管理層發言
Thank you for your patience. My name is Christa, and I will be your operator for today's call. I would like to welcome you to the Oklo Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Financial Results and Business Update Conference Call. I will now hand it over to Sam Doane, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Sam, please proceed.
Good afternoon, and thank you for joining Oklo's Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Company Update. I'm Sam Doane, Oklo's Senior Director of Investor Relations. Joining me today are Jake Dewitte, Oklo's Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer; and Craig Bealmear, our Chief Financial Officer. After my opening remarks and the forward-looking statement disclosure, Jake will walk through the business update and strategic progress, and Craig will cover our financial results. Our remarks today include forward-looking statements, which are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed today. We encourage you to review the forward-looking statements disclosure included in our supplemental slides. Additional information on relevant risk factors is described in our filings with the SEC. We undertake no obligation to update forward-looking statements, except as required by law. With that, I'll turn the call over to Jake. Jake?
Thanks, Sam. 2025 was a step change year for Oklo. We transitioned from product development into active project deployment across all of our business units. During the year, we broke ground on our first Aurora powerhouse at Idaho National Laboratory under the DOE Reactor Pilot Program, advanced key commercial partnerships across the value chain, including our early 2026 prepayment agreement with Meta to support plans for a 1.2 gigawatt power campus and began initial construction activities on A3F at INL. We also completed the acquisition of Atomic Alchemy and made substantial construction progress at Groves in Texas, our first radioisotope test reactor. In fuel, we completed fast-spectrum plutonium criticality experiments supporting using plutonium as a bridge fuel. We announced the first phase of our advanced fuel center in Tennessee, and we progressed licensing activities across multiple assets. Taken together, 2025 was the year Oklo turned our platform strategy into deployed projects while also strengthening the balance sheet to fund that execution and our long-term growth. Before I go deeper into execution, it is also important to understand how much the external environment shifted over the last two years. In 2024 and 2025, U.S. nuclear policy moved toward a more execution-oriented posture across licensing, asset deployment, fuel supply, and capital formation. You can see the four main pillars here. First, executive actions and regulatory direction focused on accelerating licensing and enabling first-of-a-kind projects. Second, federal support mechanisms, including tax credits, loan guarantees, and direct financing tools are improving the pathway to fund projects. Third, fuel sovereignty measures are pushing domestic capability across the conversion, enrichment, HALEU, and strategic fuel materials. And fourth, implementation of the ADVANCE Act is aimed at reducing friction in licensing and enabling more efficient deployment pathways. The policy backdrop has shifted from a light tailwind to a very strong tailwind for the nuclear sector, and Oklo is positioned to move in that environment. Going forward, we will talk about Oklo through three integrated business units: power, fuel, and isotopes that together form a unique vertically integrated nuclear platform. Power is the clean baseload power and heat from our sodium fast reactors that can utilize a broad spectrum of fuels. Fuel provides Oklo with an integrated pathway to produce fuel required for our powerhouses as well as for our peers and competitors. This derisks deployment, strengthens long-term supply, and unlocks nuclear energy abundance at scale through fuel recycling. And isotopes expand the platform into high-value products and services with strategic domestic importance that are natural co-products from our other business units. The key point is that integration across the value chain is designed to unlock multiple complementary value streams over time. And first is power. We are building the power business unit because demand for firm, reliable power is growing quickly across the country. From data centers to industrial customers to government applications, our customers need clean, dependable baseload power, not intermittent supply. Our Aurora powerhouses are expected to provide that kind of reliable baseload power, and our commercial model is built around long-term offtake agreements. Power is also foundational to the rest of our business platform. Power deployments create the demand that can scale our fuel production and fabrication capabilities over time and first deployments establish reference assets that improve repeatability for future campuses. Our experience building our power delivery capability has eliminated key opportunities in other parts of the ecosystem that we are leaning into building and scaling. So power is both a near-term customer solution and the foundation for broader platform scalability. Fuel is the second business unit, and it is one of the most important strategic parts of what we are building. Fuel availability remains one of the most significant rate limiters for new nuclear deployment. From inception, we have been building fuel capabilities to support our own deployment and broader advanced nuclear deployment. That starts with fabrication for us. Fuel fabrication converts raw fuel material into reactor-ready fuel forms. It is how we support Oklo reactors while also creating the potential to provide services to third-party reactors over time, either through directly fabricating fuel for them or hosting their fabrication lines in our factories. Oklo is also exploring opportunities to develop modern deconversion processes to streamline efficiencies, including what we recently announced with Centrus. This step has traditionally occurred at the fuel fabrication facilities themselves. But as we look at the future of nuclear fuel manufacturing, it makes a lot more sense to locate this with the enrichment facility. The second big part of our fuel strategy is recycling. Recycling can recover uranium for reuse, can recover and produce transuranic bearing material that can be used as fuel in advanced reactors, it can enable high-value isotope production and it can provide used fuel management solutions through recycling pathways. So fuel is both a deployment enabler in the near term and a scalable fuel cycle business over the long term. And the third business unit is isotopes. We are building this business because there are attractive high-value end markets across health care, industrial, space, and defense applications because strategic domestic supply for