Unknown

I'm Shail Khan. I lead early-stage investments at Energy Impact Partners. Welcome to Catalyst. So I have long believed that a nuclear renaissance is coming in the U.S. at some point. And along the way over the years, I've looked at lots of advanced reactor companies, and many of them are genuinely exciting. But some time ago, we at EIP came to realize that there's a gap in this market that we think actually might be the bigger bottleneck than just a new reactor. A better reactor, even a significantly better one, doesn't itself create a project. And this is really a project challenge. Somebody still has to find a site that could actually host the project, get that site permitted with community support, sign a customer for decades of power offtake who is creditworthy, get through the interconnection queue and the NRC, assemble a series of vendors, an EPC, and an operator, figure out capital formation and risk sharing for potentially billions of dollars in various stages. It's challenging. It's also not unique to nuclear. In every other type of power generation, natural gas, wind, solar, storage, geothermal, you name it, that somebody exists. It's the developer. In nuclear, mostly, though, it doesn't. Utilities don't want the early-stage risk themselves. Hyperscalers just want the power. Reactor OEMs are often being forced into developing their own projects where, really, they should be focused on building their products. So our view ended up being that the magic in nuclear right now is not necessarily in the reactor itself. It's in the complicated process of project development and capital formation, the often unglamorous work of turning a reactor design into something that a pension fund can own. And that process, I think, is very poorly understood. So let's see if we could solve that. My guest today is David Faraday. He's the co-founder of Elemental Power. David and his family ran reactors in the Navy. And then he spent his civilian career in energy finance and now is entirely focused on bringing forth the nuclear renaissance in the U.S. Full disclosure, I am not unbiased here. We at EIP are investors in Elemental, and I'm on the board. You'll hopefully see why momentarily. Before we get started, though, we are going to wrap up 2026, as we have in some other years, with an Ask Me Anything episode. Thank you for all the questions you've sent in the past. Come to Catalyst at LatitudeMedia.com. That's Catalyst at LatitudeMedia.com. We'll answer as many of them as we can. And for now, David Faraday is coming up next. Catalyst is brought to you by Antenna Group, the communications and marketing partner behind the most influential companies in energy, climate, and infrastructure. For three decades, Antenna has helped ambitious companies stand out, build market and become category-defining brands. From breakthrough startups to global industry leaders, their team brings the expertise, relationships, and track record to accelerate your momentum. Learn more at AntennaGroup.com. The power plant for the modern grid isn't a building, it's a network. Energy Hub's DERMS platform connects batteries, EVs, thermostats, and commercial and industrial sites into virtual power plants that over 230 utilities dispatch as reliable grid capacity day in, day out. VPPs deploy in 60 to 100 days at 40 to 60 percent less cost than traditional infrastructure, and they perform like conventional generation from day one. Learn about the flexibility platform for the modern grid at EnergyHub.com. Demand flexibility is now an essential part of the data center speed to power playbook. But how do data centers actually curtail load? GridBeyond is the end-to-end solution for flexible energy management. GridBeyond's advanced DERMS and VPP platform is what data centers care about most. Maximizing reliability, intelligently meeting curtailment obligations, reducing costs, and managing all your distributed resources in one place. Ready to transform your distributed energy management? Get started at GridBeyond.com. David, welcome. Thanks, Shale. Excited to be here. It's great to finally be able to sit down and talk with you and share some of the things we're seeing in the space and look forward to this conversation. Yeah, sit down and talk with me in front of a mic as opposed to the 10 times a week that we talk away from the mic. I'm excited for this because I think people don't fully understand what it's actually going to take to go from nothing to fully operating new nuclear projects in the United States, which you and I agree will happen and should happen. So I want to walk through it in detail. Here's, I think, what we should cover. We should talk about the site and site selection. We should talk about customers who's buying the power. We should talk about the reactor selection. We should talk about capital formation. We should talk about construction and construction risk. And then I think we should talk about, like, how do you go from one project to a bunch of projects, which is really what we agree needs to happen. So that's my list. Let's do it in that order. So let's start with the site. If you're looking for a greenfield nuclear project in the U.S., like, give me the criteria list of what makes a good site, what makes a bad site. Yeah. You know, it's a good list of topics, Gail. When we think about sites, a lot of this is kind of interwoven. So it might bounce around a little bit. But the big picture, there's kind of two ways to go about it. You can kind of spec build and hope that folks come and take your power because you found, like, technically the perfect site. Or you can try to figure out where the customers might need the demand. And importantly for these first couple projects are willing to pay a bit more of a premium for technology. And so, you know, it's really important to have a technology that still has, you know, some learnings before you get to end of a kind. And so our approach has always been customer-centric. Where does the customer need the power? And so that's sort of the first overlay. And then you get into the technical factors. And we certainly have learned a lot over the years. You know, Ryan, Dan, and I first went out to try to go buy a retiring coal site that was, you know, on a river, had lots of issues with the distribution. But as we started doing diligence on the site, found that there were issues around buildable acreage, the flood plain, and then coal ash that was on the site that causes, you know, certain liabilities that you have to figure out and kind of solve. And then we went and we partnered with Oak Ridge National Laboratory to help kind of our screening process. And they've got a really great tool, ORSAGE. That has, you know, takes technical data, GIS databases that the labs have collected, and helps you screen through technical factors for a site. So what are the big things, big categories? We break it down into exclusion criteria, stuff that immediately kills a site, and we're not going to touch it. And that could be anything from seismic, or importantly, a community that doesn't want you to be building in their location. And then there's also avoidance criteria. Which, you know, take more of a, it requires more of a deep dive to assess the impact to the overall project costs and scope. And so that can be, you know, differences, you know, certain challenges around soil composition or bedrock, logistical attributes of the site, whether proximity to transmission and distribution. And then there are also, you know, customer centric screens that we apply as well. And so it's, it's a pretty, you know, initially, it was a pretty heavy lift for us to go find sites that were going to fit all those criteria. And, and, you know, we spent, you know, kind of months going through this process, and now have, you know, developed a tool internally that we're using that can help us take what was once a six month process with multiple subject matter experts and can almost do the screening live by drawing a circle on a map to say, hey, find the right sites for us for us. And so it's, it's a pretty heavy lift for us to go find sites that were going to fit all those criteria. and local officials. to get a sense of, of their, their read on, on whether the community would be a supportive, you know, as an example for our project in Ohio, this, this started, um, this engagement started well in advance of us actually making an announcement, um, at, at, at the local level, all the way up through this, uh, the state house, um, and, and to like collect feedback and, and engage, you know, potential, potential receptivity. Um, you know, this, this site in Ohio in particular, uh, had been cited for coal plants in the past. Uh, so we knew that the community and the community was supportive of that project. So we knew that there was, um, there was openness to it and, and a real desire to, um, you know, experience some of the uplift, uh, economic uplift from a project like this that represents hundreds of long-term jobs and something that could be, you know, transformational. Um, you know, on the interconnection side that, that, that's really important as well. And certainly in PJM, it's, it's a difficult market. Um, but, uh, you know, understanding that the right of way from the site to the, to the project location and the risk associated with that is, it is a key decision in, in ultimately deciding to move forward with, with site site control. Interconnection is one where like, I mean, community seems like every, anybody who, you know, you'd ask like, what are the key factors in determining whether a new nuclear project should go in site X, like they're going to list community interconnections. One that's interesting in that, you know, the complaints of other, other forms of power generation, solar and wind and natural gas and whatever, is like, oh, the interconnection queues are so long. I can't get connected in time. The, the blessing and the curse of new nuclear is it's going to take a little while to come online. And so a three year, five year interconnection time period is probably okay. Um, and so it's interesting that despite that fact, interconnection actually is a really key and, and surprisingly challenging component of development. And we've seen that with other nuclear projects, projects that have actually died on the interconnection vine. So why, why is it still tricky? It's, it's tricky. It requires, um, you know, technical knowledge of, of the, the particular point of interconnection. In our case, we worked with some outside advisors to, to