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.