Layer 1 · head to head
Enhanced geothermal vs Nuclear PPA (existing plants)
The two clean firm options. One is geology-limited, the other supply-limited.
| Enhanced geothermal | Nuclear PPA (existing plants) | |
|---|---|---|
| Lead time | 3-5 years | 1-3 years to contract; the plant already exists |
| Capital cost | High, drilling-dominated | None — it is a contract, not a build |
| Carbon | Near zero operational | Effectively zero operational carbon |
| Maturity | emerging | proven |
Enhanced geothermal
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.
Decides: The most promising clean-and-firm option that is not nuclear, and the one most limited by where you can put it.
Nuclear PPA (existing plants)
The catch: There is a fixed supply of existing reactors and the good ones are being contracted now. This is a land-grab with a finite end, not a repeatable strategy.
Decides: The fastest route to large, firm, carbon-free power that exists today — precisely because you are buying something already built.
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.