very centered towards military would make everything very expensive you manufactured through there.

So it's a question of the ARC will need to upgrade sites to Cat II, they will need to upgrade fuel facilities to be able to handle halo fuel and the proliferation, the increased proliferation concerns that attribute to that fuel. Now those proliferation concerns go away once it's fabricated but it's still a process the NRC will need to go through for that enrichment of fuel. So it's an interesting thing.

We want to take advantage of Haleu fuels much as everybody else, but like having that option to license the reactor immediately, so it can be deployed with a U. And then once the halo is available immediately switched out without further licensing engagement is going to be a very important part of the strategy here.

Yes, that's interesting. It sounds like it's not as binary as for other operators. So just 1 more on University of Illinois, you guys signed that MOU kind of lengthening your relationship. It looks like Illinois lend to hand designing the reactor. So do they retain a commercial stake when you look to commercialize your design down the road?

No. So they will be the owners and operators of the first-of-a-kind reactor system. And they will they will supply a huge amount of labor and resources into this project to make sure the first of a kind reactor is built. But beyond that, we own and operate the design of this reactor and the commercial ventures at UIUC will be allows exclusively.

Now the University of all the big benefit to them is obviously a reactor system that provides them clean energy for their campus system. And -- and also, obviously, they have got a big clear engineering department that they all benefit from involved in this. So it's obviously a big draw if you're training nuclear engineers to say we're building this next-generation Gen 4 reactor system. So they get immediate benefits from this first of a kind. But beyond this, once we have a commercial venture that will be a strictly Nano endeavor.

Our next question comes from the line of Subash Chandra with StoneX.

A couple of, I guess, NRC questions. So first, the licensing, so you got on the reactor, to what degree is the balance of plant in that process? And as you sort of address these various use cases, does that again go through the NRC. So just sort of confused there on where that distinction is between the reactor and balance of plant.

No, it's actually a very good question because, for instance, ironically, most of the KRONOS MMR system is not a nuclear system. So for instance, even though your reactor vessel is -- it needs to be nuclear qualified up to a certain level, so it can house the reactor itself. It can still be manufactured in a facility that the NRC does not need to oversee that facility. So if you're fabricating that reactor vessel, that facility does not need inspection. Now the component does need to meet a certain standard.

So there's still -- when you get to the sort of parts that are instrumentally important in reactor deployment, there's still that nuance. I think when the NRC mostly care about safety systems, how safe a reactor is. And so their assessment only becomes relevant when it is a nuclear device. So okay, the balance of plant, so you could say things like the entire adjacent plant.

So you've got the secondary coolant loop the stores power that creates essentially a battery, so you could ramp up and ramp down very quickly. It's a nonnuclear device that is a heat sync device that sits outside the NRC. The adjacent plant, where you have the turbine systems that convert heats to electric, Again, that would be the -- roughly the same sort of contraction you would find for a gas operation as you would for a nuclear operation. Again, that sits out side of the NRC. Now as you get closer to the reactor, then it becomes a bit more blurry because, say, for instance, the Citadel, which is the cavity that the reactor sits in, so you dig that into the ground. Now obviously, that can be built by local contractors that can be concreted and it still can be put in. Now the standard has to be up to scratch and you need to be able to demonstrate that it has met those requirements.

But the construction itself is not as relevant as the operation of the reactor system. Because what's likely going to happen here is that I think it's a part 52 subpart F. It allows for the -- once the reactor is licensed at the NRC, like KRONOS will be in C2030, the -- all the subsequent reactors off that will inherently be licensed to be deployed. So you wouldn't need much more regulatory engagement, and you're going to have a big cost saving as a result of that.

Now there's some nuance to that because you still need to be able to supply the NRC with information that they would need at any 1 time if they wanted to inspect a reactor. So you're still going to have to do the good geotechnical drilling, make sure you have all that data that you can demonstrate the ground, meets the criteria the NRC allocated. The -- there might have to be inspections of the calls that are being mass produced. Those might need to be inspected to make sure they're up to grade. But provided you are meeting all of those criteria, you could still deploy dozens of those reactors across the country without further regulatory engagement. But yes, the majority of the system can be -- what we anticipate doing is a centralized manufacturing facility where we do a lot of things like the reactor protection control mechanism.

The helium service systems, the Molten Salt loops, the human patio, the electrical systems, operator training. Those kind of aspects, those are still mostly mechanical engineering items, and the majority of the reactor comes under that. And that -- a lot of that stuff can be done under say ISO standards rather than NQA-1 nuclear-grade standards. It does break down, but it gets a lot easier after that first reactor is licensed because then you have your template and your standard that you need to meet and provided you meet those, the actual necessity for further regulatory engagement drops off quite dramatically.

Yes. Thank you. Then I guess, to the AI question, I think initially AI was about looking to the vast trove documents and perhaps making it a little bit easier and less repetitive and things like that. But I think lately in the last few weeks or so, they're talking about bringing in digital twins for simulation these. Do you see -- I mean we see that having a real-time effect in other sectors, of course. And given how lengthy the licensing process is, do you see some of this having a very material effect on the licensing process?

No, no, I was going to say like that is my actual big hope because I've been involved in licensing before. And -- it is an enormously complicated thing. So just to -- just -- I'm not trying to throw Vogtle under the bus, but for instance, Vogtle built very competently. But say, for instance, the regulator suddenly says, "Well, what about this component of this reactor that was installed 2 years ago. Well, that's already buried in concrete.

Well, how do we know it's safe? Did it meet where is the checklist with regard the inspection of this component before is installed and it was in case in concrete. Well, we don't have that. That means we need to dig it up. That means there's going to be a delay to the reactor. That means there's going to be an additional cost component that's going to that's why Vogtle is so expensive because you get these things. And ultimately, that example there is human error. Either someone missed that component needed to be qualified or it got installed without anyone realizing that they had to submit it for qualification or something like that. If you have an AI system, my hope here is that it would actually be able to identify very quickly what needs to be qualified, what need to be identified and you actually will reduce the human error of it down substantially because it will creep into it.

If you're thinking just it's difficult to even put into to explain how complicated licensing process can be. But if you think about a warehouse and you were to fill it with 4 sheets of paper, to contain the licensing documentation, you would fill a warehouse. It would be that much paper, millions and millions of documents. It's a it's a crazy process.

Now for a human, that's -- its -- even if you're a 99.99% perfect. That still means thousands and thousands of errors just because of the size of the undertaking you're going through. So my hope here is that AI can substantially reduce the risk of things being missed. And there's no reason why a computer that's operating like that, that's very familiar with the process that's been exposed to recent licensing data documentation couldn't immediately identify what needs to be focused on, what does need to be done at certain stages I think that could be a big step forward for nuclear to reduce times of licensing, errors in terms of components get missed, they get very in concrete, like the example I gave there definitely -- that will definitely help us enormously.

It would help the whole industry. And I can't see why that won't happen. And that's my big hope for AI. It's not so much reading through all of our submissions and making sure things. It's what needs to be done and when, what has been missed, what could potentially be missed and that kind of thing. I think -- that looks very plausible. And if that is plausible, then that makes our life a lot easier, and it will make reactors a lot cheaper in the long run.

There are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the floor back over to Jay Yu for any closing remarks.

I want to thank everyone again for joining us on today's call. The interest and enthusiasm of our investors and market participants is important to us, and we're very grateful for your support. We look forward to providing additional updates in the future. Have a great evening.

Thank you. And this concludes today's conference, and you may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation. '

Greetings, and welcome to the NANO Nuclear Fiscal Year 2025 Financial Results and Business Update Call. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce Matthew Barry, Director of Investor Relations and Capital Markets.

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Joining me on the call today are Jay Yu, NANO Nuclear's Founder, Chairman and President; our CEO, James Walker; and CFO, Jaisun Garcha. Please note that today's press release and slide presentation to accompany this webcast are available on our website. Before moving ahead, I'll quickly address forward-looking statements made on this call.

Listeners should note that today's presentation will contain certain forward-looking statements about NANO Nuclear's future goals and potential milestones that are made under the safe harbor provisions of the applicable federal securities laws. Words such as aim, may, could, should, seek, project, expect, intend, plan, believe, anticipate, hope, estimate, goal, and variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements.

These statements are based upon many assumptions and estimates made by management, all of which are inherently subject to significant risks, uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are beyond NANO's control. Many of these are shown on the slide you see here. You're cautioned that actual results, including, without limitation, the results of NANO's microreactor development activities, strategies and other operational plans, including the results of our regulatory acquisition and research and development initiatives, as well as future potential results of operations, operating metrics, addressable market and other matters about the future, which may be discussed may differ materially and adversely from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include, but are not limited to, the risk factors and other disclosures contained in NANO's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the risk factors and other disclosures in our Form 10-K filed today and our other filings with the SEC, all of which are or will be accessible on the Investor Relations section of NANO's website as well as the SEC's website. You're encouraged to review these disclosures carefully. Except to the extent required by law, NANO assumes no obligation to update statements as circumstances change.

With that, I'll turn the call over to Jay Yu, NANO's Founder, Chairman and President.

Thank you, Matt, and thank you to everyone joining the call today. I'll begin the call with a high-level overview of the major trends shaping the advanced nuclear market and then highlight the meaningful progress we made in 2025. NANO nuclear has worked to position itself at the center of a global nuclear renaissance. This is driven by several durable long-term trends including growing demand for reliable baseload energy, climate mandates and energy independence and global support for nuclear energy.

First, we are seeing a significant need for reliable baseload power to enable the rapid growth of AI data centers, industrial reshoring and broader electrification. AI data centers are projected to be a primary driver of the continued surge in electricity demand. For more than 2 decades, U.S. power demand grew below 1% per year.

According to the recent Grid Strategies report, some estimates call for electricity usage to increase by 5% to 6% annually over the next 5 years, and data centers alone could account for more than half of that growth. Meeting this level of demand could require U.S. power sector to plan and build new generation transmission capacity at more than 6x the pace of recent years. Also, it is not just the scale expected demand that's important, but the type of demand that's coming online. The Grid Strategies report highlights that the next wave of demand is projected to run at load factors close to 96% compared to system-wide average of about 60% today.

Over the past year, several major tech leaders have taken concrete steps to secure dedicated nuclear capacity for their data centers, whether it's new PPAs at existing nuclear plants or collaborations with advanced reactor developers, these actions reflect a clear recognition that meeting future AI data centers' needs require firm, always available power, a role nuclear is uniquely suited to fill. And equally as important, a lack of sufficient transmission infrastructure is expected to constrain the grid's capacity to meet forecasted power with even conservative growth estimates expected to require substantial grid expansion. All of this represents a fundamental shift that is placing an even greater emphasis on scalable and constant sources of baseload power that can operate independently from grid constraints.

This is exactly where microreactors offer a compelling advantage. Second, energy sustainability, energy security and climate-related mandates continue to increase demand for clean energy, requirements that intermittent sources alone cannot meet. As a result, there is a growing global commitment amongst nations, leading institutions and the world's largest energy users to triple nuclear capacity by 2050, solidifying growth in nuclear energy as a secular trend for the coming decades.

Third, we continue to benefit from the unprecedented bipartisan policy support for nuclear energy in the United States and the growing global support. This is supporting expansion of nuclear capacity while also accelerating development of advanced reactors like ours. President Trump's 4 executive orders in May further enhanced federal support for nuclear energy. And since then, we've seen a series of concrete federal actions that are building upon the administration's executive orders. First, the U.S. Army's Janus program creates a defined near-term pathway for the U.S. Army to deploy microreactors later this decade, which bodes well for NANO's opportunities for military applications.

Second, the Genesis Mission executive order supports several of the administration's high strategic priorities, AI leadership, national security power needs and energy dominance, priorities that can be enhanced by microreactors. And third, the creation of a Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Production Act Consortium supports the reestablishment of domestic nuclear fuel supply chain, which could support our strategic efforts in areas like conversion and enrichment. The rapid progress we've made this year have been accelerated by these regulatory tailwinds, which continue to strengthen demand for advanced nuclear reactors.

Fiscal year 2025 was a transformative year for NANO, marked by disciplined execution across several parts of our business. We've advanced the KRONOS MMR Energy system meaningfully from acquiring the asset out of bankruptcy to securing our strategic collaboration with the University of Illinois, achieving important NRC milestones and completing the necessary site characterization and drilling work for our planned Q1 of 2026 construction permit application with the NRC. We also made significant progress towards resuming formal licensing activities with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission through the acquisition of Global First Power, which has since been rebranded as True North Nuclear.

During the year, we strengthened our company with key corporate milestones, including the acquisition of our Oak Brook engineering and demonstration facility, securing incentives from the State of Illinois, expanding our executive and technical teams and simplifying our microreactor portfolio with a Letter of Intent to sell ODIN design to Cambridge AtomWorks for $6.2 million. On the fuel cycle front, we've made significant progress derisking our supply chain through our strategic collaboration and investment in our affiliate list technologies. Our addition with our affiliate list technology to the DOE's LEU Acquisition Program and developing our own conversion capabilities.

Financially, we remain well capitalized, raising over $600 million since our May 2024 IPO with growing support from institutional investors and numerous index inclusions. And importantly, we continue to expand our pipeline of commercial opportunities. We executed a feasibility study agreement with BaRupOn to evaluate up to 1 gigawatt of power with our KRONOS MMR. We secured the AFWERX Direct to Phase 2 contract to conduct a feasibility study to site KRONOS MMR at the Joint Base Anacostia Bolling and also grew our pipeline of potential customers through ongoing discussions with potential data centers, industrial and defense customers.

I could not be more proud of our progress our team has made over the last year. We're more excited to continue executing our strategy. With that, I'll hand over the call to James Walker, our CEO, who will discuss our differentiated strategy, the value proposition of our technology and provide an update on the recent development and commercial progress.

Thank you, Jay. I'll first outline why microreactors offer a compelling value proposition relative to both traditional nuclear and larger SMRs currently in development. Traditional nuclear reactors are typically gigawatt scale projects, while most SMR designs range anywhere from 70 to 350-megawatt electric in size. Because of the smaller size of our KRONOS MMR, we believe a larger portion of our reactor components can be manufactured and assembled in a factory and shipped to site. Factory production and fabrication will allow us to standardize components, capture learning benefits much earlier and reduce the amount of on-site construction that has historically led to delays and cost overruns in traditional nuclear projects. Modularity is a second major advantage.

Our design allows customers to scale capacity incrementally to match their ramp-up plans, and this approach can reduce upfront capital requirements for large projects and allows construction efficiencies to improve with every unit delivered. Third, passive safety features and use of advanced fuels support the ability to co-locate at customer sites, allowing us to provide off-grid or behind-the-meter power. This is important as grid integration is becoming a significant constraint facing large energy users.

Interconnection queues can be years long. Transmission upgrades are costly and many high-load customers simply cannot wait for new lines to be built. By placing one or more of our microreactors directly adjacent to a customer site, we can eliminate much of that bottleneck. When you combine these factors, we believe microreactors represent the most practical solution for meeting the growing need for clean, reliable baseload power, particularly in locations where grid constraints are significant, while also providing increased opportunities to benefit from economies of scale. This is precisely why we are seeing strong interest from data centers, industrial facilities and military stakeholders for our KRONOS MMR.

Having covered the broader value proposition of microreactors, I'll now focus on what really differentiates our flagship reactor, KRONOS MMR, technically and commercially. So the KRONOS MMR is a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. It utilizes TRISO fuel and helium as the primary coolant. These are well-understood proven technologies with decades of operating history behind them. Prior to our acquisition, we believe more than $120 million was invested in this design over an 8-year period. That investment, combined with the global data sets that exist for high-temperature cooled reactor systems give us a strong foundation as we move towards U.S. and Canadian licensing and prototype construction.

In the U.S., we remain on track to submit a construction permit application for the U of I project in the first quarter of 2026. And in Canada, we are actively working to reestablish formal licensing activities as we work towards submitting a license to prepare a site with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the CNSC. While KRONOS is applicable to a range of markets, it's particularly well suited for large-scale deployments where many units can be co-located, connected and scaled over time to match demand growth.

And because of the reactor's modularity and the ability to factory fabricate components, we believe KRONOS has the potential to capture meaningful economies of scale as deployment volumes increase. Importantly, we estimate the learning curves of manufacturing and on-site assembly can potentially deliver a levelized cost of energy that is more competitive with traditional nuclear, wind and solar while providing the option for 24/7 reliability that intermittent sources cannot. In short, we see KRONOS as a derisked scalable platform with significant commercial applicability and especially aligned with the needs of high demand, high uptime customers.

I'd now like to highlight why we believe the maturity of this technology materially derisks this reactor. The KRONOS reactor builds on high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology that has been demonstrated across multiple countries for more than 5 decades. TRISO fuel, helium coolants and graphite moderation are high TR level components with extensive operating data. Our balance of plant strategy also leverages commercially available components, including steam generation and turbines as well as proven thermal storage systems used in today's concentrated solar plants.

And importantly, we are staying within conservative temperature and coolant parameters consistent with prior deployments. Because of this, the key technologies themselves are largely demonstrated. Our focus is not on inventing novel reactor technology. It's on integrating well-understood systems into a microreactor format to be licensed and ultimately deployed efficiently. Building on that, I'd also like to touch on how the KRONOS design and modularity translate into deployment versatility across different scales and customer needs.

KRONOS' standard design and modularity provide the flexibility to serve a broad range of applications from single-unit installations for remote communities, mining projects or defense sites with power needs around 15 to 20-megawatt electric to distributed multiunit deployments all the way up to large-scale deployments where many units can be connected and scaled over time, enabling staged growth to 1 gigawatt and beyond. We believe this level of deployment versatility is a core advantage that opens the door to more use cases compared to many larger SMRs or conventional nuclear reactors.

Another foundational aspect of our value proposition is the inherent safety profile of the KRONOS' design. KRONOS incorporates negative reactivity feedback, passive heat removal, passive shutdown characteristics and uses helium and inert gas along with TRISO fuel. These features allow the reactor to safely dissipate heat without operator intervention or external power. Under a design basis accident analysis for an 840-megawatt electric plant, projected dose levels remain well within the site boundary, meaning an emergency planning zone would remain within that site footprint.

Practically, this means the reactor is designed so that heat is managed passively, fuel remains stable and any negative scenario remains localized, enabling siting directly at the point of use. This is a meaningful distinction from traditional large-scale reactors and some SMRs that require much larger emergency planning zones. And this safety profile can enable off-grid power that could bypass grid integration and [ costly ] transmission lines.

To bring KRONOS to market, we're pairing strong technology with the right strategic partners and state and federal government support. At the federal level, recent executive actions are signaling clear momentum by directing the NRC, the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to expedite advanced reactor development and deployment. At the state level, Illinois has provided strong backing, highlighted by our $6.8 million incentive award and also provides unmatched nuclear workforce and infrastructure to host a first-of-a-kind microreactor. University of Illinois brings the technical capability, engineering depth and credibility necessary to execute.

Together with the expertise of project supporters like EPCM firm, Hatch, and construction firm PCL, we have a great deal of expertise with complex infrastructure delivery. We believe we have the right support to enable our partnership with U of I to be a model for a first-of-a-kind deployment.

As our technical progress advances, support strengthens and more customers recognize KRONOS' value proposition, we're seeing strong interest from a growing pipeline of potential customers. First, we're currently conducting a feasibility study with BaRupOn to explore 1 gigawatt of deployed power for their AI data center and manufacturing campus in Liberty, Texas, demonstrating real demand for large-scale applications. Our team is currently advancing the feasibility study, which we expect to be followed by early project development activities.

In addition, we continue to see strong interest from data center developers, industrial customers and military users, each of which are interested in baseload energy sources and increasingly want this reliability to be off-grid. We also remain excited about additional opportunities for remote communities, mining projects and other markets. Beyond our commercial traction, we're also advancing our strategic focus on vertical integration to derisk one of the most critical elements of future deployment, the nuclear fuel supply chain. Our focus on vertical integration stems from our belief that one of the largest constraints to deploying advanced reactors at scale isn't the reactor technology, but fuel availability.

As a result, we're working to gain exposure to several critical stages of the fuel cycle, starting with enrichment through our collaboration with an investment in our affiliate list technologies. Our affiliate list owns the only U.S. origin patented laser enrichment technology and its selection as a DOE LEU Acquisition Program prime contractor reinforces the potential strategic importance of their technology. Our role as a subcontractor positions NANO to directly participate in strengthening the domestic fuel supply chain needed for next-generation reactors. And our relationship with our affiliate LIST has the potential to provide us with differentiated enrichment solution.

In parallel, we're exploring opportunities to build our capabilities in conversion and fuel transportation through strategic partnerships and M&A. Further progress in each of these areas will not only derisk future reactor deployments, but also positions NANO to generate revenue across multiple verticals while remaining aligned with federal funding and national energy security needs.

With that, I'll turn the call over to our CFO, Jaisun, to provide financial highlights.

Thank you, James. I'll now provide a summary of our fiscal 2025 financial performance. We finished the year with a strong balance sheet supported by multiple successful capital raises at progressively higher valuations. Our overall cash position substantially increased during the year, ending the period with cash and cash equivalents of $203.3 million, an approximately $175 million increase from the end of fiscal 2024. The year-over-year increase was mainly driven by net proceeds from several successful equity capital raises.

After our fiscal year-end, our cash position increased to approximately $580 million following an October 2025 private placement. We view our strong cash position and proven ability to raise funding at scale as a meaningful differentiator. With current cash on hand and our access to the public capital markets, we are well positioned to accelerate the licensing and commercialization of the KRONOS MMR while maintaining the flexibility to expand our vertical integration through disciplined M&A and potential strategic partnerships.

Turning to the income statement. Fiscal 2025 loss from operations was $46.2 million. The increase from fiscal 2024 was driven by an approximately $23 million increase in G&A expenses and an approximately $12 million increase in R&D expenses, primarily focused on advancing our KRONOS MMR and adjacent growth initiatives. Fiscal 2025 net loss totaled $40.1 million, up approximately $30 million from the prior year, reflecting the aforementioned increase in operating expenses. This was partially offset by an approximate $6 million increase in other income from higher interest income on a larger cash balance.

Net cash used in operating activities increased by approximately $11 million from the prior year to $19.6 million, driven by a higher net loss, partially offset by an increase in equity-based compensation. Net cash used in investing activities rose by approximately $14 million from the prior year to $17.5 million, driven by an increase in process R&D from our acquisition of the KRONOS MMR as well as property, plant and equipment additions related to the purchase of the Oak Brook, Illinois engineering and demonstration facility and the build-out of our Westchester, New York demonstration facility.

Before turning the call over to the operator for Q&A, I'd like to reiterate that our strong cash position and access to the public capital markets give us the financial strength to execute by accelerating advancement of KRONOS MMR -- while also providing the flexibility to pursue strategic partnerships and targeted M&A that further derisk our nuclear fuel supply chain and provide potential for near-term revenue generation. As always, we will continue to operate the business and allocate capital with discipline, prioritizing opportunities that offer compelling return on investment and unlock sustainable value for shareholders. With that, I'll now turn the call over to the operator to open up the call for Q&A.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question is from Jeff Grampp with Northland Capital Markets.

I'll start first at the U of I site. Good to hear, you guys are still on track for the permit application in Q1 of next year. Can you walk us through kind of the time line when that gets filed? How long do you guys think that will take to get through the NRC? And is there any work you guys can do to accelerate that time line while that's getting through the NRC process? Or is a lot of that predicated on getting that permit application through the NRC before you can do too much site preparation infrastructure work ahead of time.

This is James. So what I would say is that actually, the drilling completed on schedule and on time. So that was good. That gave us the geotechnical data we needed to go into the construction permit. That was really the missing component. We're in a bit of an odd situation with the reactor companies that our engineering is way ahead of the licensing. And usually, it's the other way around, that people get prepped for submissions and then they allow for the engineering to catch up. But effectively, this puts us in a position where we are on track to submit that construction permit application to the NRC in Q1 next year. And that is on track, and that is looking like it's going to go ahead.

With regard to time on the turnaround from the NRC, one good thing to reference is, say [ Kairos ] did something very similar to us. They applied for a construction permit for their, not a full-scale reactor, but sort of a model scaled-down system. But they took about 15 months turnaround. But the reason why we're very likely to be a lot less than that is that they were using things like novel coolants, more novel tech, whereas what we're doing here is much more well known about large data sets, very well -- very high TR level components. So there's a lot less scrutiny that needs to go into the NRC evaluation of our applications. So 15 months can be considered like far beyond what we can expect.

We really expect a turnaround substantially below that. It would be very nice if it was in the same calendar year. Certainly, within 12 months is kind of the ballpark we're expecting. In terms of what we're able to do on our side to expedite things, the most important part is the initial application to make sure that goes in. Now it doesn't have to be perfect. What you can do is, you can just -- you can get the application and then get them started on the process, understanding that there are certain components if you would supply them during their evaluation process. And that allows you to get the process underway and save on time. So I would say that's a big one. The big one is to get the application into them sooner, get as much detailing as you can and then work obviously very closely with them throughout the whole process to get it expedited and completed.

Great. That's super helpful, James. I appreciate that. For my follow-up, can we touch on the vertical integration strategy there? What are the main objectives in '26 in this regard. And I'm curious in terms of internally developing capabilities versus acquiring them, do you guys have a bias? Or does that kind of depend upon what aspect of the vertical integration we're talking about?

Yes. So for instance, if we're talking about internal capabilities with regard to reactor first, just before we get into vertical integration around things like fuel, on the reactor itself, we very -- we do acknowledge that there are certain components that are very unlikely for us to be able to internally produce. And I mentioned that in reference to things like nuclear-grade graphite or a N-stamped fabrication facility to produce reactor vessels.

These kind of things are so specialist that if you were to try and internally do them, you probably would spend in the order of 10 years getting yourself to a level where you are qualified to produce those materials. And still even then, you wouldn't have the operational experience that some of the partners that we're talking to at the moment have with regard to manufacture of those parts. So just all that to say that there are definite components within the reactor that we are very confident that we can do internally.

And what we're examining is that while we're building out the UIUC project and the Canadian project is essentially a centralized reactor core manufacturing facility to centralize the fabrication of individual components so we can get that economies of scale for the reactor by doing as much as we can internally. But we know what we know and we know what is more specialist. And even in the U.S. and a reactor vessel with an N-stamp. I don't think there's actually anybody currently outside of people who do cause for military that are able to do that kind of thing. Those things need to be more specialist.

What I would say on the fuel side of things is that this has been a concern of ours since as early back as 2022 when we started trying to derisk the fuel supply chain. And that's what led to our related transaction with LIS Technologies and their creation, essentially they give us a means to ensure that we could be relatively confident that we would have an enrichment capability in friendly hands that we would be able to utilize for our fuel.

Now saying that, we took a very holistic approach of the entire industry, and we realized that there were a number of different people going into enrichment. So there was ourselves with LIS Technology. There was General Matter, Orano, Centrus, but none of them were actually focusing on the feed material that actually goes into all the enrichment facilities, which was uranium hexafluoride, and that's produced via conversion.

Now a conversion facility is kind of -- it's kind of odd. It's not spoken about very much. But already in the U.S. at the current time, the U.S. produces about 1/3 as much as it needs for its civilian reactors. And by 2050, that -- maximum capacity of that facility is expected to produce about 1/10 of what the country needs for new feed for enrichment facility. And we saw that as being maybe even a bigger bottleneck in the enrichment component. So we spent the last couple of years really examining how we can involve ourselves in the conversion side of things.

And there's nothing publicly released at the moment. So I'm somewhat limited on what I can talk about the internal work. But what I would say is that I would expect next year that you can anticipate some developments on that side where we can announce the work that we've been doing on that conversion side to derisk that and ultimately being able to be involved in that uranium hexafluoride supply chain. And obviously, what's beneficial about that is that it is a business before even the reactors are online. And it's a very unique thing that nobody else seems to be doing that gives us a lot more control and derisking of our reactor systems.

Our next question is from Sameer Joshi with H.C. Wainwright.

Thanks for providing good color in the presentation. Just a few questions from me. You did mention progress on the Canada front with the Nuclear Safety Commission there. Can you give us a little bit more color into what the steps are for that country and what you're planning for there in 2026?

Absolutely. So Canada is actually an extremely interesting prospect, just given the fact that when we took over the asset that we're going to develop. The Canada projects have been previously backed by the Canadian government because it was being looked at as a means to supply areas all over the country that subsist off for more diesel. And obviously, we've been very keen to put this back in place, and it's been very tied in with the Canadian government. Now that all relates to just answering the question very quickly because the siting is probably the most important thing we're concentrating on now that we do have the -- we do know where the reactor will be placed.

And now we're going through the legal process and the due diligence process to be formally awarded that site at the federal level. Once we do have that, and we do expect that announcement in the first half of next year, then the next stages become quite quick. So for instance, you mentioned CNSC with the licensing. That licensing work that has previously been completed for this project and on our reactor was completed at this site too. So we automatically inherit all of that progress that was done at that site. That means we go straight into the Phase 2 of the licensing process, so the LTPS 2 process, and we bypass the Phase 1 because it's already been done.

So that sort of leapfrogs us into the lead in Canada in terms of the progress needed to commercialize and deploy and license a microreactor system. And what I would say after that stage of things is once we've got the sites announced and finalized and we've got the progress reinstated with the CNSC, you're going to see some level of government support coming for this reactor system, which we are currently negotiating with the Canadian government, but it's likely to take the form of certain incentives or investment or support in some sort of breakdown fashion because obviously, they are very keen to have this as a future power source for particularly areas where they subsist off for more diesel and they don't have an alternative. So -- but those are the milestones in the order you'll see them coming out next year.

And sort of staying on the government opportunity, but in the U.S., I guess, what is the scope of this AFWERX Direct to Phase 2 project. What does it entail on your -- on NANO's part? And what is the potential opportunity here in coming years?

So it's a good question actually because it wasn't a very well known about opportunity. But the reason why it's particularly important is that the U.S. military bases have a mandate to be able to be self-sufficient in terms of generating their own power for at least a 2-week period. And currently, very few of them are able to meet that requirement. In fact, if -- and if they are, they usually have to stockpile diesel, which in itself is a dangerous thing to do, especially for targeted attacks. So the AFWERX program is for the -- deliberately for the purposes of trying to find energy systems, particularly nuclear that can come in and provide that mandated self-sufficiency.

But the long-term prospects are that once this is done and we move into the later stages of the development of the program, that opens the door to all military bases because the AFWERX program is concentrated on the Air Force originally. But effectively, once you're in the system and you're working through the later AFWERX programs, effectively, you're given the same opportunity to mass produce reactor systems for many, many bases, if you would, the defense innovation unit opportunity that came out a few years ago, that was looking at reactor systems for bases.

So I would say the Phase 1, which we're currently in the moment, that could take anywhere from around sort of a 12-month period kind of estimate, potentially a bit longer, but it's only a small buildup program. The next phase after this will be much more substantial and that will look at actual deployment, actual costs and who's going to be operating and how the logistics will actually look like.

Once that's done, that's when you really -- we really will have available to us many opportunities to make many reactors for many different bases. So the AFWERX thing is it was a really great win. And we won it particularly as well just because the solution we do have was so ideally suited for what they needed. Subterranean to be co-located, didn't need large emergency planning zone. And for that reason, we did beat out the competition and the Air Force and the military -- the wider military just believe that this is the better solution for them in terms of long-term self-sufficiency for power.

Our next question is from Subhasish Chandra with Benchmark.

A couple of questions from, I guess, the 10-K. One of them is, I think you mentioned in there that states can get delegated authority over some nuclear activities by the NRC and it's something that you might be able to take advantage of. Could you elaborate on that, like sort of what activities and if you're looking at any specific states or if that -- what you're suggesting there is Illinois?

Sure. So there are a number of different things here. So what I would say, initially, when we were working with people at the state level, is say for instance, when it comes to something like a conversion facility, that sort of facility is actually more largely a chemical plant rather than a nuclear facility. And so when it comes to chemical plants, states actually license those all the time outside of a federal regulator actually being involved. But because of a historic precedent, those facilities fell under the NRC.

And so what we have been working with at the state and actually with the NRC directly is looking at opportunities for the state to take back that control to license those facilities and take that off the plate of the NRC. And the fortunate part is at the state level and at the NRC level, there's support on both sides for that. For that kind of facility, it's very unnecessary for the NRC to be involved. It certainly can do the job, but it's also coming at a time when the NRC will be very stretched.

And especially if states have the internal capabilities to license a facility like that, then it's advantageous to do it at the state level. So that's one thing. What I would say is that there are a number of companies at the moment that are -- I wouldn't say blaming the NRC, but there's even a couple of lawsuits against the NRC at the moment to state rights to license reactor systems.

Now I would caution with doing that is that without a framework and a historic experience of doing that kind of thing, it's going to be very trying for people to do a licensing of reactor at the state level. And certainly, if you examine even a DOE license, which wouldn't be commercial, even the DOE for a large part, is going to have to defer towards the NRC for how it does regulate these systems on DOE land or if there is its own DOE license. But what you can do for certain things, certain individual components is that you can get certain things qualified at the state level rather than the federal NRC level for certain components to get them qualified. That would be the biggest advantage you could have to, one, take work off the NRC's plate; and two, potentially expedite the licensing time lines that are going to be a critical path towards the commercial deployment of the reactor system.

But in large part, we have a very good relationship with the NRC. The bulk of all of our licensing will go through them. They're already very familiar and confident with our reactor design. We don't anticipate actually any significant issues with getting our reactor license. And just for us, it's more of a process we have to go through. But on the -- just regressing back to the facility, there's definitely opportunities to do things at the state level, which would definitely expedite certain facilities a lot faster than if we were doing at the NRC level.

Okay. Got it. And could you remind us the test reactor at UIUC, what components or what's going to be the difference between that and the commercial reactor, if any, including balance of plant?

It's a very good question because actually, the answer is not much, whereas other companies have gone for demonstration reactors or test reactors. We want to do a full-scale reactor system. So same dimensions, same everything. And the reason why we want to do that is that there are companies out there with license designs. And what they found and what we've noticed is that no customer wants to be the first customer to buy a reactor and build it and hope that all the kinks have been worked out in the design process and then operate the system. And that effectively led to [ killing ] any potential orders that came in from it, especially when that vendor wasn't interested in being the owner operator of the system.

So the UIUC reactor will be a full-scale reactor. It will be called a research reactor, but effectively, it will be full scale. I would say that the only potential difference between the UIUC reactor and the commercial reactors is that we will certainly be able to optimize a lot of the engineering as we build them out so that the power output of the commercial reactors will very likely be higher than the research reactor at UIUC. But same scale, same balance of plant, same components as much as we can get in terms of closeness to the final commercial design, it will match very closely.

Got it. And I guess what I was getting at, do you think you'll be able to determine an LCOE value with this reactor?

I think most certainly, what I would preface that with though is just saying that the LCOE for the first-of-a-kind reactor will be wildly different from the commercial reactors, especially once you start deploying those commercial reactors at scale and multiple units because each one will significantly drive down the cost of that LCOE. Now I would say with the -- already internally, we've taken great lengths to try and actually get towards those numbers, which is why in the brief we gave at the start, we said we're very confident it will be cost competitive with solar and wind and traditional nuclear. We get into the ballpark of those outputs very, very quickly.

Now we didn't say things like gas or coal, but if you -- and if you do look at the fact that even something like that is anticipated to doubling costs within the next 5, 6, 7 years, then it actually starts getting quite commensurate with even the gas. But with the added benefit of obviously, we can co-locate and it can be put anywhere and you don't need to be connected to the grid and you've got those advantages, too. So I know you've probably noticed I'm avoiding figures exactly. But at this point, it's better to just compare what we know we are commensurate with. And then as we get to the finalization of that first-of-a-kind, that will give us an even stronger indication of how correct we were in our assessments.

There are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the floor back over to Jay Yu for any closing remarks.

I want to thank everyone again for joining us on today's call. The interest and enthusiasm of our investors and market participants are important to us, and we're very grateful for the support we've received. We look forward to providing additional updates to you in the future. Have a great evening.

This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. We thank you again for your participation.

Good morning, everyone. If everyone could please take their seats. Thank you all for joining us today for the beginning of AECOM Drilling here at site. My name is Matthew Barry, Director of Investor Relations and Capital Markets here at NANO Nuclear Energy, and I'll be serving as the master of ceremonies today. Appreciate the round of applause.

Before we begin, as a reminder, NANO Nuclear is a publicly-traded company, and management will be making forward-looking statements today. So just to understand that these forward-looking statements are covered under U.S. securities law. If you have any questions regarding our forward-looking statement disclaimer, please check out this slide on our website.

Today's event, we'll have remarks from various distinguished guests and key stakeholders. These include NANO Nuclear Energy's management team, who will focus on the company's strategy, the widespread support for the project, as well as the value proposition of our technology. We'll also have the University of Illinois leadership here to speak about their strong support for the project. We'll have engineering, procurement and construction management firm Hatch here, as well as construction firm PCL, to highlight their support and strong interest in the project.

We'll have an accomplished data center executive here to highlight the complex power needs of data centers and also touch upon why advanced nuclear solutions offer a compelling value proposition to address these power needs.

We'll have a potential commercial partner here to highlight their interest in the KRONOS MMR for their infrastructure and manufacturing power needs. And we'll also have 2 NANO Nuclear Energy Executive Advisory Board members to highlight the applicability of the KRONOS MMR for various military applications.

Following the prepared remarks, we'll host a Q&A session with management. And then that will be followed by lunch. We expect at the end of today's event, everyone will leave here understanding why we internally at NANO Nuclear Energy are so confident that we can deliver upon our ambitious vision.

With that, I'll hand it over to Susan Martinis, Vice Chancellor of Research and innovation here at the university.

Good morning, and welcome. It's such a privilege to be here. Such a beautiful day, a day we've waited for a long time. I think I've been in my position for about 8 years, and I can remember being briefed early on by Caleb about the opportunities here. So it's really exciting.

It's a wonderful day to celebrate the next phase in the university's plans to site a micronuclear reactor here at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. I have to tell you again, those are not words that I've ever thought that would leave my mouth. But again, once you've heard Caleb brief you on the plans, it's so hard not to be excited about it. Projects like this are just beautifully aligned with our university's land-grant mission to serve society. And of course, the State of Illinois is the nation's most nuclear state, so it's only fitting that this project should come to our campus.

Some of you may know, we hosted a reaction reactor on campus before, not far from this site. But that's history. That's history, and we're just very, very excited about being part of the future. This project will help us power our campus and meet our clean energy goals. And it's never been a greater time where this shouldn't be an absolute priority.

It will open new research directions for our faculty, and that's going to set new frontiers that will benefit far beyond our community, our state and the nation. It's going to benefit the globe. It will create incredible opportunities for our students. It will give them a leg up to go out into this industry. But also, it gives us an opportunity to invest in that new workforce that's going to be so dearly needed.

I'd like to thank NANO, the NANO team for their confidence in our partnership and for their commitment to advancing this just super exciting technology. The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is very, very proud to take this next step and partner toward a micronuclear future. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Susan. I'm now very excited to bring on the stage, NANO Nuclear Energy's Founder, Executive Chairman and President, Jay Yu.

