No need to apologize for asking questions! I'm using commercially available fuel that is available from fuel vendors. UO2 with zircaloy cladding. As far as I'

No need to apologize for asking questions! I'm using commercially available fuel that is available from fuel vendors. UO2 with zircaloy cladding. As far as I'm aware, the NRC has no stated mandate for removing reactor-based methods. Or, if you have a source for that, I'd love to see it because that's a big deal. What you may be thinking of is the DOE/NNSA grants that are being given out for encouraging a domestic Mo-99 supply, which have strings attached which mandate it be for developing an "alternative" technology. I've found that the correlation is very strong between nuclear startups which have failed and which ones rely on government money. I'd be curious why you think those projects have failed. I've had many discussions with other nuclear startups and friends at INL on this topic, and it's pretty nuanced. Having been a DOE contractor, I have some... strong opinions about how nearly everyone in the industry operates or their approach to regulation. To refrain from ranting, I'll just say that it is my strong opinion that pretty much everyone does things "they way we've always have done them" and that everything is over-engineered and costs way more than it needs to. Most people I've spoken to seem to think it costs $100M to build hot cells. I know it doesn't cost that much to build a glorified box of concrete, even if that's what cost-plus entities have historically paid for them. We could take this discussion offline as well, if you'd prefer. Then we can both be more specific and protect anonymity. Feel free to shoot me an email at info@atomicalchemy.us if you wish.