Greetings, and Welcome to the Terra Innovatum Global fourth quarter fiscal year 2025 Strategic Business update call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. If anyone should require operator assistance during the call, please press star zero on your telephone keypad. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to your host, Mr. Giordano Morichi, Founding Partner, Chief Business Development Officer, and Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir.
Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. My name is Giordano Morichi. I'm the Founding Partner and Chief Business Development Officer and Director of Investor Relations of Terra Innovatum. Today, we'll provide a business update on Terra Innovatum, including recent progress across the Solo microreactor program, regulatory engagement, commercialization activities, technology development milestones, including the Mersen graphite prototype, and key supply chain advancements. For today's call, please note that you can follow along using the accompanying presentation, which is available for full download in the Investors section of Terra Innovatum's website at terrainnovatum.com. Before we begin, I want to briefly address timing around our 10-K filing. As announced, we anticipate filing our 10-K in the near term as we finalize reporting under a new CFO leadership.
Importantly, this does not impact our operations, liquidity, or strategic process and progress, and today's call is focused on substantial business momentum we are seeing across the platform. Further, I want to also address something we're seeing on certain data platforms. It was brought to our attention that one of the SEC filings was misreported by a major market data provider, giving the appearance that one of our founders having sold a portion of their stake in the company. This is incorrect and the data has been corrected. To be clear, this management team has not sold any of their shares. Moving on, today we're very thrilled to provide an update on Terra Innovatum, including progress across the SOLO Micro-Modular Reactor program, regulatory advancement, supply chain execution, commercialization activity, and key technology milestones.
I'm joined today on the call by Alessandro Petruzzi, Co-founder and CEO, and Kathy Williams, our Chief Financial Officer. Please turn to slide two to review cautionary statements. As you're likely aware, during the formal presentation, as well as Q&A sessions, management may make some forward-looking statements about our current plans, beliefs, and expectations. These statements apply to future events that are subject to risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from what is stated here today. These risks, uncertainties, and other factors are provided in the earnings release, as well as other documents filed by the company with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These documents can be also found on our website at sec.gov. Now, if you please turn to slide three. I'll turn the call over to Alessandro to begin. Alessandro.
Thank you, Giordano, and thank you to everyone for joining us today. We would like to provide a glossary of the key terms and acronyms being used through the presentation, including SOLO, FOAK, NOAK, LCOE, and various reactor types. I won't go through each of them. This is a useful reference as we discuss our technology, regulatory path, and commercialization plan. When we started Terra Innovatum, we were not trying to improve traditional nuclear. There was a different problem we went out to solve. Power is becoming a constraint across the industry, and not just by first graders. There is a material and growing demand among industrial users for reliable, always-on energy that they can operate and grow. Existing solutions don't fully address that need. Large-scale nuclear is complex and slow to deploy, while intermittent renewable doesn't provide continuous output. We built something that does.
Terra Innovatum is creating a new category, distributed modular microreactor designed to deliver reliable energy directly where it's needed. This allows us to serve immediate demand today while maintaining a clear path to larger scale deployment over time. Coming to slide six. 2025 was a year of substantial progress for Terra Innovatum across all of the core areas that matter most to our success.
One moment, please. We're having some technical difficulties. One moment. Please continue, Mr. Petruzzi.
Yeah. Apologies for this disconnection. I will start again with slide number six. I was saying that 2025 was a year of substantial progress for Terra across all of the core areas that matter most to our success and the advancement of our project, regulatory execution, supply chain readiness, and commercial market development. Starting with the regulatory and licensing, we moved from planning into structured execution. We advanced our engagement with the U.S. NRC, achieved a set docketing of topical papers and white papers for review, and build the foundation for the next major milestones ahead. That include approval of principal design criteria, construction, patent application submission, and ultimately, the operating license pathway. Just as importantly, we made significant progress on the industrial side of the business. We secured the end-to-end supply chain required for SOLO.
From 130 initially identified suppliers, we downselected 30 for contract agreement and initiated procurement activities that support both first deployment and yearly follow-on unit. We also began pre-industrial manufacturing activities with ATB Riva Calzoni and successfully produced the graphite prototype for SOLO together with Mersen, which we view as an important validation of both the design and the manufacturability of key reactor components. On the commercial side, we continue to demonstrate that market demand is really growing. We ended the year with approximately $4 billion in pre-commercial commitments while expanding the positioning of SOLO as a flexible platform that can serve a broader range of industrial, infrastructure, and data center application across geographies. When we look back at 2025, we see a year where Terra Innovatum materially reduced the execution risk across the business.