Hey, everybody. Thanks for coming here. It's an exciting time for nuclear energy, new nuclear technologies, in the U.S. I just want to start off by telling you guys a funny story. So when I met James Walker, our CEO, and also recruiting him, he said to me, "You must be crazy." Your trying to start a nuclear technology company. I mean, I left nuclear. I started a new career. I left a new continent for it. And now you bring me back in? And I said that's right, James. And ever since then, let's fast forward. He also said there's no money in nuclear. And I said, okay, so let's -- now we're here after raising $600 million, getting over -- reaching $3 billion market cap. Now, James, I think you're wrong about that.

So -- so we captured the enthusiasm of Wall Street. We opted to go public early on. And we were faced with a lot of struggles and obstacles. But one thing people they didn't know about us is we're born from grit, from grind. We're built as warriors and soldiers. So that's what we did. We sucked it up through a little bit of luck and especially the acquisition of KRONOS MMR, now partnered with the University of Illinois, that has leapfrogged NANO now as a leading microreactor, not just in the U.S., but in the world.

So I'm very proud of what's happening. Obviously, as you can see on this slide, we've partnered with AECOM to drill the first site characterization here that we're going to use that for a construction permit in Q1 to submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Also, NANO, obviously, we acquired a high TRL technology that had over $120 million spent over an 8-year period. So once again, NANO's leapfrogged ahead in terms of the microreactor technology. It's a well-known high gas temperature reactor. It came with dozens of patents. We're also advancing not just in the U.S., but in Canada as well.

Once again, we raised over $600 million to date. We also have planned in place, an additional almost $1 billion of financing. So when people say this is impossible, we made it possible. Thank you.

Yes. On top of that in 2024, we were Wall Street's Cinderella story. We were the #1 IPO performer in America, which once again, shocked the world, I would say. We have a growing base of institutional investors. About 2 weeks ago, we raised $400 million. We publicly disclosed that some of the largest institutions in the world are now backing NANO.

So once again, we continue to shock people. It doesn't shock us because, once again, we're built from nothing, from being grinders and being warriors. And this is what the American Dream is about. It's about struggle, it's about being courageous and taking big leaps of faith, I would say.

We're also built an Executive Advisory Board filled with former U.S. national leaders. We have some of them here today with us, like General Wesley Clark, a retired; 4-Star General former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces. We have Vice Admiral Joe Leidig as well. So the U.S. is very eager to build out these new nuclear technologies in. And there is a nuclear renaissance here, and NANO Nuclear is a part of that renaissance.

I just want to close off by thanking everybody for coming here, and I appreciate you, and we're very humbled. And we're going to put our heads down and continue to work. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Jay. I'm now excited to welcome NANO Nuclear Energy's CEO, James Walker, who will touch upon our differentiated strategy, key partnerships and strong policy support.

Okay. Hello, everyone. Thanks very much for coming out to our big event today. It's a great turnout. And well, even the weather is on our side today. It pays to name your reactors after gods when you got the gods on your side.

So -- and also, Jay mentioned that I did call him crazy. I would like to point out that I said, look, I'll build you a wonderful reactor company. I'll build you a great nuclear company if you can raise the money. And he was like, no problem. And at the time, I did think that was a big statement. And obviously, he exceeded expectations on that front. And like together, I think we've built a wonderful company, and it's got a great future. It's not hyperbolic or anything like that to say, like, I think we're going to be one of the world leaders in this sector.

So I won't go on too much about that because I've got a few other things to talk about, but I think it's a very important time in nuclear. It's -- I've been part of a nuclear renaissance before, and it sort of tapered off, but it's a very different time. And it's a very different time because of the interest that's coming into nuclear from the different areas. It doesn't matter if it's tech sector or data centers or industry in general. At the same time, the U.S. is looking to build back its infrastructure.

But it's -- but there's a reason why it's a very different prospect. The big light water reactors everyone is very familiar with, what we're building is very different. They're much more modular systems. We can now manufacture our reactors on a longer production line and mass produce them so we can get economies of scale through numbers of reactors rather than economies of scale through the size of the reactor.

But that eliminates all sorts of other risks, too. Construction times, overruns, all of those kind of factors factor into it. It's almost like industry's solution to get around some of the hurdles that has affected nuclear in the past. And even things down to the fuel is different. The worst disaster, I think, in U.S. history was Three Mile Island. Again, nobody died then, but that kind of disaster is just not possible with this next generation of reactors. The fuel is different. Not to mention, just the higher melting temperatures of the fuel, but it's all contained too. It's a very different prospect. And it gives us an ability to deploy nuclear in a way that's never been done before.

We can modular produce it. We can move all the components by road. We can assemble this as a matter if it's oil and gas sites, mining sites, remote habitation, island communities, data centers. We can deploy it in military bases. It's going to be over the next few years once they start rolling out the door, and we'll roll out as many as we possibly can. It's going to be a very exciting time in nuclear.

I think it would be a very exciting time for industry in general because this is high baseload power. It can be deployed anywhere. It is going to be a very exciting time and a very -- I would say, as innovative as like the 50's and 60's were in nuclear. And so there's a lot of work to be done. I mean, the nice part is we're coming into the industry at a time when all this opportunity is available to us. It's not just reactor systems. The whole nuclear fuel supply chain needs to be built back, and we're very happy to be part of that, too.

NANO has related transactions in the enrichment space. We're looking at things as far as conversion and transportation here. The nice part is that being a dynamic company that's nimble, we can move into these areas. And we can establish ourselves as a cornerstone of the industry, even ahead of when the reactors are ready to go out to market and be mass deployed. So all of these different sectors, we're looking at mining, we're looking at conversion. We're looking at enrichment and deconversion and transportation. This will establish us as a business even before the reactors come online, but it will also give us a more competitive product. By inserting ourselves now to derisk our own reactors rolling out the door, we'll have a business, an established business, a successful business even before the reactors.

But obviously, it's all in the aim of producing these reactor systems and get them out the door. And obviously, that's why we're here. We'll demonstrate this system. We'll prove that it's effective and it's efficient, and it will serve the purposes of the next generation of nuclear power requirements.

And so as part of what we've been doing, it's been -- Jay spoke to it already, putting together the right partnerships in place. I mean I'm very grateful to the University of Illinois for all of their support on this. Obviously, this project would not be possible if they weren't completely behind it. And they've helped push it for us. And there's -- I can see a number of them here today that has pushed this along to enable this to go ahead.

And this will hopefully be one of the first, if not the first microreactor to be built in the U.S. at full scale to be licensed. And then at that point, we'll be ready to roll reactors out of the door and all the subsequent reactors will be licensed by the fact that this is being built.

And it's not just the University of Illinois. The state has also been enormously supportive. There's been incentives as well. And it's no accident we're here. This state has the most nuclear power -- powering of any percentage-wise of any state in the country. It's got that pedigree to it. It's a great place to build out the new -- the U.S.'s first microreactor system. We can demonstrate it here, and we can just carry on that Illinois legacy.

And there's other partners, too, that are here as well today. Hatch and PCL, we can't build these things on masse unless we've got experts in the field that know how to build these kind of vessels, these kind of components. Because obviously, if you're trying to do things like reactor vessels or things like that, you're going to be spending 10 years getting yourself up to a point where you are competent enough to roll these out the door. We don't need to do that. There are companies that already can get certified in the time that it takes to get this reactor licensed. And then when we're ready to -- we have a licensed reactor to roll out the door, they can roll the components out of the door, and we can mass produce these systems. So the partnerships have been very important here.

And it's -- it goes beyond that, too. At the federal level, there's never been this much support for nuclear, I think in decades. I think even last year, there was something like $8 billion or $9 billion of grants put out there for infrastructure support to build back the national infrastructure. So we have the capability as a country, again, to be able to mass manufacture the fuel to go into the mass manufactured reactors.

But it all ties together, our timing is great. Like when Jay approached me a few years ago, this was before this nuclear renaissance, which is why I said it was crazy. But like, the timing was perfect. And we were able to take this on to the market at a time when enabled us to be the best-performing IPO of 2024. It's a very unique position to be in. Typically, something like nuclear, which does not have that kind of market pull, but it does now because the demand is there. The investment is going into it, and it's something we need.

So yes, it's an incredibly exciting time to be in nuclear, but it's also just wonderful to be part of like an organization like this that is this dynamic, and this is pushing things along like this. And we'll be a country leader, we'll be a world leader. I think it's already written, by the way.

So hopefully, that's a good summary of it. And I'll pass it over to Florent now, but -- he's our Chief Technical Officer. But again, thank you very much all for being here today. So thank you.

Thank you, James. Now extremely excited to welcome Florent Heidet, our CTO and Head of Reactor Development, who's going to highlight and provide us a deep dive into the KRONOS MMR technology as well as highlight its compelling value proposition.

All right, good morning, everybody. Very excited to be there. Now maybe it's time to tell you what KRONOS is. You're all there for it, but -- so I'll give you a quick overview of what the reactor is, the plans moving forward and why it makes sense.

So first, looking at the picture and related to the work that's taking place today, this is artist rendering picture. It's in the middle of bedrock. We don't want to find bedrock. So far, AECOM, as mentioned, they haven't find any bedrock on the site. So good news. So don't trust the picture.

So KRONOS is what we call HTGR, high-temperature gas cooled. This is one of the generation for advanced reactor. This is -- this implementation in particular relies on very simple materials, helium. Why helium make sense? It's already boiled, it's already gas. It does not change phase. We're using for the fuel TRISO. This is one of the most resistant fuel form. This is what was mentioned before. This is really a key enabler to the technology. It's been developed by the U.S. DOE program over the last few decades. So this is not a few fuel form. This is just -- will be the first reactor to use that in a commercial reactor.

In terms of the other material, graphite steel, they are traditional material. We are trying not to reinvent the wheel. We're not pushing with new material. We're staying well within the envelope of what was done before and what's understood. So this reactor, it's relatively small, we call it a microreactor because it is less than 1-megawatt thermal, but it's also small in size, which makes it much easier to deploy.

And it's also the performance. It is designed currently for 45-megawatt thermal, which means 15, a little bit more than that 15-megawatt electric. The university is interested to use that electricity, but also to use the residual heat. There is a campus, it is using district heating to some extent. So you can use low-temperature steam byproduct of energy conversion and to power and provide energy to the campus.

This type of reactor only requires 1 ton of fuel. If you're not familiar with it, 1 ton of fuel could stand on that desk. Nuclear actually is very, very dense. So it's very small volume. So the balance of plant, we're not reinventing the wheel, but the key aspect to understand the nuclear heat goes to salt, solar salt. And the solar salt is used across the world for concentrated solar plant. So there's nothing new in there.

But the key advantage of that is you can disconnect the power production for the nuclear reactor from the energy usage. And this is key to NANO to that technology to enabling wide deployment opportunities. Overall, this is a Gen 4 reactor. So you will find the typical attribute, which is passive safety, energy storage. It is road transportable because it is small. And I'll cover a bit more on the passive safety aspects of it.

Keep in mind that although we call it an advanced reactor or Gen 4 reactor, this reactor technology was built in the 1950s. So it was already built a long time ago. Not in that format, not in that size, not with that implementation. But there is a story of building it before that we are leveraging to make sure that this is going to be a successful project.

So now this reactor we're looking at, we should have a 3D projection of it, but it is a research reactor because this is supported by the university, but you have to understand, although it is a research rector in practice. The engineering realization of it is the same as a commercial unit. There will be no difference between what's built there and the commercial unit. This is just a categorization from the NRC because of the purpose of the university and how they're going to use the reactor. But in terms of construction, instead of everything that's going to be there, this will be the same as the commercial deployment.

So like I was saying, KRONOS can come in different implementation. So the reactor unit itself is going to be always the same. But you can have 1 reactor unit, that will be the case for the university. You can get up to 16-megawatt electric out of it. You could have a site where maybe you need a reactor in each corner of your large sites. We can do that because these are small units, so it's easy to deploy, and you could have 1 control room that operates 4 reactors. Or you can go look at large data centers, where we will have a series of those together. So they will all be adjoined, and we can go to the gigawatt level with that technology.

So it provides a lot of versatility in how we can implement it. This is why a lot of private partners have been very interested in leveraging it for their particular application. It goes from remote communities where they need 1 reactor, they need 10 megawatts of electricity, all the way through data center looking at gigawatt level plus implementation and everything in between, which is a lot of industrial heat needs, desalination, et cetera.

So in terms of what's a key enabler to the technology, this is really this principle of passive safety of TRISO fuel. If you look at reactor operating around us, like it was mentioned, the Illinois is a state with the largest number of nuclear reactor in the United States. So wherever you are in Illinois, there's probably a nuclear reactor operating within 50 miles from you. I don't know what's the nearest one from here. So people from the university after me can point it out, but I live up in Chicago, there are a bunch of reactors within 20 miles.

So the difference is on this reactor, you have emergency planning zone that is 10 miles. With this reactor, the emergency planning zone is 0 miles. It is limited to the building itself, which means you can colocate with anything. This is why building this one on-campus presents no issues. We're extended with the reactor operating over there, I would not be in the emergency planning zone. It will be limited to just that plot over there. So that's a huge difference in terms of even public acceptance and integration.