many isotopes remains constrained. From life-saving therapies to the long-duration power supplies that have powered human space exploration to the future of remote monitoring and sensing for security purposes, isotopes are key material for humankind's future. We see those isotope opportunities as complementary to our power and fuel business units that can produce isotope co-products that the isotope business unit can then package and sell. At the same time, we are pursuing purpose-built production using reactors and facilities optimized for isotope production, and we see a services revenue opportunity through irradiation for advanced nuclear technology research and development, defense research and development, semiconductor doping and hardening, and other applications. Taken together, isotopes expand the platform into high-value domestic supply for critical uses while strengthening the economics of the broader business. This slide shows how the three business units connect. In the conventional nuclear value chain, mining, enrichment, power generation, and long-term waste storage are fragmented across different parties. Our strategy is to build a more integrated platform that links power production, fuel fabrication, fuel recycling, and isotope production. When you can fabricate fuel into reactor-ready forms and recycle materials over time, you move from a one-way fuel cycle into a repeatable loop. That improves long-term fuel optionality, supports supply resilience, and can unlock additional products across the value chain. It also creates new value streams. Recovered materials can support radioisotope production, which connects directly into our isotope business. So the objective is not just to deploy powerhouses. It is to build an integrated platform where power is an anchor product, fuel is an enabling system, and isotopes extend the platform into high-value products and services. And the U.S. is uniquely positioned for a strategy like ours. The U.S. has generated roughly 20% of its electricity from nuclear power over the last 30-plus years, while producing a very small physical volume of used nuclear fuel. More than 90,000 metric tons of U.S. used nuclear fuel fits on a football field, about 10 meters high. That material is often described only as waste, but in reality, it contains enormous energy potential. The energy potential in U.S. used nuclear fuel is comparable in scale to the sum total of major global oil reserves. This is what makes recycling and reuse so strategically important. Used nuclear fuel is not just a liability to manage. It is also a major potential domestic energy resource if the infrastructure exists to put it back to work. That sets up the next slide, which is about one of the mechanisms now emerging to help build that broader life cycle infrastructure. The U.S. already has a major strategic energy reserve in used nuclear fuel, but realizing more of that value over time depends on building the infrastructure, capabilities, and coordination needed to put it to work. That is why the DOE's Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses program is so important. DOE has framed this as a first step toward potential federal-state partnerships to modernize the full nuclear fuel cycle using regional campus models that can co-locate key parts of the life cycle. As this model advances, it could reduce development friction, improve execution timelines and support more efficient investment across fuel, recycling, power, and isotope-related infrastructure. As importantly, employing used nuclear fuel as a resource instead of treating it as a liability could change the power outlook for the U.S. over time, supporting advanced reactor fuel supply for generations, strengthening domestic radioisotope production and improving long-term used fuel management outcomes. From our standpoint, this matters because it reflects a more integrated model for building nuclear infrastructure in the United States, which is closely aligned with the strategy we are executing across our business units. We continue to be very supportive of state responses to the RFI and have started working with multiple states as they evaluate potential campus proposals. These efforts form the foundations for ensuring energy affordability and reindustrializing the nation. And this is where the strategy becomes tangible. Across power, fuel, and isotopes, we are already building assets that support a more integrated nuclear development model to unlock nuclear energy abundance. On the power side, we have Aurora-INL, our first Aurora powerhouse at Idaho National Laboratory and Aurora Ohio, our planned clean energy campus in Pike County tied to our partnership with Meta. On the fuel side, we have A3F at INL, our first fuel fabrication facility and our advanced fuel center in Tennessee, which is our first phase of used nuclear fuel recycling infrastructure. And in isotopes, we are building Groves, our radioisotope test reactor in the Idaho Radiochemistry Laboratory, which supports isotope processing and scale up. So when we say vertically integrated, this is what we mean: multiple real assets now moving forward across all three business units. Since our last company update, we have made meaningful progress across all aspects of the company. In power, Aurora-INL executed its DOE other transaction agreement under the Reactor Pilot Program, received DOE approval of the nuclear safety design agreement, continued construction activities, including blasting, and signed with Siemens Energy for the power conversion system. We also signed the Meta prepayment agreement in support of up to 1.2 gigawatts at Aurora, Ohio. In fuel, A3F received DOE approval of both the NSDA and the preliminary documented safety analysis and it was selected under the DOE Advanced Nuclear Fuel Line Pilot Program. In recycling, we signed an agreement with TVA to explore fuel recycling, initiated site prework on our flagship recycling facility, completed NRC pre-application engagement, initiated a rolling NRC readiness review, and were selected for DOE recycling R&D funding. We also completed a fast-spectrum plutonium criticality experiment and announced a joint venture initiative with Centrus around deconversion. And in isotopes, Groves executed its DOE OTA, received NSDA approval, submitted its PDSA and continued construction toward a July 4 criticality target. Separately, the Idaho Radiochemistry Laboratory obtained its NRC materials license. So this is execution across multiple assets, multiple licensing pathways, and multiple business units, all moving forward in parallel. Aurora-INL is advancing on a DOE-first authorization pathway. We have already executed the OTA under DOE Reactor Pilot Program and received approval of the nuclear safety design agreement. Those are important because the OTA formally brings the project into the DOE authorization pathway, and the NSDA locks in the safety and regulatory framework for the project. The next DOE milestones are the preliminary documented safety analysis, the documented safety analysis and then the readiness review and start-up approval. Each of those steps progressively aligns DOE and Oklo on a safety basis from final design and construction through start-up and operations. The significance here is that the DOE pathway allows us to keep advancing construction, procurement, and system integration activities in parallel as the project moves forward. Alongside the authorization work, Aurora-INL is also advancing on execution and build readiness. On site development, we completed site characterization at INL. Site preparation is underway, including blasting and construction activities are progressing in line with the project plan. On procurement and supply chain, we have received responses for the majority of identified long lead component requests for proposal, supplier down selection is underway, and all major equipment now has vendors under contract. That includes the Siemens Energy contract for the power conversion system, active supply chain agreements for reactor module components, and active vendor contracts for all major refueling equipment. So Aurora-INL is moving forward on both the physical site side and the supply chain side, which is what we want to see at this stage of a first deployment, and we are learning a lot on the way. Next is Aurora Ohio, where the key update is our agreement with Meta in support of a 1.2 gigawatt Aurora campus. The agreement advances plans for phase deployment with an initial phase of 150 megawatts targeted around 2030, and it is supported by prepayment for a power structure designed to improve project certainty and support Phase 1 development. Importantly, Oklo expects to use funds from the prepayment agreement to support fuel procurement. We also own approximately 206 acres in Pike County, Ohio, which gives us a site to advance campus development in parallel with commercialization and permitting work. So this is an example of customer demand, commercial structure, site control, and fuel planning, all starting to line up around a real deployment opportunity. Fuel availability is one of the key gating items for advanced nuclear deployment. So our fuel strategy is deliberately built around flexibility, supply optionality and execution readiness. As this slide shows, we are addressing that through strategic enablers, fuel supply pathways and strategic fuel partnerships. On the enabler side, our fast reactor technology is designed to be versatile across a wide range of fuel sources, and our fabrication capabilities are intended to convert different feed supplies into reactor-ready fuel. Over time, recycling can turn used fuel into a more repeatable strategic fuel supply. Oklo is pursuing a differentiated strategy here to help accelerate deployment even in the face of conventional supply chain bottlenecks. And on supply pathways, we are working with DOE managed materials, HALEU from conventional and advanced enrichment providers, and recycled fuel supported through our own recycling and fabrication capabilities. And on partnerships, we are working with DOE, building relationships around enrichment and deconversion and developing opportunities around recycled fuel. The goal is to solve for near, mid-, and long-term scale while maintaining flexibility as the market evolves. A3F has a very specific role in our deployment strategy. It is a purpose-built facility to fabricate fuel for Aurora-INL using an existing building at INL, where Oklo is installing and operating the fabrication equipment. On the authorization side, A3F was selected under DOE's Advanced Nuclear Fuel Line Pilot Program, which is intended to support accelerated licensing and construction of advanced fuel fabrication capabilities. Execution is already underway. Initial construction activities have begun, and A3F is advancing in parallel with Aurora-INL so that fuel fabrication does not become a deployment gating constraint. We have also received DOE approval of both the NSDA and the PDSA for A3F, which enables us to move forward with final design and construction. And notably, Oklo's PDSA was the first facility approved under DOE's Fuel Line Pilot Program, which is an important validation of the pathway we are using. Next is the Tennessee Advanced Fuel Center, which is our first major step toward building long-term recycling capability. On-site and development progress, we completed initial geotechnical surveys and soil borings at the Tennessee site and initiated site development activities. On regulatory and licensing progress, we completed our planned NRC pre-application engagement and initiated a rolling NRC readiness review in advance of a future license application. And on fuel supply and partnerships, we were selected for DOE recycling research and development funding. The broader point is that this project is advancing on the site, regulatory, and funding fronts at the same time, which is how we intend to move recycling from concept into real long-term fuel supply infrastructure. Staying on fuel, this slide is about upstream fuel infrastructure and specifically uranium deconversion. We announced a potential joint venture with Centrus focused on deconversion, building on our prior relationship. What is strategically compelling is the intended location. Centrus' site in Pike County, Ohio, co-located with Centrus' enrichment operations and adjacent to our planned 1.2 gigawatt power campus. Deconversion is a critical upstream step in the domestic fuel supply chain, and colocation has the potential to improve logistics, reduce friction and strengthen both cost and supply resilience over time. It is important to note that these deconversion capabilities can support Oklo's fuel needs and the fuel needs of other reactors and reactor types, including light-water reactors. So this is another example of how we are looking to expand fuel infrastructure alongside fabrication and recycling, while the current focus remains on initial venture structuring and project planning. Turning to isotopes. The Idaho Radiochemistry Laboratory is an important near-term asset and example of timely execution. We obtained the NRC materials license for the facility, which is a key operational milestone. The facility is expected to make first revenue this year, which also makes it one of the more near-term revenue-oriented pieces of our broader business. Strategically, the lab has the potential to provide the foundation for developing our isotope processing methods and then scaling them up to support future VIPR facilities. So this lab is well on its way to be both a practical operating asset and a foundational capability for scaling the isotopes business over time. Now to Groves, our first radioisotope test reactor deployment. Groves is moving through a DOE first authorization pathway, and we have already completed two important