Nano Nuclear Energy Aktie

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.

Greetings, and welcome to the NANO Nuclear Energy Third Fiscal Quarter Financial Results and Business Update Call. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded.

I would now like to turn the conference over to your host, Matt Barry, Director of Investor Relations and Capital Markets. 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; our CEO, James Walker; and CFO, Jaisun Garcha. Please note that today's earnings release and slide presentation to accompany today's 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 plans 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, expects, intends, plans, believes, anticipates, hopes, estimates, 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 are cautioned that actual results including, without limitation, the results of our 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 or operating metrics 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 risks factors and other disclosures contained in NANO's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the risk factors and other disclosures in our most recent Form 10-K and other filings with the SEC, including today's Form 10-Q filing, 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. NANO Nuclear continues to benefit from the global nuclear renaissance driven by several long-term sustainable growth trends and significant regulatory tailwinds. These include growth in AI Data centers, industrial reshoring and the broader electrification driving a significant need for clean and reliable power. Energy sustainability, energy independence and climate mandates require reliable 0 emissions energy. Unprecedented bipartisan legislative and policy support, and most importantly, broad recognition that advanced reactors will be crucial to future clean energy infrastructure. As we look at our competitive position in the advanced nuclear space, our January 2025 acquisition of KRONOS MMR microreactor has accelerated our trajectory, positioning us as a North American leader in the race, the microreactor commercialization. Our team continued to build upon a strong start to 2025 by delivering another solid quarter of progress, highlighted by several strategic milestones in advancing our KRONOS MMR towards construction, demonstration, licensing and deployment in the U.S. and Canada. We're confident that KRONOS' proven high-temperature gas reactor design, significant R&D investment by its previous owner, and numerous patents validate its high technology readiness level, differentiating it from our competition.

We also continue to advance our commercially focused, vertically integrated strategy to derisk microreactor development and deployment and enhance our competitive position. Before founding the company, our team spoke to key industry stakeholders at the DOE, NRC and National Labs, as well as leaders in various companies with exposure to the nuclear fuel cycle. Our conversations confirmed our belief that the next generation field will be significant bottleneck for advanced reactors, and having access to advanced fuel will be critical to successful development and deployment of our micro reactors. We've since entered in collaborations expanded our internal capabilities to address key bottlenecks, including enrichment and transportation of next-generation fuel, and continue to evaluate attractive opportunities to further derisk our fuel supply chain.

Equally as important, more institutional investors are recognizing our long-term value proposition. As previously announced in late May, we closed on a private placement for net proceeds of $99 million, including primary participation for fundamental institutional investors. This private placement not only strengthen our balance sheet and expanded institutional ownership, but more importantly, it's enabling us to accelerate development of our KRONOS MMR and take advantage of attractive opportunities to derisk our nuclear fuel supply chain and deliver shareholder value.

With a stronger balance sheet and growing support from long-term oriented institutional investors, we believe we're well positioned to capitalize on the broader macro trends driving demand for advanced nuclear solutions. I would like to now provide more color around the secular tailwinds we are experiencing that shaped our original vision, trends that are now increasingly recognized across both the industry and investment community. Nuclear energy has emerged as the leading alternative clean source of baseload power, well positioned to deliver both reliable and 0 carbon emission output. Our team identified early on that achieving net zero targets in many countries will be virtually impossible without significant expansion of nuclear capabilities. Fossil fuels such as natural gas, oil and coal are capable of providing consistent base low power. They can at times to be constrained by geography due to the need for continuous refueling and are unable to meet the standards set by global climate mandates and decarbonization goals. Renewable sources like wind, solar and hydroelectric will play an important role in the global energy transition.

However, each faces its own limitations. Their effectiveness is often geographically dependent on favorable natural conditions. And in this case of wind and solar, they struggle to provide stable and around the clock based low power. More and more countries and companies are placing a premium base load capable energy sources, which offer a high capacity factor and are not dependent on local climate or geography, leaving nuclear energy as a clear winner. As a result, there is a growing global commitment amongst countries, 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.