do preliminary studies. So we had a pretty good sense of, you know, what sort of upgrades would be required for that particular site and our, our load, um, or sorry, our generation capacity. Um, you know, I, I think it's, it's, uh, it is, it is a difficult process. Um, and, and you, you have to stay on top of, of sort of the PJM interface and, and, and, uh, the modules that they have, where they give updates on, on your, your interconnection request and, and, uh, you know, any feedback that, that, that folks have from, from the RTO on, on, um, you know, supplemental information that, that you need. Um, you know, one, one thing that's, that's part of our philosophy is just, is, is, is trying to, to be as simple and straightforward with, with our projects. And, you know, what, what does that practically mean? Um, you know, trying to limit the, um, the, the complexity of what the project that we're put together there, there are folks who think that it makes sense to stack, um, multiple generating sources at the same kind of point of interconnection. And I, I think there are, there are reasons to do it. That can be pretty compelling, but, um, given the complexity of what we're trying to do with a new nuclear project, um, stacking that complexity is not something that we're, we're comfortable doing at, at this stage of the game, perhaps later once we get some more reps, uh, under our belt and not just us, but, but the regulators and, and everyone else, all the other stakeholders that are involved in this, uh, try to make things simple for them as simple as they can be for, for what is a very complex, uh, enlarged project. Yeah. Okay. So, so that's the site. I mean, as you pointed out, maybe we should have done these in reverse order. Um, but let's, let's talk about the customer, this is one of the key differences in what makes it possible to build new nuclear in the U S today versus where we were five years ago, right? The customer profile has changed. The customer willingness to lean in has changed. So give me your view on who the customer is for the first, you know, bunch of new nuclear we're going to see in the U S. Yeah. Yeah. So that's, it's a good question. And, um, you know, our, our view is for, for our model, when we look at, you know, analogous energy infrastructure, uh, such as, such as LNG, you had, um, you know, off takers who had high credit worthiness and were able to put, um, some, some skin in the game early on, in addition to providing, um, a solid offtake contract, which ultimately made those, um, you know, those projects financeable. And, and so, um, you know, we think that the customers, uh, that, that we're targeting are folks who have a higher willingness to pay. They, they, they need the power. They need it today, but, but they're also capable of looking ahead into the future to say, you know, if we don't start solving for the 2030s today, it, we're, we're going to continue to have this problem. Uh, what, what are the customers want? Um, an, an easy button to the, to the extent that, that, that you can, you can create it. They, um, most, most folks, uh, buying large quantities of power, just want to sign power purchase agreements and then hope their electrons come back three, uh, five, seven years later, obviously sooner is better and, and, would like to be able to step away and be able to trust a team to manage everything that comes with a nuclear project. And so that's what we're trying to build. And in terms of regions of demand or where new nuclear generation makes sense, there are parts of the country where Texas, for instance, doesn't have a capacity market. It has plentiful gas, wind, and solar resources. Generally, it's easier to build generation. So that's not been a core market focus for us. And I'd say west of the Mississippi, you have many of those same attributes. Whereas east of the Mississippi, it can be more difficult to build solar and wind, and that certain parts of the country don't have the pipeline capacity for natural gas in the way that you would hope if you're going to substantially build out more natural gas generation. So that's how we think about the world today. Our view is constantly evolving as we listen to the customers and other stakeholders and communities. But that drove us to our first project location in the northeast and midwest. Yeah. And just to put a finer point on it, categorically, you've got utilities as customers, or the grid, I guess. It could be wholesale. Yeah. And that's interesting. But in terms of the degree of need and willingness to pay, it's hyperscalers. Or I mean, I guess it's hyperscalers, frontier labs. It's the AI complex, right? It is. But critically, to get the project financed together, you're going to need a credit-worthy offtake for as long a duration as you possibly can. And that's 20 to 25 years is what you're going to need in order to get, you know, a. Yeah. You know, a debt from EDF, or the formerly the loan program office, or even, you know, hopefully private debt markets become open to these opportunities as well. And so having, you know, selling, you know, you might be long electrons and think that power prices are going up and want to capture some of that value. But to get a project through two final investment decision and under