LEGO is turning to a renewable chemical to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. The toy maker has started using e-methanol to help produce more than 90 types of plastic elements, including connectors, steering wheels, cross axles, and the hands of its famous minifigures.

The move marks a new step in LEGO’s effort to use more renewable and recycled materials. The company says the change follows more than five years of testing and work with suppliers to bring e-methanol into its manufacturing process.

The material offers an alternative to fossil-based ingredients used to make plastic. However, LEGO is not replacing all conventional plastic at once. The new material enters a shared production process where renewable and fossil-based sources are mixed.

The move comes as companies look for ways to cut emissions from materials that are difficult to replace. It also supports LEGO’s wider climate goals: cutting its total greenhouse gas emissions by 37% by 2032, compared with 2019, and reaching net zero by 2050.

LEGO Starts Using E-Methanol in More Than 90 Elements

LEGO’s new material is being used in more than 90 rigid and durable elements. These include small parts that connect pieces, steering wheels, cross axles, and minifigure hands.

These parts may be small, but making them requires plastic materials that meet strict safety and quality standards. LEGO products are made for repeated use. So, any new material needs to have the strength and durability LEGO demands.

The company noted in its release:

“This marks the latest step on our journey to increase the recycled and renewable materials we purchase to make Lego products, without compromising on safety, quality or durability.”

E-methanol gives LEGO another way to reduce its use of virgin fossil-based materials. Virgin fossil materials are made from newly extracted oil or gas rather than recycled or renewable sources. The company has not disclosed how many tonnes of e-methanol it will use, the share of each product made from it, or the expected emissions savings from this first rollout.

That makes the announcement an important manufacturing step, but not yet proof of a specific reduction in LEGO’s total emissions. The wider impact will depend on how quickly the company can increase its use of the material and how much fossil-based input it replaces.

From Renewable Power to Plastic: How E-Methanol Works

E-methanol is a form of methanol made using renewable electricity and captured carbon dioxide (CO₂). Methanol is a chemical used to make many products, including plastics and industrial materials.

The process begins with renewable electricity, which powers equipment that splits water to produce hydrogen. That hydrogen is then combined with captured CO₂ to make methanol.

LEGO’s e-methanol comes from the Kassø facility in southern Denmark. Developed by European Energy and operated with Japanese trading company Mitsui & Co., the plant began commercial production in 2025. The facility has an annual production capacity of 42,000 tonnes and runs on renewable energy. It uses CO₂ from a biogas facility as a key input.

The methanol can then be used to make plastic materials, replacing some of the fossil-based raw materials normally used in production. However, e-methanol is not the same as recycled plastic. It provides an alternative chemical feedstock, while recycling uses existing materials again. Both approaches can help reduce reliance on newly extracted fossil resources.

The climate benefits also depend on how the material is produced. Renewable electricity, the source of captured carbon, manufacturing emissions, and the amount of fossil-based material displaced all affect the final result.

A Shared Production System Helps Scale the Material

One challenge for LEGO is introducing new materials without disrupting its existing factories and supply chains. The company says its e-methanol enters a continuous production process where conventional fossil-based material is also present. This approach allows suppliers to increase the use of renewable inputs within existing production systems.

LEGO uses a method known as mass balance for some recycled and renewable materials. Under this system, suppliers mix certified renewable or recycled sources with conventional fossil-based inputs. They track the amounts entering and leaving the production system.

The approach can help companies increase the use of alternative raw materials without building an entirely separate manufacturing system.

However, it has an important limitation. LEGO cannot guarantee that each part has a specific minimum percentage of renewable or recycled material because the inputs are mixed. Instead, the company tracks the sources and quantities across the supply chain.

This distinction matters when assessing environmental claims. Using renewable feedstocks can reduce the need for fossil resources, but the exact benefit depends on the amount used and the accounting method.

LEGO says the e-methanol rollout is part of its wider effort to increase renewable and recycled materials without compromising product safety, quality, or durability. The toymaker is also using sustainable packaging materials and processes.