Several of the world's largest tech leaders are rapidly expanding their nuclear energy capabilities to address their growing needs for scalability, clean and reliable baseload energy to enable projected growth in their AI data centers. Over the last 12 months, several major tech leaders and now substantial partnerships are planned to secure nuclear energy to support their data center projects, highlighting the importance of nuclear energy, empowering the future centered around AI. The combination of expected growth in AI data centers, the reshoring and industrial supply chains and the electrification of various industries is prompting analysts to raise their projections for U.S. electricity consumption through 2030. Goldman Sachs projected demand for power to rise at approximately 2.4% [ ABR between ] 2022 to 2030, a significant increase over the prior decade where U.S. power demand was essentially flat. Notably, more than 1/3 of the [ expected ] increase through 2030 was projected to be driven by data centers, estimated to comprise 8% of the U.S. power by 2030 versus 3% in 2022.

The growing reliance on nuclear by major tech companies have reinforced the strategic importance, not just for clean energy, but for international competitiveness. Politicians at the highest level of the U.S. government has consistently agreed on the strategic importance of nuclear power in addressing national security, energy independence, climate goals and global leadership in AI. This has resulted in nuclear energy emerging as one of the [ few ] topics that has garnered broad bipartisan support in Washington and notable achievements in today's polarizing political environment. Over the past 7 years, nuclear energy has benefited from consistent legislative and executive support across both Republican and Democratic administrations, reflecting durable bipartisan recognition of the strategic importance. Legislative and executive actions have focused on streamlining regulatory processes, reducing licensing time lines and costs, establishing incentives for nuclear development and deployment, supporting the build-out of domestic fuel supply chain and accelerating commercialization of advanced reactors through targeted initiatives.

In May 2025, Trump administration issued 4 executive orders representing an unprecedented level of federal support for nuclear energy, signaling a new phase of regulatory momentum. In addition to several actions aimed at accelerating the development and deployment of nuclear energy in the U.S., with a notable emphasis on the development of advanced nuclear technologies, the directives set a national [ adjective ] to quadruple nuclear energy capacity by 2050. In combination with the strong foundation of bipartisan legislative and prior regulatory actions over the past several years, we believe these policy shifts are highly supportive of our strategy, and it will help accelerate development and deployment about micro reactors and nuclear field capabilities. As we look ahead, we have never been more excited for the future of our company and more confident we have the right team to execute our vision.

Before turning over the call to our CEO, I'd like to provide some insight into NANO Nuclear's corporate culture, which we believe is helping to drive our efforts and accomplishments. For years, nuclear energy has been dominated by big energy players, big bureaucracy and strong academic focus. We are now working to change this. We are now pursuing a commercially focused, vertically integrated strategy in a nimble and entrepreneurial way. We went public early to capture the industry's tailwinds. We saw and tap into the public market enthusiasm rather than relying on government grants. We're relentlessly driven, and we are laser focused on progressing our programs with a view to ultimately commercialize following regulatory licensing. Our team members who have joined us from government and academic roles find our approach motivating and very exciting. We believe this culture differentiates us from many of our competitors and is a competitive advantage in the micro reactors.

With that, I'll hand the call over to James Walker, our CEO, who will provide an update of our business and additional color around our strategy.

Thank you, Jay. NANO delivered another strong quarter of progress, highlighted by several strategic milestones and collaborations during the quarter and in recent weeks. First, we advanced our patented KRONOS MMR energy system towards construction, demonstration and licensing with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory [ Commission ] or NRC and deployment of our first reactor prototype at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign or UIUC. In April, we executed a strategic collaboration agreement to build out our first KRONOS MMR at the UIUC. We also received an approved fuel qualification methodology topical report from the U.S. NRC for the project. Following the quarter, we executed a master services agreement with AECOM, a global infrastructure leader to support site-specific engineering, environmental analysis and regulatory planning at UIUC. Each of these achievements are essential steps ahead of our planned construction permit application to the U.S. NRC. At the same time, we remain focused on resuming 4 more licensing activities of the KRONOS MMR in Canada, where KRONOS is the first microreactor to have completed a phase 1 review with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. We're optimistic the progress we're making in licensing KRONOS with the NRC will streamline and support parallel advancement through Canada's licensing process. With the potential of being the first commercial micoreactor in the U.S. to successfully file for a construction permit application and the first licensed microreactor in Canada intended for commercial deployment, we believe KRONOS positions us as the leader in the North American microreactor race.

