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.