Layer 1 · head to head
Nuclear PPA (existing plants) vs On-site natural gas turbines
Clean and slow against fast and dirty. The defining 2026 trade, and most operators are quietly choosing gas.
| Nuclear PPA (existing plants) | On-site natural gas turbines | |
|---|---|---|
| Lead time | 1-3 years to contract; the plant already exists | 12-24 months, the fastest firm power available |
| Capital cost | None — it is a contract, not a build | Moderate; turbine supply chains are now the constraint |
| Carbon | Effectively zero operational carbon | High. This is the trade being made. |
| Maturity | proven | proven |
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.
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.