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.
What this powers
Want this whole layer as one table?
The power and cooling options on these pages as a single CSV — lead time, capex, carbon, maturity, density supported, PUE, the catch and what each one decides — ready to sort, filter or load into a notebook.
Get the energy table — free for research and evaluation
Four short lines and the download starts at once (CC-BY-NC-4.0, built from these pages the moment you ask). What you type is used only to answer the request and is never sold. Prefer Hugging Face? Request it there.
Using it inside a product, a client report or anything you sell? That needs a commercial licence.