Conceptual illustration of the deployed LPWR plant — surface turbine hall and underground reactor shaft LPWR deployed concept (deployedLPWR.png)

Abundant Energy
For A Sustainable Future

Clean, safe, affordable nuclear energy — designed for tomorrow's world.

EP4381525 Patent Granted 22 Oct 2025  >39 countries protected

Clean, bankable nuclear power — simplified by natural physics.

CENERGY is developing the Low-Pressure Water Reactor (LPWR): a 300 MWe Small Modular Reactor that eliminates pumps, high-pressure systems and active safety machinery — replacing them with gravity, density and natural circulation. Meltdown risk removed by design.

Aligned with UK ONR · US NRC · Canada CNSC Standard UO₂ fuel, off-the-shelf supply chain Imperial College · Manchester · Bangor · Cambridge · UTP Served as technical advisory to Malaysia's national nuclear programme office (MyPOWER Corp, agency of Kementerian PETRA)
LPWR · Sectional ConceptEP4381525
Steam Dryer & Drum G To Grid · 300 MW(e) Ground level ≈100 m below grade Riser Chimney Low-density steam column — the driving force Downcomer Cold, dense water returning by gravity — no pumps Reactor Core 145 conventual PWR assemblies · standard UO₂ fuel Steel-lined concrete shaft
300 MWePER MODULE
~5 barVS 150+ BAR CONVENTIONAL
70 daysPASSIVE COOLING, NO REQUIRED OPERATOR ACTION
0Countries with patent protection
0Power per modular unit
0SMR market potential by 2040 (WEF)
0Seed raise to Start of FEED
The Problem

Nuclear innovation is stuck — and the world can't wait.

Clean, reliable baseload power is urgent. Yet today's nuclear renaissance is held back by designs that regulators can't easily review and investors can't underwrite.

🧪

Advanced concepts face first-of-a-kind risk

Molten salt, gas-cooled and fast-neutron technologies push important scientific frontiers and may prove vital in coming decades - but requires new materials databases, novel tech supply chains and regulatory frameworks that don't yet exist — putting utilities and financiers a decade or more from bankable megawatts.

🏛️

Regulators are misaligned

Nuclear authorities worldwide are optimised for water-based systems. Exotic coolants demand entirely new licensing frameworks, competencies and multi-year delays.

📉

Hesitant investors

High costs, slow development and uncertain approvals have eroded confidence in SMR startups. Capital is waiting for a pragmatic, de-risked platform.

The LPWR Solution

Reliance on natural physics — safety by design.

"It must be possible to eliminate the possibility of meltdown by design, using off-the-shelf components." — Emeritus Professor Geoffrey Hewitt (1934–2019)

🌊

Natural Circulation — No Pumps

Density difference between cold water in the outer annulus and steam-filled chimney drives flow, exactly like water rising into a straw with air inside. No coolant pumps. No backflow.

🛡️

No Loss-of-Coolant Accident

Operating at near-atmospheric pressure (~5 bar) removes high-pressure safety injection systems, redundant active machinery and vulnerable high-pressure welding from the design entirely.

⏳

70 Days Passive Cooling

A large borated reactor water storage tank shuts down the reaction and provides cooling for 70 days with no human or computer action required. Gravity inserts shutdown rods.

Low density Dense cold water taller column = higher flow rate Heated core the heated column flashes to steam — lighter than the water outside Pressure inside the straw is lower than pressure outside

The analogy of the straw: Heat the bottom of the straw and the mixture inside heats up until it bubbles to steam at some height above the core; it becomes less dense than the water outside, so the surrounding denser, higher-pressure water pushes it up the straw - endlessly. In the LPWR, the reactor core is that heat source at the bottom: the same density difference circulates the whole plant, forever, without a single moving part.

LPWR published design concept diagram — natural circulation flow path with steam dryer, turbine and underground core

The published design concept. High-density cold water occupies the outer annulus and is pulled down by gravity; the core heats it to near-saturation, flashing to steam in the riser chimney. The saturated steam is dried at ground level and sent straight to low-pressure turbines — one vessel, one loop, no steam generators, no pressuriser.