steps, executing the OTA under the Reactor Pilot Program and receiving approval of the NSDA. Those matter because the OTA formally brings the project under the DOE pathway, while the NSDA locks in the safety and regulatory framework for the project. The next milestones are approval of the PDSA, which has now been submitted, approval of the DSA and then the readiness review and start-up approval. Groves is progressing through a structured DOE first pathway that's designed to enable full project build-out and position the facility for start-up and operations. And rather than just talk about it, I want to show you what we've executed. We'll pause here for a short video from the Groves site, and then I'll come back and walk through the key build milestones. Now that you've seen the progress for the Groves project, here's where we are on the remaining path to criticality. Site development and the structure were completed in five months. The reactor tank is installed, fuel has been procured and interior mechanical, electrical and plumbing installation is in progress. Auxiliary equipment is also in various stages of procurement. From here, the focus is on finishing the remaining construction activities, final installation of reactor equipment, integrated system testing and fuel delivery. The current execution target is criticality by July 4. We and others are showing nuclear assets can be built and turned on in less than ten months. These are real examples that shatter the widely held belief that nuclear is slow. Instead, we are demonstrating that new nuclear can deploy at pace. Groves is progressing rapidly. The structure is up, major components are in place, and the remaining work is the execution closeout and commissioning path to criticality. And one of the exciting things about this project is that it is fully executing a commercially viable sourcing strategy across all components and not relying on preexisting or nonscalable or nonviable components and capabilities. The lessons we are learning are teaching us a lot on the way to full commercial operations. Before moving on, it is worth taking a step back and explaining what Groves actually is. Groves is our first radioisotope test reactor. And strategically, it serves as a test platform for Atomic Alchemy's production scale VIPR reactor platform. It is named in honor of General Leslie Groves, who directed the Manhattan project. From a design standpoint, it is a pool-type, water-cooled, non-pressurized reactor built for thermal neutron radiation using pressurized water reactor fuel bundles with low enriched uranium fuel. Why that matters is that Groves is not just a single asset. It is designed to give us practical experience across design, manufacturing, procurement, construction, installation, and ultimately, operations. The value here is both near-term and long-term, near-term in getting this first asset built and operating and long-term in informing how future isotope production assets can be deployed and operated. And one important point across the company is that these assets are not all following the same licensing path. We are taking a tailored approach depending on the asset, the site, and the development objective. For certain first-of-a-kind assets and DOE site projects, we are pursuing DOE authorization. That includes Aurora-INL, A3F, and Groves. For broader commercial deployment and other non-DOE assets, we are pursuing the NRC pathway. That includes Aurora, Ohio, the Advanced Fuel Center in Tennessee, and the Idaho Radiochemistry Laboratory, which received its NRC license earlier this year. The key takeaway is that we are not trying to force every asset through a single framework. We are using the pathway that best fits the specific asset and stage of development while also allowing lessons from early DOE authorized assets to inform future NRC licensed deployments. With that, I'll turn it over to Craig for the financial update.
Thanks, Jake. 2025 was a strong year for the company as we significantly strengthened our balance sheet such that capital can act as an enabler of the strategic agenda Jake has just presented. On a full year basis, Oklo has a loss from operations of $139.3 million, which was primarily driven by payroll, general business expenses, and professional fees associated with the capital market and asset deployment activities. The operating loss also included noncash stock-based compensation expense of $41.8 million, which was impacted by the increase in the firm's share price during the year. Our loss before income taxes was $110.2 million, which included the benefit of interest and dividend income of $29.1 million from the investment in marketable securities. Additionally, on a full year basis, our cash used in operating activities was $82.2 million. This number is inclusive of approximately $13 million of prepaid capital project expense that will ultimately become property, plant, and equipment and run through our cash flows for investing activities. When adjusting for this figure, we reached $69.2 million in adjusted cash used in operating activities, which was within our guidance for 2025 cash used in operating activities of $65 million to $80 million, demonstrating disciplined management of the company's cash reserves while also capitalizing on the tailwinds to accelerate growth opportunities. The company intends to maintain a disciplined approach to cash management and capital allocation in 2026. We are raising our guidance for cash used in operating activities from $65 million to $80 million in 2025 to $80 million to $100 million in 2026. This measured increase will enable the company to expand headcount across its business units and execute on its business plans. As the company progresses asset deployments, we expect to increase our investment into projects across all three of our business units. We expect cash used in investing activities to range between $350 million and $450 million in 2026. This level of spend looks to drive progression of our strategy across all three business units, including powerhouse deployments at both Idaho National Labs and future power projects at locations such as Pike County, Ohio. Fuel development for both our first powerhouse in Idaho as well as progressing potential fuel projects that could utilize HALEU, plutonium or recycled transuranic fuel pathways. Isotope projects for both Groves in Texas and potential projects in other locations and other uses to support the overall corporation. Oklo ended 2025 with cash and marketable securities of $1.4 billion. During the first month of 2026, we also raised an additional $1.182 billion net of fees, completing our $1.5 billion ATM program. This financing provides Oklo with a strong balance sheet, leaving the company well positioned to benefit from ongoing policy and regulatory tailwinds and to execute on our business plans in 2026 and beyond. Operator, we are now ready for questions.
分析師問答
And your first question comes from Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs.
I appreciate all the updates here. Lots going on. Maybe just first one, you mentioned a lot of progress toward commercialization. I know there's a lot of focus around kind of the pipeline and customer status. Jake, can you maybe speak to where that sits today? Any new additions or conversion into binding agreements and any incremental visibility into more of that happening in 2026?
Brian, it's Craig. I'm not exactly sure why, but Jake just dropped off our line. I don't think it was because of the question. But I would say that clearly, Meta was an important anchor point towards that commercialization progress, as you mentioned. And kind of based on that, we continue to have conversations not only with Meta, but with other potential customers, both those we've announced and other ones that we're continuing to progress. But really, it is important that we think that Meta being an important anchor customer for us and the fact that we can do more not only in the Ohio location, but also with some of our kind of behind-the-meter on-campus customers. And not only in the data center space, but there's a lot of work going on with U.S. military, predominantly in Alaska, but not limited to there as well as other industrial customers. And it does look like Jake's jumped back on. Jake, I went ahead and answered the question since I think you got disconnected.
Yes, that's perfect. I think there is a strong pipeline that continues to grow in various areas. One important factor is that having Meta as a lead customer encourages others to follow, as finding that first customer can often be the biggest challenge. This creates a powerful dynamic. In addition, the strategy we've developed around the opportunities in Ohio is expected to continue to grow and scale with us.
Okay. Yes. Fair enough. And then just a second question on the CapEx guidance here. The $350 million to $450 million in 2026, it's a pretty meaningful pickup. Again, lots going on, and it seems like some areas are accelerating. Can you maybe just provide a breakdown of where that CapEx is being allocated? You mentioned a couple of different locations. And then how should we think about the cadence into 2027 and future years off of this level? And then maybe just curious how much of the CapEx is being allocated to the Meta Pike County site in Ohio?
Yes. So Brian, I'm not going to provide kind of a business unit by business unit or project-by-project breakdown at this point. And part of that is we're still doing a lot of work kind of refining cost estimates for certain projects as well as kind of progressing procurement activities across those projects. And it kind of feels like with where we are commercially, it would be good to kind of let those progress before throwing project bogeys out there as we're progressing procurement strategies. But that being said, it's progressing things across all three business units. But clearly, the Idaho project is an important piece of that spend, just given the criticality of getting that first power project up and off the ground. But we are also starting some preliminary work in places like Ohio for the Meta powerhouses. And there's also quite a bit of work that's underway in recycling for potential projects in Tennessee, as well as some scoping CapEx for some of those fuel projects that Jake mentioned across HALEU, plutonium, and transuranic fuels. In terms of '26 to '27, I think given the project pace of delivery, I do think that we'll continue to see CapEx that will be at those levels. But it's really just a reflection of multiple projects going on in multiple dimensions across all three business units.
Yes. I believe it's important to highlight our positioning and, importantly, our capability to move quickly and scale into the opportunities available. Setting the direction and preparing ourselves for long-term success by adapting to these situations is crucial, and I’m pleased that we are in a position to do so.
Just a question on the regulatory strategy here, right? Can you give us a status update on the COLA timing and the PDC topical report review? Like how do you sequence the DOE authorization at INL with future NRC licensing for subsequent sites? And on the same topic, did the government shutdown at the end of last year and some of the staffing constraints that we heard of at the DOE and NRC move any internal licensing timelines or anything? And does this change the schedule at all in terms of deployment or filings or anything? That's the first question.