Secondly, in terms of new collaborations, NANO signed an MOU with UrAmerica, a private exploration company in Argentina, to explore strategic development across Argentina's uranium fuel supply chain. We believe this collaboration supports our strategies to secure the necessary capabilities to derisk and decentralize our fuel supply chain.

Third, as Jay mentioned, our successful capital raise during the quarter bolstered our balance sheet, positioned us well to accelerate development of KRONOS and take advantage of attractive opportunities to enhance our vertically integrated business model. In line with this plan, we acquired a 2.75 acre land and building package in Oak Brook, Illinois, to provide engineering, R&D and manufacturing support for KRONOS' development. Notably, we expect the facility to support our collaboration with UIUC, while also serving as a regional demonstration facility. Equally as important, we're actively pursuing commercial negotiations with several customers focused on AI Data Center projects while also evaluating exciting early-stage opportunities for remote projects or communities in the U.S., Canada and abroad that value reliable, clean nuclear energy.

And fourth, recent personal additions, product development wins and broadening institutional ownership validate our strong competitive position. We continue to attract and appoint high-caliber talent to key leadership roles, highlighted by the appointment of former Texas Governor and U.S. Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry, as Chairman of our Executive Advisory Board; Seth Berl, PhD and Global Chief Technologist at Intel to our Board of Directors; Vice Admiral Charles Leidig as a distinguished 39-year Navy veteran as Chairman of our Executive Advisory Board for Naval Nuclear initiatives. We also hired over a dozen engineers to support the advancement of KRONOS through our licensing process. And we're planning on hiring up to 60 engineers, researchers and support staff at our new Illinois facility. In July, we successfully advanced our proprietary annular linear induction pump or ALIP technology with its assembly on a test loop and integration to a controllable test setup for variable design validation of our Westchester, New York demonstration facility. We believe our ALIP technology can enable the development of next-generation reactors utilizing molten salts or liquid metals, and advancing ALIP through SBIR phase 3 process allowed us to mature the system extensively, potentially opening the door to commercial sales activities later this year or in 2026.

In addition, our recent inclusion in Solactive's Global Uranium and Nuclear Components Total Return Index and by extension, the Global X Uranium ETF marks another exciting achievement. Notably, NANO's inclusion increases our exposure to institutions, seek a broad participation in the growth of the uranium and the nuclear industries, while also validating our growing significance in the advanced nuclear industry. In combination, each of these key personnel additions and wins underscore the strength of our competitive positioning and long-term strategic vision. And at the center of that vision are microreactors, which we believe are the future of nuclear energy.

Traditional large-scale reactors have been a key source of clean, reliable baseload power over the past several decades that have come with significant cost and [ siting ] challenges. They require substantial on-site construction, take many years to permit and don't benefit from modularity or factory-based manufacturing in a large scale, often leading to significant cost overruns. In addition, due to their size and safety risk profile, they're unable to co-locate with customer infrastructure, scale effectively or truly benefit from economies of scale. While smaller modular reactors or SMRs offer real promise and potential to address several of these challenges, several open questions remain, including how much of the design can truly be modular how far mass manufacturing can be applied and whether they can scale cost effectively or be deployed directly at customer sites with reduced safety terms. This is where our portfolio of microreactors led by KRONOS offer compelling solutions. They're designed to be fully modular, assembled easily on site and can scale alongside demand. We're also designed to benefit from economies of scale, driven by mass manufacturing and factory fabrication. And our designs beyond KRONOS have another substantial advantage of being portable. Microreactors significantly reduced safety risk by utilizing advanced fuels and substantially lower fuel volume and also feature inherently safe designs, which open the door to colocation at customer sites, whether that's a data center, a mining site or a military base.

Most importantly enable clean, reliable baseload power with our complex on-site construction, [indiscernible] permitting time lines and provide the option to serve remote projects off the grid. One of the strongest examples of how we're turning that vision to reality is our lead project, the KRONOS MMR, a stationary modular system that combined a proven high-temperature gas reactors design with high [ technical readiness ] meet the growing demand for co-located resilient and scalable power. KRONOS is differentiated from the competition with its high technological readiness rooted in a proven high-temperature gas reactor design that's been successfully used around the world in both research and commercial settings. We believe this global track record gives us a meaningful advantage, particularly when it comes to licensing where substantial historical data and familiarity with the reactor type could support a more streamlined regulatory path in both the U.S. and Canada.