• RELATED: LEGO’s Virginia Factory Goes Big on Solar as Net-Zero Push Speeds Up

LEGO’s Material Shift Supports Its Climate Targets

LEGO has set a science-based target to cut its total greenhouse gas emissions by 37% by 2032, compared with a 2019 baseline. It also aims to reach net zero by 2050. The targets cover emissions from its operations and wider value chain, including suppliers.

The latest figures show why further action is needed. LEGO reported 2.19 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO₂e) in total greenhouse gas emissions in 2025. This is a small increase of 0.2% from 2024, based on its market-based reporting method. Most of these emissions came from its wider value chain, classified as Scope 3.

Scope 3 emissions include indirect emissions from activities such as producing purchased materials and transporting goods. These emissions can be harder to reduce because they occur outside a company’s direct control.

LEGO is working with suppliers to lower the impact of the materials it buys. It is also expanding renewable energy use at its factories and improving energy efficiency.

The company reported that 52% of the materials it purchased to make LEGO bricks and elements in 2025 came from recycled and renewable sources. These materials were used in more than 200 different elements, and around half of LEGO sets contained at least one such element. The figure relies largely on the mass-balance approach.

LEGO aims to keep raising that share by 2032, when the company celebrates its 100th anniversary. The e-methanol initiative adds another option alongside other renewable and recycled materials.

E-Methanol Faces a Cost Gap as Global Methanol Output Tops 100 Million Tonnes

LEGO’s move reflects a wider effort to replace fossil-based chemicals with lower-carbon alternatives, but renewable methanol remains a small part of the overall market.

European Energy says more than 100 million tonnes of methanol are produced worldwide each year, mainly using natural gas and coal. The Kassø plant can produce 42,000 tonnes a year. This shows how limited current commercial e-methanol production is compared to traditional supply.

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and the Methanol Institute have identified renewable methanol as a potential tool for cutting emissions in chemicals and transport. Their 2021 outlook said production costs were high and output was low. However, costs might decrease as technology and supply chains improve.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has also warned that renewable fuel growth remains too slow to meet a net-zero pathway. The 2024 outlook predicts that e-fuel use must increase over ten times by 2030. This is necessary to meet the IEA’s Net Zero by 2050 Scenario. This applies to e-fuels broadly, not only e-methanol for plastics.

High production costs, the need for large amounts of renewable electricity, and limited supply remain major barriers. Companies also need clear ways to verify the source of materials and measure emissions savings.

For LEGO, the supply agreement offers access to a commercial source of e-methanol. Demand from manufacturers can boost investment in production capacity. However, the impact will depend on future contracts and prices.

Can Renewable Feedstocks Deliver Measurable Emissions Cuts?

LEGO’s e-methanol rollout will not immediately transform the materials used across its entire product range. The company has not yet announced the volume it will use or the emissions savings expected from the new material.

Still, the initiative shows how manufacturers can begin replacing fossil-based raw materials without redesigning every product or factory at once. The approach may also help suppliers gain experience with renewable feedstocks and improve production systems.

As LEGO works toward its 2032 emissions target and 2050 net-zero goal, e-methanol adds another tool to its materials strategy. Its long-term value will depend on scaling supply, reducing production costs, and proving that renewable inputs deliver measurable emissions cuts.

• READ MORE: LEGO Expands Carbon Removal Portfolio with $2.8M Investment for Net-Zero Goals

The post LEGO’s New Brick-by-Brick Climate Move: E-Methanol Replaces Fossil-Based Plastic appeared first on Carbon Credits.

The United Nations has introduced a new safeguard for clean cooking carbon credits. Projects under its Paris Agreement carbon market must now set aside some credits to cover the risk of forest carbon losses. Approved by the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body in October 2026, the rules apply to projects that help households burn less firewood or charcoal, or switch to cleaner cooking fuels.

Under the system, developers must place a share of their credits in a reserve pool instead of selling them all. The reserve covers the risk that trees saved through lower fuelwood use could later be lost to wildfires, drought, logging, or land clearing.

The change comes as clean cooking gains attention as a climate solution and a source of carbon market funding. However, cookstove credits have faced questions about how projects calculate emissions reductions and prove their climate benefits.

