California-based General Atomics has stepped into the fusion spotlight with a $20 million, ten-year investment in Fusion Fuel Cycles, Inc. (FFC), a Canadian joint venture between Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) and Kyoto Fusioneering. The deal marks a landmark partnership to speed up development of UNITY-2, a tritium fuel cycle test facility that could help unlock the path to commercial fusion power.
Anantha Krishnan, senior vice president of the General Atomics Energy Group, noted,
“Our collaboration with FFC is a pivotal step toward realizing the full potential of fusion energy. Developing a practical fusion power plant demands that all core systems—including the fuel cycle—operate in concert. This collaboration directly targets one of the toughest challenges and brings us closer to solving the puzzle of integrating a complete, functional fusion system.”
Scheduled to go live by mid-2026, UNITY-2—based at CNL’s Ontario campus—will be the first fully integrated facility in the world to test the deuterium-tritium (D-T) fuel cycle, a key puzzle piece for building a working fusion power plant.
Why Tritium Testing Matters?
Fusion, the same reaction that powers the sun, is often called the “holy grail” of clean energy. To work at scale, a D-T fusion power plant needs four systems:
- A plasma confinement device, like a tokamak or stellarator
- A blanket system to capture energy and produce new fuel
- A fuel cycle system to handle and recycle tritium
- A conversion system to turn heat into electricity
UNITY-2 will focus on the fuel cycle system, simulating the full process of tritium recovery, purification, and resupply. This is critical because tritium is rare, radioactive, and expensive. Mastering its safe handling will determine how practical and scalable fusion power becomes.
UNITY-2 Parameters
CNL’s Role in Canada’s Fusion Push
The Canadian government has signaled strong support. Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Industry, responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, said,
“Advancing innovation in clean energy technology is a key priority for the Government of Canada. This investment by General Atomics in Fusion Fuel Cycles Inc, made through the Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy, will support the development of fusion energy, strengthen Canada’s competitive advantage in the green economy of the future, and create high-value jobs and economic benefits across the country.”
Canada is already moving fast on fusion. Last year, CNL hosted Fusion Day 2024 in Ottawa, where leaders unveiled the “Fusion Energy for Canada” report, a national strategy to make fusion energy part of the country’s net-zero toolkit by 2050.
According to the report, fusion is no longer just a science experiment—it’s shifting into a stage of prototypes and demonstrations. Globally, there are now 98 fusion experiments in operation, 13 under construction, and 33 more planned. Meanwhile, the number of private companies in the space has increased to 43 firms worldwide, attracting more than $8.2 billion in funding.
The report urged Canada to seize the economic and environmental benefits by creating a fusion ecosystem supported by clear policies and government backing.
Expanding Canada’s Nuclear Programs
To make this happen, CNL announced expansions of two major programs:
- Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Invitation Process – now open to fusion prototypes, giving developers access to demonstration sites at Chalk River and Whiteshell Laboratories.
- Canadian Nuclear Research Initiative (CNRI) – broadened to support fusion R&D, offering cost-shared research opportunities to companies developing advanced reactors.
By leveraging existing nuclear infrastructure, Canada is positioning itself as a hub for both fission and fusion innovation.
General Atomics Brings Global Expertise
General Atomics (GA) is no stranger to fusion. From its base in San Diego, the company runs the DIII-D National Fusion Facility, the largest magnetic fusion research center in the United States. The lab is the only operational tokamak in the country and a cornerstone of America’s fusion roadmap.
With UNITY-2, GA will not only contribute funding but also use the facility to advance its own R&D on fusion components. The company will work with Canadian teams to develop best practices for tritium management and safety, while also laying the groundwork for a future blanket test facility—another vital step toward commercial fusion power plants.
The investment also counts toward GA’s Industrial and Technological Benefits obligations tied to Canada’s procurement of MQ-9B SkyGuardian Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), underscoring how fusion and aerospace partnerships can align.
A Surge of Fusion Investment Worldwide
General Atomics’ move comes at a time when the fusion industry is attracting record levels of capital. The Fusion Industry Association’s Global Fusion Industry Report shows that companies raised $2.64 billion between July 2024 and July 2025. That’s a 178% jump from the previous year, marking the highest annual investment since 2022.
Cumulatively, private and public funding in fusion has hit $9.77 billion across 53 companies—a five-fold jump since 2021. The number of firms has more than doubled in just four years, expanding from 23 to 53.
Powering the Future – Fusion & Plasmas
GA also emphasized the Department of Energy’s Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) had unveiled a roadmap for U.S. fusion and plasma research.
The report urges the U.S. to push forward with fusion energy development, highlighting its potential to power society while cutting emissions. It outlines a vision for affordable, practical fusion and sets the stage for building a pilot plant by the 2040s
Big Tech Joins the Race
Tech giants are fueling this momentum. In June, Google signed a 200-megawatt power purchase agreement with Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS)—the largest corporate offtake deal in fusion history. The contract covers half the output from CFS’s first ARC plant in Virginia, set for the early 2030s.
Meanwhile, Microsoft partnered with Helion Energy in 2023 for 50 megawatts of fusion power by 2028. The deal has since grown, with Helion raising a $425 million Series F round in January 2025, pushing its valuation above $5.4 billion.
Record Funding Rounds Signal Investor Confidence
Several startups have made headlines with massive funding rounds, showcasing investors confidence in fusion’s potential.
- Pacific Fusion burst onto the scene with a $900 million Series A, one of the largest in fusion history, backed by General Catalyst and Bill Gates.
- Marvel Fusion, based in Germany, extended its Series B to €113 million, making it Europe’s best-funded fusion company. Investors included Siemens Energy Ventures and the European Innovation Council Fund, marking the EIC’s first private fusion equity stake.
Oil and Gas Step In
Traditional energy giants are also hedging their bets on fusion. Companies like Chevron, Shell, and Equinor have invested in startups, betting that fusion could reshape the global energy system. Their involvement signals that fusion is no longer just the domain of labs and startups—it’s attracting serious interest from incumbents in oil and gas.
Despite the optimism, challenges are significant. A survey of fusion firms revealed that 83% still see funding as a top barrier. On average, companies estimate they need $700 million each to get a pilot plant online. Across the sector, that adds up to around $77 billion in required capital—eight times what’s currently committed.
Even so, 84% of companies expect to supply electricity to the grid before 2040, with over half targeting 2035. The industry has also grown its workforce, employing more than 4,600 people directly and another 9,300 in the supply chain.
A Transformative Moment for Fusion
The UNITY-2 project highlights the importance of international collaboration in building the infrastructure for commercial fusion. Canada is positioning itself as a global hub, while General Atomics strengthens its leadership role.
The wave of new funding, corporate commitments, and government backing suggests fusion is moving from dream to early commercial reality. While hurdles remain—especially around financing and scaling—confidence in the sector has never been higher.
Fusion’s promise is clear: a near-limitless source of clean, reliable energy that could play a central role in meeting global net-zero goals by 2050. With UNITY-2, Canada and General Atomics are helping bring that vision one step closer.
The post General Atomics Fuels UNITY-2 Fusion Project in Canada as Global Fusion Investment Hits $2.64 Billion appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
-
Climate Change1 year 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”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits