Canada has taken a major step in its mining history. The country recently approved the first large-scale uranium mine in more than 20 years. This new project is part of Canada’s effort to support clean energy and nuclear power production.
The federal and provincial governments approved the Phoenix In Situ Recovery (ISR) uranium mine. This mine is part of Denison Mines’ Wheeler River Project in Saskatchewan. This approval allows the construction of both the mine and its processing mill.
Phoenix will use ISR mining, a method seen as more environmentally friendly than traditional open-pit or underground mining. The technique uses liquid to dissolve uranium underground. It then brings the uranium to the surface for processing. This method reduces land disturbance compared to traditional methods.
With its license now issued and environmental reviews completed, construction is expected to take about two years. The project remains on track for its first production by mid-2028.
The approval is a milestone for Canada’s nuclear fuel sector. It signals renewed interest in uranium mining at a time when nuclear power is gaining traction as a low-carbon energy source.
A New Era for Canada’s Uranium Sector
Uranium is the key fuel for nuclear power plants. Nuclear power provides large amounts of low-carbon electricity around the world. As countries seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear energy is playing a growing role in clean energy strategies.
Canada is one of the world’s top uranium producers. Mines like Cigar Lake, McClean Lake, and Rabbit Lake in Saskatchewan have been supplying uranium for decades.
However, no new large mining projects had been approved at the federal level in over two decades before Phoenix. Canada can now boost uranium production. This will help support nuclear fuel supply chains at home and abroad.
The Phoenix mine will create economic benefits. This includes jobs during both construction and operations in northern Saskatchewan. It will also contribute to local tax revenue and community development.
Rising Power Needs Put Nuclear Back in Focus
Nuclear power accounts for a significant share of clean electricity globally. Nuclear reactors produce constant, reliable power that does not depend on weather like wind or solar. Many countries view nuclear energy as critical to meeting climate goals while maintaining grid stability.
As electric grids transition to cleaner energy sources, the demand for uranium — the core fuel for nuclear plants — is rising.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global electricity demand grew by 3 % in 2025, following a 4.4 % increase in 2024. The agency expects demand to rise by about 3.6% each year from 2026 to 2030. This growth will come from industrial use, electrification, electric vehicles, cooling needs, and more data centers.
This growth underscores the need for reliable, low-carbon generation capacity. Nuclear energy is a strong candidate because it supplies large volumes of consistent electricity with low emissions.
Tech Sector Turns to Nuclear for 24/7 Power
As electricity demand grows, especially from data centers, tech companies are focusing on long-term power solutions.
Executives at NexGen Energy, developing Canada’s largest uranium project in Saskatchewan, say they’ve talked with data center providers. They discussed financing uranium mining projects and securing a long-term uranium supply. These talks aim to ensure stable fuel for nuclear plants that could help power future data infrastructure.
CEO Leigh Curyer said,
“It’s coming. You’ve seen it with automakers. These tech companies, they’re under an obligation to ensure the hundreds of billions that they are investing in the data centres are going to be powered.”
NexGen is working on the Rook I uranium project in Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin. This area is one of the richest for uranium and hosts Canada’s largest development-stage uranium project.
The company anticipates full government approval soon, and it aims for production around 2030. NexGen executives say the mine could supply more than 20 % of global uranium demand once operational.
NexGen’s discussions with data center operators focus on financing and long-term supply agreements. The idea is like car makers investing in battery material mines. They do this to secure vital supplies for electric vehicles.
These talks do not involve giving tech firms any control of NexGen. Instead, they focus on ways to help ensure uranium supply and potentially support early project development.
- MUST READ: From Now to 2060: How Canada’s SMRs and Maritime Nuclear Power Will Drive a Net-Zero Future
Why Tech Firms Are Interested in Nuclear Fuel
Modern data centers need a lot of electricity. This is especially true for those supporting AI, cloud computing, and large digital services. Power demand from data centers is a key driver of rising global electricity use, according to the IEA.
