According to DNV’s 2025 Energy Transition Outlook, North America is on a slow but steady path toward a low-carbon future. The forecast shows fossil fuels will fall from 72% of final energy demand in 2024 to 45% by 2050, and further to 31% by 2060.
While the U.S. has seen policy shifts and slower progress due to changing political priorities, Canada’s energy policies remain relatively stable. Together, the two nations continue to move toward decarbonization, driven by clean technology investments and rising public support for sustainable energy.

U.S. Faces Fuel Security and Supply Chain Hurdles
The U.S. nuclear sector faces a different challenge — fuel dependency. As of 2023, the U.S. imported 99% of its uranium, with nearly one-third sourced from Russia, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan — countries with complicated diplomatic relations.
Developing a domestic nuclear fuel production capability has become a priority. The DOE is investing in research to expand uranium mining, enrichment, and HALEU production. These efforts are crucial for the future success of the SMR program and national energy security.
Until SMRs become commercially viable in the early 2030s, U.S. nuclear capacity growth will primarily come from reactor life extensions and the reopening of mothballed plants, such as Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.
Nuclear Power Boost and Support Across the Continent
In this backdrop, nuclear power is enjoying its strongest public and political backing in a decade. In both the U.S. and Canada, nuclear energy is being recognized for its reliability and role in achieving net-zero targets.
In Canada, nuclear is the second-largest source of non-emitting electricity and contributes significantly to reducing carbon emissions. Ontario leads the way, with nuclear supplying nearly 60% of its total electricity. The province continues to invest in maintaining and extending reactor lifespans to ensure energy security and meet climate goals.
Despite this renewed interest, DNV notes that nuclear power’s near-term growth will be modest. However, its long-term outlook is strong, with nuclear capacity projected to increase from 115 gigawatts (GW) today to 232 GW by 2060. Most of this growth will come after 2045, primarily from Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).

SMRs: The Future of North American Nuclear Energy
Large-scale nuclear projects have struggled in recent decades with cost overruns, construction delays, and public opposition. Even with continued policy incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, big reactors are costly, slow to build, and difficult to integrate with flexible renewable grids. These challenges make new large-scale reactors (LSNs) impractical for the short term.
Modern energy systems increasingly require power sources that can ramp up and down quickly to complement solar and wind. Large reactors lack this agility. SMRs, by contrast, can operate flexibly, be built faster, and support grid stability in renewable-heavy systems.
- Each SMR unit typically produces around 100 MW, making financing and construction more manageable than billion-dollar LSN projects.
DNV forecasts that SMRs will reach cost parity with large reactors by around 2045. Their modular design reduces construction risks, while their operational flexibility allows them to ramp up or down quickly — a crucial feature for grids with high solar and wind penetration.
Though still in the development phase, SMRs are advancing rapidly. Strong backing from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Canadian government is accelerating research and demonstration projects.

Canada’s SMR Leadership and the Darlington Advantage
Canada is emerging as the North American frontrunner in SMR technology. The Darlington SMR project in Ontario, led by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and funded partly by the Canada Infrastructure Bank, is on track to become the first grid-scale SMR in North America by 2030.
- Once built, the SMR will reduce carbon emissions by an average of 740 kilotonnes annually between 2029 and 2050.
This milestone could position Canada as a global leader in modular nuclear deployment. However, challenges remain. Canada currently lacks the facilities to produce HALEU (High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium), the fuel needed for most SMR designs.
While Canada has strong uranium reserves and manufactures fuel for its traditional CANDU reactors, it must still develop a domestic HALEU supply chain to maintain its early-mover advantage in SMR deployment.
Key Projects and Timelines

Maritime Nuclear: A New Frontier for Clean Energy
Beyond the grid, DNV forecasts that nuclear energy could power up to 10% of North America’s maritime and near-shore energy demand by 2060 — up from an estimated 3.5% by 2050.
The maritime sector faces mounting pressure to decarbonize under the International Maritime Organization’s Net Zero by 2050 goals. SMRs could provide a solution, offering a zero-emission, high-density energy source for shipping and port operations.
Some developers are exploring floating SMR concepts capable of supplying clean power to docked vessels, reducing local air pollution, and protecting coastal ecosystems.
However, nuclear adoption in maritime transport faces high capital costs, complex financing models, and regulatory barriers. Nuclear-powered ships would require new rules and safety frameworks, particularly in countries with stringent oversight like the U.S. and Canada.
Still, advocates argue that the combination of energy density, low emissions, and efficiency makes nuclear an attractive option for a future low-carbon shipping industry.
Policy, Regulation, and Competitiveness
Regulatory complexity remains a major obstacle for both land-based and maritime nuclear expansion. Compared to countries like China, North America’s safety and environmental regulations add significant costs and time to nuclear construction.
A recent bipartisan push in the U.S. to revitalize domestic shipbuilding for national defense could help reduce barriers and provide incentives for SMR integration into shipyards. Yet, to compete globally, U.S. manufacturers will need to improve both shipbuilding capacity and SMR cost efficiency — a difficult combination to achieve in the near term.
The Long Road to 2060
DNV’s analysis paints a realistic, not overly optimistic, picture. The energy transition is happening, but slowly. Fossil fuels remain dominant in the near term, but nuclear, renewables, and clean fuels will take an expanding share of the mix.
By 2060, North America could see a fully integrated clean energy system, with flexible SMRs supporting renewables, new fuels decarbonizing industry and transport, and fossil fuels pushed to the margins.
The message is clear: the energy transition is inevitable but uneven. Governments, investors, and innovators that act early on SMRs and clean technologies will define the region’s next industrial wave.
- FURTHER READING: Canada’s Nuclear Boom: Big Investments in CANDU and SMRs
The post From Now to 2060: How Canada’s SMRs and Maritime Nuclear Power Will Drive a Net-Zero Future 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.
![]()
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 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