Yes, I appreciate the questions. There are several important regulatory aspects to consider. There is sometimes confusion about how DOE authorization relates to NRC licensing. The key point is that DOE authorization enables us to build, allowing for faster learning through the process, which we've shared a lot about. The progress we've made on our ore plan is directly tied to having this path forward. This approach is rooted in policies established some time ago, including the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act passed in 2018, which allowed the use of DOE resources and capabilities for first-of-a-kind builds due to their broader regulatory experience. Executive orders have also clarified the DOE's priorities to leverage these capabilities, shattering previous regulatory paradigms and revealing past inefficiencies. This creates a solid pathway for us to build our first plant and we anticipate new initiatives from the NRC that will connect with the DOE's authorization, advancing regulatory pathways. We expect the NRC to soon outline its approach for transitioning a DOE authorized facility to an NRC licensed facility, which is a conversion process rather than a new licensing application. This presents a great opportunity as it involves safety reviews that reference prior experiences. Our collaboration with the NRC, involving their observation of our regulatory review with the DOE, is positive and encourages quicker progress. It's important to recognize that the executive order is driving significant regulatory revisions that may positively impact our approach, potentially reducing costs and timelines while enhancing regulatory confidence. We are currently awaiting updates from the NRC on this matter, which is expected to lead to constructive changes in our regulatory strategy. While we still aim for an NRC license, the specific processes may differ due to evolving NRC frameworks. We are preparing for pre-application that addresses critical licensing issues, setting the stage for our future applications. Though we anticipate a Part 52 combined license, we await further clarification on new options before adapting our strategy. Key takeaways include the experience gained from the Aurora plant under DOE authorization, our iterative learning process, and recent success in obtaining an NRC license for isotopes. Although we faced delays during last fall's shutdown, we now have the license and are progressing without major impediments. It's also worth noting that the current frameworks may evolve, and our work in isotopes, including reactor licensing, will follow a different path than the power plant version. The experience across varied NRC processes aids us in sharing best practices and ensuring efficiency in our applications. We're navigating a unique landscape with a broad range of projects, and I see positive developments ahead as we move forward.
You mentioned in the past that about 70% of the Aurora powerhouse components are being sourced from non-nuclear supply chains, which I think you brought Kiewit into the picture. Is there any update on what the 75-megawatt reactor CapEx should look like? And if not a complete update, maybe any early indication on the dollars per kilowatt there?
Yes, I believe this is an area that is continuously changing as we progress through the build cycle. We're assessing what can be completed more quickly and whether we can expedite timelines by investing more resources. Overall, speed is very important to us, and that's where our focus lies. Additionally, this gives us valuable insights into how we can develop a more optimized strategy for our Ohio plants, allowing us to scale them based on the experiences we've gained from the Idaho plant. In summary, we will have more information as we get deeper into the actual construction work beyond the initial preparations, and we'll provide relevant updates as we advance. On the procurement side, we've discovered ways to adjust schedules constructively to accelerate timelines. Having the Aurora plants in Ohio set to follow the Idaho project could potentially expedite some aspects here in Idaho and support sourcing for scaling in Ohio. We view this process as evolving, and as we strengthen our relationships, we are examining various strategies for managing costs. Some developments may require us to invest a little more upfront to achieve faster results, and we remain adaptable as the situation progresses. Ultimately, it’s important to note that almost every component, except for fuel, can be sourced outside the traditional nuclear supply chain. Recently, we’ve observed an inversion of this paradigm, with the industry starting to grow again for the first time in a while. This shift encourages more innovative approaches and moves away from outdated models that contribute to high costs and inefficiencies. We’re excited to engage more thoughtfully with our partners to eliminate some of the cost multipliers that have persisted in the nuclear industry. While I often emphasize this, modernizing our operations and aligning our supply chains to enhance efficiency is of immense value, and we are well-positioned to pursue these goals.
Somewhat of a follow-up to some of the comments there, Jake. For the agreement with Meta, they ended up choosing two sodium-cooled reactor developers following their nuclear RFP process. Can you rehash some of the benefits of your design and why Meta might have chosen it?
Yes. The current situation highlights the advantages of fast reactor technology that we share with TerraPower. This reflects the technical maturity of the technology, which is often underestimated, even by many nuclear specialists. As a society, we have constructed numerous plants and gained significant insights about what works well and what doesn’t. In the U.S., for instance, the experiences from EBR-II and FFTF demonstrated impressive operational characteristics, such as competitive operating capacity factors and low occupational dose rates, revealing the inherent advantages of this technology. It is the only technology that has successfully achieved these benchmarks. Furthermore, there's a promising project trajectory regarding the cost benefits of sodium as a relatively benign fluid that pairs well with standard steel, which helps streamline supply chains and reduce costs, avoiding the need for costly exotic alloys. Additionally, not being pressurized allows for operations at higher temperatures, enhancing passive heat rejection thanks to sodium’s excellent heat transfer properties. In summary, this culminates in significant cost benefits, along with strong operational history and high technology readiness, which are important factors.
And Ryan, maybe just a couple of adds there. I think as we continue to emphasize in calls like this, the importance of having multiple seal pathways, I think, was another important point of distinction and being able to have proof points against those pathways. And I think another important part on Meta was already having a ROFR in place and access to land in Ohio, I think, was another important advantage. And then we've leveraged that land access even more with what we could potentially do with Centrus.
I have two questions. I'll ask them together. First, maybe for you, Craig. Can you talk about the timing of Aurora-INL? It appears the timeline shifted slightly to the right with the change in language from late '27 to early '28. Now it says 2028. Am I reading that right? And what led to the shift in timing? Also, I see it's a 75-megawatt reactor. Can you talk about what the CapEx requirements for this reactor will be or when you will have a greater clarity into CapEx requirements? And then secondly, for you, Jake, I see you conducted a fast-spectrum plutonium criticality experiment. Can you share what that entails and your expectation of timing of plutonium allocations that we've been looking forward to?
