The first major update of CTC’s carbon-tax model since 2021 is now in the books, calibrated to 2023 emissions and the putative emissions-reducing provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. One result stands out: Without federal legislation mandating a robust national carbon tax, the U.S. won’t come close to achieving the hoped-for 50% decline in carbon emissions (from 2005 levels) in the reasonably foreseeable future.
A $20/$15 carbon tax could halve carbon emissions by 2035
A national carbon tax starting next year at $20/ton and rising annually by $15/ton will cut U.S. CO2 emissions in half from 2005 levels in 2035. To halve emissions by 2030 requires $25/ton for both the starting price and the annual rises.
A national carbon price that took effect in 2025 at $20 per (short) ton and rose by $15 per ton each year would, by 2035, halve U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion: from 6,120 million metric tons (“tonnes”) in 2005, the standard baseline year, to an estimated 3,068 million tonnes in 2035, according to CTC’s model (Excel spreadsheet, 2 MB). That computes to a 50% reduction (rounded from 49.9%).
[NB: The site hosting the Excel file is temporarily down, please check back soon.]
But without a national carbon price, our model projects U.S. emissions in 2035 of 4,606 million tonnes. That would be just 25% below 2005 emissions, putting the country only halfway to the 50%-reduction goal in 2035. And even that piddling progress entails pushing back the customary 2030 target for halving U.S. emissions to 2035, a 5-year delay.
To be fair, the “halving by 2030” goal is generally construed to encompass not just carbon dioxide but also methane, which is regarded as lower-hanging greenhouse-gas fruit on account of its relative concentration in more easily regulatable oil and gas extraction and transport. This January methane began to be subjected to emissions pricing, through a provision of the Inflation Reduction Act mandating that emissions above a certain threshold be taxed at a rate of $900 per tonne.
But even assuming an optimistic three-fourths reduction in methane and other non-carbon GHG’s, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-burning would have to fall by 44% from 2005 to achieve an overall 50% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Without a national carbon price, the projected CO2 reduction from 2005 is just 17% in 2030 and, as noted, only 25% in 2035, according to CTC’s model.
Halving carbon emissions by 2030 requires a more heroic carbon tax, one starting at $25/ton in 2025 and rising annually by that amount
We also ran the CTC model to determine the carbon price level and trajectory required to halve U.S. 2005 carbon emissions by 2030 rather than 2035. Talk about a tall order! Here’s what the requisite carbon tax would look like:
- The carbon tax would take effect in 2025 (same as in the 2035 scenario).
- The initial price would be $25 per ton of CO2 rather than $20.
- The annual price rise would be the same $25/ton, rather than just $15/ton in the 2035 scenario. That means reaching triple digits in the tax’s fourth year.
- And — this is a bit technical — we’re relaxed the model assumption of the maximum annual tax rise to which the U.S. economy can fully react, from $20/ton previously to $25/ton.
It goes without saying that the present-day American political system isn’t equipped to enact and implement such an “heroic” (an adjective we prefer to “draconian”) carbon tax.
The still-lonely radical center
Prominent voices calling for carbon taxes beyond token amounts (e.g., $10 or $20 per ton with little or no increases) are precious few, not just in absolute terms but relative to the pre-2010 period in which climate concern was widespread and neither the left nor the right had been consumed by their respective demonizations: carbon pricing (on the left) or climate concern of any sort (on the right).
Indeed, here at Carbon Tax Center, we’ve traded in our web pages that previously celebrated carbon tax supporters for pages like Carbon Pricing and Environmental Justice, Progressives and Carbon Pricing, and Conservatives, all of them grouped under a heading of “Politics.” Each is essentially a litany of grievances and rejections of carbon pricing and/or climate action, period.
This chart, from CTC’s newly updated carbon tax model, shows the futility of looking for a single invention or regulation or subsidy to slash U.S. emissions. Fossil fuels suffuse our economy, making robust carbon pricing essential to achieving big across-the-board cuts.
This isn’t polarization, it’s a simultaneous disavowal by both ends of the political spectrum of the lone plausible transformational climate-preserving policy measure. (Rather than “ends” I should say “sides” of the spectrum, given that anti-pricing has spilled over from the confines of the respective extremes and now appears to occupy most of the two sides.)