Design Basis · From Granted Claims
Core depth≥55 m (design target ~100 m) Core pressure6–15 bar saturated Steam drum1–10 bar at grade Circulation flow>10,000 kg/s natural Fuel120–180 PWR-type assemblies · UO₂ ShutdownGravity-driven rods + borated RWST
FeatureOther SMRs / Gen-IVCENERGY LPWR
Coolant systemHigh-pressure or exotic coolantsWater, near-atmospheric pressure (~5 bar)
Core circulationForced circulation, pumpsNatural, passive — no pumps
Fuel typeNovel or unproven fuelsStandard UO₂, global supply chain
Capital cost ($/kW)$8,000 – $10,000+ (FOAK)$3,000 – $3,500 target
Deployment timeTypically 8–12 years (FOAK-driven)Faster — modular, repeatable builds with established global supply manufacturers
Regulatory alignmentLow — new frameworks requiredHigh — existing light-water precedent
Supply chain readinessRequires new infrastructureCompatible with existing industry

Why low pressure?

Every thermal plant chases efficiency — but efficiency only matters when fuel is expensive. Uranium is abundant, so buying a few extra percentage points of thermal efficiency with resource-intensive high-pressure complexity has rapidly diminishing returns. Dropping from a 50 bar system to a 5 bar costs less than one-third of the thermal efficiency — and the safety and cost gains are enormous.

Thermal efficiency versus system pressure chart showing modest efficiency loss at low pressure

What we eliminate

Low-pressure, density-driven natural circulation removes the systems that dominate conventional reactor cost — and their failure pathways:

  • Reactor coolant pumps & their diverse power supplies
  • Nuclear-grade high-pressure safety injection systems
  • Vulnerable high-pressure welding and thick-wall pressure vessels
  • Steam generators & pressuriser — one vessel, one loop
Cost breakdown for a conventional PWR Investment about sixty per cent, O&M twenty per cent and fuel cycle twenty per cent (uranium five, conversion one, enrichment six, fabrication three, back-end activities five), plus decommissioning of one to five per cent. The investment wedge is highlighted as the slice LPWR attacks; uranium, boxed in amber, is the only cost we accept giving a little more on. O&M15% CAPITAL COST≈60-64%the wedge LPWR attacks Decommissioning · 1–5% 1% Conversion 6% Enrichment 3% Fuel fabrication 5% Back-end activities 5% URANIUMLower efficiency means more fuel consumption.We'd rather use more of the cheap uranium,and use less of the expensive steel (green pie). FUELCYCLE20% Cost breakdown for a conventional PWR - the wedge we attack isn't the cheap pie (Source: NEA)
The Opportunity

A $300B/year market needs firm, clean power — now.

Fossil fuels are being retired; renewables are land-intensive and weather-dependent; conventional nuclear is dense and reliable but slow and costly. The unmet need is a safe, fast, scalable way to deliver zero-carbon baseload — without rebuilding the grid.

🔌

Utilities & Grid Operators

Facing fossil retirement mandates, they need dispatchable zero-carbon baseload. A fleet of five 300 MW LPWR modules can reach first revenue in ~7 years — versus a single 1,500 MW conventional plant taking far longer.

🖥️

Data Centres & AI Infrastructure

24/7 uptime demands that wind and solar cannot meet alone. LPWR's modular siting delivers dense, clean power exactly where compute grows fastest.

🏭

Industrial & Hydrogen Hubs

Clean heat and power for industry, ports and remote regions — built with current industrial supply chains, no exotic materials required.

Construction cycle: one big plant vs. a fleet of modules

Same 1,500 MW — but the fleet earns revenue from Year 3.

Construction timeline: one conventional 1,500 MW plant versus a fleet of five 300 MW LPWR modules The conventional plant is sold as a six-year build but typically slips by two years, so it sells its first kilowatt-hour only after about eight years. The LPWR fleet sells power in year three (FOAK unit), adds a second unit in two and a half years, then builds units three to five in parallel over two years, reaching the same 1,500 MW in seven and a half years. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 years from first concrete pour CONVENTIONAL One 1,500 MW plant LPWR FLEET 5 × 300 MW = 1,500 MW Vendor’s claimed build · 6 yrs typical +2 yr slip First revenue ≈ Year 8 Unit 1 · FOAK 3 yr First revenue — Year 3 Unit 2 · NOAK 2.5 yr Units 3 · 4 · 5 built in parallel 2 yr Full 1,500 MW fleet complete — Year 7.5 The fleet deployment wins on NPV, not just time Revenue arrives in Year 3 — five years before the big plant — so cash pays for construction as it goes up. FOAK (First-Of-A-Kind) lessons and an established supply chain cut unit builds from 3 yr to 2.5 yr, then to 2 yr in parallel. The conventional vendor’s 6-year build is optimistic: two years of typical slip means eight years of outlay before the first sale. Earlier inflows and less capital locked up remove most of the discount drag on a single long build.
Intellectual Property

A global moat, already granted.

