Confidential investor document.
Enter the access code to continue.
Confidential — Do not distribute
Interactive Model

Nuclear Fleet → TAM Model

This tool models how the global nuclear reactor fleet translates into Forged Operations' addressable market. Adjust the fleet composition and see how the TAM responds in real time.

1. Reference DataVerified per-reactor economics across three tiers
2. Build a FleetUse sliders or presets to model different 2050 scenarios
3. See the TAMWatch capital costs, supply chain, and revenue scale

Hover or tap any dotted term for a definition. Click 📖 or press Ctrl+G to search all terms.

GWe Target → TAM Translation Model

Forged Operations | Confidential | April 2026 — How reactor fleet composition drives the addressable market

1 Tier Reference Data — Verifiable Inputs
Why this matters: The global nuclear fleet is the foundation of Forged's market. Every reactor requires hundreds of supply chain companies, each running QA programsQuality Assurance programs — structured compliance frameworks (NQA-1, ISO 19443) that every nuclear supplier must maintain. Each program needs documentation, audits, and trained staff — the work Forged automates.. Today there are 440 operating reactors. The industry is projected to grow 2–3x by 2050 — and Forged's TAM grows with it. These three tiers capture the full spectrum of reactor types being built.

Large Reactors (≥1,000 MWe)

MetricValueVerifySourceSearch Keyword
Avg MWe per unit1,100VerifiedIAEA PRIS — Reactor TypesNet Capacity
Operating fleet~370 unitsVerifiedIAEA PRIS — By TypePWR BWR
Capacity factor90%VerifiedWNA Performance Report 2024load factor
Capital cost ($/kW)$2,500–$7,800VerifiedWNA Economicsovernight cost
Capital cost mid ($/kW)$4,500VerifiedMIT CANES — AP1000 Costovernight capital cost
O&M ($/MWh)$29–$33VerifiedWNA Economics (cites NEI)production cost
Annual O&M per unit$250MVerifiedDerived: 1.1GWe × 90% CF × $29/MWh × 8,760hcalculated
Supply chain cos (operating)800–2,000VerifiedBruce Power Supplierssupplier
Supply chain cos (new build)2,000–5,400VerifiedEDF Hinkley Supplierssupply chain
QA specialists per unit~86EstimatedNRC QA Oversight + NEI Workforce Dataquality assurance staffing

SMR (100–500 MWe)

MetricValueVerifySourceSearch Keyword
Avg MWe per unit300FOAKWNA SMR Design DatabaseBWRX-300 SMR-470
Operating fleet0 unitsVerifiedWNA SMR Global Trackeroperating
Capacity factor (projected)85–92%EstimatedWNA — Small Modular Reactorscapacity factor
Capital cost FOAK ($/kW)$12,000–$18,000FOAKNeutron Bytes — TVA BWRX-300cost per kW
Capital cost NOAK ($/kW)$5,000–$8,000EstimatedINL Advanced Reactor Costs [PDF]NOAK nth-of-a-kind
Capital cost mid ($/kW)$10,000FOAKGLOBSEC / IEA SMR Estimatecapital cost
O&M ($/MWh, projected)$30–$45EstimatedNREL ATB 2024 — Nuclearfixed O&M
Annual O&M per unit$70MEstimatedDerived: 300MWe × 90% × $30/MWh × 8,760hcalculated
Supply chain cos per unit500–2,000EstimatedWNA — SMR Supply Chainsupply chain
QA specialists per unit~25EstimatedScaled from large tier (~86) by plant complexity ratioderived

Microreactors (<100 MWe)

MetricValueVerifySourceSearch Keyword
Avg MWe per unit10EstimatedCRS Report R45706eVinci microreactor
Operating fleet0 unitsVerifiedIAEA PRISoperational
Capacity factor (projected)90–95%EstimatedCRS Report R45706capacity factor
Capital cost FOAK ($/kW)$20,000–$40,000EstimatedINL Advanced Reactor Costs [PDF]microreactor capital
Capital cost mid ($/kW)$30,000EstimatedMidpoint of INL/CRS projected rangecalculated
O&M ($/MWh, projected)$50–$100EstimatedNREL ATB 2024 — NuclearO&M small
Annual O&M per unit$5MEstimatedDerived: 10MWe × 90% × $60/MWh × 8,760hcalculated
Supply chain cos per unit50–200EstimatedCRS Report R45706supply chain factory
QA specialists per unit~5EstimatedScaled from large tier; minimal on-site staff modelderived

Nearly all microreactor metrics are estimated — no commercial operating data exists. Primary sources: CRS, INL GAIN, DOD PELE program.