Omens
Consider these two minor but telling signposts from the past week.
One was a NY Times “Sunday Review” guest essay last weekend, I’m a Young Conservative, and I Want My Party to Lead the Fight Against Climate Change, by one Benji Backer, founder-director of the American Conservation Coalition.
Alas, the essay was cut from the same generic cloth as other conservative calls to climate action. Here’s an excerpt:
We cannot address climate change or solve any other environmental issue without the buy-in and leadership of conservative America. And there are clear opportunities for climate action that conservatives can champion without sacrificing core values, from sustainable agriculture to nuclear energy and the onshoring of clean energy production.
Ho-hum. But, most strikingly, zero mention of carbon pricing — not even a nod to the revenue-neutral type such as fee-and-dividend that circumvents right-wing canards about government overreach by “dividending” the carbon revenues to households, thus correcting the market failure driving carbon emissions without “growing the government.”
So much for the right wing. On the left, I had the frustrating experience of meeting a director of an iconic American environmental organization at a public event and bonding with him over our shared dismay at the organization’s post-2016 submission to anti-carbon-pricing rhetoric . . . only to be ghosted when I tried to arrange a meet-up to possibly grow our newfound patch of common ground.
So much for dialogue in service of effective climate policy.
Can’t we bring U.S. emissions down sharply without carbon pricing?
Alas, no. U.S. emission progress perennially falls short of even modest hopes. Almost from the moment the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act — which CTC supported from the git-go — was enacted into law, it has bumped up against a calamity of transmission bottlenecks, supply-chain woes and high interest rates. Even worse, perhaps, is the legal-regulatory “default” against building almost anything, even essential elements of the clean-energy infrastructure the IRA was intended to unlock
(Just after this post went up, I came across NY Times columnist Ezra Klein and Atlantic staff writer Jerusalem Demsas’s trenchant dive into the permitting-resistance phenomenon. Their analysis traces much of today’s disabling red tape and NIMBYism to Democratic Party empathy that prioritizes concerns about marginalized constituencies over the common good. Audio version here, transcript here.)
And let’s not overlook the emergent hellspawns of energy demand like AI processing, cyber-currency computing and ever-larger SUV’s and pickup trucks driven ever more miles, all of which threaten to pile on new carbon emissions almost as fast as incumbent emissions are removed.
As we’ve argued in post after post — just scroll through our monthly archives — these and other decarbonization derailments would be greatly alleviated by the robust carbon taxes we scoped above. Pricing the climate benefits of reduced fossil fuel use into the vast array of alternatives — from clean energy to all the ways of using less — will raise their profitability and, before long, bend society’s defaults toward replacing fossil fuels.
Our updated carbon-tax model shows that U.S. carbon emissions fell by 2.3% from 2022 to 2023. If there weren’t a climate emergency, that might qualify as a decent win. But in our real, overheating world, that rate doesn’t come close to the 4.1% compound annual decline needed to halve 2005 emissions by 2035, much less the 6.9% annual emissions shrinkage required to meet the same goal in 2030.
The insufficiency of even the best-intentioned policies and programs to meet necessary carbon targets without robust carbon taxing can’t be hidden indefinitely. The carbon tax reckoning awaits.
“…Human subtlety… will never devise an invention more beautiful, more simple or more direct than does nature, because in her inventions nothing is lacking, and nothing is superfluous…”
The voluntary carbon market (VCM) has passed its inflection point. The volatility that characterized 2023 and 2024 has settled into a stark, data-driven reality: the market has bifurcated. As we look toward 2026, corporate leaders face two distinct markets. One is a liquid, low-price market of legacy credits facing increasing obsolescence. The other is a constrained, high-value market of high-quality assets. Specifically within Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), where demand is beginning to structurally outstrip supply.
For the capital-intensive, risk-averse organization, the strategy for 2026 cannot rely on the spot market procurement tactics of the past decade. The data from 2025 indicates that securing access to high-quality NBS is no longer just a corporate social responsibility objective; it is a balance sheet imperative driven by regulatory convergence and the tangible risk of stranded assets.
The End of Uniformity: The Quality Premium Widens
The most critical signal for your 2026 strategy is the decoupling of credit prices based on integrity.
In 2025, while total credit retirements marginally declined by 4.5% to 168 million tonnes, the primary market value actually grew by over 6% to $1.04 billion. This counter-intuitive dynamic—lower volume, higher value—proves that buyers are actively discarding low-quality inventory in favor of fewer, higher-quality assets.
This “flight to quality” has created a substantial price premium. In previous years, the spread between high and low-rated credits was negligible. By mid-2025, MSCI reported that credits rated ‘BBB’ and above were trading at a premium of approximately 360% over lower-rated credits. Specifically within NBS, Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation (ARR) projects rated ‘BBB+’ averaged $26.10 per tonne, while their lower-rated counterparts (‘BB-‘ and below) languished at $14.50.
For the CFO, this presents a clear heuristic: the “cheap” option carries a hidden cost. Low-quality credits now face a high probability of becoming stranded assets. Credits that are technically issued but unusable for credible net-zero claims or compliance obligations due to reputational toxicity or regulatory exclusion.
The Supply Crunch in High-Quality NBS
As your organization forecasts its procurement needs for 2026, you must account for a deepening supply deficit in the specific assets you likely desire. While the overall market holds a surplus of legacy credits, the inventory of high-quality credits is shrinking.
For the third consecutive year, highly-rated credits (BBB+) experienced a market deficit in 2025, meaning retirements (consumption) exceeded new issuances. This scarcity is acute in Nature-Based Solutions. While forestry and land use, accounting for 68 million tonnes in 2024, remain the most frequently retired project category, the composition of that supply is changing.
Buyers are aggressively shifting away from legacy REDD+ (avoided deforestation) projects toward removal-based NBS, such as ARR and Improved Forest Management (IFM). In 2025, transaction volumes for IFM projects grew over 300%, while legacy REDD+ volumes fell by 52%.
The implication for your 2026 planning is scarcity. The lead time for new high-quality NBS projects to come online is significant. Consequently, we are witnessing a surge in early-stage offtake agreements. In 2025, the value of announced offtake deals totaled $12.25 billion… a massive leap from $3.95 billion in 2024. Sophisticated buyers, including major energy and technology firms, are locking in future supply at weighted average prices of $160 per credit for durable removals, effectively bypassing the spot market entirely.
Regulatory Convergence: The Compliance Floor
The distinction between “voluntary” and “compliance” markets is eroding, and this convergence will be a primary price driver in 2026. Regulatory bodies are increasingly creating a floor for credit quality that impacts voluntary buyers.
Two mechanisms are driving this shift:
1. CORSIA Phase 1
The Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) has entered its first mandatory compliance phase (2024–2026). The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has tightened eligibility, creating a “compliance-grade” stamp of approval. Sylvera modeling suggests that compliance demand could exceed voluntary demand as early as 2027, largely driven by the approaching CORSIA Phase 1 deadline. This will create direct competition for high-integrity credits between voluntary corporate buyers and regulated aviation entities, inevitably driving up price floors for eligible NBS credits.
2. Article 6 and Corresponding Adjustments
The operationalization of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement is accelerating. As of late 2025, 176 bilateral agreements were in place under Article 6.2. This mechanism allows countries to transfer carbon credits (Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes, or ITMOs) to one another.
For corporate buyers, the critical development for 2026 is the “Corresponding Adjustment” (CA). A CA ensures that when a credit is sold abroad, the host country deducts it from its own national inventory, preventing double-counting. We project that credits with a CA will command a distinct premium and may become a requirement for companies making specific claims under the Paris Agreement framework. With countries like Singapore and Japan already executing trades, the infrastructure for this high-compliance market is solidifying.
3. The Role of Independent Assurance
In an environment of rising prices and regulatory complexity, “trust” is a risk management tool. Reliance on project developer marketing materials is insufficient for audit committees and risk officers.
The rise of independent rating agencies such as MSCI, Sylvera, Calyx Global, and BeZero, has fundamentally altered the due diligence landscape. These agencies now cover the majority of the market; Calyx Global’s ratings alone cover 70% of all retirements from 2021 to 2024.