construction today, you're going to need a long duration offtake contract with a investment counterparty. This is jumping ahead, but it's of a kind in my mind of like the way that you guys have approached it. And I think a misconception that a lot of people have, which is, you know, you think of this like small upstart developer as you are trying to build this big infrastructure project. I think what you're doing is assembling a coalition of large credit-worthy partners, and experienced partners for various components of it. So offtake is one of them, credit-worthy offtake. Jumping ahead beyond where we're going to come back to how you construct the project and so on. But I mean, the other part of that that I think people often don't appreciate is the operator. Like at the end of the day, operating a nuclear project is its own skill set. And I think I've appreciated that you guys haven't claimed to be able to build that muscle on the first project necessarily. We're blessed. We're blessed in this country with many great operators. It's something the nuclear utilities do very well, including, you know, investors and energy impact partners, right? Like great, great operators of plants. There is a decision that we make as a developer, whether we want to take this business model to be an independent power producer. That's not where we sit today. We'd rather partner with utilities who have that muscle, that experience, have training programs set up. And I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. And have the, you know, the reputation with the regulator as well, to do well, to help us stand up those programs. And there are a couple of different things in operation that are worth noting. One, when it comes to financing the project, you know, to get that, to get that financing, you're going to have to be able to credibly claim a capacity factor above a certain mark because that, you know, defines your stream of cash flows. And so there are two components. There are two components to that. One is definitely the operator. And certain operators have a higher capacity factor in their fleets than others. And then the other piece is, you know, that the the technology as well. And, you know, not to jump ahead here. Yeah, good segue. That's the next thing to talk about. Let me ask you about it, actually. I mean, I think we're going to get to the same place anyway. But okay, so on the technology, right? So this is where I live in VC world, as you know, and this is where the vast majority of the eyeballs have been in VC world is like, what reactor vendor and what reactor technology is going to win? And there's this whole landscape. There are incumbents, there are the Westinghouses of the world with the AP1000 and so on there. And then on the other end of the spectrum, there's a series A startup building a new SMR or a micro reactor or whatever. How do you think about your job is not to develop that technology. Your job is to pick who you're buying from. So to jump to an initial conclusion, you guys have already announced on that first project that we've been referencing in Ohio, that's going to be a GE Hitachi BWRX300, which you can explain more about what that is. So that's a selection that you've made, but walk me through the selection criteria. The founders, all of us operated light water reactors. It's my submarine up there, USS Memphis, pressurized water reactor, hum like a top. But our view is that a nuclear doesn't have a technology problem as much as it has a business model, capital for money. And so we're going to be talking about that. And I think we're going to talk a little bit more about that in a little bit. But I think we're going to talk a little bit more about that in a little bit. But I think we're going to talk a little bit more about risk allocation problem. That being said, there's a lot of really exciting stuff happening with the Gen 4 technologies, and we remain very open to developments there. But we don't view our role is not to de-risk the technology. That's kind of outside what our investors expect from us and where our capabilities set. So we have a screening criteria that we use to assess design maturity and then technical risks associated with that. And we're going to talk a little bit more about that with reactor vendors at different stages. Site selection also drives technology selection as well. There are advantages and disadvantages to the large reactors. You're probably going to get to an overall lower LCOE with the AP1000s than the SMRs. But it's also, there aren't as many places where you can put the large reactors and still meet the standards. So we're going to talk a little bit more about the technical criteria and screen. And most of those sites are going to be at existing new nuclear locations. With the SMR, with our selection of BWX300, it's a 10th generation of a technology that works extremely well. A boiling water reactor versus a pressurized water reactor has fewer components. The X stands for 10th generation. It's passively safe. And, you know, they've removed GE, Vernova, Hitachi has removed a lot of incremental systems in previous iterations of this technology. And, you know, it's under construction right now up in Darlington with OPG and the team with ACON and Kiewit is doing a