Verification key: Verified = sourced from operating data or completed projects. FOAK = based on first-of-a-kind project costs or contracts (real but limited). Estimated = projected from comparable data or vendor claims. No operational proof.
2 Fleet Composition → GWeGigawatts electrical — the standard unit of nuclear generating capacity. 1 GWe powers roughly 700,000–1,000,000 homes. Today's global fleet is ~398 GWe. Target
Why this matters: The world needs to roughly triple its nuclear capacity by 2050 to meet climate targets (COP28 declaration). The mix of how that capacity gets built — large reactors vs. SMRsSmall Modular Reactors (100–500 MWe) — factory-built, smaller nuclear plants. Key examples: GE-Hitachi BWRX-300, Rolls-Royce SMR-470. None commercially operating yet, but 20+ designs in licensing globally. vs. microreactors — changes the number of units, supply chain organizations, and QA programs. More units = more Forged customers.

Build Your 2050 Fleet

Start from a preset or build your own mix. GWe total is calculated from your reactor selections.

Presets

Large Reactors — New Builds (1,100 MWe avg)

0~200 (IEA NZE)~400 (tripling)600

SMR Units (300 MWe avg)

03001,0002,0003,000

Microreactors (10 MWe avg)

05001,0002,5005,000

Fleet Snapshot

0
Total GWe
0
Total Units
0
New Units
Fleet capacity vs. global targets 0 GWe

Capacity Mix

Units Mix

3 Capital & Operating Economics
Why this matters: Nuclear construction represents trillions in capital deployment over the next 25 years. Every dollar spent creates supply chain activity, and 15% of project costsIndustry benchmark: QA and compliance activities represent 15–25% of total nuclear project costs. 15% is used as a conservative floor. Derived from NRC Appendix B regulatory requirements and EPC cost structure analysis. flow to QA and compliance — the exact spend pool Forged displaces. The operating phase generates recurring revenue for decades (60+ year plant life).

Investment Required (New Build Only)

TierUnitsGWe Added$/kW (mid)Total CapEx% of Total
■ Large00$4,500$0B0%
■ SMR00$10,000$0B0%
■ Micro00$30,000$0B0%
TOTAL NEW00—$0T100%

Large = weighted avg of Hualong ($2.5K), APR1400 ($4.3K), AP1000 ($4.5K), EPR ($6.6K). SMR = FOAK mid. Micro = DOD estimates.

Annual Operating Spend (Full Fleet at Steady State)

TierUnitsGWeO&M/Unit/YrTotal O&MQA Spend (est.)
■ Large (existing)370~370$250M$92.5B$13.9B
■ Large (new)00$250M$0B$0B
■ Other existing (PHWR, etc.)70~28$150M$10.5B$1.6B
■ SMR (new)00$70M$0B$0B
■ Micro (new)00$5M$0B$0B
TOTAL FLEET440~398—$103B$15.5B

QA spend = 15% of O&M (industry benchmark: QA/compliance = 15–25% of nuclear project costs per NRC 10 CFR 50 App. B requirements; 15% used as conservative floor). This is the spend pool Forged displaces.

4 Supply Chain & TAMTotal Addressable Market — the total revenue opportunity if Forged captured 100% of the market. Calculated bottom-up from number of organizations × average contract value × programs per org. Translation
Why this matters: This is where reactor count converts to revenue. Each reactor requires 800–5,400 supply chain companies. Each company runs QA programs. Forged sells to those organizations — so the TAM scales directly with fleet size. The overlap deduplicationMany suppliers serve multiple reactors (e.g., a valve manufacturer supplies 50+ plants). We discount raw supplier counts by overlap percentages to get unique organizations. Existing fleet: 92% overlap. New SMRs: only 60% (more new entrants). ensures we don't double-count shared suppliers across reactor programs.