The new rules address the risk of losing forest-related benefits over time. They could also reduce the number of credits available for sale and affect project revenues. Mkhuthazi Steleki, Chair of the Supervisory Body, remarked:

“This decision gives cleaner cooking projects a new pathway under the UN carbon market, with clear rules to ensure that each credit represents a real and credible emission reduction. We have a clear mandate from Parties to build a high-integrity mechanism that supports the goals of the Paris Agreement. These methodologies put that mandate into practice, combining pathways for cleaner cooking projects with robust safeguards that support confidence in the mechanism.”

Two UN Methodologies Set New Rules for Clean Cooking

The UN approved two methodologies under Article 6.4, the Paris Agreement mechanism (PACM), for generating and trading carbon credits.

• The first covers more efficient wood- and charcoal-burning cookstoves. These stoves use less fuel to prepare the same amount of food, potentially reducing emissions and pressure on forests.
• The second covers projects that help households move to lower-emissions cooking options, including electricity and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

Both methodologies provide rules for measuring emissions reductions and calculating eligible credits. They also establish requirements for monitoring projects and assessing risks.

The methodologies matter because carbon credits can help finance the upfront costs of distributing cleaner cooking equipment. Revenue from credit sales can help expand projects. This is especially important in communities where families struggle to afford new stoves or fuels.

However, credits must represent genuine emissions reductions. If a project overestimates its benefits, it could issue more credits than its activities justify.

Why Cookstove Projects Need a Credit Reserve

The new reserve addresses the possibility that some climate benefits may not last. Using less firewood can reduce pressure on nearby forests. But the resulting forest benefits may be reversed if trees are later destroyed or cleared.

Under the UN rules, projects must contribute a portion of their credits to a common buffer pool. The pool acts as a safeguard against potential losses rather than allowing developers to sell every credit they generate.

The rules distinguish between natural and human-caused risks. Natural risks include events such as wildfires and drought. Human-caused risks include logging and land clearing.

The system uses scientific modelling to assess natural risks. It sets a default risk value for human-caused forest loss. Countries can reduce this value if they meet certain policy requirements.

The reserve does not mean every cookstove credit is expected to fail. Instead, it creates a financial and environmental safeguard against potential losses across projects.

However, the requirement could affect project economics. Developers may have fewer credits to sell, which could reduce revenue unless stronger credit integrity supports higher prices or attracts more buyers.

• RELATED: EU Eyes International Carbon Credits to Meet 2040 Climate Target and Expand Clean Cooking

How Many Credits Must Projects Set Aside?

The reserve requirement varies according to risk and the conditions a project meets. For human-caused forest-loss risks, the rules establish a default reserve rate of 20%.

Countries can get reductions of up to two-thirds. To qualify, they need a forest emissions-reduction plan, a long-term climate strategy, and a REDD+ framework. REDD+ refers to efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, alongside forest conservation and sustainable management.

A UN source told Climate Home News that improved cookstove projects might need a reserve of at least 9%. This is the case if all policy discounts are applied and risks are low. Projects in higher-risk areas or countries without the required frameworks could face larger deductions.

• Consider a project that generates 100,000 credits. If its reserve requirement is 9%, it would set aside 9,000 credits and have 91,000 available for sale.

At an illustrative price of $10 per credit, the 9,000 reserved credits would represent $90,000 in potential gross sales revenue. This is an example, not a reported market price, and excludes project costs. The actual financial impact will depend on each project’s reserve rate, credit volume, sale price, and operating costs.

Clean Cooking Has a Large Global Climate Impact

The rules target a major global energy and public-health challenge. The UNFCCC estimates that around 2.1 billion people still cook over open fires or use inefficient stoves and polluting fuels. These practices contribute to household air pollution, fuel consumption, and pressure on forests.

The World Health Organization estimated that household air pollution led to around 2.9 million deaths in 2021. This included over 309,000 deaths of children under five.

Cleaner cooking can help reduce these risks. More efficient stoves use less fuel. Electric cooking lowers household emissions if powered by low-carbon electricity.

The climate benefits depend on the technology, fuel mix, local conditions, and how projects calculate emissions reductions. Switching fuels won’t automatically cut emissions. Developers need to consider the emissions from alternative energy sources.

Carbon finance can help expand access to cleaner cooking equipment, especially where household budgets and infrastructure limit adoption. Projects need reliable monitoring. This shows that the equipment is used correctly and achieves the promised reductions.

Cookstove Credit Controversy Puts Integrity Under the Spotlight

The new rules arrive amid wider debate about the quality of cookstove credits. In February 2026, the UN issued its first credits under Article 6.4 for a clean-cooking project in Myanmar. The project distributes efficient cookstoves intended to reduce firewood use, household air pollution, and pressure on forests.

The issuance marked an important step for the new UN carbon market, but it also drew scrutiny from civil society groups. In October 2026, 130 civil society organizations urged a pause on issuing, transferring, and using credits from the Myanmar project. They want this action until an investigation is complete.

Their concerns are about:

• The accuracy of emissions-reduction calculations,
• Independent verification,
• Human rights, and
• Community safeguards.

Campaigners also cited earlier analyses that estimated the project overstated emissions reductions under previous carbon crediting rules. Some estimates showed over-crediting of about 14 times under the Clean Development Mechanism.

Under Article 6.4, the over-crediting was about seven times. These are estimates cited by campaigners, not established findings that should be treated as settled conclusions.

The controversy highlights a central challenge for carbon markets: credits must reflect reductions that can be measured and independently verified. Stricter rules on forest loss address one problem, but they don’t solve all issues. Concerns about project design, monitoring, and community effects remain.

What the New Rules Mean for Carbon Markets

The reserve adds a safeguard to the UN carbon market but may reduce project revenue by limiting the credits available for sale.

Buyers gain a clearer framework for managing forest-loss risks, while developers with lower reserve requirements can sell more credits. Countries may also be encouraged to strengthen forest protection policies to qualify for lower deductions.

However, the reserve does not resolve all concerns about over-crediting, monitoring, or community safeguards. Its effectiveness will depend on consistent enforcement, transparent reporting, and updated risk assessments.

The challenge is to strengthen carbon-credit integrity while keeping clean-cooking projects financially viable, particularly in lower-income communities that rely on carbon finance.

• SEE MORE: Verra Wins ICVCM Approval for VCS Version 5 as Carbon Market Integrity Tightens

The post UN Tightens Cookstove Carbon Credits With New Forest-Loss Reserve appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Disseminated on behalf of Sierra Madre Gold & Silver Ltd.

Silver has posted five consecutive annual market deficits, but the bigger challenge may be how slowly mine supply can respond. With most silver produced as a byproduct of other metals, new primary production is difficult to bring online quickly. Sierra Madre Gold & Silver is taking a different route, expanding an existing Mexican operation while advancing another past-producing mine.

Silver’s supply problem is becoming increasingly hard to ignore.

Global mine production rose 3% to 846.6 million ounces in 2025, according to the World Silver Survey 2026. Recycling added another 197.6 million ounces, lifting total supply by 7%. Yet, total demand still reached 1.13 billion ounces, leaving the market with a 40.3-million-ounce deficit.

It was the fifth consecutive annual deficit. The Silver Institute and Metals Focus expect mine production to remain broadly flat in 2026, with the structural deficit widening to 46.3 million ounces.

The numbers point to a problem that cannot be solved simply by higher prices.

Silver production is unusually dependent on other metals. Roughly three-quarters of mine supply comes from byproduct production, meaning silver is recovered from mines primarily targeting copper, lead, zinc, or gold.

That limits how quickly the industry can respond when silver demand exceeds mine output.

For Sierra Madre, this creates a relevant backdrop. Rather than relying on a completely new mine to add future ounces, the company is expanding La Guitarra, an established Mexican operation, while advancing Del Toro, a past-producing silver complex.

The strategy highlights one potential part of the supply response: getting more production from assets that already have mining and processing infrastructure.

Silver Prices Can Rise Faster Than Mine Supply

The supply constraint is not simply a question of whether silver is valuable enough to mine. The industry needs time to translate higher prices into additional production.

The Silver Institute reported that the average silver price increased 42% in 2025, while mine production grew only 3%. Much of that mine-supply increase came from higher byproduct output from copper operations in Peru and the ramp-up of Polymetal JSC’s Prognoz mine in Russia. 

That relationship is important. A higher silver price can improve the economics of primary silver projects, but it does not automatically cause copper, lead, or zinc mines to increase production. Their output decisions are driven primarily by the economics of their main metals.

New primary silver mines face another hurdle: development timelines.

Exploration must lead to a resource, followed by engineering, permitting, financing, construction, and commissioning. Even after construction, a mine needs sufficient grades and throughput to sustain commercial production.

That makes existing operations and past-producing assets relevant to the near-term supply picture. Sierra Madre’s La Guitarra complex is an example of that model.

La Guitarra Shows the Brownfield Approach

The company restarted commercial production at La Guitarra in January 2025, using an existing 500-tonnes-per-day mill. The property is fully permitted and includes underground mining operations in Mexico’s historic Silver Belt.

The company is now increasing capacity rather than building an entirely new processing operation. Its first expansion phase targets 750–800 tpd, while the second phase targets 1,200–1,500 tpd by Q3 2027.

The expansion is already moving beyond the original configuration.

Sierra Madre reported in August that modifications to the existing mill and larger-capacity pumps had lifted daily throughput to as much as 672 tpd, a 34% increase over the previous 500-tpd level.

The company subsequently announced on September 28 that the plant had achieved throughput of up to 720 tpd on a steady basis as development at the Guitarra and Nazareno mines accelerated.

Those figures represent progress at an existing mine rather than supply from a newly constructed greenfield operation.

Greg Liller, Chief Operating Officer and Executive Chairman, commented, 

“We continue to advance our Phase 1 and Phase 2 expansions at Guitarra. With the new ball mill now installed, Sierra Madre has also accelerated underground development. We have started groundworks for the permitted dry stack tailings facility expansion, a key component of our Phase 2 plan to increase throughputs to 1,200 tpd to 1,500 tpd. We look forward to updating the market as we advance towards Phase 2 expansion.”

More Mill Capacity Requires More Mine Development

Expanding a processing plant is only one part of increasing silver supply. The mine must also deliver enough ore to keep that capacity utilized.

Sierra Madre is therefore advancing underground development alongside the mill expansion. Its recent work has focused on the Guitarra and Nazareno mines, with the company also developing the Coloso area.

The operating strategy is effectively being built from both ends: increase processing capacity while developing the underground workings needed to supply it. That distinction is important when assessing potential new supply.

A larger mill does not automatically mean proportionally more silver production. Actual output depends on ore availability, grades, recoveries, throughput, and operating performance.

For Sierra Madre, the objective is to turn existing infrastructure and underground resources into a larger operating base over time.

Del Toro Provides a Second Existing Asset

Sierra Madre is pursuing the same broad development philosophy with its second Mexican silver asset.

The company completed its acquisition of the Del Toro Silver Mine in Zacatecas on June 22, 2026, acquiring 100% of the operation from First Majestic Silver for consideration of up to US$60 million.

Del Toro is a past-producing underground silver-lead-zinc complex that First Majestic operated from 2013 to 2019. The property contains three underground mines, more than 62.5 kilometers of existing underground development and a 3,000-tpd processing facility. 

Sierra Madre also describes Del Toro as fully permitted, with access to power, water, roads, and an experienced local workforce. Those existing assets do not make a restart automatic.

Del Toro is currently on care and maintenance, and Sierra Madre still needs to complete additional exploration, resource work, mine planning, and restart activities before production can resume. But the starting point is different from a greenfield project.

The company is working with an established mining complex rather than developing an entirely new operation and processing plant.

Historical Production Gives Del Toro a Starting Point

Del Toro also has an operating history that provides context for its potential. First Majestic operated the complex between 2013 and 2019. Sierra Madre’s acquisition materials cite historical production averaging approximately 2.54 million silver-equivalent ounces per year between 2015 and 2018.