So this is -- the picture on the bottom left is a rendering. It was a project we are developing, a proposal. This is with 56 units. This is assuming all 56 units undergo a very severe accident at the same time. And if you're looking at the red contour, which is relocated right above the building, this is what defines your EPC or emergency planning zone by NRC regulation. So even with 56 units going wrong at the same time, you're still limited really just to the site.

So the other thing that really makes this a very reliable and simple reactor is the passive nature of it. When something goes wrong, we don't need to take any action. We'll take an action, but we don't have to credit the ability of taking the action. All the physics, all the passive feedback guarantees that it stays safe and nothing wrong is happening with the reactor.

And the reason for that is simply because we have materials, which have high thermal capacities. We've got the graphite, we have the fuel that can operate at very, very high temperature, and we are very far away from this temperature. And all the radionucleide, all the activated products stay contained within the fuel.

So in terms of why microreactor -- and this is really -- this speaks to future development beyond this one, why microreactors makes very much sense, there are different aspects. So microreactors are probably the best technology, the best option to deploy off the grid. So if you have a site in the middle of Illinois or middle of Kansas or other states far away from grid, your option is to either deploy the grid for other few hundred miles or to be fully independent from the grid. With microreactor you can become fully independent from the grid. And if you look at your cost of electricity that all of you are probably paying every month, look at the breakdown of the cost. Only a fraction of it is the cost of production. Most of it is transportation of electricity and other fees.

So while a small factor, shape factor for microreactor if you're looking at the capital cost, pay amount of energy is going to be more expensive. Everybody has an economy of scale. With microreactor, you can have economy of numbers. If you deploy 10 more actors together in the same site, there's going to be the economy of having built 10x the same things.

Historically, if you look at all the reactors we have in the U.S., not 2 of them have been the same. And they always were 5 or 10 years apart. If you're building 10 reactors back to back in quick succession, the EV industry has demonstrated that there is learning curve and savings that are occurring.

So this is a curve on the top right, while this is a representative curve that compares small modular reactors like our, red or orange curve with a blue curve that yes, maybe the first unit is less expensive for large deployment, but quickly and over time. And those numbers are not just our numbers. The national labs have a number of studies that shows exactly the same trend.

Now the other thing is if you are a data center, for instance, you need your AI machines to be running 24/7. You are not going to iterating that 1 month, every 18 months, we need refueling so the reactor will shut down. With microreactor what you do, you'll deploy them in N+1 configuration. You have always 1 reactor being maintained or refueled while you maintain the same baseload power. So when we have this discussion with data centers, I can tell you, they get very excited about it.

So this is kind of the illustration of why microreactors make sense. This is one unit single. So that's the top left point on this right curve. And obviously, this is a single unit. So one will be doing refueling, it will go offline, but we'll demonstrate the feasibility of doing all of that.

So now just talking about the path forward for NANO, especially in the state. You might have seen in the news over the last few months, we acquired a large facility in Oak Brook, Illinois. It's 30 minutes away from Chicago downtown. It's 20 minutes from O'Hare Airport, and this is 2 hours away from the university. So that's where I came yesterday from, just -- it's up the street, literally. You make 1 turn, you drive for 2 hours, you're at the university.

So -- but this is strategically positioned to support this project. Also because it was mentioned, Illinois has a huge history of nuclear energy. So this is why we are strategically positioned there. You have seen also probably in the news a couple of weeks ago, the state has granted us and included us in a tax incentive program for that deployment. We've already hired over the last couple of months, over 20 people. I think we have 25 people hired in the state. We're looking at hiring another 60 people by mid-2026. So we are growing very fast in the state. We're developing that support and that expertise in the state.

And just a side note, a lot of the people want to tell you, they actually happen to be graduate from UIUC. So the loop is closed. And we have a great candidate coming from this university. We're definitely looking forward for, more of them being trained by the university. But we're not just focusing on the development of these facilities, obviously, to demonstrate the fabrication of key components for the reactor. So we will be making some of those components that will be loaded up and equipped on this reactor you see there.

We are also developing very actively, supply chain, building 1 reactor, it's easy. You can get a one-off component. If you're looking at future deployment, you have -- you need a full supply chain behind it to make sure that you're not being bottlenecked by the supply chain.

So that's what I have for you today. Hopefully, that gives you a good overview of what KRONOS technology is and our plans moving forward. And I'm very excited to see so many people today. Thank you, everybody.

Thank you, Florent. I'm now excited to welcome Rashid Bashir, Dean of the Grainger College of Engineering here at the University of Illinois.

Thank you. Good morning. All right. I didn't know I could bring slides. I would have brought slides and done a thing, too. So I didn't get that memo, but I really appreciate everyone being here. Good morning. Thank you for joining us today.

This is really exciting. I'd like to extend my appreciation to everyone here, including NANO Nuclear, AECOM, the State of Illinois as well as my university colleagues in attendance. And thank you for everyone's support and partnership. Thank you, Jay, James, Florent, General Clark. It's an honor to meet you. Thank you for Senator, Paul Faraci. I know he's here. I want to recognize him. Thank you for being here. He's right over back there. Malory Wentworth from the Congressional Office from Congressman -- Congresswoman Nikki Budzinski. Malory is here. Also Christopher Walton, who's the Deputy Manager for the City of Champaign. Thank you for being here. And also Senator, Chapin-Rose also was here earlier. So thank you all for being here.

Today is really a milestone in the development of a micro modular micronuclear reactor on the campus of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. And I'm just so excited to see this collaboration between NANO Nuclear and University of Illinois and the Grainger College of Engineering.

Our goal always has been, we live with this model of having a bold vision and then turn that into transformational impact. And we do that in partnership with the right people. So in the nuclear area and the NANO Nuclear area, this is just a wonderful partnership. We're just so excited.

For those of you who might not know, our college and our campus has been home to some of the most groundbreaking technologies that were developed here or that we partnered with key companies or individuals and brought them here. So we're home to the ILIAC, to the Mosaic. The first web browser was written here on our campus. The co-founders of YouTube, PayPal. The inventor of the transistor was here, John Bardeen, the only 2x Nobel Prize winner in Physics, inventor of the LED. Blue Waters was an amazing partnership with the National Science Foundation to build the first supercomputer on a university campus was here.

So we're used to these big ideas and turning them into a transformational impact. We're now actively driving the future of quantum with the Illinois Quantum and Microelectronic Park that Susan is overseeing in Chicago, driving the future of AI, the data centers of the future. So this nuclear energy and the future of nuclear just fits right in the middle of all of these things, and we're just so excited.

The work that has gone into this project up to this point has been very significant, and I really want to again recognize and appreciate all of the efforts by Professor, Caleb Brooks, of our Nuclear Engineering Department and the department itself, many of the department faculty are here. So thank you for your leadership, Caleb, and look forward to continuing to advance that.

As Director of the Illinois Microreactor Research, Development and Demonstration Center, Professor Brooks has brought together the right people to provide the expertise needed in reactor physics, nuclear security and energy economics that's supporting the growth of sustainable nuclear generation for years to come. I know Katy Huff is here. She provided tremendous leadership at the DOE at the national level over the last few years as well. So thank you, Katy, for your leadership.

So we meet here today at a pivot point, the need for carbon-free, resilient, deployable, highly efficient clean energy systems requires focus, grit, hard work, dedication and innovation. Our college is ready. We provide the place and the people to conduct rigorous research in these very important areas for national security and for the world at large. Through collaborative work, we can also demonstrate that micro modular reactors, these micronuclear reactors play a very important role in energy generation and energy independence.

Though the ground is being tested physically today, everybody here will agree that we stand on a metaphysically shifting ground. Technologies that require massive levels of electrical energy are growing by leaps and bound. And that is just not sustainable. We have to turn to nuclear. The future requires the development of safe, on-demand, capable and advanced commercial nuclear micro reactors. So at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and the Grainger College of Engineering, we are ready. Our sleeves are rolled up, and we're ready to begin building that future with our partners at NANO Nuclear.

So thank you all for attending and for helping us take these very exciting next steps. Now that all of you are here, I have to do this. So ILL and then I&I. So I'm going to say ILL. That's what we do here at the end of every event. So thank you for being here. Really appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you for the remarks, Rashid. I'm now happy to welcome Caleb Brooks, Professor, and Donald Biggar Willet Faculty Scholar here at the University.

Thank you, Rashid. Thank you, Susan. Thank you to the Illinois leadership that's here. Thank you to the NANO team and AECOM for doing the drilling and our -- and the collaboration that we've had together. Thank you to the local community leaders and community members that have come. It's really great to be able to welcome you here. I don't care if it's a little cold. It's great that we're all here together.

I'm Caleb Brooks. I'm a professor, and I'm the Director of the Illinois Microreactor Project -- Microreactor Demonstration Project. So some of you might be surprised that this event is happening on a university campus, but the taming of nuclear energy happened first at a university. Nuclear power technology was replicated; refined, scaled and made accessible by universities.

After the first demonstration of its peaceful use, it was universities where the technology was widely and rapidly deployed as research reactors that drove groundbreaking research in fundamental nuclear science and deployment of engineering practices that led to commercial power systems. In fact, the University of Illinois had a research reactor that operated safely for nearly 40 years in the heart of our campus. 25 university research reactors remain in operation in the U.S., continuing to fulfill the mission of supporting nuclear science and education.

But today, the nuclear industry is evolving. New technologies are opening new opportunities. The Illinois Microreactor Demonstration Project is designed to ensure that opportunity is met with preparation, resolve and capability. The project had humble beginnings, myself, Professor Huff, Professor Kozlowski, we asked a simple question. How do universities accelerate and expand safe, clean, reliable nuclear energy? This question leads to one place, an unshakable realization that the University of Illinois is the perfect location to again drive nuclear demonstration into a new age for nuclear power.

There are many, but I'll give you 4 reasons for nuclear microreactors to find an early home. And where else? The University of Illinois. First, small nuclear power technologies like the KRONOS MMR enable a complete reimagining of nuclear power. The 45-megawatt capacity packs a punch. And its small footprint and unmatched safety characteristics allow for microreactors to be deployed alongside existing power generation infrastructure.

Nuclear power no longer has to be held hostage by the economics of grid scale power. Universities like the University of Illinois are major energy users. We own and operate our own power generation infrastructure and transmission infrastructure. And therefore, we can leverage our existing precedent for campus deployment to demonstrate new nuclear technologies like the KRONOS MMR in actual prototypic scenarios.

Second, from this research setting, technology can be optimized for key markets like data centers, combined heat and power for process heat users and end users who prioritize resilience like military installations and medical campuses. With these markets and new technologies, safety profile, new approaches to instrumentation, operations, maintenance, plant monitoring can drive the nuclear industry to new heights. We can rethink the way we do all aspects of nuclear power.

Industry-wide challenges like cybersecurity, energy storage, materials qualification, better computational modeling can be directly addressed for all stakeholders to bear witness. Third, there is a revamped workforce that's needed for the nuclear industry. A workforce unlike anything the industry has seen, not just in those who will install, operate and maintain these devices, but in those that are required to interface with the technology and the new markets that they enable. The process heat engineers and technicians that feed high-temperature process heat to their chemical plant, the data center system engineers that rely on these new systems for clean, reliable power and cooling for their data centers, the soldier who will keep a microreactor operating, because resiliency means operational readiness. The University of Illinois will be ready to train them all.

Lastly, and I say this all the time, all roads for nuclear power go through public perception. Until we redeem the public perception of nuclear, all the science and engineering, all the innovation, all the potential is merely an exercise. This project is not about proof of concept. We have demonstrated and deployed gas cooled reactors. We understand the physics. We understand the materials. We understand the safety.

This project is a proof of packaging. Can we take this inherently safe reactor technology and package it in such a way that it can be widely deployable and revolutionize a world that is starved for clean, reliable power? It is time for universities to once again step up and demonstrate clean nuclear power for the world to come, see, witness and embrace clean, reliable power for all.

Thank you all for joining us in this hard and very necessary work to revolutionize the industry. Thanks to the project team, [ Tim, Les, William, Ron, Dennis, Tomas, Angela, Jim, Rizwan ] and the countless students who have been a part along the way and will continue to be an integral part of the project. We have a lot of work ahead. There'll be more engineering, there will be more planning, a lot more paperwork, more obstacles, but also engagement and education and more progress. This is work that's worth doing. Let's do it. Thank you.

Please join me in welcoming Paolo Mesiti, Director of Nuclear Projects from Hatch.

Good morning, everyone. I'm here today to discuss how Hatch can support the successful deployment of NANO's KRONOS MMR here at UIUC. Hatch is one of the largest privately held engineering procurement and construction management firms in North America, with 10,000 employees managing over $75 billion in capital projects around the globe. We've been active in the nuclear sector since the early 1970s.

But what matters here for this project is that for the last decade, Hatch has been focused on the emerging SMR market. 10 years ago, we were engaged to perform Canada's first major SMR feasibility study at a time when most people thought nuclear meant gigawatt scale plants, decades-long construction schedules and meaningless budgets. At Hatch, we started beating the SMR drum before SMRs were cool. That early engagement gave us experience that nobody else has.