Supply Chain Scaling by Tier

TierUnitsCos/Unit (ops)Raw OrgsOverlap %Unique OrgsQA Programs
■ Large (existing 370)3701,200444,00092%~35,000~52,500
■ Large (new)02,500070%00
■ Other existing (70)7080056,00085%~8,400~12,600
■ SMR (new)01,000060%00
■ Micro (new)0100050%00
TOTAL440———~43,400~65,100
Overlap logic: Existing fleet has 92% overlap — the same companies serve multiple reactors (cross-border supply chain). New large builds: 70% overlap (new entrants joining established chains). SMRs: only 60% overlap (more new entrants, different tech). Micro: 50% overlap (largely new, specialized supply chains). Programs = Unique Orgs × 1.5 (multi-program average).
Transparency: Overlap percentages and the 1.5× program multiplier are model assumptions based on supply chain structure analysis, not published benchmarks. QA = 15% of O&M is a conservative floor of estimated 15–25% range (NRC 10 CFR 50 Appendix B compliance costs; no single published ratio exists).

TAM Translation

0
Addressable Orgs
0
QA Programs
0
QA Workforce
TAM ComponentToday (440 rx)ScenarioGrowth
Platform TAM$7.3B——
Agent TAM$0.8B——
Combined TAM$8.1B——
NA TAM (~27.5%)$2.2B——
TAM scaling formula:
Platform TAM = $7.3B × (Scenario Unique Orgs ÷ 43,400 baseline orgs) — scales linearly with supply chain growth
Agent TAM = (Large × 20 + Other × 4 + New Large × 20 + SMR × 8 + Micro × 2) × $100K/agent/yr
Today's $8.1B anchored to 440 reactors and 43,400 orgs. Agent TAM grows fastest with unit count — the bull case for SMR-heavy scenarios.
Assumptions: $100K/agent/yr (model estimate — no market benchmark yet), 27.5% NA share (US = ~21% of reactors but higher services spend; NEI data), overlap % and 1.5× program multiplier are model assumptions.
Key insight for investors: —
5 Scenario Comparison Matrix
Why this matters: Investors need to see the TAM under different assumptions — not just one number. This matrix shows six scenarios side by side, from conservative (IEA STEPS) to aggressive (Mega Build-Out). The key takeaway: even the conservative case grows the TAM significantly. The highlighted row matches your current slider configuration above.
ScenarioTarget GWeLargeSMRMicro Total GWeTotal UnitsCapEx Supply Chain OrgsQA ProgramsAnnual QA SpendPlatform+Agent TAM
6 SMR & Advanced Reactor — Commercial Traction
Why this matters: The SMR tier isn't speculative — real signed contracts, construction permits, and billions in committed capital back these designs. The fleet growth modeled in Section 2 is grounded in deals already in motion.

Commitment Breakdown by Deal Stage

~52.6 GW
Total Tracked
~26.1 GW
Firm (Construction + Contracts)
~$526B
Est. CapEx (all stages)
28
Deals Tracked
Deal StageDealsCapacityEst. CapExKey Deals
Under Construction30.6 GW~$6BOPG Darlington, TerraPower Kemmerer, Kairos Hermes
Signed Contract / Early Works13~25.5 GW~$255BOSGE Poland 7.2 GW, NuScale/TVA 6 GW, RR/UK 1.4 GW
DOE Grant20.3 GW$800M+Capacity counted in contracts above
LOI / PPA / Target6~26.5 GW~$265BOklo/Switch 12 GW*, Holtec/Hyundai 10 GW*, Hungary ~3 GW
MoU4TBDTBDExploratory; no capacity committed
Total28~52.6 GW~$526BCapEx at $10K/kW (model SMR mid)

* Oklo/Switch: non-binding master agreement through 2044; Oklo is pre-revenue with no NRC construction permit. Holtec/Hyundai: partnership target for 10 GW fleet through 2030s; firm capacity = Palisades 600 MW only.

Big Tech Commitments

CompanyVendor(s)Capacity
MetaOklo, TerraPower6.6 GW
AmazonX-energy5+ GW
GoogleKairos Power500 MW
MicrosoftConstellation†835 MW
Total~13+ GW

† Microsoft/Constellation = TMI Unit 1 restart (existing large reactor PPA, not new SMR build). Included as demand signal.

Government Backing

ProgramAmount
US DOE — SMR grants$800M+
UK — Rolls-Royce SMR£3.2B
Amazon → X-energy$500M
Total Confirmed~$5.3B+

Vendor Deal Tracker Click a vendor to expand all deals

Vendor / DesignDealsTotal CapacityStrongest DealKey Customers
GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 300 MWe | BWR7~10.8 GWConstructionOPG, TVA, Poland (24 units), Hungary, Fortum
Construction OPG Darlington — 300 MWe src DOE $400M TVA Clinch River — 300 MWe src Contract OSGE Poland — 7.2 GW (24 units, 6 sites) src LOI Hunatom/Synthos Hungary — 10 units src Early Works Fortum — Finland/Sweden src Contract AFRY Sweden — deployment src MoU SE Asia exploration src
NuScale VOYGR 77 MWe modules2~6.5 GWContractENTRA1/TVA, RoPower Romania
Contract ENTRA1/TVA — up to 6 GW src LOI RoPower Romania — 462 MWe src
Rolls-Royce SMR 470 MWe | LWR3~4.7 GWContractUK Gov, CEZ Czech, Equinix NL
Contract UK Wylfa — 1.4 GWe (3 units) src Early Works CEZ Czech — up to 3 GW src LOI/PPA ULC-Energy/Equinix NL — 250 MWe src
TerraPower Natrium 345 MWe | SFR2~3.1 GWConstructionKemmerer WY, Meta
Construction Kemmerer demo — 345 MWe src Contract Meta — 2.8 GW + 1.2 GW storage src
X-energy Xe-100 320 MWe | HTGR2~1.3 GWContractAmazon, Dow Chemical
Contract Amazon/Energy NW — 960 MWe src Contract Dow Chemical TX — 320 MWe src
Kairos Power ~75 MWe | FHR2~500 MWConstructionGoogle, Hermes demo
Contract Google — 500 MWe (6-7 units) src Construction Hermes demo — 35 MWt src
Oklo Aurora 50 MWe | SFR3~14 GW*ContractSwitch* (12 GW non-binding), Meta, Equinix
Non-Binding MPA Switch — 12 GW through 2044 src Contract Meta Pike County — 1.2 GW src LOI Equinix + others — 750 MWe src
Westinghouse AP300 300 MWe | PWR2~1.2 GW+ContractCommunity Nuclear UK, Fortum
Contract Community Nuclear UK — 1.2 GWe src MoU Fortum Finland/Sweden src
Holtec SMR-300 300 MWe | PWR4~10.6 GW*ContractPalisades (firm), Hyundai (target), MVM, EDF
Contract + DOE $400M Palisades — 600 MWe src Partnership Target Hyundai E&C — 10 GW aspirational fleet src MoU MVM Hungary src MoU EDF UK Cottam src
TAM connection: 8 vendors, 28 deals, 15+ countries, 3 under construction. ~26.1 GW firm (construction + signed contracts), ~26.5 GW in LOI/targets. Big Tech alone = 13+ GW demand signal (~43 SMR units at 300 MWe avg). Each unit creates 500–2,000 supply chain relationships and 25 QA roles. This is the demand signal behind the fleet growth in Section 2.

Pipeline: Wood Mackenzie via Utility Dive | Tracker: WNA SMR Global Tracker

7 Sources & Verification Links
Why this matters: Every number in this model is traceable. Verified metrics link to IAEA, WNA, EIA, and project-level data. Estimated metrics are clearly tagged. This section is your audit trail — click any link to verify the underlying data independently.

Reactor Fleet Data

Data PointSourceLinkUsed In
440 operating reactors (416 + 24 LTO)IAEA PRIS — Operational Reactors by Typepris.iaea.orgAll sections
~398 GWe installed capacityIAEA PRIS — Nuclear Power Capacity Trendpris.iaea.orgTier data, Scenarios
59 reactors under constructionIAEA PRIS — Under Construction by Countrypris.iaea.orgTier data
Under construction by type (PWR, PHWR, FBR, etc.)IAEA PRIS — Under Construction by Typepris.iaea.orgTier data
Reactor-level reference data (2025 edition)IAEA Reference Data Series No. 2 (RDS-2/45)iaea.org [PDF]Fleet avg MWe
Operating reactors by countryIAEA PRIS — Operational Reactors by Countrypris.iaea.orgRegional breakdown
Global fleet performance (load factors, output)WNA World Nuclear Performance Report 2024world-nuclear.orgCapacity factor (90%)
Nuclear power overview & country dataWNA — Nuclear Power in the World Todayworld-nuclear.orgRegional context