great job with a first-of-kind project there. So that helps us a lot. Makes it easy for us, much easier for us to step in and select that technology. You also have to look at the supply chain behind the OEM as well. And where's the fuel going to come from? And, you know, today, Shale, we could go down to Wilmington and touch the fuel rods that are being fabricated. Well, I don't know if we could touch them, but we could see them. Probably not the best idea. Well, if we got certified, we could touch it. And so you know where the fuel's coming from. You know what the enrichment requirement is. And that part of the supply chain is there. There still needs to be additional investment for new builds. Same thing with AP1000. You go to Columbia and touch the fuel fabrication facilities there. So that, for the other advanced reactor vendors, that's a, that's, in addition to designing and licensing a reactor, which costs about a billion dollars, you have to potentially stand up significant portions of the supply chain in order to meet demand. And that's, that's just, it's an incremental risk to, to a project that, you know, we, again, we don't view it as our job to, to, to sort of retire that right now. If you work in energy or climate, you already know the company's antenna group has helped build. For three decades, they've been the communications and marketing partner behind the industry's breakout companies, category creators, and market leaders. Today, their team is working across the most consequential areas of the energy economy, from data centers and grid modernization to nuclear, geothermal, storage, critical materials, and next generation technologies. Antenna helps ambitious companies become the names everyone in the market knows, trusts, and wants to work with. They build reputation, elevate executives, drive demand, and turn momentum into market leadership. If your company is ready to lead its market, Antenna is ready to help you get there. Visit antennagroup.com. When you harness the power of millions of DERs in a VPP and put artificial intelligence behind the dispatch, you can do a lot of things. You can do a lot of things. The outcomes exceed conventional generation. Energy Hub's DERMS platform has been trained on years of real dispatch data from over 2.6 million DERs, so utilities can plan with confidence. That means consistent load reduction across a four-hour event window, even during the widest, most uncertain peak periods. Utilities target, shape, and verify capacity down to the meter. Unlock flexible capacity that costs 40-60% less to deploy than traditional infrastructure in a fraction of the time. It takes you to break ground on a peaker plant. Learn more at energyhub.com. For data centers, connecting to the grid quickly means two things, building distributed energy and having a plan for demand flexibility. GridBeyond helps with both. GridBeyond's DERMS and VPP platform unlocks the potential of distributed assets and dispatches flexibility into the right market at the right time. And this is more than software. GridBeyond supports developers every step of the way, from modeling your highest ROI energy mix to orchestrating the full set of assets around a data center. The track record speaks for itself. GridBeyond manages over 1,400 sites and more than 3.7 gigawatts of load across Europe, the UK, and the US. Learn more at gridbeyond.com or click the link in the show notes. It's a good segue to the next topic, actually, which is like, but the way that I understand you guys to be thinking about it is many of the decisions that you are making are going to be framed around, how do we make this an actually financeable project? How can we raise private institutional capital for this project? And what are the decisions we need to make that will make that true? And reactive vendor selection, for all the reasons that you've just described, is like a core component of that. It's not the entirety of it, but it's a big part of it. No, it absolutely is. And it's, you know, financeable to institutional capital, but then also there are the insurers that have to come in as well. And for some of the Gen 4 folks, there's work that needs to be done to educate the insurance community on what sort of products and what sort of pricing is necessary. And you got to get the insurance to get the debt. And in order to get the equity, you need to have the debt piece as well. And so there's, you know, a lot of interplay between this and a lot of education that has to take place. Whereas, again, a PWR, a pressurized water reactor, a boiling water reactor, these are known quantities in the insurance markets and the vendors are- Okay. So then, so let's talk about capital formation then. This is, you know, if you're asking somebody on the street or maybe not quite somebody on the street, but, you know, somebody off the street who knows a little bit about the sector, about like, what are the reasons it's hard to build new nuclear? I think community acceptance would have been one. Permitting would have been another, which I think that one looks better than it has in a long time. The third is going to be capital formation. And figuring out risk allocation and capital formation. So walk me through your thinking there. There has been a ton of money