Layer 1 · head to head
Solar + battery storage vs On-site natural gas turbines
Intermittent and clean against firm and fast. Almost always paired rather than chosen.
| Solar + battery storage | On-site natural gas turbines | |
|---|---|---|
| Lead time | 18-36 months | 12-24 months, the fastest firm power available |
| Capital cost | Falling fast; BESS is the swing cost | Moderate; turbine supply chains are now the constraint |
| Carbon | Near zero operational | High. This is the trade being made. |
| Maturity | proven | proven |
Solar + battery storage
The catch: Intermittent. An AI training cluster does not want to stop at dusk, so this is almost never a standalone answer — it is a cost-reducer alongside firm power.
Decides: Excellent at shaving peak cost and emissions. Not a capacity strategy on its own.
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.