Layer 1 · head to head
Fuel cells vs On-site natural gas turbines
The premium bridge against the default bridge.
| Fuel cells | On-site natural gas turbines | |
|---|---|---|
| Lead time | 9-18 months, among the fastest on this list | 12-24 months, the fastest firm power available |
| Capital cost | High per MW | Moderate; turbine supply chains are now the constraint |
| Carbon | Lower than turbines on natural gas; near zero on hydrogen, which is rarely available | High. This is the trade being made. |
| Maturity | proven | proven |
Fuel cells
The catch: Cost per megawatt is high, and the clean version depends on a hydrogen supply that mostly does not exist yet at this scale.
Decides: The premium bridge option. Chosen when speed matters and gas is politically or contractually unavailable.
On-site natural gas turbines
The catch: It works, it is fast, and it puts your sustainability commitments in direct conflict with your capacity plan. Turbine lead times have themselves stretched as everyone reached the same conclusion.
Decides: The honest bridge. Most 2026-2028 AI capacity that actually energises on schedule will be gas, whatever the announcements say.