Unlike intermittent renewables, nuclear power provides 24/7 electricity that is not affected by weather. This reliability makes it attractive for companies that need stable energy for critical infrastructure.
Some technology firms have already signaled interest in long-term arrangements with nuclear energy providers. These supply arrangements might involve financing for mining, long-term fuel contracts, or offtake agreements when projects start production.
Long-term contracts for uranium can help companies lock in fuel supply for decades. This can reduce risks related to supply shortages or price volatility in commodity markets.The discussions show how energy security and climate goals are intersecting with corporate planning in the tech sector.
- SEE MORE: Project Matador: America’s $90B Nuclear Power Solution for AI, Semiconductors, and Data Centers
Tight Supply and Rising Prices Reshape the Market
The uranium market has tightened in recent years. Uranium prices have gone up. This rise shows supply issues and increasing interest in nuclear energy. Recent trading values put uranium at almost US$89 per pound, after briefly exceeding US$100 per pound in end of January.
Projections suggest that global nuclear capacity will need more fuel in coming decades as new reactors come online and existing ones are extended. Countries like China and India are expanding nuclear power to meet their growing electricity needs.
In Canada, new mines such as Phoenix and big projects like Rook I can fill global supply gaps. They also support national energy plans.
Global Supply Strain: U.S. and China Reshape the Uranium Market
The scramble for uranium supply is accelerating beyond Canada.
In the United States, a ban on Russian enriched uranium imports will take full effect in January 2028. Russia holds around 44% of the world’s uranium enrichment capacity. In 2023, it provided 27% of U.S. utility enrichment purchases, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights.
To reduce this dependence, the U.S. Department of Energy announced $2.7 billion in task orders to expand domestic enrichment capacity. The funding supports Centrus Energy, General Matter, and Orano Federal Services.
- Orano got $900 million to build a new enrichment facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. They expect to submit a license application in the first half of 2026.
Conversion capacity is also expanding. Solstice Advanced Materials plans to increase uranium conversion output by 20% at its Metropolis Works plant in Illinois. The facility is expected to exceed 10 kilotonnes of UF₆ production in 2026, and it is reportedly sold out through 2030.
At the same time, China’s nuclear buildout is adding pressure to global supply. China operates 58 reactors, with 34 more under construction. Citi Research estimates China’s uranium needs will rise from 35 million pounds in 2025 to 58 million pounds by 2030, equal to about 27% of global demand. Yet, China produces only around 4 million pounds domestically.
Global uranium demand could reach 400 million pounds by 2040, more than double today’s levels. Meanwhile, about 70% of post-2027 uranium requirements remain uncontracted, highlighting the growing supply gap.
S&P Global expects a uranium market upcycle until 2028, fueled by rising nuclear demand, especially from AI data centers. Global capacity is set to double, reaching 561-992 GW by 2050. Production jumps 141% to 141.2 million pounds by 2033, generating $14.9 billion revenue at $98.7/lb—65% above current prices.
Kazatomprom and Cameco will lead in 2025, generating $5.4 billion in revenue. This accounts for 86% of the group’s output. After 2028, NexGen and Denison will drive the supply wave, peaking at $1.6 billion in capex. Big Tech (Meta, AWS, Google, Microsoft) signs PPAs and equity deals.
Nuclear Fuel Security Becomes a Climate Strategy
The approval of a new mine after more than 20 years shows that uranium is regaining importance in global energy planning. The Phoenix ISR project and other potential mines reflect renewed confidence in nuclear fuel production.
Early interest from tech companies in securing uranium supply shows a shift in energy planning. As power demand increases, companies are exploring new clean energy options. They want stable, low-carbon electricity.
For countries pushing decarbonization, nuclear power — supported by a stable uranium supply — offers a path to reduce emissions while meeting baseload electricity demand.
In this context, the Canadian uranium sector is poised for growth. New mines and potential private sector involvement may strengthen nuclear fuel security, supporting both national and global energy transitions.
The post Canada Approves First Uranium Mine in 20 Years as Tech Giants Eye Nuclear Fuel for AI Power appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