We have advanced the regulatory path, secured the supply chain, and deepened the commercial traction, all of which move us closer to deployment and commercialization. Moving to slide seven. Here we would like to highlight the regulatory framework and outline the many U.S. NRC updates we have completed so far. Our licensing process formally began in January 2025 with the submission of our regulatory engagement plan to the NRC. Since then, we have completed multiple docket submissions, including principal design criteria, our quality assurance plan, safeguards and material control and accounting methodology, and nuclear design topical reports, along with several white papers addressing key elements of the SOLO safety case. We maintain continuous high-frequency engagement with NRC staff through workshops and technical meetings.
Even today, we are going to have a meeting with the NRC, and the pre-application phase is now nearing completion as we transition to PSAR and construction permit application readiness. It is important to note that all our submissions and meetings with the U.S. NRC are public, and our progress, as well as our peers can be tracked. We encourage our investors to read these reports and follow along on our path to deployment. The next slide eight, highlights the regulatory tailwinds. Regulatory nuclear has historically been viewed as a constraint. What we are seeing now is a different approach. The development of Part 57 represents a structural shift in how microreactors will be licensed in the United States. For the first time, the framework is being designed specifically around systems like SOLO, factory-built, modular, and deployable at scale.
In our view, this is a clear signal that regulators expect microreactors to play a meaningful role in the near energy future and are actively building the framework to support high volume deployment. SOLO is not adapting to this framework. It was designed and built for it. Moving to slide nine, I would like now to focus on the supply chain. This is a major execution milestone for Terra Innovatum. We have secured the end-to-end supply chain required to manufacture and deploy SOLO. That included the critical nuclear-grade components such as fuel, the pressure vessel, control system, and core structure, as well as all non-nuclear components, balance-of-plant system, including the turbine, heat exchange system, and support infrastructure. Importantly, these are not conceptual relationships. We have built a real, fully integrated network of qualified suppliers that can support the rigorous engineering and manufacturing standards this platform demands.
This matters because supply chain is where many advanced reactor programs run into delays. Long lead components and procurement uncertainty can slow deployment even when the technology itself is ready. We have worked to address that risk early. By securing these inputs now, we have improved our readiness for fabrication, reducing potential procurement bottlenecks, and strengthened our ability to move as the regulatory milestones are achieved. That fits directly with our broader execution model, where licensing, manufacturing, and supply chain development are all advancing in parallel. The takeaway is now simple. Today, we are not just designing SOLO. We moved it far beyond the early stage of what this product can be. Today, we are preparing to build and position SOLO for deployment to demonstrate what this solution can do. In this industry, supply chain is where timelines break, and we have addressed that risk early.
Now we are able to build thanks to our world-class supply chain partners, as it is outlined in slide 10. We have established strategic alignment with leading partners across fuel components, manufacturing, and deployment, including Conval, Mersen, Ameresco, and a Fortune 100 energy company, among others. These partners provide nuclear-grade systems, fuel, instrumentation and control, and deployment capabilities that are critical to SOLO's execution and scale-out. Moving to slide 11, we may now turn to an exciting operational update. We are pleased to announce an important manufacturing milestone achieved recently together with Mersen. We have successfully produced a graphite reactor core engineering prototype for SOLO, which marks another step forward in our readiness for first deployment. This is significant because it reflects more than just progress on a component.
It shows that we are continuing to translate supply chain preparation in actual manufacturing execution, and that is exactly the kind of progress we want investors to see as we move towards the FOAK deployment. As you know, graphite is a critical material within the SOLO reactor core, and this component is designed to have key system and core elements that influence thermal performance, integration, and overall system reliability. Achieving this prototype and the required tolerance is an important technical validation of both the design and the manufacturability of the reactor. Just as importantly, this work helps establish the procedure, the quality control, and the production standards that are required for repeatable manufacturing. In other words, this is not only about proving we can make the part once, but actually helping build the industrial foundation required to scale from FOAK into serialized NOAK production.
These milestones also build on our previously announced agreement with Mersen for nuclear grade graphite and other critical materials. It reinforces that our supply chain strategy is not theoretical. It is producing tangible outcomes and supporting our target path to FOAK in 2027 and broader commercialization beginning 2028. Overall, we view this as a meaningful proof point for Terra Innovatum. It demonstrates progress at the intersection of engineering, materials, and manufacturing. We support our broader objective of moving SOLO from a completed design into an executable, repeatable deployment platform. Turning to slide 12. What's critical to understand about SOLO is that this is not a future concept. Our solution was specifically designed for an observed need to meet current industrial energy demand.
We are actively engaging with customers today across a wide range of industry that need a reliable carbon-free power in the 1 MW-200 MW range that we think of as a retail nuclear market. This is a massive, underserved segment made up of thousands of industrial users around the globe who cannot access traditional nuclear but still require baseload dependable energy. SOLO was designed to serve that market with a standardized sellable product where bespoke, decade-long infrastructure projects that cost many billions of dollars just are not suitable. Most importantly is that this is the same platform scale from single unit deployment to multi-unit configuration, capable of supporting larger loads like data centers and industrial campuses. We are addressing immediate demand today while also positioning the platform to meet the much larger energy needs of tomorrow.
Now let me introduce with slide 13 a fundamental evolution in how SOLO is deployed. Historically, one SOLO reactor meant roughly 1 MWe output. What we have now unlocked is a configuration where multiple reactors are paired with a centralized power conversion unit, allowing us to generate 20 MW from just 16 cores. That shift matters a lot b y decoupling the reactor from the turbine, optimizing it at the system level, we materially improve efficiency, reduce footprint, and lower overall plant complexity and cost. Importantly, this is not theoretical. We are developing this configuration alongside a major global turbine partner, validating both the performance and the path to the deployment. SOLO Nodes form a modular product into a scalable application optimized power system.
From an investor perspective, this is meaningful because we are providing an innovation now that directly lowers cost per megawatt, reduce physical footprint, and expand the range of commercially viable deployment. In other words, it improved both unit economy and total addressable market at the same time. The second innovation is how SOLO actually operates once it's deployed. What you are seeing in slide 14 is our ability to cover the full demand spectrum, from steady baseloads through seasonal variation and short duration peak spike, all within a single system. We do that by combining constant nuclear output with a small amount of integrated capacitor storage, allowing us to respond dynamically without adding incremental reactor capacity. That's a meaningful advantage. Traditional systems require significant overbuild or large-scale battery infrastructure to handle variability. We are achieving the same outcome with a far simpler and more capital-efficient approach.
The result is a system that can operate autonomously, adapt to real-world demand, and deliver consistent power with minimal added complexity. For investors, that means we can deliver grid quality, dispatchable power without the cost and scale of traditional storage solutions. That drives a structurally lower cost curve and positions SOLO as a true replacement for both baseload and flexible generation. Turning to slide 16. Our strategy has been closed systems from day one. Build a system that is simpler, faster to deploy, and scalable by design. At the center of that strategy is a fundamentally different approach to conventional construction and deployment. Rather than building a nuclear product from scratch at each customer site, we are producing SOLO as a standardized factory build system. Units are assembled in one location under controlled conditions and then delivered to the customer site for installation and commission. That matters for several reasons.
First, it supports a much faster path to market by reducing on-site build complexity, compressing deployment timeline, and enabling a more repeatable installation process. Second, it gives us a platform that can scale globally, not one custom project at a time, but as an industrialized project designed for broader market penetration. This model is supported by the key building blocks we have already put in place, a program and advancing licensing pathway, pre-publication and construction activities that have been already initiated, a simplified and standardized design, and a secure supply chain to support the execution. Today, we have reached the point where our first-of-a-kind design is complete, our supply chain is in place, and we are fully funded through our initial deployment phase. From an investor standpoint, what matters is this, we are no longer proving a concept, we are executing a deployment strategy.
Slide 17 introduces the demonstration of that strategy. I want to emphasize here how much more this is than just a reactor. SOLO is a building block of energy infrastructure that can be deployed, replicated, and scaled. Each unit delivers reliable baseload power and heat, operates continuously, and is designed to run for decades with minimum intervention. What makes SOLO truly differentiated is not just the performance, it's how it's built and deployed. This is a factory assembly system designed for repeatability, not bespoke construction. That shift from megawatt project to product is what really unlocks the scalability of this business. Slide 16 highlights SOLO's key differentiators. SOLO is designed to be safe by physics. There is no risk of a hydrogen explosion, no meltdown risk after SCRAM, and no requirement for an exclusion zone, which together support deployment across a wide range of commercial and industrial sites.
The reactor is a factory build using off-the-shelf components. It uses low-enriched uranium fuel that is already NRC licensed and available at commercial scale and offers versatility in output, electricity, process heat, and radioisotopes across diverse end user industries. Our licensing pathway and default to NOAK design provide what we believe is an industry-leading speed to market, with current cash expected to fully fund NOAK default. We also believe Solo is well-aligned with the NRC developing Part 57 framework for microreactors, which is intended to better accommodate features such as factory fabrication, transportability, modular deployment, automation, and remote operation, all of which support a more streamlined and potentially faster regulatory pathway over time. To explain further, FOAK to NOAK means that the reactor we deploy first is the same reactor we intend to commercialize. We are not demonstrating one design and then redesigning for scale.
Combined with our licensing parallel pathway, that design continuity is a real key differentiator for SOLO and our platform. On slide 19, we step back from the individual units and look at what makes SOLO scalable on a global basis. We see four core pillars of differentiation here, global market penetration, non-proliferation alignment, power scalability, and output versatility. SOLO's low-enriched uranium-based design is aligned with global non-proliferation standards, supports deployment across both U.S. and international markets. The SOLO platform is scalable from single-unit application to multi-unit fleet deployments, depending on the customer need. Last but not least, SOLO is versatile in what it can deliver, including electricity, heat, and radioisotopes across a wide range of end markets. Moving now to slide 20. One of the most important decisions we made earlier was not to become a manufacturer.
Instead, we built Terra Innovatum as a fabless company focused on design, integration, and deployment while leveraging a global network of nuclear-qualified suppliers. These allow us to remain capital efficient while still scaling to 2,000 of the units. It also significantly reduces execution risk. We are not building manufacturing capacity from scratch. We are activating capacity that already exists. From an investor perspective, this model is what enables both speed and scale without the traditional capital burden associated with nuclear. The benefit of this model includes commercial and regulatory rhythms, an asset-light capital structure, scalability to thousands of units, and accelerated time to market. Moving now to slide 21. We have crossed a key threshold as a company. Our design is complete, our supply chain is secure, manufacturing has begun, and our regulatory process is now advancing. There is no longer a concept story.
We are executing towards deployment. Now I'm excited to provide an update on our roadmap to FOAK and commercialization beginning on slide 23. This slide highlights how our licensing approach differs fundamentally from traditional nuclear. On the right, you can see the conventional pathway, where each step is sequential. You complete your initial submission or obtain a FOAK approval, and then effectively start over with new licensing and redesign work to reach commercial deployment. Our approach is different. First, we are pushing a parallel licensing strategy, advancing both the construction permit and operating license simultaneously with the U.S. NRC. This allows us to compress the timeline and avoid the delay inherent in a step-by-step process. Second, and critically, our FOAK and NOAK design are identical. That means the unit we demonstrate is the same as the one we commercialize, eliminating redesign, relicensing, and additional engineering between phases.
Third, this leads directly to accelerated commercialization. By combining a simplified design with a regulatory pathway aligned with microreactors, particularly with the development of Part 57, we expect to move from demonstration to fleet deployment far more efficiently than traditional nuclear projects. The result is a streamlined pathway where FOAK approval effectively becomes the bridge to commercialization rather than beginning of a new process. Moving to slide 24, we will keep this as high level for now as we have worked through each of these components already. What is important to note today is how they have all come together. This roadmap show quite simplistically and elegantly that we are no longer advancing isolated work stream. We have moved on to operating in a phase where everything is moving seamlessly in parallel.
Our regulatory process is progressing, our supply chain is in place and ready to scale, and on commercial side, we have moved from evaluation to real site selection and now deployment planning. Those three elements, licensing, manufacturing, and deployment, are aligning, and that alignment is what enables the FOAK . Just as importantly, it's what allow us to move beyond FOAK quickly into NOAK, where this becomes a repeatable, scalable model, not a one-off project. Rather than thinking about this as a timeline on individual milestones, we think about it as a convergence point, were years of development transition into execution. As we move through 2026 and into 2027, that convergence is what position us to deliver our first deployment and begin scaling from here.
On the topic of scaling, I will now hand it over to Giordano to give an update on commercialization progress.
Thank you, Ale. We currently have approximately 200 units under non-binding MOUs, representing roughly $4 billion in potential value. While these agreements are non-binding, they reflect the real counterparty's active site-level engagement and growing demand, not early-stage exploration. Customers are increasingly seeking deployable solution to solve immediate power constraints, and that is exactly what SOLO is designed to deliver. If you look at 27, our commercialization strategy is built around scalable deployment across U.S. and international markets, leveraging SOLO's non-proliferation aligned design and modular architecture. SOLO uses a low-enriched uranium fuel, is aligned with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and supports deployment in both nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states. In the U.S., this enables deployment across government and defense sectors, including the Department of Defense and on and off federal land. Additionally, it supports deployment in Europe, allied jurisdictions, and non-nuclear countries under appropriate safeguards.
If you look at 27, you will find details on our first deployment site, Rock City, Admiral Parkway. Our first-of-a-kind deployment is planned at Rock City's underground industrial park, where our MOU includes an option to deploy up to 50 reactors over time or 50 MWe of capacity. The expected initial term is 15 years, with potential for up to 45 years of operations through our modular core swap, subject to NRC approval, and the 6 million sq ft underground site provides an ideal environment for licensing, testing, and construction. Rock City will provide a controlled environment for the first deployment, critical for execution and validation. On slide 29, strategic position is directly within the AI infrastructure build-out, where power availability is rapidly emerging as a critical growth constraint.
We are planning a 1 MW electric SOLO power pilot deployment to support next generation AI with high performance computing data centers, with the ability to scale to 100 MW electric through additional SOLO units. This behind the meter, carbon free solution is designed to address the growing energy bottleneck facing AI and data center expansion, while positioning Terra Innovatum at the center of one of the fastest growing and most power-intensive segments of global economy. Moving to slide 30, Ameresco gives us access to federal and commercial deployment channels at scale. We are entering the comprehensive framework to evaluate siting, deployment, construction, integration, operation, and decommissioning planning for SOLO reactors across U.S. federal and commercial sites. The agreement started deployment for up to 50 SOLO reactors, focusing on federal customers such as Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and also enabling global outreach leveraging Ameresco's network.