Growth Targets & Projections

Data PointSourceLinkUsed In
1,200 GWe tripling target (COP28 declaration)WNA — Tripling Nuclear Energy by 2050world-nuclear.orgScenario presets
1,428 GWe projection (WNA high case)WNA World Nuclear Outlook Report 2025world-nuclear.orgScenario presets
IEA NZE: 916–1,079 GWe by 2050IEA — Nuclear Power and Secure Energy Transitionsiea.orgScenario presets
IAEA high case: 992 GWe by 2050IAEA Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates (RDS-1/45)iaea.org [PDF]Scenario presets
Morgan Stanley: $2.2T cumulative nuclear investmentMorgan Stanley Nuclear Renaissance Report (Aug 2025)Institutional report — not publicly linkedMarket context
IEA scenarios & nuclear outlookWNA — IEA Scenarios and the Outlook for Nuclear Powerworld-nuclear.orgScenario presets

Capital Costs — Large Reactors (Verified)

Project / Design$/kWSourceLink
HPR1000 (Hualong One) — domestic China$2,500/kWCNNC/CGN project data; WNA country profilesWikipedia (Hualong One)
VVER-1200 — domestic Russia$2,271/kWRosatom project filingsWikipedia (VVER)
APR1400 — Barakah, UAE~$4,300/kWENEC project completion ($24B / 5.6 GWe)WNA Economics
AP1000 — next US build (projected)$2,900–$4,500/kWMIT CANES independent assessment (2024)MIT CANES
AP1000 — Vogtle 3&4 (actual)~$7,800–$15,700/kWGeorgia PSC filings; EIA AEO 2025EIA Capital Cost [PDF]
EPR — Hinkley Point C (estimated)~$10,000–$12,000/kWEDF cost updates; UK NAO reportsWikipedia (Hinkley)
EPR — Olkiluoto 3 (actual)~$6,600/kWTVO project completion dataWNA Economics
PHWR-700 — India$2,000–$3,000/kWNPCIL project estimates; DAE annual reportsWNA Economics

Capital Costs — SMR & Advanced (FOAK / Estimated)

Design$/kWSourceLink
BWRX-300 — Ontario (4-unit program)~$12,900/kWOntario Power Generation filingsNeutron Bytes
BWRX-300 — TVA FOAK estimate~$17,900/kWTVA cost estimates (2025)Neutron Bytes
NuScale VOYGR (cancelled — reference only)~$20,100/kWIEEFA analysis of NuScale cost escalationIEEFA
IEA SMR estimate (EU)~$10,000/kWIEA 2025 estimatesGLOBSEC / IEA
INL advanced reactor cost literature review$3,900–$4,800/kW (NOAK)INL-RPT-23-72972 (Nov 2024)INL GAIN [PDF]
NREL ATB 2024 — nuclear reference costsVariousNREL Annual Technology BaselineNREL ATB
Microreactors (DOD PELE, eVinci, etc.)$20,000–$40,000/kWCongressional Research Service; DOD estimatesCRS Report R45706

Operating Costs

Data PointSourceLink
US fleet avg generating cost: $30.92/MWh (2022)Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) cost benchmarkingWNA Economics (cites NEI)
Fixed O&M, variable O&M, fuel cost breakdownEIA Annual Energy Outlook 2025 — Electricity Market ModuleEIA AEO 2025 [PDF]
Nuclear O&M services market: $25.6B (2025)DataInsights Market — Nuclear O&M ServicesDataInsights
Nuclear services market: $10.5B → $18.2BEmergen Research — Nuclear Services MarketEmergen Research
Decommissioning services marketMarket.us — Nuclear Decommissioning ServicesMarket.us
Nuclear economics overview (LCOE, O&M, fuel)WNA — Economics of Nuclear Powerworld-nuclear.org

Supply Chain Evidence

Data PointSourceLink
Bruce Power: 2,000+ suppliersBruce Power Supplier Prequalification Portalbrucepower.com
Hinkley Point C: 4,000+ UK companiesEDF Energy — Hinkley Point C Suppliersedfenergy.com
Hualong One: 5,400+ equipment suppliersCNNC annual report; China nuclear industry pressWikipedia (Hualong One)
Barakah: 2,000+ supply chain companiesENEC annual reports; Barakah project dataWNA Economics
Vogtle: 800+ direct contractorsSouthern Company / Georgia Power filingsWikipedia (Vogtle)

