arXiv 8 Aug 2026 · Econometrics
Interconnection queues, not electricity prices, now govern where data centers can be built, and the standard levelized-cost comparison answers a question no developer faces: it assumes a load profile, freezes the grid price while modeling the demand that moves it, and quotes busbar costs a facility cannot buy. This paper evaluates nine on-site supply technologies against a delivered grid whose price is endogenous to projected data-center demand, on a complete-site basis that retains standby charges, with measured GPU training load, delivered fuel prices, production-pathway carbon, and statutory 45V and 48E incentive mechanics. Nothing beats the wire: gas combined cycle produces at 47 USD/MWh but costs about 114 USD per megawatt-hour of complete site energy against a 92 USD grid; four-hour storage is physically capped near 18 percent of annual energy and, charged at the margin, dirtier than the grid; hydrogen from grid-priced power fails on cost and carbon together. An investment inversion converts these findings into capital terms: conversion-hardware learning buys nothing, because free hardware still exceeds the grid for every low-carbon arm, while global electrolyser deployment on sited sub-20 USD/MWh power brings PEM hydrogen power to about 2.2 times the grid at 300 billion USD and 1.9 times at 1 trillion USD (2.7 and 2.3 for the hydrogen engine), with a carbon reduction of roughly 85 percent (6.8-fold) against grid-power production. Grid parity is not purchasable at any budget. On-site supply is an access and depth product; most current investment targets the wrong term.