Slide 31 illustrates how SOLO is addressing key challenges across four core segments, data centers and digital infrastructure and utilities, medical and healthcare, and industrial factories. Common themes across these customers include the need to meet exponential growth in demand, reduce emissions at competitive cost, secure locally deployable power, and in some cases, support the production of life-saving radioisotopes. With that foundation, I'll turn now to Kathy Williams, for financial updates. Kathy?
Thank you, Giordano, and good morning, everyone. As you know, we previously communicated an expected filing timeline of April 15th, 2026, following our extension period. While we have made significant progress, we did not meet that date. To be clear, this is not a function of any underlying financial performance or operational issues. Rather, it reflects the complexity of our structure and the reporting requirements following the business combination. This business combination includes multi-jurisdictional considerations across Italy, the Netherlands, the United States, and Cayman. We are currently working through the appropriate technical accounting treatment of certain non-cash items with our auditors. We expect to file the 10-K in the near term, but I believe it is more appropriate to take the necessary time to ensure the filing correctly represents the impacts of the business combination and our progress during 2025.
As is typical in these situations, we expect to receive a standard notification from NASDAQ related to the timing of our filing. This is a procedural matter, and we intend to address it in the normal course within the prescribed timeframe consistent with NASDAQ standard process. Giordano and Alessandro have provided you information on the significant progress we are making across licensing, supply chain, and commercial engagement. I would also like to share with you our cash balance in the bank as of December 31st, 2025. This is shown on slide 33. Total funds available, $100 million+. As we have communicated before, we estimate it will cost us $70 million to achieve our FOAK . As we have secured our supply chain, we've been able to confirm that our estimates are aligned with or lower than the $70 million baseline.
Of course, as mentioned, the NRC is working on simplifying the regulatory process. The potential savings from these actions have not been factored into our $70 million estimate. In conclusion, we are well-positioned from a cash perspective to be fully covered up to commercialization of the Solo reactor. Alessandro, I'll turn it over to you.
Thank you, Kathy. Now to close, moving to slide 35, I want to step back for a moment. That innovation was built around a simple idea that the future of energy would require a fundamentally different approach, one that is distributed, scalable, and aligned with the pace of modern infrastructure. Over the past several years, we moved from that idea to a completed design, a secure supply chain, an advancing regulatory pathway, and an expanding commercial pipeline. As we enter 2026, the focus shifts from building the foundation to executing at scale. From an investor perspective, that transition from the development to deployment is where value is created. We believe we are positioned at the front end of that shift. Lastly, on slide 36, we encourage investors to follow our progress through our public U.S. NRC engagement, where we hold monthly meeting with the U.S. NRC.
Even yesterday and today, we are having a meeting with U.S. NRC, our second last meeting for the pre-submit application before entering the construction permit phase. You can access this meeting directly through our profile on the U.S. NRC website or by signing up to our mailing list. Additionally, we keep our stakeholders informed via our investor website and social channels. This channel will provide update on regulatory milestones, commercialization progress, and key partnership as we advance towards FOAK and broader deployment. Having said that, I really wish to thank you for listening, and operator, we are now ready to open the line for questions.
Thank you. If you'd like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star two if you'd like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. We ask that you each keep to one question and one follow-up. Thank you. Our first question comes from line of Sameer Joshi with H.C. Wainwright. Please proceed with your question.
Hey. Good morning, Alessandro. Thanks for having this call and for the update. You mentioned in closing remarks about your regulatory progress, and how we can track it. Can you give us maybe a quantitative or a qualitative answer in terms of how many topical reports are still outstanding, and to be submitted, any white papers in the final stages? Because I think the mid-June deadline, or sort of deadline, you can say, is coming up. Just wanted to understand how that works.
Yeah. Thank you. Topical reports and white paper are tools that are used in order to anticipate important topics and discussion with U.S. NRC. Those are used during the pre-submittal phase just to take the right time to prepare for the construction permit phase. To date, we have submitted so far about 10 topical reports, a similar number of white papers. You can find again on the website of U.S. NRC. We are today doing the second last meeting. The last meeting will be held in May, where we have an additional one topical report and a couple of white papers. In June, July, end of June, we will start with the construction permit phase. The work that we have done so far through the use of topical report and white paper will allow us to refer to those topical reports and white paper while producing the construction permit.
Construction permit will be released in the period between June, July, and September.
Understood. Thanks for that clarification. Just switching topics quickly, the Mersen announcement was earlier this week. Can you explain the significance of this graphite prototype and how it progresses your development?
