[justfor3274]

Do you already have NRC clearance? Are the reactors designed and approved? Are you aware of the duration of the regulatory process? These are important questions which should be answered and properly disclosed to potential investors. Regulatory approval for anything of this scale by the NRC could take cumulatively up to a decade if not more.

[atomicalchemy]

Indeed, the first step is to get all of the regulatory approvals to 1) construct and 2) operate the facility.

Due to the simplicity of the reactor design and facility, and the low power it will operate at, it should take about 18 months for each of these approvals, and both can be (mostly) done in parallel. I anticipate production starting in 2024 or 2025. There are a variety of things that can speed this up or slow it down, but this is my best projection to date.

The Advanced Test Reactor is regulated by the Department of Energy, which is way more stodgy than the NRC can be, so I definitely appreciate the importance of navigating the regulatory environment carefully. It can take ten years if done horribly wrong.

[atomicalchemy]

Another thought--one of my biggest challenges with speaking to investors is the fixation on the regulatory process because it can be onerous. Interestingly enough, because this project is much smaller and simpler than a power plant, it is actually a much more straightforward process than it is perceived to be.

The NRC has two guides for licensing non-power reactors: NUREG-1537 Parts 1 and 2. Part one lays out the format and information required in a license application, and part two is the review guide that the NRC uses to evaluate the application. So really, all of the questions AND answers are published. A prospective applicant just needs to say what they're doing, show how it meets safety criteria, and prove they're doing what they said they'd do when they build the thing.

It's obviously much more complex than that, but that's the gist of it.

[justfor3274]

Thanks for your reply. I apologize if I provide seemingly vague details but it's a rather small industry and I'd like to protect my identity. That being said, I only ask because I have witnessed firsthand how a project with:

* existing facilities

* already funded 50m+

* existing staff

* ironed out ideas

Were unable to get NRC clearance for a variety of things for an extended amount of time. Granted, this was an accelerator based method, not reactor-based. However, this leads me to my second point.

What kind of fuel are you planning on using for these reactors? From my understanding, the NRC has expressed interest in removing reactor-based methods for mediso generation and instead aiming for domestic accelerator-based production. Companies like North Star, Nordion, and the Mallinckrodt nuclear spinoff are aiming for similar goals and seem to have expectations aligned with mine. If it were truly as easy as getting a reactor designed, a couple million dollars, and six years, don't you think these massive DoE/DoD contractors would have done it by now? As you said yourself, the market is limited but the potential for growth is massive if we can get a stable supply.

Again, sorry for all the questions, take the time you need. I don't mean to come off as arrogant or inflammatory, just curious.

[atomicalchemy]

No need to apologize for asking questions!

I'm using commercially available fuel that is available from fuel vendors. UO2 with zircaloy cladding.

As far as I'm aware, the NRC has no stated mandate for removing reactor-based methods. Or, if you have a source for that, I'd love to see it because that's a big deal. What you may be thinking of is the DOE/NNSA grants that are being given out for encouraging a domestic Mo-99 supply, which have strings attached which mandate it be for developing an "alternative" technology. I've found that the correlation is very strong between nuclear startups which have failed and which ones rely on government money.

I'd be curious why you think those projects have failed. I've had many discussions with other nuclear startups and friends at INL on this topic, and it's pretty nuanced.

Having been a DOE contractor, I have some... strong opinions about how nearly everyone in the industry operates or their approach to regulation. To refrain from ranting, I'll just say that it is my strong opinion that pretty much everyone does things "they way we've always have done them" and that everything is over-engineered and costs way more than it needs to. Most people I've spoken to seem to think it costs $100M to build hot cells. I know it doesn't cost that much to build a glorified box of concrete, even if that's what cost-plus entities have historically paid for them.

We could take this discussion offline as well, if you'd prefer. Then we can both be more specific and protect anonymity. Feel free to shoot me an email at [e-mail] if you wish.

[justfor3274]

Sounds good. I'll contact you over email. Thanks!

[atomicalchemy]

Another observation that I've had to support my hypothesis: NuScale is one of those entities doing something modestly different and has spent decades and hundreds of millions of dollars on just the regulatory component.

Here in Silicon Valley, there are a few nuclear startups working on various non-LWR concepts. One of them has done roughly the equivalent amount of work that NuScale has done but has only spent on the order of a few hundred thousand dollars, and with a team of less than 20.

So to me, it is clear that there are better and worse ways to go about things.