Nano Nuclear Energy Inc.

Q4 2025 Earnings Call — December 18, 2025

Jeff Graham (Northland Capital Markets): Hey, guys. Thanks for the time. 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 timeline, you know, when that gets filed, how long you guys think that'll take to get through the NRC, and is there any work you guys can do to accelerate that timeline 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? Thanks.

James (Executive): 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. The 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, PIROS did something very similar to us. They applied for a construction permit for their – not a full-scale reactor, but sort of a – a model scaled down system. But theirs 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 high TRL 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 out beyond what we can expect. We really expect a turnaround substantially below that. It would be very nice if it was in the same time of the 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 get the application in and get them started on the process, understanding that there are certain components that 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 detail in as you can, and then work, obviously, very closely with them throughout the whole process to get it expedited and completed.

Jeff Graham (Northland Capital Markets): 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?

James (Executive): Yeah, so for instance, if we're talking about internal capabilities with regard to the reactor first, just before we get into vertical integration around things like fuel, on the reactor itself, 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 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 projects 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., a reactor vessel with an end 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 de-risk the fuel supply chain. And that's what led to our related transaction with this technology and their creation. Essentially to 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.

We realized that there were a number of different people going into enrichment. So there was ourselves with this technology. There was General Matter, Rano, Centris. 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 odd. It's not spoken about very much, but already in the U.S. at the current time, the U.S. produces about a third as much as it needs for its civilian reactors. And by 2050, that maximum capacity of that facility is expected to produce about one-tenth of what the country needs for new fees for enrichment facilities. So we saw that as being maybe even a bigger bottleneck than 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 in 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 de-risk 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 de-risking of our reactor systems.

Sameer Joshi (HC Wainwright): Hey, good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. 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?

James (Executive): Absolutely. So Canada is actually an extremely interesting prospect, just given the fact that when we took over the assets, that we're going to develop. The Canada project had 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 remote diesel. So 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. 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 process. That licensing work that had previously been completed for this project and on our reactor was completed at this Site 2. 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 site 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 remote diesel and they don't have an alternative. But those are the milestones in the order you'll see them coming out next year.

Sameer Joshi (HC Wainwright): Thanks for that, Kala. 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 Nano's part, and what is the potential opportunity here in coming years?

James (Executive): That'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 two-week period. And currently, very few of them are able to meet that requirement. In fact, 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 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 in 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 reactive systems for many, many, many bases as you would the Defense Innovation Unit opportunity that came out a few years ago that was looking at reactive systems for bases. So I would say the phase one, which we're currently in at 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 build-up 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 we really will have available to us many opportunities to make many reactors for many different bases. So the AppWorks thing... 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 zones. And for that reason, we did beat out the competition.

And the Air Force and the wider military just believed that this is the better solution for them in terms of long-term self-sufficiency for powers.

Subash Chandra (Benchmark): Yeah, hi. 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 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 what you're suggesting there is Illinois?

James (Executive): Sure. So there are a number of different things here. So what I would say initially when we were working with people at state level, 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 sue for state rights to license reactor systems. Now, I would caution with doing that is that without a framework and a historic experience about doing that kind of thing, it's going to be very trying for people to do a licensing for reactor at a state level. And certainly, if you examine even a DOE license, which wouldn't be commercial, even the DOE, for the large part, is going to have to defer towards the NRC for licensing how it does regulate these systems on DRE land or its own DRE 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 timeline 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 licensed. 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 it at the NRC level.

Subash Chandra (Benchmark): Got it. 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?

James (Executive): 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 licensed designs. And what they've 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 systems. So that the URUC 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 URUC 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 plants, same components. As much as we can get in terms of closeness to the final commercial design, it will match very closely.

Subash Chandra (Benchmark): Yeah, I guess what I was getting at, do you think you'll be able to determine an LCOE value with this reactor?

James (Executive): I think, well, 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'll 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 do look at the fact that even something like gas, is anticipated to double in costs within the next five, six, seven years, then it actually starts getting quite commensurate with even the gas. But with the added benefits, 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 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.

Management: There are no further questions

at this time.

I would like to turn the floor back over to JU for any closing remarks.

JU (Executive): 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. Thank you. This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines

at this time.

We thank you again for your participation.

Q3 2025 Earnings Call — August 14, 2025

Jeff Grant (Northland Capital Markets): Afternoon, guys. I 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 timeline you'd like to put out. Thanks.

Executive Name (Title): 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 had already gone through the phase one 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 two of the licensing process with the CNSC, the Canadian Federal Nuclear Regulator. 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 months about putting together all of the legal paperwork, plans, financial demonstration that we're able to pull this project off, and we're now moving into the final stages of final contractual negotiations with CNL for that land. 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 that subsist off remote diesel. And this is the most advanced reactor system that's 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 youth laboratories, the Canadian government, going through a regulatory process which has already been started and progressed quite comprehensively. So all of these different aspects, 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 TNL, Canadian government, CIF, and CNSC.

Jeff Grant (Northland Capital Markets): Awesome. Yeah, this is Jay. Jeff, thank you for that question. This also positions nanonuclear as a North American provider of advanced nuclear technologies to once we reestablish Canada. This also separates us from I would say other US reactor company, micro reactor companies.

Jeff Grant (Northland Capital Markets): Thanks, Jay. Yeah, that's really helpful. Shifting gears for my follow up on ALIF, 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?

Executive Name (Title): 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 contractor for supplying this type of technology where needed by the government. Once that is completed and we've gone through that project, essentially validating the commercialization of it, we were obviously in several discussions with potential customers to buy this. And where this could be potentially useful, it's on both the fission and the fusion side of things. So on the fission side of things with advanced reactors, if you take any type of reactor that uses sort of an advanced coolant 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 coolant around the system.

If you can electromagneticize the coolant and then move it around through the, you can significantly reduce the size of the reactor and the complexity of it. So certainly on the fission side of it, those are very much in our crosshairs with regard to sales. And there have already been some initial discussions with some of the large SMR 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 a fusion reactor. Again, the complexity involved in a pump system and moving this kind of thing is very exact, and to de-risk a fusion technology, it could benefit substantially from an electromagnetic system, which has a lot more control over it than a pump system, which also, because of the size of it, if it was to break, the same sort of thing in a conventional fission reactor, you effectively have a reactor that's rendered impotent or inoperable. So, there's two sides of it. And there are other applications that are being looked at at the moment.

There's some discussions at the moment with space agencies about how it could be utilized in space to reduce the size of components that are being actually delivered into space. I would say 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.

Jeff Grant (Northland Capital Markets): Those are really helpful details, James. I appreciate all the color. I'll turn it back. Thank you guys for your time.

Samir Joshi (HC and Wainwright): Hey, good afternoon, guys. Thanks for taking my question. I just had a question on cash usage during the remainder of 2025 into 2026. I know, I think James mentioned expansion and hiring around 60 personnel, engineering and operating personnel. How should we see the operating expenses ramp from here over the next 18 months? Part of the reason is I think most of the gap numbers that you show are garbled by the stock miscoms and other non-cash items. So just if you can get an idea of cash expenses over the next 18 months, that would be good.

Jason (Management): Okay. Yeah, it's Jason 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 more 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.

Samir Joshi (HC and Wainwright): Okay. And then you're targeting the construction permitting 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, like, July 2027 kind of timeframe to receive this approval, or is this something different?

Executive Name (Title): It's actually a very good question. So, what we would love to aim for to complete 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 mandate, 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 timelines 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 one company that's progressing at the moment along a construction strategy, and that's Kairos' reactor.

And they had a much more novel reactor design, and theirs was approved within a 16-month timeframe. 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 permits. 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.

Samir Joshi (HC and Wainwright): Understood. And then just your strategy of vertical integration, you already have the transportation part. You have sort of, you're also participating in the fabric fuel side of things. So when you are saying that you will be targeting 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?

Executive Name (Title): 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 to success for any reactor system is the fuels. And usually that focuses everybody up on the enrichments part because it's the major components of the fuel cycle to get it to that point. And certainly the biggest costs components of actually taking natural grade uranium ore and turning it into a usable product that can go into a reactor system. But there's many other components that go along with it too. So mining, milling, conversion are all upstream of the enrichment process. Nano has obviously invested very heavily into this technologies. It is a related party transaction. It is a separate company for legal purposes and proliferation reasons. But we're pretty confident of that technology. Everything before that, Nano is actually examining how to involve itself in to do risk 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 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 the 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 triso 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 de-risk itself with particularly involvement in things like conversion where even if the enrichment issues get solved in the U.S., that will be a major significant bottleneck to even enrichment technologies succeeding because it needs feed grade. Whether it's centrifuge or lasers, it needs U.S. six feed.

Samir Joshi (HC and Wainwright): No, I understand. Thanks for that, Khaled James, and thanks for taking my questions.

Subash Chandra (Benchmark): Yeah. Hi, guys. Just curious, did you apply for the DOE Advanced Reactor Pilot Program? And then secondly, you know, can we read anything into, you know, radiance acceptance into that program? I mean, you know, as another sort of high-temp program? gas, TRISO, you know, HALU, COMP, and, you know, it reads like that program is meant to deploy these technologies quickly, you know, would that be a net benefit to Kronos?

Executive Name (Title): I think... Go ahead, James.

Executive Name (Title): I was going to say we did not apply for that position of the DOE thing. We already have a licensed 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 would actually result in much higher costs to build a new reactor on DOE land, which would actually not even give us a commercial reactor. 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 timelines 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, Radiant's an interesting one that you brought up because I do believe they have a worthwhile technology, not just because it's a high-temperature gas reactor with Triso, but they have a very reasonable team and they have a proven-out technology in the same vein as us. Now, we don't regard Radiant 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 one-megawatt system, much smaller, catering towards much more remote locations than we're aiming for. So there's no market overlap there. The mystery will be why they actually applied for this at all because, obviously, even to source things like nuclear-grade graphite, fabricating a reactor pressure vessel, puts them outside of the POE-mandated timeline 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 of applying to this program.

Executive Name (Title): Yeah, and I would like to add also, you know, we're very supportive of these type of programs by the Department of Energy. But this wasn't a 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, you know, we're looking out for them and we're cheering for them because, in the end, if they win, Nano wins.

Subash Chandra (Benchmark): Yes. Great. Good call there. And then a question, I guess, you know, on the graphite, James, you mentioned. So, you know, I guess, is that part of your containment too? Would it be graphite, graphite beryllium, something like that? And how would you sort of address maybe the supply chain there?

Executive Name (Title): This is actually a very excellent question because, you know, 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-temperature 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 nuclear graphite and things like the reactor pressure vessels. For nuclear-grade graphite, really, there are only three 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 two are in China and one are 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 reactor 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 that we know will need to be sourced for the purposes of our reactor by experts with experience in these areas. The nuclear-grade graphite is obviously one of them. And another component might be something like the reactive 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 two components alone 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 nuclear-grade graphite, I think if you were to bring on a new capability anywhere else in the world, you would be looking at seven, eight, 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. It's probably not spoken about very much, but that is a very important aspect of any production strategy for a reactor.

Subash Chandra (Benchmark): Yeah, and James, to that point, so nuclear gray graphite, which I imagine, you know, the suppliers are then, you know, 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 reactors?

Executive Name (Title): I wouldn't say it changes the supply chain totally, because already graphite for reactor systems has already been sourced from those three 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 so 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. Yeah, I mean, if I look at high-temperature gas reactors in TRISO, X-Energy, ourselves, Radiant, just to mention two others, all of them are high-temperature gas reactor TRISO for a very specific reason, very proven out tech, we'll know at work. And things like NuScale, a lot of 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 as comprehensive way already. And that could be one of the factors that determines who gets to market, not even who gets to market first, but is able to meet demand quickest. That could be an instrumental factor in the success of certain reactor companies out there.

Subash Chandra (Benchmark): Great. Thank you. I learned something new every time. Thanks, guys.

Executive Name (Title): Thank you so much.

Executive Name (Title): This now concludes our question and answer session. I would like to turn the floor back over to J.U. 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's 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 one.