That's a very critical achievement because we have a lot of graphite in our reactor, is one of the main components together with the fuel. The availability of graphite was two-three years ago, when we started the project, one of our question, concern. This was also cleared with Mersen. There is enough graphite to sustain even our commercialization phase. The other concern was not on the availability; it was on the manufacturability of the graphite. Having several graphite in our reactor, take into consideration the design of our reactor, we need to do a lot of drillings in this graphite, a lot of holes. The number of holes, the precision of how those holes are fabricated is fundamental in order to ensure the physical behavior of our reactor.
This achievement that was done just last week, but actually we started in October, November last year, so immediately after we become a public company, is today fundamental because we know that what we design is achievable, is really achievable also from manufacturing point of view. The first two pieces actually have been built. The two pieces are demonstrated to be inside the expected tolerance limit of the manufacturability and of our design. Now is question to pass from the two pieces we have produced to the several tens that we need for our reactor. This will be a standardization of the work, because also what it was important during the production of these first two pieces is to derive the procedure by which to operate the next manufacturing of those blocks of graphite.
Now we have the procedure, and we know how to do that for all the blocks inside our reactor.
Thanks, Alessandro, for that. It's good to see the methodical approach of de-risking each and every step of the process. I will step back in the queue. Thanks.
Thank you.
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of George Gianarikas with Canaccord Genuity. Please proceed with your question.
Hi, everyone. Thank you for taking my questions. I appreciate the updates on the commercial traction. I'm wondering if you could talk about any additional traction you may be seeing with hard-to-abate sectors like mining and any competitive updates there. In other words, to the extent you're having conversations with some potential customers in those sectors, what are the alternative approaches that they may be exploring as well? Thank you.
I will start, George, and maybe I will ask Giordano to complement, but mining is definitely one, as we discussed already several times, one of the sector that we look more. Today, in particular, if you come back to our presentation, to the slide where we talk about the concept of SOLO Nodes, today, even more than yesterday, we know that we are the perfect solution for the mining sector because we can basically scale up, reducing the number of reactors, using single or few units of power conversion. That solution I try to introduce for the first time today is really very important for industry like mining, but in general, for all industry that need a large amount of power and for which we can provide a solution which is more efficient, less costly and with less also footprint.
Giordano, can you comment in terms of what we do in terms of mining?
Yes, absolutely. I think Alessandro's point is very important, especially when we're discussing 16 solar units that can deliver 20 MWe, with the help of the power conversion units. Some of the conversations that we've been having with prospective customers have been going deeper with this type of technical conversations. We are structuring commitments to proceed to the next phases. We foresee them coming up in the near term. We're looking at this really as a broad global deployment, right? Whether it's in the U.S., whether it's outside of the U.S., thanks also to the nonproliferation and our ability to our technology to deploy worldwide. It's definitely an interesting sector. It is definitely something we're very committed to execute on, and we're pushing this as much as the data centers.
Thank you. Maybe as a follow-up, in the past, you've shared a slide talking about $ 19 million at 1,000 units of revenue per reactor, in a certain cost profile and margin profile. Now, as you continue to work through your supply chain, particularly in light of the recent graphite announcements, and especially with some of the shortages in helium that we're reading about, are you still committed to that revenue and margin profile? Have these agreements sort of reinforced that financial profile at NOAK ?
This is a very nice question that I like to take because, today in particular, when we down select from 130 suppliers to 30 suppliers, we have more clear visibility on the cost of our FOAK , and not only FOAK , but also for the commercialization phase. When we select those 30 suppliers, we start with the real order. Now we know how much we are going to pay for the FOAK . Together with that, we did another exercise with all our suppliers, with all of these 30 suppliers. We did the exercise to ask them how much that cost can decrease going from the FOAK to NOAK. Today, better than one year ago, we know that our model to build the FOAK is such that is real.
The cost was inside our evaluation, and we have a strong confidence that what is also in the plan that was submitted is something that we can follow because this is what basically our discussion with the supplier is confirmed.
Thank you.
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Subash Chandra with Benchmark. Please proceed with your question.
Yeah. Hi, good morning. The first question is, the site characterization, has that been completed at Rock City?
No. What we have done so far is collecting all the information from Rock City in terms of meteorology, geography, flooding, seismic. All this data has been collected. We are actively interacting with the owner of the site. We are advancing with the preparation of our environmental plan, and this will be submitted in the next few months to NRC in parallel to the construction permit phase. We identify exactly the point inside the Rock City where the reactor will be located. We also plan to start interaction with the municipality and the public people there in the next few weeks, months.
Okay.
What is important to your point that I mention is that all the data that are needed in order to prepare the environmental impact analysis are available. This is the point where that take more time. The analysis itself is not complicated. We need to do, but it's not complicated. What really requests a lot of time in the identification of the site is the collection of the data that you need for preparing the environmental impact analysis. This data is available because the Rock City is an industrial city, industrial site. This means that they have already available those documents, and we receive those documents from the owner of the site.
