Layer 1 · Where the power comes from
Enhanced geothermal
Operators wanting firm, clean, 24/7 power in the right geology.
The shape of it
- Lead time
- 3-5 years
- Capital cost
- High, drilling-dominated
- Carbon
- Near zero operational
- Maturity
- emerging
Verified 2026-09-06.
The catch
Geographically constrained and still proving out at scale. Fervo's projects are the ones to watch rather than a menu you can order from.
What it actually decides
The most promising clean-and-firm option that is not nuclear, and the one most limited by where you can put it.
What this is powering
A GB200 NVL72 rack draws 120–132 kW and a GB300 pushes 135–200 kW, against a 2026 average rack of about 27 kW. The silicon decision and the power decision are the same decision, made eighteen months apart.
Layer 2 — Silicon · GB200 NVL72 · The 150 W inference option
Weighed against
- Enhanced geothermal vs Nuclear PPA (existing plants) — The two clean firm options. One is geology-limited, the other supply-limited.
Others in where the power comes from
- Grid interconnection — 4-5 years typical, approaching 5 on average
- Nuclear PPA (existing plants) — 1-3 years to contract; the plant already exists
- Small modular reactors (SMR) — 2030s for meaningful capacity
- On-site natural gas turbines — 12-24 months, the fastest firm power available
- Behind-the-meter generation — Depends on the generation, but it skips the queue
- Solar + battery storage — 18-36 months