We work with X-energy, Terrestrial, ARC Clean Tech, GE Hitachi, UltraSafe, Kairos, Oklo and of course, NANO.

We've seen what works. But more importantly, we understand what doesn't. Hatch has been closely tracking NANO's progress on the KRONOS since its inception, and we understand what it takes to deliver a first-of-a-kind project. First-of-a-kind nuclear projects don't fail because of insufficient enthusiasm. I can see in this room, there's plenty of enthusiasm. They fail because predictable technical challenges end up getting in the way. These challenges include systems that don't integrate properly, regulatory pathways that aren't clearly defined or understood, construction planning that doesn't account for site constraints and quality programs that create bureaucracy without delivering any value.

At Hatch, we've done this before. We specialize in exactly these problems. Our culture is built around one core principle. We live to solve the most difficult challenges our clients face. We design novel equipment for extreme environments for clients all over the world, high-temperature, high-pressure, corrosive, radioactive, you name it. Not just because it's interesting, but often because nobody else will do it. We engineer systems or standard design practices fall short and novel custom solutions are required.

Our team has done work that others often walk away from. This isn't a sales pitch. We've supported X-Energy's ARDP program. We're currently supporting the ongoing work at the Darlington New Nuclear, which is going to be the G7's first SMR. And we're supporting Canada's Deep Geological Repository. All of these are first-of-a-kind projects in North America requiring solutions that didn't exist when we first set out to work on them.

All of us sitting here understand that nuclear energy is the future. Renewables, while critical to provide clean power, face inherent limitations unlike nuclear energy, which can provide 24/7 carbon-free power. Microreactors can help address critical infrastructure needs, not just as some distant future technology, but addressing infrastructure that's needed right now. The need is urgent, and to us, and we see the applications is clear. Data centers, remote mines and off-grid communities all need nuclear power sooner rather than later.

Microreactors form an integral part of the energy mix needed to ensure security and decarbonize hard-to-reach sectors where conventional solutions tend to fall short. At Hatch, we serve heavy industry. Our clients such as U.S. Steel, ExxonMobil, BHP, Rio Tinto and Vale all want to decarbonize their operations in remote locations while driving down the cost of energy. They need reliable, firming and scalable energy solutions.

Today, we find ourselves with a book of clients eagerly awaiting the first successful deployment of a microreactor, which will enable them to pursue the deployment of their own. All eyes are on UIUC. So what do we bring to this endeavor? We bring proven first-of-a-kind execution capability. We manage integrated project delivery teams for $1 billion underground repositories and other critical infrastructure projects around the world. We've developed construction execution strategies for nuclear waste facilities, where every decision has regulatory consequences. And our clients keep Hatch on speed dial for when they need to fix problems that others couldn't solve the first time.

We specialize in technical execution that separates success from failure on first-of-a-kind projects. Again, site integration, engineering, helping our clients navigate complicated regulatory and licensing frameworks and supporting construction partners such as PCL to execute builds on highly constrained sites. Hatch has the technical depth to solve the difficult problems, the first of a kind experience to navigate uncertainty and the execution discipline to help NANO deliver on schedule and on budget.

When novel reactor designs need to integrate with existing infrastructure and regulatory pathways are untested and when construction must happen on a constrained site, we don't hesitate. We rise to the challenge. We're here, and we're ready to support UIUC and NANO. Thank you.

Please join me in welcoming Peter Tawfik, Director of Nuclear Operations from PCL.

Good morning, everybody. I'm Peter Tawfik, Director, Nuclear Operations with PCL Construction. Firstly, I'm relieved to hear that there's no bedrock underneath here. That's perfect for me.

One of the big exciting questions here today is what is the plan for delivery. And as a construction partner, I'm going to talk about 3 things. One, who is PCL? Two, how are we going to construct not just this project, but the mass scale deployment of this exciting KRONOS technology and why we are believers in NANO's mission.

So PCL is one of the largest general constructors in North America. We do over $12 billion annually in civil infrastructure, heavy industrial work all across North America. We are 100% employee-owned, which is a very unique culture. We deliver large-scale numerous -- large-scale projects for numerous clients in the oil and gas, petrochemical, mining and power generation sectors. We are fully qualified to deliver nuclear construction projects and have delivered over 60 gigawatts of both conventional power and solar power all across this continent and Australia.

We deliver up to $4.5 billion worth of large-scale EPC projects. As a Tier 1 constructor who is financially strong, we are highly bondable, have an excellent reputation with the financing community and are capable of delivering this project. PCL supported NANO's predecessor USMC with preconstruction activities, constructability of the design, and we have a familiarity of the technology as well as competitors in the advanced reactor space, all key factors for success on this project.

PCL is committed to supporting NANO and continuing with pre-construction, which means supporting NANO's selected engineering partner, Hatch, to ensure that design is construction friendly, modular and incorporates industry learnings not just from the nuclear space, but more importantly, from other industrial sectors that have experienced large-scale builds in the past. PCL owns and operates fabrication and module facilities. And all of this means that PCL is ready now to deliver the best-in-class scaled and rapid deployment of the NANO KRONOS reactors across North America by doing the reactor fabrication, the module fabrication and delivering the on-site construction.

Large-scale SMRs and grid-sized reactors are highly valuable. However, it's presently not possible in those applications to achieve rapid deployment or provide energy to locations with infrastructure or market limitations. KRONOS, however, provides a meaningful opportunity to host sites and off-takers that are not connected to electrical infrastructure or cannot accommodate large amounts of energy. KRONOS presents a unique opportunity to accelerate accessibility of nuclear power. This is due to its unique design that is highly modular relative to competitors.

From a constructor's perspective, the KRONOS design can utilize the benefits of modularization to a high degree relative to large nuclear projects. And more modularization means more standardization, which means quicker deployment and reduce cost per plant. Simply the KRONOS microreactor can accelerate the goals of this nuclear renaissance by deploying a clean energy option to further reaching applications while creating energy sovereignty and reliability.

To close, since I'm going to be living here for a little while, I figured out I need to embrace this. ILL. There you go. Thank you very much.

Please join me in welcoming Matt O'Hare, Certified Data Center Specialist and Managing Director at Power Construction as well as VP of AFCOM Chicago.

Good morning. Should be able to keep it short. I think we only have 12 pages here or so, bear with me. My name is Matthew O'Hare. I'm the Managing Director of Power Construction's Data Structures group. Power Construction is a Chicago-based general contractor. Next year, we're celebrating our 100th year anniversary. And just for reference, we are the builder who are constructing the hyperscale data center at the former Sears headquarters in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.

I'm also the Vice President of AFCOM Chicago Chapter. And I'm really here as a representative of AFCOM because we're an organization that furthers the education and advancement of the data center industry. It's a privilege to be here today at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign among such a distinguished group of people for the groundbreaking of the NANO Nuclear KRONOS micromodular reactor.

Today, I'm not here as a nuclear specialist, but as someone who spent years building data centers and advising owners, operators, investors and policymakers on how to navigate the rapidly evolving demands of our digital economy. A little appendix here for reference because we're going to be talking about sizes of infrastructure and power. If you think about the Willis Tower or any Gen Xers and older, the Sears Tower, it has a power load of about 10 megawatts of power, okay? So if you think about a 100-megawatt site for a data center, 10 Sears Towers. A gigawatt site? There you go, the math was out there.

A simple truth. If the United States wants to keep pace with the exponential growth of AI development around the world, we need to rethink our electrical infrastructure. That is why the KRONOS project and the advanced nuclear industry, in general, matters so much to our industry. We're entering a new era of compute density, the rise of the large language model. Generative AI has fundamentally shifted the energy profile of the data center.

But the real transformation is just beginning. As inference workloads scale, we're seeing persistent real-time demand across billions of interactions, which requires a reliable baseload source of energy. The current digital evolution of AI is not a bubble. It's a structural shift in computational workloads. According to the International Energy Agency, global electricity demand from AI data centers, AI compute and crypto could double by 2026, reaching over 1,000 terawatt hours annually for our industry alone. In the U.S., data center power demand is expected to grow by 20% to 40% in 2025 alone. And Deloitte projects that AI data center power needs are estimated to grow from about 41 gigawatts in 2025 to about 176 gigawatts by 2035.

On a related note, we're already seeing hyperscale compute campuses come online, being built with multi-gigawatt footprints. Texas, Wyoming, even in our own Illinois backyard up in Grayslake. Many single-site developments are now measured in gigawatts of IT load, backed by a multibillion dollar investments and capital plans. These aren't just data centers. They are industrial scale compute labs engineered to power our enhanced digital economy. Boy, are they coming fast. The AI data center market is growing at 28.3% annually, far outpacing historical growth in our sector. It is estimated by the end of 2025, 1/3 of global data center capacity and development will be dedicated to AI compute workloads.

Let's get a little technical for a moment. Data centers traditionally operate at five 9s. That's 99.999% reliability, meaning they have less than 6 minutes of unscheduled downtime per year. To meet that standard, data centers need energy that's not just abundant, but is unshakably reliable. Intermittent renewables and batteries, they are part of the solution, but they're not the foundation. What we need is clean, resilient, always-on baseload power, and we need it close to the load.

Advanced nuclear, particularly microreactors, offers a compelling answer for our industry. Though my conversations with NANO and what we're hearing here today, I come to understand that these systems are modular, safe, designed for distributed deployment. It can provide behind-the-meter power directly to the data centers, bypassing grid congestion and reducing reliance on costly transmission infrastructure. They scale incrementally, allowing energy infrastructure to grow as our capacity grows, in sync with demand. And they offer a level of energy independence that's increasingly critical in today's volatile grid and cybersecurity environments.

From a data center perspective, the advantages are clear once we begin to deploy advanced nuclear. We have reduced grid dependency, no multiyear waits for interconnections, lower transmission costs, no need for massive infrastructure upgrades that become a cost burden to the general public. Scalable deployment, as mentioned. We add capacity as our workloads grow. And resilience, maintain uptime even during public grid instability.

This isn't just about energy. It's about business continuity, cost control and a competitive advantage. But the benefits of the advanced nuclear industry isn't just a benefit for our industry. Advanced reactors like KRONOS can be designed to serve more than just our compute workloads on our hyperscale campuses. For example, why can't we put light manufacturing co-located on our hyperscale campuses to create mixed-use environments, creating skilled jobs, which benefits the local communities. And these technology campuses can now become economic anchors. And why can't excess power from these reactors be routed to the nearby communities, thereby helping stabilize the local grid, reducing community energy costs and supporting electrification goals?

Communities where energy affordability is a growing concern, which we all know it is, this kind of distributed baseload capacity can be transformative. Studies show that nuclear facilities often become pillars of local economies as well, driving job creation, infrastructure investment and long-term stability. With thoughtful planning, we can ensure that advanced nuclear doesn't just power AI and data center, but it powers opportunity.

Today's groundbreaking is more than a milestone, it is a signal. A signal that advanced nuclear is stepping up to meet the energy demands of the enhanced digital economy. As someone who works closely with the data center developers across the country, I can tell you, we need more projects like this and not just in Illinois, but nationwide. Because if we want to support the future economy, we need to build the future of energy, and advanced nuclear must be part of that solution.

Finally, I stand before you as someone who has witnessed the changes in our industry and its impacts over the past 30-plus years. I can tell you right now, we are truly witnessing a new evolution in the human interaction to our digital world. And if I could just end on a little clip, something funny I heard yesterday, our industry is full of acronyms, UPSs, PDUs, now we've got MMRs and SMRs. And then we've got NIMBY, not in my backyard. And then there's another one that's called NOTE. Anybody know what NOTE means? It means not over there either.

Now we finally heard another one. It's called BYONCE, okay? Bring Your Own Nuclear Clean Energy. Thank you.

Join me in welcoming Derek Matthews, Chief Strategy Officer and Electrical Architect from BaRupOn.

Good morning. It's an honor to be here. I'm humbled to support NANO on this exciting day. Do you know every second, humanity uses enough electricity to power 10 million homes? It's shocking, it's scary, but that demand is not decreasing. It is increasing every second. And I know that because right now, I'm building one of the world's largest sites. It's a 700-acre facility 40 minutes Northeast of Houston, and it encompasses advanced manufacturing in AI data centers. The site in its entirety is about 1.2 gigawatts. So everyone here is talking about those gigawatt sites, and I'm currently building it.

And I will tell you that it is a monumental challenge. From the very beginning, the power was the challenge. We got the land, the rail, the port, the airport, the water. But the power -- the cornerstone of our project is a government site. It is a contract to manufacture a critically strategic material called MAA. Our delivery time line for the government is next summer. The grid could not support that in any way. We're 3 years out and hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure upgrades.

So instead of decelerating, we accelerated. We are running a 12-inch pipeline to provide 250 megawatts of gas turbines this year and another 250 megawatts through 2026. 500 megawatts is a ton of power, but that is not even half of what our site requires. So our company started to get really serious about power last year. And we approached NANO 6 months ago to understand how we can incorporate these KRONOS reactors across our site.

Our site is incredibly demanding. It will test these reactors to their limits, and we are incredibly excited. We're entering into a feasibility study right now to understand how we can incorporate approximately 15 of these reactors into a highly demanding technology campus. And so our purpose of this is to create a blueprint of how these giga sites can be created harmoniously and environmentally friendly. And my friend, Matt, here really went into some great detail about the benefits of colocation and the environment and the community.

When you build a site this large, the community is incredibly impacted. And if we increase their power prices by 30% or we take their water, we're suddenly not as welcomed in the community. And so our goal is to create an entire power island and not use any of the community's power, and in fact, give back power to the community to bring down their cost.

This is the model of the future. And so I think that NANO and BaRupOn are here today to show that nuclear isn't some distant dream. It is the reality today. And if you have not gotten involved to understand how nuclear is incorporated on your facility, you're probably already behind. And a lot of us are soldiers and patriots out here. This is our duty to America to make sure that we stay at the forefront of power, and it starts with nuclear. And I'm excited, and thank you very much.

I'm now excited to welcome Vice Admiral Joe Leidig, Jr., U.S. Navy retired, part of NANO Nuclear Energy's Executive Advisory Board.

Good morning, everyone. As Matt said, Joe Leidig, I'm excited to be here. I represent an investment from your country. I served 35 years in our Navy's nuclear program. And so I have a passion for nuclear power. I believed forever, beginning with my interview with Admiral, Rickover. I'm old enough that in 1977, I had to go visit this elderly gentleman who ran the Navy's nuclear power program. I was 22 years old, full -- kind of full of myself, I would say. And my interview to join the program was over in 30 seconds. It ended with 5 words that have rung in my ears for the last 50 years, get him out of here. It was over. I was 22 years old. I didn't know what I was going to do.

Like many of Admiral Rickover stories, I was placed in a cubicle for 5 hours by myself. Not a single human being came and talked to me why I pondered what I was going to do the rest of my life. I had already proposed to my wife. I thought I had a job coming up. Anyway, he led me back in after 5 hours. He yelled at me for approximately 60 seconds this time and then accepted me into the program. So ever since that time, I've had a passion for nuclear power.

I -- what I love about what I've heard today, to be honest, is this partnership with the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. I come from a little bit of an academic background. I taught at the Naval Academy on a couple of occasions and actually helped them start their nuclear engineering major in 2014. And when I heard the Chancellor speak and Rashid speak and others, I love the fact that I'm jealous that you'll have an operational reactor on your campus to teach students to do research.

At the Naval Academy, we have a subcritical reactor, which is fine, but not like this. So I love this partnership, and I'm thrilled immensely what it's going to do for your university. What I'd like to do is take my 35 years of experience in the military then and translate it into what I see for the future. And Jay and James and Florent, thanks for bringing me on to the team because I think we're going to do great things for our country.

As you can see from my slide, what I think about the role that nuclear power will play on our military installations in the future, you've heard many of the bits and pieces. But from a military perspective, what is extremely important is safety, security and resilience. And you've heard those words and you've heard them explain, but the Navy has a very safety culture conscience when it comes to nuclear power. Our record of the nuclear Navy is unmatchable. We have operated reactors since the mid-1950s, 70 years, and have never had a major incident or accident. I know what it takes to do that, and I see that in the passion of this team here. We're going to be able to do this and make this culture safe.

But it's going to be required for us to message that to the U.S. military, the Department of Defense or Department of War, I think, is what they call themselves now. We got to message that to them and explain to them why it's so safe. Our fuel selection makes it extremely safe. Our cooling selection of helium makes it safe. And it makes it safe for this campus at the same time.

From a security perspective, you've heard described how these will be built and how they'll be deployed, right to this site here. They can be very secure with a minimum of additional security required by our U.S. military. No additional burden, I think, will be necessary. And finally, like we've talked about a nuclear renaissance, the military has bought into this concept of wanting to power our installations off the grid. In any future war fighting scenario, cyber will be part of the beginning of the battle, and we need our military infrastructure to be independent and safe from an attack like that.

One of the very best ways to do that is with an independent power source like the KRONOS MMR. So I think we're in a great position. And we've already done some work. You probably know we have a contract with the Air Force to do a study, a joint base, Anacostia holding in Washington, D.C. We're in talks with other bases around the country about what we could do and what their specific needs are.

This is a scalable power source. It's impressive, and it's extremely safe from all the analysis I've done. I'm proud to be on the team. We're going to make this work for DOE. Thank you.

And there's probably no better person to end our prepared remarks than General Wesley K. Clark, U.S. Army retired, another member of NANO Nuclear Energy's Executive Advisory Board.

What a thrill it is to be here. Well, Jay, James, Professor Brooks, Dean Bashir, our French expert who I'm going to have to interrogate and great. Look, first of all, I can't tell you what a thrill it is to see this collection of experts, businessmen, leaders, academic community. This is American power.

Now I'm an unapologetic patriot. I went to West Point. I know Joe went to Annapolis. I went to West Point, shortly after Nikita Khrushchev had come to a farm in Iowa and said, "We communists will bury you." I was 14 years old when that happened, and it made a lasting impression. I went to West Point because I believe in this country. And -- it was an engineering school. So I had to take all of the engineering courses. Of course, we did 2 years of calculus and math. I did advance physics, advanced chemistry. Fluid mechanics, regular mechanics, nuclear physics.

And then the crowning choice was, were you going to take concrete or something new, nuclear engineering? Of course, I went to nuclear engineering. It was the first bloom of nuclear engineering in colleges. We had a one semester course in it. I was an expert in nuclear flux and how to use those tables. And we studied light water reactors until the sun went down. It was a really exciting time.

When we developed nuclear energy in this country, it was a weapon of war. And in the 1950s, President Eisenhower decided he would -- he had to change it. So he created the Atoms for Peace program. And so that's when we really distributed nuclear energy away from a talk about submarines and stuff, but into the world. And we encourage people all over the world to look at nuclear reactors.

And of course, I was caught up in all of this. It was a really exciting time. One of my best friends from Oxford went to Westinghouse and decided he would go into nuclear fuels. He was the highest paid young executive in Westinghouse doing nuclear fuels in the late 1970s. And then what happened? Three Mile Island happened. It was -- it wasn't the kiss of death. It was the embrace of death. It really, really hurt us in nuclear energy.

Now the French kept going, and then there was Chernobyl in 1986. And all over the world, people realized nuclear energy, it was a great dream. Yes, back -- remember, back in the 50s, everybody talked about it. But when you come down to the cost, the risk, the radiation, what to do with the nuclear fuel, the construction delays, the regulation and who's going to pay for the insurance on it. And so yes, nuclear engineering and nuclear construction continued, but at a much diminished rate.

Germany in the middle of all this decided it would get rid of its nuclear reactors and go back to coal, even as they were committed to the environmental movement. It's been crazy. But now I think we're really here. When I see this conjunction of great entrepreneurial spirit, great technology, academic buy-in, a community. I mean, this is what progress is really all about.

And Jay, I just want to say thank you. It's such a privilege to be with you and James and so forth, the industry leaders here, this is so impressive. I went 5 times to Indonesia last year. I just got off the phone with Ukrainian parliamentarians yesterday. The world outside the United States is not easy. In Ukraine, we've got a major war, and it's not stopping. Putin wants all of Ukraine, and he wants the United States out of Europe. And this is a 25-year dream, but now he's willing to kill people to do it.

And on the other side of the world, there's China. China, the greatest civilization for 4,000 years of human history. And over the last 200 years, humiliated, torn apart. And Xi Jinping wants China's rightful place back in the world. In the meantime, here we are in America, we've got a great democracy. We've got a great economy. We're trying to balance all these things and -- and so you can't appreciate what a powerful symbol you are right here. If I could take this assembly and I could move it to Kyiv or I could put it in Jakarta or take it even into some place like South Korea, which is doing -- they're doing great, but they don't have this. This is America.

And as Joe mentioned, we really need you. We really need this. Not just for the military, not just for the data centers. But -- and by the way, Joe, I want to hear more about the submarine service and your nuclear stuff. You guys never talked. And I know when Jay introduced you, he didn't say you were a nuclear submariner. I know you told him not to say that. It's so secret. But -- and I know James was an SAS guy, and he admitted it. Most of them won't admit it because it's so secret. But you know, the model of the SAS is who dares wins. And I think NANO, you've dared, I think you're going to win on this thing.

But we need this because the greatest threat to the United States from a strategic point of view is not China taking Taiwan, it's not war in Europe. It's not even drones and missiles. It's the electricity grid. The electricity grid is the most complicated machine ever built. More than 5,000 different organizations, businesses, government, everybody is involved in it. It's brittle. It was never designed to do what it's doing.

The Department of Homeland Security -- look, I'm sorry, I'm a general, I got to scare you, okay? Otherwise, I haven't done my job. The Department of Homeland Security did an unclassified study and released it in 2020. In the event of a catastrophic failure of the U.S. electricity grid, 80% of Americans would die within 6 months. 80% fatalities in 6 months. Why? Because we're all totally reliant. We can't talk, we can't drive, we can't communicate, we can't grow our crops. We can't get anything -- it's a vulnerability that has only increased over the last 20 years as we moved into bits and bytes. It makes us even more vulnerable.

What would cause such a failure? Well, one thing is an electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear detonation. So one nuclear explosion over the United States, and all those bytes and bits that aren't protected would be gone. If it's not sealed -- but if I talk to the electricity industry about this and say, Oh God, please don't mention electromagnetic pulse. it's a $2 trillion, $3 trillion problem, don't mention it. But you can't be in the national security business without knowing about it.

The other thing is, of course, we know we've got malware in our electricity grid. Bad software, bad hardware. We're not even producing our own transformers. We buy them from overseas. We put other people's software in it. It's not necessarily checked. So what can we do? This is why Admiral Leidig is saying we've got to have independent power on our bases. Why? Because if something happens, we've got to be able to reconstitute. And those bases, those facilities provide the critical means of reconstituting the American economy, should something happen.

So I've come here this morning to celebrate with you. I'm so proud to be part of your team, Jay. But I'm also here to scare you because there are big challenges out there. And every day, you don't wake up to think about those challenges, but somebody is thinking about it. Those men and women in uniform in the Pacific, in Europe on bases and posts here in the United States are trying to do their best to protect us in their daily work, but they can't do it without you. You are the future, and you are the strength of America.

So I'm just here to celebrate you. Congratulations to NANO Nuclear Energy, the University of Illinois, the fighting -- are they call a fighting a line or something? Well, I'm a razorback, okay? And you've got our former football coach up here, and you're 5 and 2. And in Arkansas, we're 2 and 5, and we're jealous. But look, you all are going to have a great experience here, and I just love being here and seeing part of this. Congratulations. [ Go ILL ]. Go NANO, let's do it.

I'd now like to welcome NANO Nuclear Energy Management as well as University of Illinois leadership to the stage for a short Q&A session.

Sameer Joshi from H.C. Wainwright. Congratulations on this event and what you have achieved so far. So it was talked about the challenges that you foresee in this, regulatory challenges as well as technological and engineering challenges. Which of these do you think are the bigger ones and difficult to solve?

Yes. Thank you for the question. So it's between regulatory and engineering, neither at this point. From the regulatory standpoint, NRC has invested a lot of resources over the last several decades. The technology we are pushing forward, like I was saying, has been built in the 50s for the first time. It's well understood, and we're not pushing the envelope on any of the limits that are known to today's materials. So NRC is fully ready and capable right now to license this type of technology.

On the engineering, same part of the answer, we -- under pressure level, it's been demonstrated, you can go to 12 MPA. We backed out to 6 MPA. The material can go up to 900 degrees or 1,000 degrees. We have 600 degrees. So neither are the bottlenecks. The bottleneck is the work needs to be done. So there's really no huge risk or any breakthrough that's needed. There's nothing that's holding us back, just putting the work in and doing it. It is a major engineering project. It is a nuclear reactor. It's not just designing 1 part or 1 pipe. It is designing everything that goes with it. And so it takes a lot of experts to come together and to do the work. So we have support from the university. We have support from Hatch, from PCL. Everybody needs to come together. So it's really this agglomeration of skill set and knowledge that is taking time. There is no way to fast track it. The work needs to be done.

Caleb do you want to say anything?

Yes on the regulatory side, we -- by going with university reactor, we helped derisk a lot of the regulatory challenges that straight to commercial projects are facing. So with a research reactor, we have a special classification within the regulatory framework. And that means that the NRC gets to apply the same rigor of safety and assuring safety of the reactor system, but under a framework that's more prototype friendly for nontraditional typical light water reactor technologies.

So that gives our project, I think, a leg up as compared to other advanced reactors that may want to be deployed under a commercial first type of approach.

Maybe a follow-up for Rashid and Caleb. How is the permitting environment? Who controls the permitting process on the university campus? And what all kind of permits will you be requiring? How easy will they be?

That's right. So the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is responsible for regulating all uses of nuclear -- of radioactivity, so including nuclear power. And so through a very rigorous application process which we hope to submit in the next 5 months, starts with a construction permit application, and then it's followed by an operating license. So construction permit application doesn't commit anyone to do anything. But what it does is it says this site -- because of 2 things, because of the environmental impact of the reactor on the site and then also the preliminary safety of the technology meets the regulations to ensure safe use of nuclear energy. So our pathway establishes that, and we're able to leverage the research reactor avenue that's been well demonstrated in the U.S.