Yes, in terms of the last bit of your question, I'll take that first that we're still doing a lot of work. And Jake kind of mentioned this dynamic of challenging the cost versus the timeline because trying to bring timelines forward could have a cost element to it, and we're really trying to balance both of those pieces. And I think we'll have more information to share around what the cost of that first asset looks like later this year as well as how we look to bring costs down on future deployments. And in terms of the timeline, I think I've been pretty consistent in the various investor meetings that I've been in that we're targeting a 2028 time line. We know it's an aggressive target, but we feel like the industry and our customers are pushing us towards being able to hit those timelines. And it's also, I think, important why we're doing things on projects like Groves where we can learn how to bring down capital costs and learn how to bring down project timelines as well.
I believe we've observed that as we integrate various elements, we have a clear path to reach significant construction milestones this year and begin some plant commissioning work. However, achieving full nuclear heat production at the plant will occur in 2028. At this stage, we're aligning our efforts to reflect this timeline. We're continuously exploring methods to expedite parts of the schedule, and there may be opportunities to assist with that. The key challenge lies in how efficiently we can execute the construction and progress through our learning and iterative processes. It's crucial to capture lessons learned effectively without rushing the design phase, which ultimately benefits our efforts in Ohio. This is significant because it means that subsequent plants will demonstrate substantial improvements. An important aspect of smaller reactors is that the costs and timelines for iterations are considerably lower, enabling us to foster learning and scaling across the board. Regarding the plutonium initiatives, we had the opportunity to collaborate with Los Alamos National Laboratory at the Nevada National Security Site. We worked with a small plutonium metal assembly, utilizing uranium as a reflector, with plutonium as the primary fuel. This setup allowed us to conduct criticality benchmarks and tests, alongside reactivity measurements, where we applied power to the system, observed temperature increases, and assessed the resulting thermal expansion effects that prompted natural shutdowns. While much of this data existed, our approach enhanced accuracy in specific ranges of interest and improved our validation models. We applied a modest amount of thermal power in a very small system, which made a significant difference, showcasing rapid dynamics and responses. In my previous experience with high-strain fast reactor systems, this system’s responsiveness was even more pronounced. The operation demonstrated how robust a small, tightly coupled fast reactor can be, highlighting its inherent feedback mechanisms and advantages. We expect further work in this area to enhance reactor performance and reduce uncertainties, ultimately leading to cost savings or increased revenues. Additionally, we anticipate progress with the plutonium awards. The Department of Energy is currently reviewing the applications submitted, and we're optimistic about our position. However, we will monitor the timelines closely in the upcoming quarter, recognizing that they depend on several evolving factors.
My first one is, will the deconversion discussions you've noted result in Centrus increasing its enrichment capabilities from its current small volumes? Or do you envision the deconversion capability is independent of any particular uranium enrichment supplier?
From the deconversion technology perspective that we have been developing, it's quite adaptable. It's based on a uranium hexafluoride input, and we aim to provide solutions that can help scale operations and manage costs more efficiently at the facility level. We initially explored this collaboration with Centrus due to our strategic position in Ohio, where we plan to build several plants near their operations. There are considerable advantages to having deconversion, fuel fabrication, and reactors all located in one area, creating a comprehensive campus that spans enrichment to deconversion to fabrication to reactors in a highly appealing market. This presents a significant opportunity for us. We believe that our technology integrates well with theirs, and we are excited about the potential to enhance their growth and expansion. Our technology is applicable to any uranium hexafluoride process, including traditional centrifuge enrichment methods. We also engage with other enrichment technologies that utilize uranium hexafluoride, which offer similar advantages. Additionally, for other technology developers focusing on metal-to-metal enrichment, deconversion isn't necessary, making it easier to directly transition to fabrication. This encapsulates our outlook on the industry landscape.
My second one is, I thought your point about pursuing different licensing pathways is interesting. Specific to fuel and fuel recycling, why did you choose the NRC licensing pathway for Tennessee? And how does this differ from the fuel facility licensing under DOE at INL?
Yes. We recognize that the Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory is set up well for our needs, particularly as we prepare to produce fuel for the Aurora plant. We considered the quickest method for this, and it still holds true that utilizing one of their existing buildings to establish the fabrication equipment is the best approach. We aim to expand this operation as swiftly as feasible. Being located at a DOE facility aligns well with our goals, especially considering the Reactor Pilot Program and the Fuel Line Production Pilot Program. Regarding recycling, our focus is on developing a fully commercial facility. We plan to pursue an NRC licensing approach. We’ve already begun discussions with the NRC regarding fuel fabrication since full commercial fuel production will eventually require NRC licensing. Establishing these operations under DOE authorization allows us to navigate permitting and regulatory oversight more efficiently. The transition to NRC oversight will also help guide the development of a fully licensed commercial fuel fabrication facility. We are advancing similarly with the recycling aspect, although we need to engage in more pre-application work due to the more complex licensing requirements in that area. This is why we've been working on it for several years and are excited to enter the rolling readiness review phase after completing key pre-application tasks. The progress we've made on NRC licensing for the recycling facility in Tennessee is significant and may not get the recognition it deserves. There's been considerable effort in preparing for a complete application submission. With the DOE lifecycle program in place, there might also be a viable pathway to pursue recycling through a DOE authorization for a pilot facility, which we will assess as needed. If it proves beneficial, we can apply our lessons learned while continuing to collaborate with the NRC for full commercial scale. Overall, the different DOE pathways enable us to innovate more rapidly and better position ourselves for NRC licensing at scale.