Sierra Madre’s initial plan is to restart Del Toro at approximately 800 tpd, with potential to increase throughput to 1,600 tpd. The company has targeted the start of the restart process for mid-2027, with production currently slated for mid-2028. These are company targets and remain subject to the work required to restart the operation.

Sierra Madre’s approach also includes additional exploration and resource modelling. Del Toro has an exploration database containing 631 drill holes totaling more than 137,000 metres, according to the company.

That existing geological information could help guide future work, although any new resource estimate will need to be established through additional technical work.

Why the Supply Structure Matters

The persistent deficit makes this distinction increasingly relevant.

The 2025 market was short 40.3 million ounces even after recycling contributed nearly 198 million ounces of supply. The Silver Institute expects mine production to remain broadly flat in 2026, with the deficit potentially reaching 46.3 million ounces.

At the same time, the industry’s dependence on byproduct production means that higher silver prices cannot necessarily produce an immediate wave of new mine supply. That leaves several potential sources of additional ounces:

• Expansion of existing producing mines
• Restart of past-producing operations
• Development of advanced projects
• New greenfield discoveries
• Higher recycling

Each has different timelines and risks.

For the near term, established assets can potentially move through the development cycle faster than completely new discoveries because some of the required infrastructure and permitting framework may already exist.

La Guitarra and Del Toro fit into that category.

Sierra Madre Is Building Supply From Existing Assets

Sierra Madre is not large enough to change the global silver balance on its own. The significance of its strategy is different.

La Guitarra demonstrates how an existing mine can be restarted and expanded. Its processing capacity has moved from a historical 500 tpd configuration toward a planned 1,200–1,500 tpd operation, with throughput already reaching 720 tpd.

Del Toro provides another established asset, with three underground mines, more than 62.5 kilometers of development and a 3,000-tpd processing facility.

The broader silver market needs many such projects to advance if mine supply is to close the gap with demand. That is the central supply challenge.

Silver can move quickly in financial markets, but physical production moves much more slowly.

For Sierra Madre, the next stage is therefore about converting existing infrastructure into sustained additional output. For the wider market, the question is whether enough expansions, restarts and new projects can arrive quickly enough to narrow a deficit that has persisted for five consecutive years.

• READ MORE: Silver Falls 45% From Its 2026 Peak as Sierra Madre Scales Up Production

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. Sierra Madre Gold and Silver Ltd. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $25,000 to provide marketing services for a term of one month. 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, 2025, 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.

For more information on the Company, investors should review the Company’s continuous disclosure filings available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

Disclosure: Owners, members, directors, and employees of carboncredits.com have/may have stock or option positions in any of the companies mentioned: None.

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 Silver Supply Is Struggling to Keep Up: What It Means for Sierra Madre appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Thorizon and Urenco have signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to explore cooperation on nuclear fuel for advanced molten salt reactors. The companies will assess how Urenco could supply enriched uranium and whether Thorizon’s future reactors could use depleted uranium, a by-product of the enrichment process.

The agreement could help Thorizon secure fuel for its planned reactors while allowing Urenco to expand its role in the advanced nuclear market.

The partnership comes as countries look to nuclear power for reliable, low-carbon electricity. However, the industry must address a key challenge: securing enough uranium and expanding the facilities needed to process it into reactor fuel.

What Thorizon and Urenco Bring to the Partnership

Thorizon is a European nuclear technology company developing molten salt reactors. The company is working on the Thorizon One, a reactor designed to produce electricity and industrial heat.

Unlike conventional reactors, which use solid fuel assemblies, molten salt reactors dissolve nuclear fuel in a liquid salt mixture. The salt also carries heat away from the reactor core.

Thorizon aims to develop a low-pressure reactor that could make better use of nuclear materials. However, the technology remains under development, and its commercial potential will depend on testing, licensing and successful deployment.

Urenco brings experience in uranium enrichment, a critical stage in the nuclear fuel cycle. The company operates enrichment facilities in Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Enrichment increases the concentration of uranium-235, the isotope used to sustain a nuclear chain reaction in most commercial reactors. Without the right fuel specifications, nuclear plants cannot operate as designed.