Priority filed 3 August 2021 (WIPO App. No. 21189257). European Patent EP4381525 granted 22 October 2025, now entering national validation across >39 countries under PCT and EPC schemes — including the UK, US, EU, Canada, China, Japan, Korea, India, Indonesia and South Africa.

📜

EP4381525 — Granted

The core LPWR patent, covering the low-pressure natural-circulation reactor architecture claimed down to >10,000 kg/s flow and 6–15 bar saturated operation. Entering national validation across Europe.

🌐

PCT National Phase

Examination underway or granted in major markets: US (US2024/0339230), China (CN118202428), Eurasia, Australia (AU2022324667), Canada (CA3227898), Japan, Korea, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Africa.

🔒

Continuous Expansion

Filing strategy protects the design end-to-end, from reactor physics to control systems - securing first-mover advantage for partners and investors.

Programme Roadmap

From research validation to commercial deployment.

Years 1–4 · Research Validation (Pre-FEED)

Confirm physics · validate safety

Thermalhydraulics modelling (University of Manchester), fuel & core design (Bangor University), reactor physics (Cambridge), structural integrity (Imperial College London) and Malaysia's first dedicated SMR demonstration test rig at Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS - who are developing grant application documentation.

Years 4–7 · Engineering Design (FEED)

Detailed design & construction costing

Front-End Engineering Design, Control Rod Drive Mechanism development and full engineering blueprint — de-risking build cost before any steel is cut.

Years 7–10 · Regulatory Approval

Licensing in markets that understand water reactors

UK ONR Generic Design Assessment and US NRC Standard Design Approval, with Canada's CNSC SMR Action Plan as a parallel fast-track path. Malaysia — test-rig location and future regulatory alignment partner. Founders bring direct experience from the Hinkley Point C GDA.

Mid-2030s · First Deployment

FOAK in UK / US / CA / EU, then NOAK fleets worldwide

Repeatable modular units for utilities, data centres and industrial hubs across the EU, Asia and Africa.

Risk & Mitigation

De-risked by design, validated in stages.

LPWR's risk strategy is rooted in pragmatism -> de-risking early through validation, regulatory alignment and real-world deployment logic.

🔬

Technology risk

Partnering with world-class research institutions — Manchester, Bangor, Cambridge, Imperial and Uni Teknologi Petronas — for staged experimental validation before any commercial commitment.

🏛️

Licensing risk

Aligned with existing light-water frameworks in the UK, US, CA and EU. No new materials databases or first-of-a-kind regulatory learning curves required.

🏗️

Supply chain risk

No exotic materials: standard UO₂ fuel, proven PWR-type assemblies and commercial-grade fabrication from established global manufacturers.

Founding Team

Nuclear depth, regulatory scars, commercial execution.

AAzrudi Mustapha

Azrudi Mustapha

Co-Founder & Managing Director

PhD Nuclear Thermalhydraulics, Imperial College London (Khazanah-funded) — thesis on the LPWR itself. MSc Nuclear Science & Technology, Manchester (Chevening Scholar). 25+ years in the energy sector starting with Tenaga Nasional and later with MESTECC's MESI 2.0 programme shaping electricity market reform; in 2024 advising MyPOWER Corporation on nuclear safety and infrastructure.

KKeith Ardron

Keith Ardron

Co-Founder & Chief Scientist

40+ years in nuclear safety. UK Licensing Manager at AREVA (2010–2016), instrumental in securing Hinkley Point C approval via the UK Generic Design Assessment. Senior Research Fellow then Visiting Fellow at Imperial College, where he supervised the PhD project that produced the LPWR concept. 30+ published papers; contributor to Three Mile Island and Chernobyl investigations.

WLiew Wei Mee

Liew Wei Mee

Co-Founder & Executive Director

MBA, University of Sheffield. Leads capital strategy, international IP coordination and investor relations. Background spanning operations management, project delivery and business development across corporate and sustainability-focused enterprises.