that's come from the venture community to fund new reactor technologies. And I think across the board in any climate tech, there's a lot, there tends to be lots of funding available for sort of the widget, whether it's in hydrogen or batteries. But at the project level, you know, you're dealing with a situation where, you know, the investor at the project doesn't, doesn't have the opportunity for a hundred X payout like, like venture investors do. And so that means there's a much more conservative approach to capital allocation, particularly early on in a project when, you know, the risk, the risk is, is the greatest. And so, you know, we, we, we think about capital allocation as, as tying it to, to milestones that retire risk at the project and are, are bringing in, are bringing in capital that, that's comfortable with, with the risk profile at these early stages and then trying to prepare the project for the next tranche of capital that, that, that'll be cheaper to retire, you know, bigger milestones as we move forward. And, and, you know, what, what the investment community wants to see is, is alignment, alignment with the off taker, alignment at this stage with, you know, the, the other key stakeholders in the supply chain, the OEM and the EPCs, the developers. And, you know, potentially, you know, utilities as well. It's a tough, you know, the cost of capital for development is something akin to venture, you know, 25, 30% IRR returns, three to five XMOX to bring a project from inception to final investment decision. And then you experience a step up in the value of the asset. If you're able to reach final investment decision, get the project debt, the project equity, you know, the tax equity lined up, then you can, you know, rather than, you know, this high 25 plus percent IRR, you're looking at, you know, unlevered returns for the equity around 11%, maybe 20% levered returns to fund the construction equity. And then once you get to commercial operation, you have for, again, light water reactor technology, you're looking at a cost of capital of around 10%. I mean, you could look at constellations weighted average cost of capital. And, you know, they could be a natural owner for an asset along with a bunch of other utilities. And so that, we almost work backwards, right? It's what will this asset be worth once it's operational with a 92% capacity factor? We have an idea what the overnight capital costs are going to be. And then we know what the offtake contract is going to be like. And so we know this asset will be worth a certain amount of money. How much, you know, how much return is the equity sponsor for construction going to require? And then that tells you what a developer could earn on a project if it brings something to financial investment decision. But, you know, you've seen our recent press release with DSIP, a. A Korean financial institution with deep relationships with Korean strategics, along with the Samsung C&T that represents key members of the nuclear supply chain. Our friends in Korea have done a great job. Sorry, can you describe what that announcement, obviously I know, but describe what that announcement was? Yeah, yeah. So, yeah, absolutely. So that's a. Announcing a preliminary agreement, a term sheet for a development capital facility that's going to fund. A portfolio of projects. And it's providing the investors preferred returns. We're hoping to announce other participants in this facility over the next, you know, one to two quarters. And that facility will go fund the bulk of the development activities for three grid scale projects. So it's like solving for that first, as you said, there's stage, there's kind of stage gates. And this first one, the DevEx pre-FID. Has been one of the, they're all big challenges, but it's been one of the biggest challenges historically. So this is sort of a, yeah, it's a, it's a unique facility that sort of puts all the puzzle pieces together to get through that first stage gate. You know, it's, yeah, it's a first, first to kind facility, pretty exciting to put together. And I think some of the, some of the interesting attributes and why it should appeal to investors. Again, there's, there's going to be the, the, a series of, of requirements for. For a project to qualify for this facility. And that, that's going to be, you know, the things investors want to see a financial investment decision. So the offtake piece, you know, a, a, an operator and, and then technology that, that, that, you know, technologies that, that work for the investors. But, you know, importantly here, it'll provide portfolio level exposure during development. So, so that the dollars coming in, these investors will get, you know, their dollars back. Based on portfolio performance. And so if there are projects that, you know, you spend money on and then something happens where we have to hit pause or, or, you know, remove a pro, you know, kill a project, they'll still have an opportunity to earn a return on, on subsequent projects in the pipeline. And so that, that, that's, you know, sometimes to solve a big problem, you just have to make it bigger. And, and, and, and this is our, this is our solution to that. And, you know, that unlocks for us. You know, a couple of different levers