数据中心：为硬科技买单的第三种买家

Welcome to the 2,232 newly Not Boring people who have joined us since our last essay! Join 267,788 smart, curious folks by subscribing here:

Subscribe now

Hi friends 👋,

Happy Wednesday!

A couple weeks ago, I asked if you wanted me to start sharing more off-the-cuff notes with not boring world subscribers, and the response was great, so we’re back. It’s a Wednesday afternoon, not my normal send time, but these are meant to be less formal and more, “I noticed something interesting, here are my quick thoughts.” This one happens to be a little longer than it is quick, but it’s one I wanted to get out for two reasons:

• People hate AI Data Centers, and I think they’re wrong, even if they don’t like AI.
• Because I keep hearing, reading, and seeing that AI Data Centers are funding new technologies before they’ve come down the learning curve, which might be a providentially big boon to Reindustrialization and all of the hard, physical things we want to see in the world.

It’s pretty beautiful that gaming chips that evolved from Apollo-funded integrated circuits are creating a product with so much demand that their houses can pay for all sorts of novel technologies, like the Apollo Program did.

Let’s get to it.

Today’s Not Boring is brought to you by… Deel

Hiring globally doesn’t have to be complicated

Hiring globally can unlock growth, but local laws, payroll, and compliance often slow startups down.

Deel’s free guide breaks down what an Employer of Record (EOR) is, how startups use EORs to hire internationally without opening entities, and when it makes sense to use one so you can scale with confidence.

Download Now

Thank God for Data Centers

There exists a vast pool of technologies that are potentially superior to those we employ today, but which require scale and learning curves to reach their potential.

Advanced nuclear reactors are one such technology - they are more expensive than alternatives today, but manufactured at scale, and benefiting from the learning curves required to get there, may become cheaper than other generation technologies. The cost physics are on their side, and nuclear is reliable, safe, firm, and clean.

The challenge with these technologies, in normal times, is that there is little economic incentive for the buyers who would enable the scale to stick their necks out. Natural gas is cheap and abundant, and it’s not that bad for the environment, compared to coal and oil at least, and the environment is someone else’s problem, anyway. And so, in normal times, we remain stuck in local maxima without the demand to push towards global ones.

Historically, these stalemates have cracked in a couple of main ways: Alpha Products and extraeconomic Buyers of Capabilities. These are essentially the same mechanism at different scales and with different motivations.

In The Electric Slide, we discussed the role that Alpha Products played in providing the initial demand that eventually brought each layer of the Electric Stack down their respective cost-performance curves. For lithium-ion batteries, the alpha product was the Sony Handycam. For neodymium magnets and motors, it was the 3.5” hard‑disk drive. For power electronics (IGBTs / inverters), it was the variable‑frequency drive (VFD) for industrial motors. For microcontrollers (MCUs), it was the calculator. Etc.

For each of these, the new technology was advantageous enough in a specific way to the end product that it was worth paying higher costs or sacrificing on other capabilities to capture those benefits.

Alpha Products, however, typically support components that are not multi-hundred million or multi-billion dollar projects in their own right.

The role of the extraeconomic Buyer of Capabilities in the development of new technologies is even better-understood. This is the DoD or NASA, mainly, buying technologies to confer a specific advantage, almost irrespective of their cost. This category of customer cares less about price than about capability.

Theirs is an important role because it gives new technologies the opportunity to get to scale, come down the learning curve, and ultimately compete in the much larger commercial market.

For a while now, but particularly over the past couple of weeks, I’ve heard some version of the same story over and over again:

“We are still going after our long-term mission, but to fund it, we’re planning to sell to data centers.”

Today, Data Centers are increasingly serving as Buyers of Capabilities, acting as something between a government and a commercial buyer. The Data Center is the meta-Alpha Product. If you can sell them something they need, fast, they have an almost bottomless bid.

This is true for obvious things like GPUs, inference chips, and DRAM, but it’s also true for companies that you wouldn’t typically associate with AI data centers, like supersonic turbines, enhanced geothermal, modular construction, high-voltage direct current grids, solid-state transformers, silicon photonics, optical fiber, lasers, batteries, and nuclear.

Many of these technologies have the potential to be better and cheaper than the incumbent technologies they aim to replace, but they have been too expensive and unproven to compete. With backlogs in all of the traditional inputs to Data Centers, however, developers are willing to pay up for new technologies that can deliver fast, which gives them the opportunity to scale up and cost down.

For these technologies, Data Centers act as a third type of Buyer of Capabilities, a commercial analog operating on DoD-style procurement logic but commercial timescales.

Given the size of the budgets, the relative smallness of any one input’s cost relative to the overall project cost and revenue opportunity, and the speed with which Data Centers are making decisions and putting down deposits, Data Centers may meaningfully increase the odds of success of hard tech companies and Vertical Integrators more than the market realizes.

Far from being the villains they are painted as (often using misinformation and largely due to their association with deeply unpopular AI), Data Centers may be the greatest accelerant of American Reindustrialization and a built-world future that benefits all people that we’ve ever seen.

They offer dilution-free capital (real revenue on a negative working capital cycle) to fund the big vision, and more importantly, the opportunity to get to scale and down the learning curve years earlier than would otherwise have been possible. This both accelerates timelines of things that might have worked, but more slowly, and makes companies that might otherwise have died in the Valley of Death viable.

Whatever your feelings are on AI, the furor towards Data Centers is misplaced. Hell, whether or not you think we’re in an AI Bubble barely matters here. In five years, this could all fall apart, and the world will be much better off. Data Centers are funding the future where no one else will.

This isn’t the first time that people have gotten mad that something that seems frivolous is sucking up so many resources. The immediate stuff - like how much money is being spent or power is being consumed - is an easy target, while the long-term benefits are hard to see.

We Choose to Go to the Moon Not Because it is Popular

With the benefit of hindsight and distance, the Apollo mission has become one of America’s proudest accomplishments. At the time, though, not everyone loved JFK taking us to the Moon. There were too many problems on Earth to be solved to waste all that time, money, and smarts on a lunar boondoggle.

In May 1961, Gallup asked Americans, “It has been estimated that it would cost the United States 40 billion dollars-or an average of about $225 per person-to send a man to the moon. Would you like to see this amount spent for this purpose, or not?” 58% of respondents said that they would not, another 9% had no opinion, and only 33% supported the mission.