Under the MoU, the companies will explore several areas of cooperation:

• Uranium enrichment: Urenco could support the supply of enriched uranium for Thorizon’s reactor programme.
• HALEU supply: The companies will examine options for high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU, used by certain advanced reactor designs.
• Depleted uranium: They will investigate whether Thorizon’s technology could use this material as part of its fuel cycle.

The agreement is exploratory. It does not confirm a binding fuel supply contract or guarantee that Thorizon will use depleted uranium commercially.

• READ MORE: US Uranium Production Triples as Nuclear Energy Revival Fuels Mining Boom 

HALEU and Depleted Uranium Could Play a Role

HALEU contains between 5% and 20% uranium-235. Conventional commercial reactors typically use uranium enriched to less than 5%.

Some advanced reactor designs need higher enrichment levels to meet their fuel and operating requirements. Thorizon plans to use HALEU in its molten salt reactor design, with the first reactors targeted for the mid-2030s.

Urenco is developing an Advanced Fuels Facility at Capenhurst in the UK, with HALEU production expected to begin in 2031. The proposed cooperation could help Thorizon explore a potential fuel supply route ahead of its planned deployment.

The companies will also study the possible use of depleted uranium.

Enrichment removes a portion of uranium-235 from natural uranium, leaving behind material with a lower concentration of that isotope. This leftover material, known as depleted uranium, consists mainly of uranium-238.

Some advanced reactor designs can use uranium-238 to produce fissile material through nuclear reactions. If Thorizon can establish a technically and commercially viable way to use depleted uranium, it could extract more value from existing nuclear materials and potentially reduce its reliance on newly mined uranium.

However, the outcome will depend on the reactor design, fuel chemistry, and technical validation.

Uranium Supply Struggles to Keep Pace With Demand

The proposed partnership comes as the nuclear industry prepares for higher fuel demand.

According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), global nuclear reactors required an estimated 68,920 tonnes of uranium in 2025, while mines produced around 60,000 tonnes.

The difference highlights the industry’s reliance on inventories and secondary sources, including previously mined uranium, to meet reactor requirements.

Demand could rise further as countries extend existing reactor operations and build new nuclear plants. The WNA’s reference scenario projects annual uranium requirements could exceed 150,000 tonnes by 2040.

Several factors could put pressure on future supply:

• Growing nuclear capacity: New reactors and lifetime extensions will increase demand for nuclear fuel.
• Long mining timelines: Uranium projects can take years to develop, permit, and bring into production.
• Supply concentration: A relatively small number of countries account for much of global uranium production, making diversification important.
• Processing constraints: Miners must supply uranium, but conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication facilities must also keep pace with demand.

These challenges create opportunities for companies across the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium miners to enrichment providers and advanced fuel developers.

Urenco Expands Its Enrichment Capacity

Urenco is investing in additional capacity to meet anticipated demand for enriched uranium.

On October 8, 2026, Urenco USA reported that it had started production in the sixth of eight planned new centrifuge cascades at its New Mexico facility. The expansion will add 700,000 separative work units (SWU) of annual enrichment capacity, with the final cascade expected in spring 2027.

Urenco also plans a further 2.1 million SWU expansion at the site, with initial production targeted for 2032.

These investments could help strengthen the fuel supply chain as conventional and advanced nuclear technologies compete for enrichment services.

For Thorizon, cooperation with an established supplier could help address one of the major hurdles facing new reactor designs: securing suitable fuel at the right time. For Urenco, the agreement provides a way to explore a potential role in the next generation of nuclear power.

The immediate outcome remains uncertain. The companies must still determine whether their proposed fuel arrangements are technically and commercially viable. But as uranium demand rises, partnerships that connect fuel suppliers with advanced reactor developers could become increasingly important.

• READ MORE: Sweden’s Biggest Nuclear Bet in 40 Years: Rolls-Royce Lands Historic SMR Deal, Pushing RYCEY Stock Upward

The post Urenco and Thorizon Target Next-Gen Nuclear Fuel Markets as Uranium Demand Grows appeared first on Carbon Credits.