Hi, everyone. I'm George Giannikas, one of Canaccord Genuity's Sustainability Analysts. Thank you to everyone for attending our 46th annual growth conference. We are very lucky to have with us today Deep Fission. From the company is Liz Muller, Co-Founder and CEO. I have to say, one of the most interesting approaches to nuclear that I've heard. No pressure, but with that, please go ahead, Liz.
All right. Thank you, George. I am going to keep my coffee with me because it is very cold in here. Deep Fission, we are an advanced nuclear company, but we are the only one who are building reactors in boreholes a mile underground. It is one of those ideas that might sound a little bit crazy the first time you hear about it, but the more you think about it and the more you learn about it, I think you are going to be convinced that this is the way that nuclear power is going to get built moving forward. There are so many advantages when you are building underground. Fundamentally, it comes down to the challenge of construction versus the challenge of drilling. When you are building above ground, it is not the nuclear core that is the complicated part or the difficult part of the reactor.
It is everything that is surrounding the core. I am talking about your emergency core cooling system or your heat transfer systems, your containment building. All of those things take years and significant cost in order to build. You have a pressurizer in order to create the right amount of pressure. That is another $1 billion right there.
If instead of building above ground, where you have that expense and years and years of construction, you take advantage of the natural properties of being in a borehole a mile underground, then first of all, you can cut the number of complexity significantly. You do not need to build a containment dome because you are surrounded by billions of tons of rock. In the vertical direction, you have a mile's worth of water that is above you in the borehole, which is going to be scrubbing anything that is in your borehole.
That water is also creating the pressure that you need, so you do not need a separate pressurizer. It is also your heat transfer system, so we can leverage what we know from geothermal in order to get the heat out of the borehole. It is also your emergency core cooling system.
Fundamentally, what Deep Fission has done is taken existing, available pressurized water reactor technology, but we are deploying it in a new model that is much faster and much, much less expensive. All right, so we are able to leverage the history of pressurized water reactors. The first pressurized water reactor went critical in the 1950s. You might have seen, if you have been following the nuclear industry, some announcements recently about criticality experiments, which are a big deal if you are developing a new type of reactor with a new type of reactor physics that has not been proven before.
But what Deep Fission is doing is different. We are taking existing, available pressurized water reactor technology, what not only was tested in the 1950s, but it is deployed at scale today. Here in the U.S., we have 64 operating pressurized water reactors that are making about 67 GW of electricity. We are taking that technology, but deploying it in a different environment. There is a technology validation period, but it is not a proving a new technology type of thing. We are able to leverage existing understanding in order to move very quickly.
We are targeting commercial deployment next year. We are participating in the United States Department of Energy Reactor Pilot Program, but we are doing so with a full commercial reactor. Not a test reactor, not a criticality experiment, but a full commercial reactor that we hope to have up and running next year. Here is us building.
Again, a couple of years ago, not a lot of nuclear companies had the ability to actually build things, but now we are. We are participating in the Department of Energy Reactor Pilot Program. We are building right now. What you see up here on the upper right is our reactor canister. This is the canister that the fuel will go into and gets lowered down into the borehole. You also see some drilling rigs in order to create the borehole and to lower the canister underground. We are combining pressurized water reactor technology, which I have mentioned, with other mature technologies. We know how to drill. There has been a lot of validation of drilling technology over the past 20 years. Deep Fission is able to take that same drilling technology, but use it for a new use, for pressurized water reactors.
We are also able to leverage knowledge from the geothermal. We know how to take heat from the bottom of the borehole, bring that heat to the surface, and use that to generate electricity. If you are looking at a Deep Fission site from above ground, it is going to look a lot like a geothermal facility because you are not going to see the reactors underground. Sometimes we describe it as nuclear-assisted geothermal. This is our reactor. It is actually that bottom part. The red part at the bottom is our reactor. The main thing to notice here, and anyone who has studied nuclear physics before, this is amazingly simple. Typically, if you see a picture of a nuclear reactor, there is a lot of different parts. There is the pressurizer, there is the water cooling systems, there is the heat transfer systems.
All of that, we are able to leverage the existing geology and the water that is above us in our reactor. This is a much simplified version of a pressurized water reactor. Happy to take more questions on this at the end. I think everyone here probably understands how much interest there is right now in power. We need to build. There is a huge opportunity. If you can build it, they will come, and that is very much true right now in the power industry. There are a lot of companies who are targeting the 2030s. What I think you see here in this chart is how much we need before 2030. What Deep Fission is doing, what we are excited about is how much of that we can capture in the next couple of years before we even get to 2030.
I think there's going to be a tremendous demand, and because we're using existing technology and existing fuel, we're going to be able to grab that market share much faster. All right. I've mentioned this already. We're not focused on a criticality test. We are going straight to the commercial reactor. We're able to do this because we're part of the Department of Energy Reactor Pilot Program, which gives us a leg up when it comes to regulatory and authorization. We did hit our first and very significant milestone that we announced just last week with our Nuclear Safety Design Agreement that has now been approved by the Department of Energy. This is huge. This is not all of the detail, that will come later, but this really sets the framework for how we showed our safety case to the Department of Energy. We're also commercially siting.
We have a site now in Kansas, Parsons, Kansas. It's at a big industrial park. It's an area that is zoned nuclear, it's zoned industrial. It's been that way for over 20 years. They've got 13,000 acres. They have security perimeter. They have roads. They even got a train that goes through. We're able to leverage all of that in order to build more quickly. The fuel is a very important one, too. Many advanced reactor companies are dependent on HALEU or TRISO, or even just different fuel forms for low-enriched uranium. Deep Fission has designed our reactor around the fuel that is commercially available today. The same fuel that would go into an above ground pressurized water reactor is the fuel that Deep Fission is using.
We can purchase it from Framatome, from Westinghouse, from others, and leverage that so that not only can we build a first reactor quickly, but we should be able to scale very quickly once we have the first one up and running. Construction and manufacturing. We're able to leverage existing supply chains. First of all, because we need much less, there's a lot of parts that we don't need for our reactor, so that's easy to manufacture it when you don't have anything you need to supply. But for the parts that we do need, there are dozens of suppliers in the United States that can manufacture to our specifications. We have a robust supply chain that allows us to deliver this much more quickly. You saw in the previous picture, we already have a prototype canister that's been delivered to our site.
Working with that same manufacturer for the next version of our reactor canister, it's going to take about six months to get that manufactured and delivered. We also have a very strong pipeline. Deep Fission is still a little bit under the radar in terms of many people haven't heard of us and aren't familiar with the technology. But we've got a massive pipeline, really one of the biggest pipelines there is, 18.5 GW of pipeline. These are from customers who have actual electricity needs. They understand the technology, and they're able to look at the market and make their own judgment call as to what is going to be able to come to the market quickest and be able to meet the demands that they have. We're looking at a six-month build time.
The build time is measured in weeks because our build time is drilling time. We know we are looking at about 60 days to drill our well. Again, we are looking at weeks, not the years that it would take to build this through construction above ground. This is really an illustration of the many things that we do not need in our reactors. I talked about simplicity and why we are able to do this so much faster. We do not need a reactor pressure vessel. Above ground reactors have reactor pressure vessels that have to withstand high pressure on the inside, one atmosphere of pressure on the outside. These reactor vessels typically cost about $1 billion and can only be manufactured in a handful of countries around the world. The wait times for getting them is very slow.
Deep Fission, in contrast, we are able to use a slim, thin, inexpensive reactor canister that can be manufactured to our specifications by dozens of manufacturers in the United States. I will also talk about our emergency core cooling system. I do not know how many people here are familiar with Vogtle, the newest reactor in the United States? Yes, good. What Vogtle did is they actually lifted up water above their reactor. There is a big platform above the facility that holds water there, so if there is ever a loss of power and the reactor requires cooling, that water will come down with the force of gravity and cool the reactor. It is remarkably well done, but at the same time, you can imagine how expensive it is to construct something that is going to hold a massive amount of water above your reactor in permanence.
