Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rogerio  Moreira's avatar

The usable unit of value slide is the best one - question remains on what will be left for the rest of us.

Act as System Integrators? Harness Designers?

Several questions to be discovered and a lot to be developed towards the downstream.

cheers!

rogério

Corey Trinetti's avatar

A couple of comments here are circling the power question, so one angle from the infrastructure side.

In the State of the AI Economy deck, slide 36 carries the cost of consumed electricity: the $594m energy line, which is reasonable on its own. What it does not separately identify is the cost and lead time to make a GW of IT load actually available at the site. On-site power and cooling sit in the facility line, but utility-side interconnection, transmission, substations, queue timing, and fixed-capacity commitments appear only inside a $33m "land + utility" line, if at all.

That matters because large-load power is not purely usage-based. Demand charges, minimum-billing demand, and take-or-pay commitments keep much of the bill fixed even when utilization runs below plan. And slides 32-34 frame "headroom" as revenue after depreciation, not after OpEx, so energy is in the slide 36 unit cost but outside the "paying back" claim.

Slide 16's data center examples show both paths. Rainier in New Carlisle takes the grid route: a ~2.3 GW build phased over years, with a $150m+ transmission and 345kV substation buildout. xAI's Colossus took the other route, self-supplying ~1.2 GW of gas off-grid because the interconnection queue was too slow; per the SpaceX IPO filings it now runs ~1 GW of IT compute across three buildings, well past the chart's early-2025, single-building 300 MW marker.

Forward-looking, the swing on cost per token is less the marginal electricity price and more when, how, and under what fixed commitments a site gets powered.

9 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?