with customers saying, Hey, we, we have, you know, a credible pipeline of projects. We have funding here for, for this for the supply chain. Importantly, it's, you know, multiple at bats to participate in some of the first, first of kind or earlier, earlier projects, and then be able to move across a portfolio. We think that's, that's really important for the operators. It's, you know, an opportunity to, to, to. Um, operate a fleet of reactors, which is more appealing than, um, you know, just, just one pro one of a kind projects. And then, you know, from a financing perspective, um, once you get to, to financial investment decision, um, you get, you get an opportunity to kind of standardize that, that process as, as well. And, and so, um, we're very excited about it. I think the, um, lots of, of, of, uh, excitement in bounds, uh, on, on the market. And, and we're hoping to be able to share more, uh, in the, in the near term as we move forward. Okay. So let's say you've secured the site, you've signed up the offtake, you've picked the reactor, you've, uh, you've picked the EPC, you've raised the capital, you've got the money, now you've got to build the thing. Um, what are the, what, what do you think are the key lessons that we should learn about how to build new nuclear from, you know, Vogel? From VC Summer and other recent examples and, and also abroad as well. Like, what are the ways to do this right and to make sure that the cost overruns that we've seen on some projects historically don't repeat? Yeah. Yeah. No, great, great question. And very, uh, top of mind for us in, in key to the, the, the, the kind of business model here. Um, first complete the design. You know, I think if Vogel taught us anything, it was don't, don't go out into the field and break ground and start pouring concrete until you, you've completed the design. And so we're here as. Um, you know, the owner of the project to enforce that sort of discipline and rigor, um, between the delivery team, the, the, the OEM and, and, and the EPC, um, and importantly getting the constructor involved very early on in the project, um, to, to help with constructability reviews, to think about the manning requirements, um, to start training the workforce. So you're ready to execute when you hit financial investment decision, but also importantly getting the licensing experts involved during the design. And, and working with the constructor to make sure that the specifications in your license application aren't overly prescriptive. Uh, you, you had, you had, um, you know, incidents with Vogel where, uh, the rebar had a very specific spacing associated with it, which was, um, you know, infeasible to meet out on the field because of, uh, it was hot in the day and the rebar expanded and then contracted at night. And so things were always moving around within a, you know, technically an acceptable tolerance, but not acceptable. Uh, based on the license application and, and there were just really unfortunate decisions that were made as a result of that lack of coordination across licensing, the constructor and, and the OEM. And so that, that early engagement is key, um, getting to a class two cost estimate that requires a completed design. Um, and that, that, what that means is going out to your supply chain, um, to, to get quotes for key components, quotes that you can, you can underwrite to. Um, and that, that's really important as well. Now you got to spend money on it. Um, you know, you, you, you have to, you know, vendors, it's a, it's a pretty heavy lift to get a fabricator to come back and give you a quote and, and they, they need to be compensated for it. So that, that all has to be factored into your development budget. And sometimes it's, you know, folks aren't, haven't been incentivized to do that level of work before breaking ground on the project. And then you, you, you kind of, um, you suffer the consequences. Um, on, on the operator piece. Um, you know, training your operators for the plant starts very early on in the project. You can't wait till you break ground. You have to start, uh, setting up training facilities, recruiting there. There's a, uh, uh, uh, a body throughput kind of equation in terms of how many, how quickly you can train people to operate the plants. Um, and, and you have to, you have to start early and, you know, Baraka, uh, experienced some delays for the initial plants because they hadn't, um, uh, hadn't started the training. Um, and you have to start early and, you know, Baraka, uh, hadn't started the training process as early enough as they needed to. Uh, and, and so that, that's a key piece, um, and, and then there's the operators, but there's also training the workforce and, and so key to our strategy is working with our, uh, our EPC partner and, and the community, um, all the way up to the state level to ensure that we're, um, coordinating with trade schools and colleges to, to help bring folks into the industry, into the project, uh, early on. Um, and then, you know, longer term and ensuring that you're, you're pricing this all in to the, to the offtake and the financing is ensuring that you're, um, not just compensating technicians, um, uh, to, to show up to work on, on the first day, but to, to, to, you, you, you, you're