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.