Are there any municipal or university regulations that need to be followed?

No, at this point, I mean, we're going to be working very closely with -- I mean, obviously, we have been actually, by the way, for the last 4 years, Caleb and the team has been working very closely with our facilities and services group on campus with the Abbott Power Plant, which, as was mentioned, the university owns and runs. So the team has been working on this project for over 4 to 5 years already and thinking about how this will get integrated into the campus grid. Clearly, the NRC process is much more stringent than anything else, and we're going to continue to follow that while continuing to follow our campus safety considerations and guidelines as well.

Last one from me for, probably Jay and James. 10 years from now, 15 years from now, where do you see NANO? Will you be a microreactor company, a power company, a vertically integrated company, what's the future look like?

So it's a good question. So 10 years, I'd say, in 5 years, we'll have the reactor built, it will be licensed. We'll have a reactor core operation going where we can mass manufacture the system. So early 2030s, the rollout the door of dozens, hopefully hundreds of these systems. At that point, servicing -- I mean, it's got mentioned the military bases, data centers. That's principally what the company is focused for. But over the 10 years, there'll be a vertically integrated strategy that we'll implement.

And that will start -- that's starting right now. So already, we're looking at very key acquisitions to position ourselves so we can mass manufacture the reactors so they can be more competitive than anything else on the market. But it's that mass manufacturing capability. So we'll be a lot of a larger company than we are now with much greater mass manufacturing of the capability and diversified into many different areas. So we touched on fuel supply, transportation, there will be engineering services.

I mean, the nice part is that we're at this point now where the growth of the nuclear industry is happening alongside us. So we can grow with it. So it's going to be -- in 10 years' time, it should look a lot different. I mean, it's nice. We kind of know it's coming. The event is kind of a celebration of starting this whole process. But yes, vertically integrated company that is deploying reactors around the world. 10 years' time, yes, we should be there.

Are there any additional questions from the audience today?

So I was very struck by all the remarks about the industry and the rapid growth you're expecting, thinking about your workforce needs. And if this works, it's going to be explosive on needs. And I'm thinking that we'll have a single reactor to train on, what are your thoughts about connecting the workforce needs of the future with your growing company and the industry you're building out? You think a lot about it with quantum, too. And then how are we going to meet those needs to really scale rapidly?

So it's a good question actually because even at the moment, even before all of this has taken off, it's still ramping up quite considerably now. I think Florent is spending about 40 hours a week interviewing people at the moment just to build up our teams. And we can't scale quick enough, I think, is the thing. It takes a long time to train a nuclear engineer. It takes a long time for a nuclear engineer to get experience. But it's not just even them. It's technicians, it's electricians. It's everyone who's going to be a part of it.

The scale up in the personnel is going to be a challenge. I would say if you're young and you're looking at the future and you're wondering where you could fit in, energy is going to be a big one. Like, those jobs are just going to increase in terms of number, just supporting this grow out. There's been a few jokes about AI taking jobs. But like, AI can't take your job unless it's got the power to do so. And that power is going to have to come from industries like this one. So it's a good time to be putting yourself if you're young in that direction to get qualified to work with companies like us to produce that kind of power.

But we're going to have to invest, too. Like as a company, if we don't start investing in programs with universities like yours, we're not going to have the pipeline of personnel coming in to support us. We're going to need a lot of people. We're going to have -- we're trying to upscale quickly, but I mean Florent speaks to that a little bit, but it's a challenge to get the right people for the right jobs.

Yes. I mean, just I will add one consideration that's of importance. You're looking at us, NANO, and we are looking at nuclear engineers and people who are working on the design. So if you look at the history of nuclear light water reactor, there have been continuous development and improvement over 60 years. So nuclear engineers and people who are experts and reactor have job security for a few generations.

But this is really just the tip of the iceberg. When we go into constructing 100 of those facilities, it is all the supply chain or the provider. They will need the labor. They will need the workforce. You're looking at new manufacturing techniques, additive manufacturing, et cetera. We're embracing those techniques, and this is coming from our partners. So now it's not just a nuclear company who are going to be hiring. It's also ever who is going to provide equipment to us, they need to be able to make and design the equipment for us. So that's a huge ecosystem behind it.

I just wanted to add that from inception, we always knew there was a bottleneck in human capital. That's why NANO, we've always partnered and collaborated with universities from inception. Whether it's UC Berkeley or Cambridge University and now University of Illinois, we've always had that focus where we wanted to develop a pipeline of human capital of nuclear engineers of the future so that when it does come the time when we build our reactors, there will be that human capital available for us. So we've already predicted this, I would say, many years ago. So to see it happening now, this is great, but we also knew that was going to happen. And this is why having this partnership with the University of Illinois is so important for us.

I can add something to that, too. So I think that's exactly what we're in the business of obviously doing is to anticipate the needs and make sure that we can produce the workforce of tomorrow. So our nuclear engineering department, I think, is ready to grow more, to train more students, but also these important related industries, right? So actually, we would need people to be thinking about data center designs and how do you connect, as I've mentioned, the nuclear energy sources to data centers.

So we have like one of the best power engineering programs as well here, actually. And about 20 years ago, many universities said that electrification is power is out. So many places actually closed their power programs. Ours, we kept it going, and now it's back stronger than ever. So this project is actually having, I think, very positive impact on many other programs across the college as well and across the campus in terms of training and connecting now talking about the grid.

Information security, as mentioned, so we have this information Trust Institute here for the last 20 years thinking about the security of the grid in the cybersecurity aspect. So all of those things are going to be important to produce the workforce of the future, and it's all connected. And I think this technology has -- will revolutionize all those industries.

We also did receive -- I'm sorry.

I'm [ Mike Lawson ]. I work across the street power plant. So it's -- had a front seat in all of that's going on. Dr. Brooks, you mentioned public perception is a big deal. Assuming you guys have some resources, so what kind of resources can you help when people ask us questions? And then also in that line, how can we equip ourselves to partner with you guys to change that public perception?

Yes, I love that question. I truly believe that the road to nuclear power goes to public perception. So we have a website, definitely direct you all to the website where we keep a lot of information on the status of the project, why we're doing it, why Illinois. We are open to the public meetings every month. We've been doing these open to public meetings for almost 4 years now. And we've been able to engage with the students, see the passion from the students, to get off our reliance on coal, move towards clean, reliable nuclear energy.

And we want the community to have a say. That's a priority for us. That's the role that universities, I guess, the university has been underappreciated for nuclear, our ability to bring the public in to really see and understand and gain appreciation for the technology. That's something that universities can uniquely do very well. That's really core to our project. So please have them reach out to the project team, go to their website, Illinois Microreactor Demonstration Project, got a LinkedIn page, lots of resources out there. We definitely want to hear from you. Thank you.

So I could add on to a bit of what Caleb said there. Like, you mentioned resources, second part of the first part, public perception is going to be very important here. I think, unfortunately, the difference between the reality of nuclear and the public perception of nuclear is quite vast. Probably the biggest difference, I think, between any form of power.

Like it's always surprising, I think, to people to find out that if you look at nuclear power in terms of deaths per gigawatt hour, it beats out everything. It beats out even wind and solar in terms of safety for the amount of power it outlays. And I think that messaging gets lost when Three Mild Island and Fukushima came up during this conference. And even then, it's worth pointing out that nobody died in those incidents. You just have essentially a melted dam reactor and a cleanup operation. Still bad. You still lost your reactor system. It's still a very safe form of power. And -- but what we're dealing with, obviously, is very different.

And you mentioned having enough resources to do this. I think that's why Jay mentioned in his speech as well that when we were talking about doing this, I said this is a big undertaking. It's a very capital-intensive industry. You're going to have to put the necessary resources in place so we can build this out and do this properly. And Jay was very confident. He said, I can do this. I can raise the necessary capital. So with his banking background, obviously, put the resources necessary in place, where now, we're already in a position where we can build this out fully, even before we've got going on the construction.

So we're in a very comfortable position now, which is I would say, very unique amongst the people in the reactor development area. So it's why we've got a very high confidence of success now. We've done years of leg work to get us to this point. And now we're in that comfortable position where we can afford to push the project forward and have confidence to get it all the way to the finishing line. But it has to be done alongside the communication part of it. Caleb plays a big role in that, as does the university. It does need to be communicated that this is a very different prospect. It's a very different tech. The risks that were present before aren't present now.

But it all needs to feed together so we can deploy this technology successfully and with good support. And we're in a nice position at the moment in the country where the support for nuclear is the highest it's ever been, I think. Somewhere were like that, say 80% support with bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle. Very unique position for any industry or any policy or anything that's being delivered in the country at the moment. So yes, the resources are there. The sentiment is getting better all the time, but it's always tough we're going to have to work harder to keep working at to achieve.

Yes. Eric Oesterle. I just wanted to add that in addition to this increased focus on nuclear reactor creating opportunities for nuclear engineers. It also creates a fantastic opportunity for electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, civil structural engineers. We need it all, including skilled craft people.

And in addition to that, I was wondering if you could speak to this fantastic opportunity that this partnership between NANO and the university creates for developing a pipeline of trained operators for the KRONOS MMR facility because we also need trained operators for these new plants as well.

That's right. Yes. As part of our license application, we have to have a training program in place. So that -- the training program necessary for the first operators, that development starts now. So to understand the technology, to review the plans, to review the operational paradigms that we want to do with the reactor, all of that is already under development for a reactor that we hope to be operational in 2029.

A lot of work to do there. Luckily, it's a very safe reactor. And there's a lot that we can do with it to demonstrate the potential of nuclear power. So yes, that starts now as part of our license application. It gets reviewed through rigorous NRC review. And so we look forward to that process.

If I can add to that, I mean that's what we're going to be in the business of doing, so to speak. And I think we have to think about that very carefully in terms of what degree levels are needed, what skill sets are needed. We have existing partnerships with pathway and community colleges -- like pathway programs with community colleges, actually across the state. With City Colleges of Chicago, for example, one of the largest community college network in the country. So I think we have the infrastructure in place to partner and actually work on training the next generation of workforce at various levels with partners as well.

And one last question from someone who couldn't make it today. Just given the growing landscape of different SMRs, microreactors, different types of reactors, molten salt, fast reactors, high-temperature gas reactor as well as different types of fuel, what specifically do you guys view as the advantages for NANO in these areas? And in addition as well, the strategy of the company and how that may differ from some other companies out there?

I can give a bit -- Florent, you can probably comment on this after me, too, with -- I would say that it's become a very hot space in the market. And what that's led to is there's been a lot of developers coming into the area of nuclear to be part of this renaissance.

I would say that there's some very big bottlenecks to success. Obviously, one is capital needs. It's very capital intensive. I think already, that's going to shrink down the number of successful candidates to probably a few. And then it becomes a question of what's the most viable tech. And I think there's sort of there's gradually a convergence in types of technology. You don't want to go too novel. It makes it very difficult to get licensed, it makes it very difficult to prove out because the data sets just are not there. If you're going to do things like novel coolants or novel fuels, you might be spending a huge amount of your time just getting those qualified, and that's going to be very capital intensive too and put you behind your competitors.

Doing a high-temperature gas reactor with TRISO, already, that's a very popular model. Ourselves X-Energy, Radiant, BWXT, to all high temperature gas reactors, they utilize TRISO. That's not an accident. There's very strategic thinking behind that strategy. And it's because it's a known tech. It's known by the regulator. It has the data sets. You can operate within very big margins of safety.

And for that reason, you're going to see sort of a convergence around who can take it forward and then what kind of technology is going to be the most commercially viable tech. And I think, Florent, you'll probably speak a little bit about the different technologies that are available to them.

Yes. Well, I'll keep it simple. I mean, just 2 remarks. The first one is we can show you what the reactor looks like because we have a design that's clear and simple, and this is always commercial off-the-shelf technology. And then I'll tell you a secret, which is simply a reactor without fuel doesn't work. The fuel we will use is commercially available today, not in 20 years. So I'll just leave it at that. The reactor can be fueled with that fuel, meaning mostly other designers are using enrichment level, which are not commercially available today. They may be in 5 years, in 10 years, but we are not dealing with uncertainty. We're just designing and using what's currently available.

Yes, I'd just add from a university perspective, this is the safest technology, right? This is the safest technology, and it can be safe with a minimal number of active systems or no active systems. It just also happens to be the highest technical readiness level, and it can pair with the most end-use applications. This is the technology that makes the most sense for deployment now.

If we don't have any additional questions, we'll now pass the mic to our founder, Jay Yu, just to give a few closing remarks.

Thank you, everybody, for coming out here. Really appreciate everyone here in attendance of NANO Nuclear. When I founded the company about 4 years ago, I had a dream. And now today, we're one step closer to that dream with support from our investors. Some of them are the biggest in the world.

With the support from the University of Illinois and with the support from everyone here, we're going to continue our mission. And we're going to stay focused, stay humble, and we're going to execute, and we're going to continue to grow higher by next year. We'll hopefully have hundreds of full-time employees. And we're looking forward to working with the military and also the global community as well. So thank you very much.

Hey, everybody. I would love to take a group picture out here together. So if everybody could just head over there, we'll take a group picture.