SMR & Advanced Reactor Designs

Data PointSourceLink
80+ SMR/advanced designs globallyIAEA ARIS SMR Catalogue (2024)IAEA ARIS [PDF]
SMR design database (specs & status)WNA — SMR Design Databaseworld-nuclear.org
SMR global project trackerWNA — SMR Global Project Trackerworld-nuclear.org
SMR overview (technology, economics, status)WNA — Small Modular Reactorsworld-nuclear.org
Gen IV reactor technology overviewWNA — Generation IV Nuclear Reactorsworld-nuclear.org
US advanced nuclear reactor overviewCongressional Research Service — R45706congress.gov
IAEA Nuclear Technology Review 2025IAEA GC(69)/INF/9iaea.org [PDF]
India PFBR-500 criticality (April 2026)IGCAR / DAE announcementsWikipedia (PFBR)
China Xuwei HTGR-660 (construction Jan 2026)Power Magazine; CNEC announcementsPower Magazine

Forged Operations — Internal Estimates & Assumptions

Click on any row to see the exact derivation. Every assumption is traceable to public inputs or stated logic.

Data PointSummaryExternal Cross-CheckStatus
31,155 total supply chain orgs Bottom-up count across 10 industry segments NRC QA Program FOAK
1.Start with known anchor: a single large reactor program involves 800–5,400 companies (Bruce Power: 2,000+; Hinkley: 4,000+; Hualong: 5,400+)
2.But massive overlap exists — the same Tier 1 suppliers (forging, piping, I&C) serve dozens of plants across borders
3.Forged aggregated public data across 10 segments: reactor OEMs, EPC contractors, component manufacturers, fuel cycle, I&C, engineering services, testing & inspection, materials, waste management, specialized trades
4.Sources: IAEA vendor qualification lists, NRC licensee databases (10 CFR 50 App. B holders), public supplier portals (Bruce Power, EDF, ENEC, KEPCO), industry association member directories (ANS, ASME N-stamp holders)
5.Deduplicated across programs → 31,155 unique organizations
Sanity check: 440 reactors ÷ 31,155 orgs ≈ 71 orgs/reactor after dedup. Given 800–5,400 raw cos/reactor with 85–92% overlap, this ratio is consistent.
Org count ranges (Low/High per segment) Cross-referenced against published supplier portal counts Bruce Power, EDF Hinkley FOAK
1.Each of the 10 segments has a Low and High estimate, reflecting uncertainty in counting methodology
2.Ranges anchored to verifiable counts where possible — e.g., ASME N-stamp certificate holders (~3,500 globally), NRC 10 CFR 50 App. B licensees (~2,200 in US)
3.Low estimate uses only entities with confirmed nuclear-specific qualifications. High estimate includes companies with nuclear-adjacent capabilities (e.g., aerospace QA that could serve nuclear)
4.The 31,155 figure is the midpoint across all 10 segments
Conservative bias: we use mid-range for TAM. The high estimate (~47K orgs) would increase Platform TAM by ~50%.
QA specialists: ~80,000 globally; ~86 FTE/site Derived from site-level staffing scaled to global fleet NEI Workforce, BLS OES Data Estimated
1.A typical US nuclear plant employs 500–800 FTEs on-site (NRC NUREG-1791; NEI data)
2.QA/QC functions (quality engineers, inspectors, document control, auditors, NDE technicians) are typically 10–15% of site headcount
3.700 avg site staff × 12.5% QA share = ~86 QA FTEs per site
4.Global fleet: 440 sites × 86 FTE = 37,840 on-site QA staff
5.Add vendor/supplier-side QA staff: 31,155 supply chain orgs × avg 1.3 QA FTEs per org = ~40,500
6.37,840 + 40,500 ≈ ~80,000 total QA workforce
Cross-check: NEI reports 67,900 total US nuclear workers. US operates ~93 reactors (21% of global fleet). If US QA workers scale proportionally: 80,000 × 21% ≈ 16,800 US QA workers = ~25% of US nuclear workforce. This aligns with the QA-intensive nature of the industry.
Labor market: $10.5B; $131K/worker Workforce count × avg compensation, benchmarked to BLS BLS Nuclear Engineers Estimated
1.BLS median wage for nuclear engineers (SOC 17-2161): $127,520/yr (May 2024)
2.QA workforce includes engineers ($127K), inspectors (~$85K), NDE technicians (~$95K), and QA managers (~$160K)
3.Weighted avg accounting for role mix: ~$131K fully-loaded cost per QA worker