Data indicates that utilizing these ratings is becoming a prerequisite for transaction security. Buyers are increasingly writing clauses into offtake agreements that allow them to exit the contract if a project’s third-party rating drops below a certain threshold (e.g., ‘BBB’). For 2026, we advise integrating independent ratings data directly into your procurement workflows to mitigate delivery and reputational risk.
Strategic Outlook for 2026
Based on the current trajectory, the role of Nature-Based Solutions in 2026 will be defined by three core realities:
- NBS as a Removal Mechanism: The market will continue to prize “removals” (sequestering carbon) over “avoidance” (preventing emissions). In 2024, removal credits commanded a 381% price premium over reduction credits, up from 245% the previous year. Corporations with net-zero targets must prioritize ARR and IFM projects to align with the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) guidance on residual emissions.
- Co-Benefits as Value Drivers: Buyers are no longer paying solely for the carbon molecule. They are paying for the verified impact on biodiversity and local communities. Projects with quantifiable co-benefits are achieving measurable price uplifts. In 2026, expect biodiversity monitoring to become a standard component of high-quality NBS due diligence.
- The Necessity of Long-Term Positions: The spot market for high-integrity NBS is thinning. If your organization waits to purchase 2026 vintage credits in 2026, you will likely face a restricted supply of “leftover” inventory at inflated prices. The $12 billion surge in offtakes signals that your peers are moving upstream to finance project development directly.
Recommendations for the C-Suite
To navigate the 2026 carbon market landscape effectively, we recommend the following actions:
- Audit Your Inventory: Assess your current holdings against independent ratings. Identify assets at risk of becoming “stranded” due to low integrity scores or lack of alignment with Core Carbon Principles (CCPs).
- Pivot to Offtakes: Move from spot purchasing to multi-year offtake agreements for high-quality ARR and IFM projects. This hedges against future price spikes and secures supply.
- Integrate Compliance Standards: Even if your purchasing is voluntary, align your quality thresholds with CORSIA Phase 1 or Article 6 requirements to future-proof your investments against regulatory creep.
- Demand Data: Require independent ratings and granular monitoring data (MRV) for all prospective NBS investments. Do not rely on issuer claims alone.
The era of cheap, opaque carbon credits is effectively over. The market of 2026 offers clarity and impact, but only for those willing to invest in integrity.
About Carbon Credit Capital
For over 20 years, Carbon Credit Capital has guided global organizations through the complexities of sustainability strategy and carbon finance. To discuss how these 2026 forecasts impact your specific net-zero roadmap, or to analyze the integrity of your current portfolio, connect with our sustainability experts.
Carbon Footprint
Surge Battery Metals Strengthens Nevada North With High-Grade Expansion and Infill Success
Surge Battery Metals (TSX-V: NILI | OTCQX: NILIF | FRA: DJ5C) delivered two strong updates from its Nevada North Lithium Project (NNLP) in February 2026. Together, these results confirm expansion potential, reinforce high-grade continuity, and advance technical work needed for the upcoming Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS).
On February 17, Surge reported a major step-out success. The company drilled a 31-meter intercept grading 4,196 ppm lithium from surface in a hole located 640 meters southeast of the existing resource boundary. This intercept sits well above the current resource average grade of 3,010 ppm lithium. The wide step-out confirms that high-grade mineralization extends significantly beyond the defined resource footprint.
Just one week later, on February 25, Surge released the final batch of results from its 2025 core drilling program. These infill holes focused on upgrading inferred resources to higher confidence categories and collecting technical data for the PFS. The results returned some of the strongest intercepts drilled to date.
Together, these two updates strengthen the project’s scale, quality, and development readiness.
Infill Drilling Confirms a Thick, High-Grade Core
The February 25 news highlighted Hole NNL-030 as a standout result. The hole intersected 116 meters, averaging 3,752 ppm lithium. Within that interval, a 32.1-meter zone graded 4,521 ppm lithium. These grades exceed the project’s current average and confirm the presence of a thick, ultra-high-grade core.