What Deep Fission does instead is our reactor is at the bottom of a borehole, and we have a mile's worth of water above us in that borehole. If anything were to happen, we do not need to construct a new emergency core cooling system. That column of water is our emergency core cooling system. Instead of having to spend billions on constructing this, we get it essentially for free by virtue of the location of our reactor. Containment building, same thing. We do not need a containment building. We are surrounded by billions of tons of rock. Rather than having to build it, we just use what is there already. Nuclear construction and quality assurance is actually one that is not fully appreciated but is a really important one.
When you are manufacturing something above ground, there is a risk that if something goes wrong, it could get out into and impact humans or the environment. Everything that you do has to withstand the test of time. If something goes wrong, will that valve still be in good condition? Whereas when you are deep underground, we do not need nearly as many valves, much simpler reactor. There is not that much that can fail, and if it does fail, again, you have got a mile's worth of water above you, and it is going to be very difficult for anything to go up and reach humans or the environment. I have already mentioned the standard fuel. We are using a build, own, and operate model. In large part, this is because it is what the market wants, particularly for a first-of-a-kind reactor.
I think we've seen that it's hard for someone to build and commit to and pay for a reactor until it's been proven. So, we'll build and own and operate at least the first one. But then after the first one, this is where it starts getting really interesting. Because our build time is fast and because our costs are lower, there's going to be a good ROI for the projects that we're going to build going forward. This means that we want to build and own and operate, because that's how we're going to get that ROI. We are looking at payback times that are very short. I will just say under five years, but I'm sure George has a more detailed model if you want to talk to George about that at some point.
This is why build, own, operate really makes a lot of sense for Deep Fission. I haven't touched on security, but that is another thing that is increasingly recognized as critical right now. Energy infrastructure, energy security is national security right now. As we've seen attacks on nuclear facilities, both in the Ukraine and more recently in the UAE, people are starting to think, "Well, what would happen if there was a drone attack or a missile strike on my above ground energy infrastructure?" Having that reactor in a borehole a mile underground is very reassuring. There's nothing you're going to be able to do that's going to have nearly as much of an impact on humans and the environment as if you were above ground. I'm going to skip most of this.
We've got an amazing team, very experienced nuclear engineers who've been in the industry for 30+ years. Mark Paris, Mike Brasel, both amazing. My dad is my co-founder, a MacArthur genius, started two projects that he then handed off to his students who went on to win Nobel Prizes twice. We've got a great team. We feel really good about this. We've also got a fantastic technical team, and a great advisory board, including two Nobel laureates, former Secretary of Energy Steve Chu, as well as some amazing other people. IP, nobody else is thinking about this. There's not that many companies or people for that matter who can straddle both the nuclear industry and the oil and gas industry. We do. We have a three-year head start.
I expect we're going to have another year probably till everybody else realizes how foundational this is and tries to copy us by that time. It's going to be very hard to get into the business. I've touched on our commercialization. We are targeting our first commercial reactor end of next year, and large scale commercial deployment starting in 2028. We've got some great partners. We are building right now in Kansas at the Great Plains Industrial Park. This is a facility that has the infrastructure, as I mentioned, but we also have agreements with Blue Owl Capital and Endeavor. A lot of interest in what we're building. I've touched on our supply chain. Here's just a snapshot of some of the people we're working with, includes Halliburton Company, Day & Zimmermann, Urenco, RWB Industries and more.
We're working now on a number of aspects of the proof of concept. Drilling larger diameter boreholes is what we're focused on right now, but that will get us to where we need to be in 2027 for the first of a kind, and then 2028, when we can begin to deploy at scale. We are following the Department of Energy authorization in parallel with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. How am I doing on time, George?
Great. Yes.
We're good. Okay. Those two can work hand in hand. We have been talking about a fast path to commercialization from those companies that are participating in the Department of Energy Reactor Pilot Program in order to get then commercial license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Happy to answer questions if there are any questions about that process. Really in summary, we're doing something that's very different from the other advanced nuclear companies that are out here. We're very excited about our ability to build and to get our first reactor up and running next year. With that, you should, of course, read our forward-looking statements, and I think we have some time for questions.
Right there.
Yeah.
Actually, we had a question from the audience first. Please go ahead. Get you a mic in a second.
The six months build seems really fast. Do you think the regulations go that fast? What is the likelihood that the government actually approves things or doesn't for 2027, 2028? When you get down that space, do you have an expectation for a faster depreciation given the heat that is naturally a mile down low?
What was the second part of the question?
There is naturally a lot more geographic heat if you get a mile down.
Yeah.
Does that accelerate the machine-
Yeah. Okay.
depreciation on its own?
Let me start with that and then I'll go back to the pace. The heat that we're generating from our nuclear reactor is much, much greater than the heat that is naturally down there. I talked about assisted geothermal as sort of a model, but the heat that comes from the nuclear is not really comparable to the heat that you can get. There's also more geologic flexibility. For geothermal, you have to find particular locations where there's especially hot rock. Whereas because we're creating our own heat, we don't need that. There is some heat, and the heat will depend on the location where we are, but it's really dominated by the heat of the reactor itself. For the first part of the question, in terms of the timing, this is where we have seen the greatest change over the past year.
This is due to some of the executive orders that we've seen and the Reactor Pilot Program that came out through executive order in the Department of Energy. A number of companies have already gone through it and completed the build of their first reactors. Now they were doing criticality experiments, not commercial reactors, so we're doing something different here. But I think there is good precedent that we can and will get through this within a timeline that I think is about what we expect. Now, the commercial deployment timeline with NRC approval is different. We've also seen tremendous acceleration there also due to some executive orders. There's a new regulation, Part 57, which is in the works right now. It's already been published in draft form, and they are on target to have the final regulation come out by the end of this year, 2026.
We expect to be able to use that in early 2027. Now what they've said is 6-9 months. A different regulation, it's much more focused on safety than it is on prescription. Rather than having to tick the box of all the things that normally you would need to do for a standard above ground reactor, that may or may not apply to your advanced reactor, this is really based on, is there a strong safety case for your reactor? We feel really good about our ability to go through this. We may even be the first company to use Part 57. We do expect to be able to leverage the work that we're doing with the Department of Energy. In fact, we've been told that there's a fast path for companies that have already gone through approval with the Department of Energy.
The NRC isn't going to have to reevaluate things that have already been evaluated. We feel, I think, again, pretty good about our ability to get our first commercial reactor generating electricity next year. But of course, there is some uncertainty there. Yeah.
Great presentation. I just wanted to ask on the borehole, does the water get contaminated, and does it leach out of the borehole?
Yeah.
You just add more water on top, or just how does that work?
Yeah. Great question. When you drill the hole, you drill the hole, but then you case the hole. There is steel casing that goes all the way down, including the bottom, and then you cement it in place. You can actually test to see, is there any water loss? We can do this before you put in the casing, too. You fill the hole with water and say, "Does it stay there, or does it start to leach out?" Usually, it does not leach out, or maybe only at the shallow areas, but once you get deep, if anything, there is pressure in the rock, and there is the weight of the rock pressing down.
Fracking, if you frack, you have to put sand in the fractures in order to keep them open, because if you do not put the sand in there, they are just going to close down again.
The chance that anything is going to get out into the rock is really pretty low. Now, if it did, you would have to ask yourself, well, okay, and then who cares, right? The only thing we really care about would be losing the entire column of water, which I think is unlikely. Was there another part to your question that I missed?
No.
Okay.
One question about just the logistics associated with having all of your assets underground. What does the MRO, the maintenance, repairs, and operations look like? Given a meltdown, what happens to the existing infrastructure above ground? Is all of that useless now, or can you drill another hole?
Yeah. Great question. Let me start with that part. First of all, the most common type of accident scenario that you have to worry about when you're a pressurized water reactor is what they call a LOCA, loss of coolant accident. That's the reason that you've got the water above you, is because you don't want to lose that coolant. Again, in a borehole, there's no place for that water to go. So the chance that you would lose that liquid is what they call beyond design basis. We just don't think it's something that could plausibly happen in a scenario that is something that you would reasonably consider. Now, of course, there's always that exceptional scenario, and we have to think about that too. So in that scenario where somehow you lost all that water, we do have to calculate what the impact would be.