Yeah. Are there any local permits required?
Yes, something is needed definitely at the level of local authorization. We are interacting, and this will be part of this environmental plan.
Got it. We'll stay tuned. The follow-up is, so the commercial strategy is to sell the reactors. Can you sort of clarify, is it to sell the physical reactors, to sell the IP? What are the sort of revenue streams you're looking for in the final model?
So far, our main business model is to sell the reactor. In particular, today, we also try to pass the message that there is what we call a nuclear retail market. This means a large amount of micro, small industry that need from 1 MW- 10 MW, 20 MW, that may be struggling today with the cost of electricity worldwide. For each, the solo solution might be very beneficial in terms of cost and in terms of reliability of operation. Our business model so far is focused on selling the reactor, but definitely we have also started to discuss with potential off takers where we have a different business model where we provide electricity without selling the reactor. This is something that obviously depend on off-takers, depend on the particular nature of the activity of the off-takers itself.
Okay, you're open to a sort of a PPA strategy?
Definitely, yes. This is not the day-to-day business that we are pushing, but definitely we are engaging in discussions where PPA is considered.
Thank you. My final one is, do we need any more regulation? You're going to manufacture the reactor, load the reactor, then transport the reactor. In that transport phase, how easy do you think that's going to be?
This was exactly the discussion we had yesterday night with U.S. NRC. If you go to the website, you can see that one of the topic that was yesterday in the agenda was the manufacturability on-site, in factory and transportation. We are evolving quite well from the Italian standpoint. We are in contact with the Italian regulator in order to get all the information on how to transport a fresh reactor vessel, fresh nuclear reactor vessel, where fresh means the fuel has not been used. From U.S. point of view, we are interacting with U.S. NRC in order to demonstrate that during the transportation and the erection on site, our reactor still continue to be as designed. This is to say that there is a continuous discussion with U.S. NRC. There is a framework, a legal framework that exists.
We are now trying to connect the dots among those, between the Italian regulator, the U.S. regulator, the Department of Transportation, which need also to be involved. All those parts have been already contacted, and we are also preparing a white paper on that, but this will evolve most probably in additional documents that we will submit to U.S. NRC. This is not even connected with the construction permit itself. It's going more in the direction of the operating license, so we are talking even after September 2026.
Well, thank you. Thanks for the update.
You're welcome.
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Craig Irwin with ROTH Capital Partners. Please proceed with your question.
Hi, good morning, and thanks for taking my questions. Alessandro, I was particularly interested in the discussion around the SOLO Node, the fact that you haven't got to FOAK yet. Right now, today, you're announcing basically a 20% lower CapEx, or what I would assume is essentially a lower LCOE, for 20 MW . We get a lot of questions all the time about the long-term cost out profile, the ability to engineer lower costs for nuclear for the next couple decades. Can you maybe give us a little bit more color on the portfolio of options you have to achieve similar cost out? A lot of people like to make comparisons back to the solar industry, where it's been basically 10% a year for the last many, many years.
Do you see it as possible for the nuclear industry, for Terra Innovatum, to have something similar as production ramps and deployments go global?
I'm thinking that we can do better. In that presentation today, we didn't anticipate any reduction, quantitatively any reduction of cost. We were just saying that our $0.07 per kWh over 45 years is the cost related with the unique SOLO reactor with its own balance of plant. This means the reactor that is coming with the steam generator, the turbine, the cooler condenser. The idea to move to the concept of SOLO Node was already part of our design. We just decide to announce today because we are moving quite fast in cooperation with one of the major worldwide turbine manufacturers in the world. We had already meetings where we identified the possibility to develop this concept of SOLO Node. In SOLO Node, this mean we meant that we could have several reactors, nuclear reactors, that are coupled with only one power conversion unit.
This is important because obviously it's going to decrease the complexity, reducing the number of components, reducing the cost, even though this has not yet been identified, and increase the efficiency. The numbers that we say is that 16 reactors, this means basically a reduction of 20% in terms of number of reactors, we can get 20 MWe. The other point in the comparison about solar, see in the second slide that I mentioned today. The capability to do load follow. This is quite unique for the nuclear reactor. This is possible only because we are small, and it is possible because of the granularity we can achieve with our solution. We can have several units, to get 100, basically, you need, using the concept of SOLO Node, maybe you may need 80. If you don't use, maybe you need 100 reactors.
Independent of that, the concept is that this granularity gives you the possibility to do load follow through a different dispatch of electricity to the customer. We are not changing the primary side, the reactor itself. The reactor continues to operate to 100% power. The fuel stays very quiet inside our reactor. What we dispatch differently is the power. Why this is important? Because in this way, and I can come to the point and the comparison with the solar, in this regard, our capability to follow the load is connected with the need to couple with solar at relatively smaller batteries. Batteries that are, at least we evaluate, 10x smaller than what is needed for a solar application.