KRONOS is currently advancing in both the U.S. and Canada's licensing process. In the U.S., our team is targeting submission of a construction permit application to the NRC for our first prototype at the UIUC toward the end of this year or early 2026, and could be the first commercial microreactor in the U.S. to reach this critical milestone. In Canada, KRONOS is the first microreactor to formally enter the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission licensing process, validating the maturity of its technology and we're working to resume 4 more licensing activities that were previously underway.

Prior to our acquisition of KRONOS and other technology out of bankruptcy for less than $10 million in January 2025, we believe more than $120 million was raised for the development of KRONOS by its previous owner. Moreover, KRONOS is supported by numerous issued pending or published patents. We believe each of these factors derisk our development time line will position us well to accelerate construction, licensing and deployment. With 15 megawatts electric and 45 megawatts thermal output, KRONOS is ideally suited for high-growth markets like data centers, where many units can be stacked, colocated and deployed modularly, allowing us to scale efficiently while offering customers the benefit of energy resilience, and the ability to site power directly where needed. Notably, KRONOS is as large as reactor can be while still remaining fully modular and has been specifically designed to fully leverage the benefits of economies of scale through modularity, mass production, factory fabrication and large-scale deployment.

Ensuring the successful deployment of KRONOS requires more than just reacted design, which is why we have made it a strategic priority to focus on securing key stages of the nuclear fuel supply chain and is why vertical integration is a key pillar of our approach. Our team recognized from a very early stage that the largest bottlenecks to deploying advanced reactors isn't the reactive technology itself, but the fuel. As a result, we made the decision to gain exposure to areas like enrichment through our collaboration with the related parties called List Technologies or LIST. List owns the only U.S. origin and patented laser [ Richman ] technology, which we believe offers several major advantage over traditional methods such as gas [ diffusion ], centrifuges and traditional laser enrichment solutions. This was also selected as 1 of the 6 prime contractors under the U.S. DOE and EU acquisition program, which provides a total of $3.4 billion across all such contractors over a 10-year period to strengthen domestic nuclear fuel supply chains to support the deployment of advanced nuclear technologies. This selection underscores recognition that its patented laser-focused [indiscernible] technology could play a critical role in securing the nation's future fuel supply for next-generation reactors and we are pleased to contribute to this important initiative as a key subcontractor.

We view nuclear fuel transportation as a more critical gap in the domestic supply chain, particularly for advanced nuclear fuels, where commercial scale capabilities don't exist today. To address this, we've hired former UPS executives to lead our subsidiary, Advanced Fuel Transportation, Inc. and we've exclusively licensed a patented high-capacity halo fuel transportation basket developed by 3 major U.S. National Nuclear Labs and previously funded by the DOE. To support advancement of this technology, NANO has hired GNS, a leader in nuclear waste management to manufacture and optimize [ halo ] transportation system solutions based on our fuel transportation basket design.

As we look ahead, we're actively exploring additional opportunities, whether through collaborations or strategic M&A to further expand our vertically integrated capabilities. Expanding our exposure to additional stages of the nuclear fuel cycle will not only enhance our potential commercial capabilities and strengthen our internal supply chain. It also aligns closely with where the U.S. government and the DOE are focused in terms of funding, infrastructure and national energy security. We expect progress in the areas to offer potential for near-term revenue generation in parallel with our core microreactor development. We also believe this integrated approach gives us leverage to capture upside across multiple verticals as the broader advanced direct-to-market grows.

Before turning the call over to our CFO to provide our financial highlights for the quarter, I'll quickly reiterate why we view NANO Nuclear Energy as a compelling investment opportunity. Our flagship reactor, the KRONOS MMR, has a high [indiscernible] readiness backed by a [ well-reactor ] with decades of operational precedent and is [ most ] leader in the North American microreactor race. With data center growth and climate mandates, accelerating demand for clean, reliable baseload power, the opportunity for advanced nuclear has never been stronger. We've taken a vertically integrated approach to derisk reactor development, strengthen our competitive position and provide additional exposure to growth in the advanced reactor industry. This includes a strategic related party collaboration that could provide access to a differentiated low-cost enrichment solution for advanced fuels.

We're also benefiting from historic bipartisan support [ in Washington ] with growing federal support for nuclear innovation and fuel infrastructure as well as growing support globally, which we believe should benefit advancement of our microreactors. We have world-class technical and regulatory teams with a nimble commercial strategy who are laser-focused on execution. And with a strong balance sheet and a clear access to capital, we believe we're well positioned to execute, not just in deploying reactors, but in capturing value across the broader nuclear energy sector.

I'll now turn the call over to our CFO, Jaisun Garcha, to discuss our Q3 financial highlights.

Thank you, James. I'll now provide a summary of our year-to-date financial performance. The takeaway message here is simple. We have a strong balance sheet and are prudently deploying investor capital to achieve key corporate milestones and drive value for our shareholders. Year-to-date loss from operations was $35.8 million, an increase of approximately $28 million from the comparable 9-month prior year period. The increase primarily driven by a $19 million rise in G&A expenses, reflecting higher equity-based compensation, professional fees and personnel costs to support advancements of KRONOS and our other microreactors. R&D expenses also increased by $8.5 million due to higher development costs, equity-based compensation and personnel costs for design and analysis of our microreactors. Year-to-date net loss totaled $32 million, up approximately $24 million from the prior year period, reflecting the increase in R&D and G&A expenses just mentioned, partially offset by an approximately $4 million increase in other income from higher interest income on a larger cash balance. Net cash used in operating activities increased by approximately $9 million to $14.7 million, driven by a higher net loss, partially offset by an approximate $17 million increase in equity-based compensation.

Turning to the balance sheet. Our overall cash position substantially increased during the period, ending the period with cash and cash equivalents of $210.2 million, an approximate $92 million increase from the end of our second fiscal quarter. The sequential increase was primarily driven by $99 million in proceeds following a May 2025 private placement. We expect these proceeds to enable further advancement of KRONOS development and licensing in the U.S. and Canada while also supporting strategic M&A activities to enhance our vertical integration and provide initial revenue generation.

As we continue to position NANO for long-term growth, we also took steps during the quarter to further strengthen our financial flexibility. Following our recent shelf ability, we filed our first 3-year universal shelf registration [indiscernible] which included an at-the-market or ATM facility. It's important to note that as of today, our registration is still not effective, and we are unable to comment on the timing in which it may become effective. Consistent with the rationale of our shelf, we established the ATM when it was procedurally efficient to do so while recognizing that the ATM program, which has a relatively low cost of equity capital, is designed to support any near-term capital needs while also supporting our long-term growth. These actions align with our disciplined capital management strategy to expedite our long-term growth and provide the flexibility to take advantage of favorable market conditions if they arise.

As institutional interest in our company continues to grow, we believe it's important to have flexible and efficient capital tools in place to support advancement of KRONOS. We remain focused on expanding our institutional shareholder base and we're encouraged by the increasing interest we're seeing from long-term oriented institutional investors who recognize the strategic value of our business. We believe establishing the ATM facility is consistent with market practices for similar companies and reflects prudent capital planning as we seek to build long-term institutional support.

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 [ Jeff Grant ] with Northland Capital Markets.

Wanted to start first on the progress in Canada to license there. I think the press release referenced some potential, I guess, streamlining or parallel advancement through Canada's licensing process. So I was just hoping to get a little more color on what you guys view kind of reengagement there looking like and any potential time lines you'd like to put out.

Sure. I'm happy to pick up this question. So Canada is a major focus for us at the moment. When we picked up the reactor system, the MMR, it has already gone through the phase 1 in Canada. So the intention was to pick up the project exactly where it had left off. And what that's involved so far is taking the holding entity of that project out of bankruptcy and putting it into our possession. And we've almost completed that legal process now. But the benefit there is that, that enables us to move straight into the phase 2 of the licensing process with the [ CNSC ], the Canadian federal nuclear regulator. And so that's been 1 aspect to it.

The other -- there's been 3 real aspects to the Canadian project [indiscernible] . The entity that we needed to take out of bankruptcy, so we could move into the phase 2, and the other part of it has also been the collaboration with the Canadian Nuclear Laboratory, CNL. So they have allocated us land at Chalk River. And they've already picked out the spot and it's been allocated by the province. Now we've been working with them in the past couple of months about putting together all of the legal paperwork, plans, financial demonstration that we're able to pull this project often. We're now moving into the final stages of final contractual negotiations with CNL for that land.

And the final component to this as well is that the Canadian government has a significant interest in this project as well because they have a number of territories that have a lot of communities with that subset of remote diesel. This is the most advanced reactor system is going through the licensing process in Canada that could actually service these areas, I think, which number about 300. So the Canadian government is looking to involve their Strategic Innovation Fund, or SIF, in the investment of this project. So it would potentially be a collaboration with the Canadian laboratories, the Canadian government going through a regulatory process, which has already been started and progressed quite comprehensively. So all of these different assets we're putting it together. This hasn't been publicly announced yet because these negotiations and arrangements are still ongoing. But this is all the work that we've been doing over the past several months with CNL, Canadian government, SIF and CNSC.

Yes. This is Jay. Jeff, thank you for that question. This also positions NANO Nuclear as a North American provider of advance nuclear technologies to once we reestablish Canada. This also separates us from, I would say, other U.S. reactor company, microreactor companies.

Thanks, Jay. Yes. That's really helpful. Shifting gears for my follow-up on ALIP. You guys mentioned some potential commercial sales opportunities there that you might be pursuing. Can you just educate me on what the next steps to commercialize that? And what kind of market opportunities those might entail?

Sure. So at the moment, I think one of the focuses of the ALIP project is to complete the SBIR phase 3 process with the DOE. And what that will enable us to do then is become the default contractors for supplying this type of technology where needed by the government. And once that is completed and we've gone through that project essentially validating the commercialization of it and we were obviously in several discussions with potential customers to buy this. And where this could be potentially useful on both the [ vision ] and the fusion side of things.

So on the vision side of things with advanced reactors, if you take any type of reactor that uses sort of an advanced columns like [ lead ] or salt, molten salt, that kind of thing, you need a fairly comprehensive pump system to be able to move that kind of heavy coolants around the system. If you can electromagnetize the coolant and then move it around [indiscernible] you can significantly reduce the size of the reactor and the complexity of it. So effectively saving quite a lot of cost savings, especially on some of these larger small modular reactors that utilize more heavy coolants. So certainly, the -- on the vision side of it, those are very much in our crosshairs with regard to sales. And there's already been some initial discussions with some of the larger manufacturers about this technology being utilized within their systems.

And on the fusion side of things, they have a need to move around a lot of heavy materials around the fusion reactor. Again, the complexity involved in a pump system and moving this kind of thing is very exact. And to risk of fusion technology, it could benefit substantially from an electromagnetic system, which has a lot more control over it than pump system, which also because of the size of it, if it was to break in the same sort of thing in a conventional [ fission ] reactor, you effectively have a reactor that's rendered impotent or inoperable. So there's 2 sides of it.

And there are other applications that are being looked at, at the moment. There are some discussions at the moment with space agencies about how AI could be utilized in space to reduce the size of components that are being actually delivered into space. I would say the -- these discussions might be a bit further out because the space industry is a bit more unpredictable in terms of development. But it's certainly something we're examining at the moment with a couple of space agencies.

Those are really helpful detail. I appreciate all the color. I'll turn it back. Thank you for the time.

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

I just had a question on cash usage during the remainder of 2025 to 2026. I know I think James mentioned the expansion and hiring around 60 personnel, engineering and rocketing personnel. Or should we see the operating expenses ramp from here over the next 18 months? Part of the reason is, I think, most of the GAAP numbers that you show are garbled by the stock comp and other noncash items. So just if you can get an idea of cash expenses over the next 18 months, that would be good.

It's Jaisun on the call for this question. Thanks for the question. We mentioned in our MD&A that we estimate our cash burn going into the next 12 months to be around $40 million. So it will be largely as James mentioned in his description, hiring staff and personnel as well as the other support costs to keep the operations going. We will also be updating that as things change. But currently, that's what our current projection is over the next 12 months.

Okay. And then you're targeting the construction application for KRONOS, I think later this year or early 2026. And given the executive order of 18 months or any reactor of any type, do you expect by 2027 kind of time frame to receive this approval? Or is this something different?

It's actually a very good question. So we would love to aim for it to the construction permit application by the end of this year. At latest, it will be completed in Q1 next year for the construction permit. Typically, permits like the 18-month executive order mandates, that actually applies to all license applications no matter what they are. So whether it's formal licensing process for a reactor, site license or even a construction permit. But obviously, each of these carry different levels of work for the NRC and have different time lines that can be expected. We would typically expect some of the license application or sorry, construction permit application of this type to take around 12 months' time to be approved and issued. And at that point, obviously, we can start doing groundwork, concrete pouring, all of the above necessary initial steps that can go in towards the construction of a reactor system.

Just to give an example, I think there's only other 1 company that's progressing at the moment, along with construction strategy, and that's [ Kairos reactor ]. And they had a much more novel reactor design, and there was approved within a 6-month time frame. I would expect that ours would be slightly less or at least commensurate with that. But the 18-month, I think that was more geared towards licensing times for new reactor systems than just construction [indiscernible] I would hope that it would be a bit lower, but we were obviously prudently estimating for between 12 and 18 months, 18 months of the complete reach, but I don't think it will take that long.

And then just your strategy of vertical integration. You already have the transportation part. You have sort of -- you are also participating in the fabric fuel side of things. So when you are saying that you will be targeting a further integration, are we talking about additional fuel processing, enrichment, fabrication, technologies or supply chain partners? What should we think about in terms of your targets?

So it's a good question actually. So when we were building up the company and we were advancing the reactor systems, we obviously realized that the big bottleneck of success for any reactor system is the fuel. And usually, that focuses everybody up on the enrichment part because the major components of the fuel cycle to get it to that point. And certainly, the biggest cost component of actually taking natural grade uranium ore and turning it into a user product that can go into a reactor system. But there's many other components that go along with it too. So mining, milling, conversion or all upstream of the enrichment process.

Now NANO has obviously invested very heavily into this technologies. It is a related [ policy ] transaction. It is a separate company for legal purposes and proliferation reasons, really confident of that technology. Everything before that, NANO is actually examining how to involve itself in to derisk that upstream part of the supply chain. And that will include things like conversion, mining and milling. And the executive team at the moment is looking at all the different aspects of how NANO can be involved in that. So again, there's no been no public disclosures yet because nothing has been solidified by contractual arrangements yet. But I would expect in the future that NANO's vertically integrated strategy with regard to fuel supply chain will inevitably lead to greater involvement in that upstream process, so mining, milling and conversion, everything that precedes the enrichment.

I think everything downstream of enrichment, deconversion is certainly possible. I don't believe we have any anticipation about being involved in the fabrication of [indiscernible] fuel because we do already have a partner that has substantially progressed in that department that we're relatively happy with. But I think it would be very much in NANO's interest to derisk itself with particularly involvement in things like conversion where even the enrichment issues get solved in the U.S., that will be a major significant bottleneck to even enrichment technology succeeding because it needs feed grade, whether it's centrifuge or lasers, it needs [ U.S. 6 feed. ]

Our final question comes from the line of Subash Chandra with Benchmark.

Just curious, did you apply for the DOE advanced reactor pilot program? And then secondly, can we read anything into [ Radiance ] acceptance into that program, I mean, as another sort of high temp gas [indiscernible] comp. And breeds like that program is meant to deploy these technologies quickly. Is that -- would that be a net benefit to KRONOS?

I was going to say we did not apply for that position of the DOE thing. We already have a license site that we're actually going to be building a reactor at. If we were to apply and be successful for the DOE program, that actually result in much higher costs to build a new reactor on DOE land, which would actually not even give us a commercial reactor. It's actually a bit when we actually really went through the opportunity in detail, it was only negatives for us, greater costs, no commercial benefit, it would slow us down. It would divert personal resources. And also, the time lines that were involved, we didn't really estimate that it was feasible for any reactor system to actually be critical by next year. And even if they were, that wouldn't even give them a commercial route. So I think you've probably noticed as well that a lot of the larger companies also did not put in applications very likely for the same reason.