capitalized well enough to recruit, train, and retain talent throughout the duration of the project. One of the other lessons learned from Vogel was, um, you know, they, they trained five to six technicians for every, um, uh, project. Uh, one out in the field and they, they just had a real attrition problem that, that caused a lot of, a lot of issues and you lose the, um, You'll lose the skill set and spend more money. So ensuring that you have your labor. And another key component, and this is reflected in our project in Ohio, is working with the trade organizations as well. And they can be very helpful in getting the workforce stood up and prepared to go out in the field. And again, this is to go back to the portfolio and making the problem bigger. This becomes more attractive to partners when you can point to a pipeline of projects. And the opportunity to really make a career out of this, participating in what's coming in New Nuclear. Okay, good segue to the last question, which is basically, okay, you do all that. You build the thing. It works. Really, the dream here for everybody in this industry is not to build one of them. That's what we did with Vogel. The dream here is to build a whole bunch of them, not just because we need more power, but because we all agree that the way to drive down costs in the long term is going to be – I think people don't really think through the next level of detail on that, though. What does it mean to do it over and over again? Is it just the same reactor, you know, over and over again? And who captures those learnings? If it is, is there something else that needs to be standardized across the project? Should it just be one mega project? How do you think about this learning curve? Yeah, yeah. So, lots of different directions here. But, you know, when we think about, you know, the… Fleet orders, standardization is key. And, you know, again, we think it's important to bring the constructor to the table early to think about not just standardization of the nuclear island, which is approximately one-third of most projects, but also the balance of plants and further the balance of site and the extent to which we can make every project location similar. We'll be able to reap, you know, those benefits from a fleet order. You know, that can be a difficult thing to do if you're selling projects to individual utilities where the chief nuclear officer of one utility might have a very different view on certain valve types that he's had problems with before versus another. And so, this is where we're uniquely positioned as an integrator across multiple projects to enforce that standardization. Again, not just in the nuclear island, but across the balance of plant and the balance of site. You know, when we think about… Lessons learned. There's lessons learned across the fleet, but the most benefit is going to occur at the project location. If you're able to go from one to two to five, as we intend to do in Ohio, you know, we have very reasonable expectations of pretty demonstrable kind of steps down the cost curve there as the local workforce and the local supply chain get familiar with the technology. We also think it's key to embed… Lessons learned. Folks early in projects who might transfer those skills to the next project. So, having folks who are willing to transfer from one job site to the other. So, sort of a long-term manning program as well. You know, the standardization for long-lead material procurement is also, you know, something that's very important. And you've seen the great work that the Department of Energy and EDF… Really, Kazaraki and the advanced nuclear supply chain loans. And that represents a model that we think is replicable once other technologies have a sufficiently large order of credible projects. That one is for the AP1000, just to be clear. That's for the AP1000, yeah. And it's a great model. And what that does is reduce the equity required during the development phase of a project quite substantially. And it makes everything easier to finance. So, I think a lot of kudos to the team and the thought that's gone into that. But again, you need a standardized technology. And you need to retire, I think, the technology risk as well in order to make that financeable. So, lenders will look at those assets as something that's fungible across projects. And so, there's, again, an incredible pipeline. Then you're unlocking another, you know, tranche of less expensive capital. And that's just really important to be successful here. All right. I think we've done it. I think we've gone soup to nuts on new nuclear in the U.S. Thank you so much. This was a lot of fun. All right. Thanks, Gilles. No, really appreciate the time. David Faraday is the co-founder of Elemental Power. This show is a production of Latitude Media. You can head over to latitudemedia.com for links to today's topics. This episode is produced by Max Savage-Levinson. Mixing and theme song by Sean Marquand. Anne Bailey edits the video version of the show. Stephen Lacey is our executive editor. All of our episodes are on YouTube. Subscribe to Latitude Media for episodes of this show and Open Circuit. You can find the audio version of the show anywhere you get your podcasts. I'm Shail Khan, and this is Catalyst. Thank you.