I just have one on the Atomic Alchemy Groves test reactor. There's roughly 3.5 months left for your target criticality on July 4. There is some amount of construction left and some procurement of auxiliary equipment left. How confident are you that you would meet that deadline?
This has been a significant driving force for the company, allowing us to design and build rapidly while also learning and adapting quickly. Considering the progress we’ve made, we are confident that we can meet or even exceed the deadline for achieving criticality. Fuel has been ordered, and most major components are also on order. We need to ensure we have enough buffer time to manage the logistics involved, including the timing of permits and the arrival and handling of fuel. It’s essential to coordinate all these elements so we can load fuel and have the necessary equipment available. We're also exploring ways to accelerate solutions that meet our needs now while keeping an eye on future scalability and replaceability for instruments and detection systems. This facility is designed for that flexibility, enabling us to work with available resources and adapt as necessary. The progress has been impressive, moving from a bare field to excavation and laying a foundation, then installing the vessel and preparing for the next steps. It’s exciting to see everything come together. Although there are challenges, we feel very positive about our position. I continuously look for ways to improve our pace and effectiveness. Additionally, other companies might reach criticality before our deadline, which highlights the variety of solutions available in the market. Our project includes significant civil works, distinguishing it from others that might rely on scaled-down approaches or pre-existing fuel from government facilities or inventories. One of the most rewarding aspects of this process, especially with Groves, is that we’re building from the ground up, not depending on previously manufactured fuel. While we have some components sourced from inventory, this project is fundamentally original. It’s an impactful story of our capabilities and our commitment to executing such a project swiftly, which is going to garner attention.
I have one question today. Craig mentioned that having land in Ohio helped secure the deal with Meta, and I believe that land was acquired with assistance from the state's economic development council. Could you explain why they viewed Aurora powerhouses as a valuable use for that land? Additionally, do you see similar opportunities in other states?
Yes, this is a great question. It ties back to the strategic vision that Caroline, the co-founder, and some of our team recognized regarding the opportunities to repurpose federal land that was being cleaned up for economic development. The site is home to one of the largest enrichment plants in the world, showcasing incredible industrial capabilities. When that plant was retired, and land was being repurposed, we saw an opportunity to develop infrastructure by adding power plants. Even before the emergence of ChatGPT and the increasing awareness of power needs, we identified potential for new power plants in that area, leading to a partnership with Centrus to supply fuel and develop the infrastructure needed. We worked on this vision, and many favorable dynamics aligned rapidly, making that position valuable for us. Through this experience, we discovered that there are similar opportunities at other sites if we approach them strategically. Everything we are doing to provide power to our customers reveals new opportunities for us to operate more efficiently and cost-effectively, whether through developing land ourselves or partnering with others. This approach differentiates us in a significant way, and we're excited about the possibilities it presents. Our business model necessitates that we tackle challenging aspects of deployment beyond just constructing reactors, creating substantial value in the process. We see other exciting opportunities as well, particularly in areas with a historical presence of nuclear energy and a need for economic growth due to job losses from decommissioning. By expanding our efforts there, we believe we can harness significant potential. There is recognition that building power and infrastructure not only supports direct needs but also spurs additional industries, as seen with the recent data center boom. I believe that is what they realized when collaborating with us; by establishing power plants, other related opportunities are likely to emerge. Thank you all for joining us today as we discuss the opportunities and updates we are pursuing. 2025 was an exciting year, finishing on a high note and starting this quarter strong, especially with milestones like the Meta announcement. As we continue to build and execute, we find ourselves in a strong position to learn through experience, something that hasn't been present in the nuclear ecosystem in significant ways since the 1960s. It’s an exciting time for the field, as we discover new ways to design, build, deploy, and scale throughout the ecosystem. Our unique positioning and business model allow us to explore various avenues for creating value, whether through developing our own solutions, acquiring or merging with other companies, or partnering with others for sourcing materials. This gives us valuable insights into execution. Our main focus is broad-scale nuclear execution, which involves building, licensing, operating, sourcing, and supplying in-house to realize our goals. We’re also thrilled with the progress on the isotope front, having obtained an NRC license, executed DOE authorization across several lines, and built a real reactor within impressive timelines. We’ve internalized important lessons, both from challenges and successes, and aim to apply them as we work towards activating that reactor by July 4, which would be a significant milestone for us. Thank you again to everyone who joined, and I look forward to our next quarterly update. Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today's conference call. Thank you all for joining, and you may now disconnect.