Join our team

Solve this problem

A small container of height 15 cm is made of a metal sheet in the form of a frustum of a cone, with radii of its lower end 5 cm and upper end 10 cm. If filled with teh tarik bought at RM4 per litre, what is the total value?

V = (πh / 3)(R² + Rr + r²)  ·  and remember 1 L = 1,000 cm³.

If this kind of problem-solving excites you, write to us — and share with us your dreams. We'd love to have you on our journey!

Nuclear Programme Advisory

We help first-time nations, utilities and industry get nuclear right.

Beyond the LPWR, CENERGY advises national programmes and companies entering nuclear — from strategy and regulatory readiness to qualifying conventional-industry manpower and suppliers for first nuclear work.

⚛️

Advanced Reactor Design

SMR concepts, thermal-hydraulics, safety engineering and licensing strategy — the same depth we apply to the LPWR.

🗺️

Nuclear Power Programme Advisory

Roadmaps, policy support, feasibility studies, site selection and power-system assessments. Our team contributed technical evaluation and assessment to MyPOWER Corp for Malaysia's potential nuclear power programme.

🤝

Strategic Delivery

Commercial structuring, stakeholder engagement and deployment pathways — turning policy intent into programmes that actually reach a concrete pour.

🎓

Workforce Upskilling & Certification Readiness

We help companies move people from conventional industries — oil & gas, marine, power generation, heavy manufacturing — into nuclear-qualified roles: welding and NDT qualification (ASME Section IX / ISO 9606; ASNT SNT-TC-1A, PCN and ISO 9712 Level II), AWS certified weld inspection, QA/QC systems training (EN 9100 / NQA-1 principles), and HSE culture for nuclear sites.

🏭

Supply Chain Qualification & Localisation

Vendor development into nuclear supply chains: material traceability, documentation standards (NCA NQA-1 / 10 CFR 50 Appendix B), ASME Section III fabrication requirements, audit readiness and local-content programmes that keep value in-country.

📋

Regulatory & Licensing Support

GDA preparation, safety-case structuring and licensing gap analysis — grounded in firsthand experience of the Hinkley Point C Generic Design Assessment.

The Ask

$6.5M today unlocks a $300B/year market.

Completion of the LPWR demonstration test rig is expected to establish an indicative project value of approximately USD 15 million. Subsequent commercial deployment would generate design licensing revenues of USD 25–40 million per reactor unit, with additional long-term value arising from engineering services, technical support contracts, intellectual property royalties, and other recurring revenue streams.

Recommended · Option 1
$6.5M over 36 months
  • Validate LPWR core performance & passive safety
  • Advance licensing readiness in the UK and Canada
  • Lock in vendor pricing and delivery schedules now
  • Full R&D and regulatory strategy to Start of FEED
  • Protect global IP across >39 countries
$1.9M 18-month entry
  • Thermal-hydraulics validation & IP advancement
  • Followed by $5.1M over the next 24 months
  • Total $7.0M — higher long-term cost, slower momentum
Stage 1 · Research Validation
$6.5M

Confirm physics, validate safety, secure vendor quotes — the raise on the table today.

Stage 2 · Engineering Design
(est) ~$35M

FEED and detailed design; construction costing confirmed before steel is cut.

Stage 3 · Regulatory Certification
(est) ~$40M

Generic Design Assessment (UK) and parallel certification in target markets.

We are looking for strategic investors in clean energy and infrastructure, angels with nuclear or energy domain expertise, institutions backing pragmatic SMR solutions, and commercial partners for siting, engineering, supply chain and scale-up.

Start a Conversation

Join us in building the world's first truly practical SMR.

We welcome a conversation with those who believe that together we can deliver a practical, safe and bankable nuclear option. Use the form to reach us — investor briefings available on request.

📍
Clean Energy Xpeditions Sdn. Bhd. Registered office: No.10, 1st Floor, Jalan Balam, Off Jalan Ipoh, 51100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Co. No. 202201033043 (1478740-H) · Presence in Malaysia & the United Kingdom
🤝
Ways to engage with us
Equity investmentR&D co-developmentUtility & industrial offtakeSiting & engineering partnershipsAcademic & research collaborationAdvisory engagements
⏱️
What happens next
  1. We reply to every partnership enquiry — typically within two business days.
  2. Signed NDA, then an investor briefing and access to the technical data room.
  3. Lead-commitment discussions feed a milestone-based programme (2026–2028).

Include both email and phone if you can — we'll reply on whichever channel suits you best.