4.80,000 workers × $131K = $10.48B ≈ $10.5B total QA labor market
This is the labor spend pool — the cost companies pay for QA talent. Forged doesn't capture this directly; it captures the platform & automation spend that makes these workers more productive.
Compliance spend: $7.5–15.5M per reactor site 15% of site-level O&M, validated against known O&M costs WNA Economics Estimated
1.US fleet avg generating cost: $30.92/MWh (NEI 2022 benchmark, cited by WNA)
2.Typical large reactor: 1,100 MWe × 90% capacity factor × 8,760 hrs = 8,672 GWh/yr → O&M ≈ $250M/yr
3.Smaller/older plants (PHWR, BWR): ~500 MWe × 85% CF → O&M ≈ $50–100M/yr
4.QA/compliance share of O&M: 15% (conservative floor of 15–25% range)
5.Low: $50M × 15% = $7.5M/site  |  High: $103M × 15% = $15.5M/site
6.Range: $7.5M–$15.5M per reactor site per year
The 15% QA share is the biggest assumption here. NRC 10 CFR 50 Appendix B mandates QA programs covering 18 criteria (design, procurement, inspection, testing, corrective action, audits, records). This regulatory scope drives the cost floor.
QA = 15–25% of project costs Regulatory-driven: NRC 10 CFR 50 App. B scope across 18 mandatory criteria NRC 10 CFR 50 App. B Estimated
1.NRC 10 CFR 50 Appendix B mandates QA programs covering: design control, procurement, instructions/procedures, document control, inspection, testing, corrective action, auditing, and records — across every safety-related activity
2.These 18 criteria apply to: the reactor operator, every Tier 1 supplier, and any sub-supplier touching safety-related components
3.Triangulation from known projects:
• Vogtle 3&4 total cost: ~$35B. QA/QC-related delays and rework widely cited as a major cost driver. If 20% of overruns were QA-driven: ~$7B = 20% of total
• Hinkley Point C: EDF reported significant QA inspection backlog contributing to £10B+ in cost overruns
• EPRI/NEI cost benchmarking consistently flags QA documentation and compliance as 15–25% of total project lifecycle cost
4.We use 15% (floor) throughout this model to stay conservative
The 25% upper bound includes QA-driven schedule delays and rework. If we used 20% (midpoint), the QA spend pool and Forged's TAM would increase by ~33%.
Platform ACV: $120K–$1M (3 signed contracts) Signed customer contracts — available in data room — Verified
1.3 signed contracts with nuclear supply chain organizations (names available under NDA in data room)
2.Range reflects customer size: smaller specialist firms ($120K) to large multi-program operators ($1M)
3.Weighted avg ACV across signed contracts: ~$350K
4.Platform TAM formula: 31,155 orgs × $350K avg ACV × penetration rate = Platform TAM
$350K avg is early-stage pricing. Enterprise SaaS benchmarks for compliance/GRC platforms ($500K–$2M ACV) suggest room to grow.
Agent ACV: $100K; 85% gross margin Pricing model benchmarked against AI-agent SaaS comps — FOAK
1.Each AI agent handles: document review, inspection scheduling, audit trail generation, or NCR processing
2.Pricing: $100K/agent/year — positioned below the cost of 1 FTE QA specialist (~$131K fully loaded)
3.Cost to serve: ~$15K/agent/year (compute + model inference + support) → Gross margin = ($100K − $15K) / $100K = 85%
4.Per-reactor agent deployment: Large = 20 agents, SMR = 8 agents, Micro = 2 agents
5.Agent TAM formula: (440 existing × 20 avg + new units × tier agents) × $100K = Agent TAM
$100K is intentionally below FTE replacement cost to ease adoption. As agents prove ROI, pricing has room to expand toward $150–200K/agent.
Transparency note: Every estimate above shows its derivation. Click "Show math" to see the exact inputs, formulas, and assumptions. We use conservative assumptions throughout — 15% QA cost share (floor of 15–25% range), $100K agent ACV (below FTE replacement cost), and mid-range org counts. Signed contract values are verifiable in the data room.
Forged Operations | Confidential — For qualified investor use only | Model v2.1 — April 2026
Questions? Contact Kyle George — k.george@forgedops.com

📖 Glossary

Ctrl+G to toggle · Esc to close · 29 terms