Hole NNL-032 also delivered strong results, returning 82.29 meters, averaging 3,664 ppm lithium. Hole NNL-036 intersected 78.63 meters, averaging 3,141 ppm lithium, including a deep 9.4-meter zone grading 4,580 ppm lithium.
These intercepts show both lateral and vertical continuity. They show that high-grade lithium persists across wide widths and at depth. Importantly, most of these zones occur near the surface. Near-surface mineralization reduces stripping requirements and can improve early-year mine economics.
The infill drilling supports resource upgrading efforts. It helps convert Inferred resources into Indicated and Measured categories. Higher confidence categories are critical for mine planning, financing, and permitting.
The results confirm that Nevada North’s high-grade core is consistent, thick, and scalable.
Mr. Greg Reimer, President & Chief Executive Officer and Director of Surge, stated,
“This infill drilling is doing exactly what it was designed to do: upgrade the resource, confirm continuity of some of our best lithium intercepts, and de-risk the early years of a potential mine plan at Nevada North. Coupled with a robust PEA economic profile, we believe Nevada North is strongly positioned as we move forward with the development of our PFS. We look forward to updating the Mineral Resource Estimate as our next key milestone.”
Expansion Beyond the Current Resource Boundary
The February 17 step-out result adds a new dimension to the project story. The 31-meter intercept grading 4,196 ppm lithium occurred 640 meters beyond the existing resource area. This large extension demonstrates strong mineral continuity outside the current pit-constrained model.
Step-out drilling is important because it tests the limits of a deposit. A successful 640-meter extension suggests the deposit remains open and may support future resource growth.
Nevada North already hosts a pit-constrained Inferred Resource of 11.24 million tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) grading 3,010 ppm lithium at a 1,250 ppm cutoff. High-grade step-out intercepts increase confidence that future resource updates may expand both tonnage and overall contained lithium.
Highly anomalous soil values and geophysical surveys also suggest the clay horizons could extend even further. The mineralized zone currently spans more than 4,300 meters in strike length and over 1,500 meters in width. Continued drilling could increase the overall scale of the project.
This combination of strong infill and wide step-out success strengthens Nevada North’s long-term growth profile.
Advancing Toward Pre-Feasibility and Permitting
The 2025 drilling program did more than confirm grade. It also collected critical technical data required for the upcoming PFS and environmental permitting.
Hole NNL-035 was strategically positioned near Texas Spring to gather hydrogeological data. The hole successfully installed the Vibrating Wire Piezometers (VWPs) to monitor groundwater conditions. This data will help model basin hydrology and support environmental approvals.
The company also completed detailed geotechnical logging across all holes. High-resolution televiewer surveys mapped fault structures. Representative samples from each rock unit are now undergoing rock strength testing. These tests will help determine safe pit wall angles for future mine planning.
Remarkably, quality control procedures were rigorous. Of the 806 total samples analyzed, 134 were QA/QC samples. Certified reference standards, blanks, and duplicates were systematically inserted.
Standards are performed within acceptable limits. Duplicate samples fell within 10% tolerance. These results confirm strong analytical accuracy and reproducibility.
This technical work reduces development risk. This, in turn, ensures that the PFS is built on high-quality geological and engineering data.
Strategic Upside: By-Products and Strong Economics
In addition to lithium, the infill drilling consistently returned elevated cesium and rubidium values. Cesium reached up to 163 ppm and rubidium up to 349 ppm in association with the lithium core. Surge is evaluating the deportment of these elements in ongoing metallurgical studies.
If recoverable, these critical minerals could add value to the project economics. By-product potential can improve revenue streams and enhance overall project returns.
Nevada North already shows strong economic metrics from its Preliminary Economic Assessment. The PEA reports an after-tax NPV (8%) of approximately US$9.17 billion and an after-tax IRR of 22.8% at a lithium price of US$24,000 per tonne LCE. Operating costs are estimated at roughly US$5,243 per tonne LCE.
High grades play a central role in these economics. Thick intervals averaging 3,500–4,500 ppm lithium reduce the tonnage required to produce each unit of lithium. This supports lower operating costs and stronger early cash flow potential.
The joint venture with Evolution Mining also strengthens the project’s development pathway. Evolution is a globally recognized mining company with operational expertise. This partnership adds technical depth and financial strength to the Nevada North project.
A Strengthened Position in the U.S. Lithium Landscape
The United States is working to strengthen its domestic lithium supply chain. Federal incentives and policy measures emphasize secure, locally sourced battery materials. Projects that combine high grade, large scale, and technical readiness are well-positioned in this environment.
Nevada North now demonstrates three key strengths at once:
- Proven high-grade core through infill drilling,
- Expansion potential through 640-meter step-out success, and
- Advancing technical data for PFS and permitting.
These updates reinforce Nevada North as one of the highest-grade lithium clay projects in the United States. They show both growth and de-risking in the same drilling campaign.
As global demand for lithium continues to rise, supply sources with strong grade, scale, and development momentum will stand out. Surge Battery Metals’ recent results highlight meaningful progress on all three fronts.
The company’s Nevada North Lithium Project is not only expanding. It is advancing toward higher confidence resources, improved technical definition, and future development milestones. These combined achievements strengthen Surge’s position within the evolving North American lithium supply chain.
DISCLAIMER
New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com (“We” or “Us”) are not securities dealers or brokers, investment advisers, or financial advisers, and you should not rely on the information herein as investment advice. Surge Battery Metals Inc. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $50,000 to provide marketing services for a term of two months. None of the owners, members, directors, or employees of New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com currently hold, or have any beneficial ownership in, any shares, stocks, or options of the companies mentioned.
This article is informational only and is solely for use by prospective investors in determining whether to seek additional information. It does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Examples that we provide of share price increases pertaining to a particular issuer from one referenced date to another represent arbitrarily chosen time periods and are no indication whatsoever of future stock prices for that issuer and are of no predictive value.
Our stock profiles are intended to highlight certain companies for your further investigation; they are not stock recommendations or an offer or sale of the referenced securities. The securities issued by the companies we profile should be considered high-risk; if you do invest despite these warnings, you may lose your entire investment. Please do your own research before investing, including reviewing the companies’ SEDAR+ and SEC filings, press releases, and risk disclosures.
It is our policy that information contained in this profile was provided by the company, extracted from SEDAR+ and SEC filings, company websites, and other publicly available sources. We believe the sources and information are accurate and reliable but we cannot guarantee them.
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT AND FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
Certain statements contained in this news release may constitute “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking information generally can be identified by words such as “anticipate,” “expect,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “plan,” and similar expressions suggesting future outcomes or events. Forward-looking information is based on current expectations of management; however, it is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated.
These factors include, without limitation, statements relating to the Company’s exploration and development plans, the potential of its mineral projects, financing activities, regulatory approvals, market conditions, and future objectives. Forward-looking information involves numerous risks and uncertainties and actual results might differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking information. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things, market volatility, the state of financial markets for the Company’s securities, fluctuations in commodity prices, operational challenges, and changes in business plans.
Forward-looking information is based on several key expectations and assumptions, including, without limitation, that the Company will continue with its stated business objectives and will be able to raise additional capital as required. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated, or intended.
There can be no assurance that such forward-looking information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Additional information about risks and uncertainties is contained in the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis and annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2024, copies of which are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
The forward-looking information contained herein is expressly qualified in its entirety by this cautionary statement. Forward-looking information reflects management’s current beliefs and is based on information currently available to the Company. The forward-looking information is made as of the date of this news release, and the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances except as may be required by applicable law.
Carboncredits.com receives compensation for this publication and has a business relationship with any company whose stock(s) is/are mentioned in this article.
Additional disclosure: This communication serves the sole purpose of adding value to the research process and is for information only. Please do your own due diligence. Every investment in securities mentioned in publications of carboncredits.com involves risks that could lead to a total loss of the invested capital.
Please read our Full RISKS and DISCLOSURE here.
The post Surge Battery Metals Strengthens Nevada North With High-Grade Expansion and Infill Success appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Canada Approves First Uranium Mine in 20 Years as Tech Giants Eye Nuclear Fuel for AI Power
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.
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 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
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits