Pecos Campus Case
300 MW existing IT / PUE 1.25 campus / 1,000-acre envelope
300 × 1.25 = 375 MW campus, closed envelope. Phase 1: 51 MW freed ÷ 1.08 = +47 MW IT. Grid never exceeds 375 MW.
Economics
Cost per MW of additional compute enabled.
That is the public metric. Cooling-first does not principally generate electricity — it reduces parasitic load and releases electrical headroom. Two named planning cases.
100 MWdc Brownfield PV Conversion Case
50 → 111 → 154 MW
50 MW initial → 111 MW 99.9% firm at maturity → 154 MW peak / flexible.
Illustrative unlock
Scale the 100 MWdc Brownfield PV Conversion Case
Linear sketch from a 100 MWdc row-field example — ~390-acre row field. Not the 300 MW campus case. Not a site model.
- Fast-track compute
- 50 MW
- Additional modeled compute
- +61 MW
- 99.9% firm at maturity
- 111 MW
- Peak / flexible
- 154 MW
- Repowered PV
- 95 MWdc
- Recovered CSP
- 94 MWth
Illustrative enabled-compute value, at $3.086M per incremental MW-year: $188.2M / year
Qualify this sizeIncremental infrastructure per additional IT MW
CAPEX is $M per MW of additional 99.9% firm IT load enabled — the thing Komorebi sells. Fuel exposure is natural-gas burned per MWh of IT — not an efficiency grade. Reciprocating engines typically have a better heat rate than simple-cycle aeroderivative turbines; that is why recips are Medium and simple-cycle GTs are High. Water is split: generation-side versus data-center cooling. Time is to additional compute, not to a greenfield campus.
| Path | $M / IT MW | Fuel exposure | Gen. water | Cooling water | Time | Emissions / noise |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Komorebi cooling-first | $1.1–1.5M | Low | None added | Low | 6–12 mo | Low |
| Reciprocating gas engines | $1.5–2.2M | Medium | Medium–high | Mechanical cooling | 12–24 mo | Medium |
| Komorebi full platform | $2.3–3.6M | Low | None added | Low | Staged | Low |
| Aeroderivative simple-cycle GT | $3.2–4.6M | High | High | Mechanical cooling | 24–36 mo+ | High |
| Fuel cells | $4.9–8.0M | High | Low | Site cooling still required | 18–30 mo | Low stack, fuel upstream |
Reciprocating engines are typically more efficient than simple-cycle aeroderivative turbines. Combined-cycle GTs are not in this table. Fuel-cell generation-side water is Low in normal operation.
Indicative LCOE — $ / MWh delivered to IT load
Cooling-first lowers the cost of energy that reaches IT by cutting parasitic load. The full platform adds duration and ORC hours for 24/7 capability. Generator paths below are conventional generation LCOE.
| Path | $ / MWh | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Komorebi cooling-first | $40–60 | Delivered to IT — parasitic reduction |
| Reciprocating gas engines | $55–85 | Generation LCOE |
| Komorebi full platform | $35–55 | Delivered to IT — duration and ORC hours |
| Aeroderivative simple-cycle GT | $70–110 | Generation LCOE |
| Fuel cells | $95–145 | Generation LCOE |
Figures are from two illustrative U.S. planning cases — a Pecos Campus Case (300 MW existing IT at PUE 1.25, 375 MW campus electrical, WUE 1.5 L/kWh, 1,000-acre envelope) and a 100 MWdc Brownfield PV Conversion Case (~390-acre row field) — based on 2025 public benchmarks. Grid envelope stays 375 MW through Phase 2. Phase 1: 51 MW freed ÷ PUE 1.08 = +47 MW IT. Recovery then 1.05 → 1.04; Phase 3 campus grows only from on-site generation. Actual results vary by site, resource, fuel, interconnection, and execution. Patents pending. Not an offer.
Why the comparison favors cooling-first
- Lower CAPEX per additional IT MW enabled
- Thermal storage adds duration without competing for electrical charging
- Low-water cooling; generation-side water is not the same as cooling water
- Reuses already-interconnected land and power envelopes