Now [ Radian ] is an interesting 1 that you brought up because I do believe they have a worthwhile technology, not just because it's a high-temperature gas [indiscernible]. But they have a very reasonable team and they have a proven out technology in the [indiscernible] us. Now we don't regard Radian as a competition because their reactor system is much smaller than us, whereas we're catering towards larger systems like industrial operations, AI centers, data centers. Their system, their high temperature gas reactor is a 1-megawatt system, much smaller catering towards much more remote locations that we're aiming for. So there's no market overlap there. The mystery will be why they actually [indiscernible] for this at all? Because obviously, even to source things like nuclear-grade graphites, fabricating reactor pressure vessel puts them outside of the DOE mandated time line to criticality already. So we'll see how it pans out. Our guess is as good as yours, but there was certainly nothing but disadvantages as applying to this program.

Yes. And I would like to add also, we're very supportive of these type of programs by the Department of Energy, but this wasn't right fit for us. It wasn't a lack of interest. It was just that it fit our business model because we currently have a site already. We're looking to commercialize rapidly. So that was the main reason. And we wish all these reactors luck, and we're looking out for them and we're cheering for them because in the end, if they win, NANO wins.

Yes. Great. Good color. And then a question, I guess, on the [ graphite ], James, you mentioned. So I guess is that part of your containment to? Would it be graphite, graphite [indiscernible] , something like that? And how would you sort of address maybe the supply chain there?

This is actually a very excellent question because as we're getting -- the technology is very much developed. It's a high [ TRL ] level. We don't really have any risks on that front with regard [ knowing this will work high-leverage ] gas reactors have worked for many decades. The issue is we've already touched upon the fuel. Other really important components that are vital to the success of the reactor involve things like new [indiscernible] graphite and things like the reacted pressure vessel.

Now for nuclear [indiscernible] graphite, really, there are only 3 vendors that we can think of globally that could produce the necessary -- the graphite of a certain standard that can go into reactors. I think I believe 2 are in China or 1 in Japan. Now the capacity to actually produce enough graphite is there. What will need to be done as we progress here is that we've realized that we can build a core manufacturing facility in the U.S. to produce the vast majority of the components of the reactor system. But there are very specialist components which I don't think any reactor system or [indiscernible] company would be wise to undertake internally themselves, and that includes the graphite.

Now we can obviously invest and put partnership agreements in place, and we're already in negotiations and discussions with suppliers for certain components. So we know we'll need to be sourced for the purposes of our reactor by experts with experience in these areas. The nuclear [indiscernible] graphite is obviously one of them.

And the other component might be something like the reactor pressure vessel, which is a very exact fabrication technique that needs to be done by a very experienced steel manufacturer because it's an incredibly complex piece of material. I think those 2 components [indiscernible] would need to be outsourced to professionals and everything else, NANO intends to build a core manufacturing facility to assemble everything else we can internally, much more basic components that don't need as much experience or expertise can be outsourced to these other groups. But you can [ grade ] graphite, I think if you were to bring on a new capability anywhere else in the world, you would be looking at 7, 8, maybe 10 years' time to get up to a point where you're able to manufacture the graphite to a standard necessary to go into reactor systems. And it's probably not spoken about very much, but that is a very important aspect of any production strategy for reactor.

Yes. And James, to that point, so nuclear [indiscernible] graphite, which I imagine it's the suppliers have been going for the light water reactors for the most part. But does that need to be modified? And does that change the supply chain for high-temp gas reactor?

I wouldn't say it changed the supply chain [indiscernible] because already where graphite for reactor systems has already been sourced from those 3 vendors that we mentioned and they've tailored products beforehand. So it's essentially utilization of the same supply chain that the major differences will be the necessary capacity of those manufacturing operations. It will need to increase to meet the demand of manufacturing operations. But for things like high temperature gas reactors -- and look, I think there's already -- I think we can already view a sort of funneling of technologies within the reactor space. I mean, if I look at high-temperature gas reactors with [indiscernible] Energy, ourselves, [ Radiant ], just to mention 2 others, all of them are high-temperature gas reactor [ triton ] for a very specific reason, very proven our tech will know at work, and things like new scale water reactor systems, again, to navigate the complexity of reactors utilizing technology we need. I think more exotic reactor designs might stumble because the supply chains don't exist in a comprehensive way already. And that could be one of the factors that determines who gets to market -- or not even who gets to market first, but it's able to meet demand quickest. That could be an [indiscernible] factor into the success of certain reactor companies out there.

Great. I learn something new every time.

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

I want to thank everyone again for joining us on today's call. The interest and enthusiasm of our investors and the market participants is a big part of NANO story. 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.

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