The SOLO Node concept and the capability to do a variable dispatch coupled with a very small amount of batteries give us a lot of confidence that SOLO can really be positioned to compete against whatever type of source of energy. Again, we say that our price is such that we have $0.07 /kWh, and definitely whenever you put together the SOLO Node and this concept of load follow, there might be additional savings.
Understood. That makes a lot of sense. Thank you for that. My follow-up question is around NRC's Part 57. With the public comment this spring and the expected formalized rule later on this year, do you see the Part 57 language as potentially having an impact on overall development costs or timeline for development of your system? I know that the safety requirements and engineering requirements are not necessarily going to change, but that you use an already existing supply chain where many of these components and features have been qualified already. Is there a possibility that you have maybe an expedited review of different sub-components and system features?
It is a very important question. Part 57 will be released on, I think, April 24, so in a few days. What we have already discussed part of it with U.S. NRC, obviously, we don't have access to the full document, but we may know some of the aspects. What I can say is that it looks like Part 57 was built for SOLO. Actually, I would say that SOLO fit very well with this approach now that the U.S. NRC is taking and considering for microreactor. I can mention to you three topics for which we think we can get a benefit from Part 57 for the commercialization. This to say also that Part 57 will not affect the FOAK . FOAK , we will continue to follow Part 50. Part 57 is for the commercialization. Why is it important?
Several aspects, but I would list three. No need of operators. So far, with Part 50, you need at least five operators on site. Multi-unit license. This is very important, particularly for microreactors that tend to be commercial only if there are more units, obviously. Part 50 actually has to do the licensing every time. With Part 57, there is this concept of multi-unit licensing. Last, but maybe the most important, Part 57 will represent a sort of accelerator of Part 50. In particular, in the case you license the reactor under Part 50, which is identical to the one that you would like to do in Part 57, which is commercial. This is exactly our case. We are licensing a reactor, the FOAK, under Part 50, which is identical to the one that we will do commercial following Part 57.
This will provide, based on our understanding with U.S. NRC, a lot of simplification in the process, and so a faster time to license the commercial unit.
I like that. Great. Well, congratulations on the progress. I'll hop back in the queue.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Pfingst with B. Riley Securities. Please proceed with your question.
Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. I'll just ask one on the commercial side. Can you discuss potential customer order conversion? Do you think customers will wait for the FOAK to deploy before placing a firm order, or could we see those actually come ahead of first deployment?
I'll start, and then I will leave to Giordano. We are doing our best to interact daily with all possible customers. We had a nice discussion, I can mention, a couple of weeks ago, for instance, with a company that was representing several European airports, where also the energy demand is fundamental and is going to increase in the next years. We are doing the same for mining. We are doing the same for industries which are smaller, but they need still a lot of power if you put all together, like the cements, like the glass industry. We are doing our best, in addition to obviously more important today industry like the data center. We are putting all our efforts to transform those discussions in orders. Obviously, we needed to provide to the potential customer the validation of our technology.
What we think is that what we are doing now with the regulators, what we are doing now with the supply chain, is something that is very, very important. The supply chain, the fact that we build this mock-up of graphite, give also a sense of tangibility of the projects. It's not a paperwork , it's really a project. What I'm saying is that I'm expecting that in the next few months, when additional outcome in terms of advancing the supply chain will be available and we can announce, this will give also a lot of confidence to our potential off takers to transform the interest in a real order.
What I can add maybe, in terms of this, is exactly what Alessandro said is exactly important, and we're taking the approach on commercialization in a methodological way. When we're considering the off-take agreements, the one that we have and the one that we're exploring, we're getting to the one ingredient, right? We're looking for how do we deploy it, the merging of the technologies, how they work. We're going hand in hand to discuss the technicalities first and the business operation coming from the technicalities. The most important thing is, as we're developing the FOAK , the supply chain is there. We just produced the Mersen prototype.
The world is realizing, little and steady, that as we're doing the licensing and we're executing on the manufacturing, we're shifting to the commercialization, and we're planning to have this order book in the next few months, because that will really ramp up the FOAK. The conversation has been positive and have been continuous, and there's been a lot of back-end work that is not announce able yet, but has been present, and it takes many hours of our weeks to do these technicalities and establish the commercialization strategy for potentially even higher deployments of what we discussed today.
Appreciate it, guys.
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our question-and-answer session. I'll turn the floor back to Mr. Petruzzi for any final comments.
Okay. I would like really to thank you, everybody, for attending this call. We would like to keep informed all our investors and all our off takers. We encourage, again, you to follow us on our social, and in particular, to follow the updates that are regularly occurring on the website of U.S. NRC, which I think is the most tangible demonstration of where we are going. Thank you again to stay with us and look forward to meet you soon again.
Thank you. This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.