Canada is making bold moves in nuclear energy. It is investing heavily in next-generation technology to boost its clean power supply. As demand for low-emission electricity grows, the government is modernizing its flagship CANDU reactors along with developing the small modular reactors (SMRs).
On March 5, 2025, Canada’s Energy Minister, Jonathan Wilkinson, announced a deal with AtkinsRéalis to develop the MONARK reactor, a new CANDU design. Under this agreement, Canada will provide up to $304 million over four years to cover 50% of the project’s design costs.
AtkinsRéalis CEO Ian L. Edwards,
“We are honoured to have the full faith and confidence of the Government of Canada in continuing our development of proven home-grown CANDU technology.”
AtkinsRéalis Leads CANDU Innovation
AtkinsRéalis, a global engineering and nuclear company, has been operating since 1911. It focuses on building a sustainable future by connecting people, data, and technology. The company provides end-to-end services to key sectors such as engineering, nuclear, and capital projects.
They have pioneered CANDU technology for over a decade and have contributed majorly to global low-carbon energy solutions.
CEO Ian L. Edwards further added,
“The federal government’s decision today to invest in the further development of CANDU technology, an evolution of the proven Darlington reactor model, will enable us to continue this important work already underway with our utility partners. Advancing CANDU technology creates economic value for the country and Canadians, ensures energy security at this critical time, improves health outcomes through the creation of more cancer-fighting isotopes, builds stronger and more resilient relationships with Indigenous peoples, workers and communities, and above all, maintains Canada’s status as a Tier-1 nuclear nation.”
This initiative involves Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), Canadian suppliers, and reactor operators. Together, they will modernize a technology that has powered Canada for decades.

Canada’s CANDU Advantage: A Homegrown Powerhouse
CANDU (CANada Deuterium Uranium) reactors have a major plus. They use natural uranium sourced from Saskatchewan. This means no enriched uranium is needed. Most of the uranium is used to produce fuel for nuclear plants (over 99%). The rest (less than 1%) is used for research reactors and medical isotopes.
In 2022, Canada produced 7.4 kilotonnes of uranium from mines in Saskatchewan. This was worth around $1.1 billion. This makes uranium a secure energy source for Canada and an easily available fuel for CANDU reactors.
- Currently, Canada has 17 CANDU reactors—16 in Ontario and one in New Brunswick.
-
Net Zero Integration: can eliminate over 17 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions annually when replacing coal.
Internationally, CANDU technology is used in South Korea, China, Argentina, and Romania. Demand for CANDU reactors is rising. In late 2024, Romania said it would buy two more units for its Cernavoda nuclear site. This move strengthens Canada’s reputation in global nuclear energy.
The CANDU supply chain drives economic growth as the industry sources 85% of its components from domestic companies. This supports 89,000 high-quality jobs in manufacturing and engineering. In 2024, AtkinsRéalis hired over 750 new employees for Candu Energy Inc. and placed more than $1 billion in orders with Canadian suppliers.
Minister Wilkinson hailed the potential of CANDU reactors by explaining,
“CANDU reactors maintain an almost entirely Canadian-made, Canadian-designed supply chain through a consortium of Canadian companies, and they provide good-paying, long-lasting, and sustainable jobs in manufacturing for Canadians. They are also fuelled by uranium mined in Saskatchewan without the need for enrichment. As countries look to secure safe sources of clean energy, demand for Canadian nuclear is growing. The Government of Canada is acting now to modernize Canadian-owned CANDU technology, which will provide a viable, cost-effective design in support of the expansion of nuclear energy capacity in Canada and internationally.”

SMRs: The Future of Flexible Nuclear Power
Canada is also investing in small modular reactors to diversify its nuclear energy options.
The Government’s press release also highlighted,
Minister Wilkinson, on behalf of the Honourable Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, also announced $55 million in funding from Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Future Electricity Fund (FEF) to support Ontario Power Generation’s Darlington New Nuclear Project.
This project will install three GE Hitachi BWRX-300 SMRs at Darlington. Each unit will produce 300 megawatts, which can power 900,000 homes.
Saskatchewan is moving forward with SMR deployment. The federal government increased funding for SaskPower’s pre-development work. It went up from $24 million to $80 million. This support helps with engineering studies, environmental assessments, regulatory planning, and collaboration with indigenous communities. These are all essential steps before construction begins.
More Nuclear Investments, Less Carbon
Moving on, Minister Wilkinson announced a $52.4 million investment to push SMRs and CANDU reactors. This investment also includes decarbonization strategies in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Ontario.
- The investment includes $11.4 million from the Enabling SMRs Program for three projects and $41 million under NRCan’s Electricity Predevelopment Program for four projects.
Economic and Environmental Wins
Investing in nuclear power offers major economic advantages. The Conference Board of Canada says a four-reactor CANDU project could boost Canada’s GDP by $50 billion. It might also generate $29 billion in tax revenue. Additionally, building these four CANDU reactors could create over 20,000 full-time jobs and ~ 3,500 permanent jobs for more than 70 years.
Nuclear energy is also crucial for Canada’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Unlike fossil fuels, CANDU reactors and SMRs produce zero emissions. Thus, expanding the nuclear capacity will bring direct environmental benefits like:
- They provide a clean and reliable power source.
- Help replace coal and natural gas plants.
- Cut greenhouse gas emissions and ensure a stable electricity supply.
The post Canada’s Nuclear Boom: Big Investments in CANDU and SMRs appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测