Again, you still got a mile's worth of distance between you and the surface. Again, the impact is not expected to be something that would be a problem.
Yes, I asked about maintenance.
Oh, maintenance, yes. Thank you, Jen. Maintenance is, we will replace our reactors rather than refueling our reactors. We've gotten the cost of our reactor canisters down to the point where, even for the first of a kind, it is completely dominated by the cost of the fuel itself. Rather than pulling the reactor back up to the surface, opening it, and replacing the fuel, we're just going to take that entire reactor and replace it. What do we do with the used reactor?
Well, we're going to put it in our spent fuel pool, just as you would for an above ground reactor, but our spent fuel pool is at the bottom of our reactor. There's going to be extra space in the borehole at the bottom. You lower that reactor deeper down, and it can be stored there for 10, 20, 50 years until the end of the lifetime of the borehole. In which case, then you can pull it up and ship it off to a waste disposal facility. Or potentially, you could fill up the borehole and just leave it at the bottom for safe disposal in the borehole itself. Yeah.
A couple logistics questions. You may have answered these already, but how wide or how big is the borehole versus a standard oil and gas borehole? How much power does each one generate, and how tightly can you space them?
What was the last part?
How tightly can you space them? Could you put multiple boreholes next to each other?
Let's think about 100 reactors and 100 acres. 100 reactors is about 1.5 GW, maybe a little bit less. Let's call it 70 reactors, a gigawatt in 100 acres. Sorry, I've already lost your other two questions.
Size of the borehole. We are starting with about 40 in in diameter because that is what we can drill right now. We are definitely pushing the limits of what we know how to drill well. There have been 60-in diameter boreholes that have been drilled in Nevada, and some of the deep sea wells are that big. But definitely in hard granite like we are drilling, that is why we have this proof of borehole demonstration project that we are working on now. We are starting with 40 in because that is what we are comfortable doing this year or next year. Beyond that, we want to move closer to 60 in. That is the difference between having four assemblies, four fuel assemblies in the borehole, and having nine. Nine will have much better fuel economies. We will be able to get more energy out of it.
We are looking at 15 MW electric starting in 2028. For 2027, we are just going to do 5 MW electric. That is also the number that we think is easiest to get the grid interconnection. If you are 5 or under, it is faster to get that, which is why we feel like we can begin having commercial generation in late 2027.
Go ahead, please.
Excuse me. Geothermal compared to you guys. Geothermal is just used to drill down and it is used as a coolant, right, for the energy. When you are doing geothermal, as you go to the hotter parts of the drill to the bottom.
Yeah.
Then it turns where the data centers as well.
Yeah.
How does that relate to that role?
Yeah. Geothermal, you take the heat from the bottom of a borehole, and you transfer that heat through, so hot water will rise to the surface, and then on the surface, you flash it to steam, and you use that to generate electricity. That is how geothermal works. Ours is the same. From the time that you take the hot water to bring it to the surface and generating electricity, it is very similar. What is different is how you generate the heat. That is the biggest difference. Geothermal, you get the heat from the rock, and typically you have to get a lot of it because, once you get that heat, you have to move on to a different location. Whereas for us, it is almost like renewable geothermal because you just keep heating with your little reactor at the bottom of the borehole, until you replace the reactor.
It is a different model, but there is a lot of similarities.
Do you work with geothermal companies that just sell your reactors to them?
Absolutely. Yes.
Sure.
Yeah.
Okay. Before we end, I have to ask the riddle question. For the audience, I spent this weekend doing riddles with my daughters, and we are asking a riddle to be answered by the audience, and whoever gets it right first gets a Hydro Flask, CG labeled, very high quality. I am trying to pick the right one here, not an easy one. Okay. What has 13 hearts but no other organs?
A deck of cards.
Correct.
Oh.
Winner. All right. Thank you everyone. Great place.
Thank you.