Editor’s drop
Published 2026-08-20 · optimism.fun
blackpaper · the problem
whitepaper · the proposal
The four-axis ranking
We rank humanity’s most important problems on four quantifiable dimensions — quantity of humans affected, severity per capita, current solution quality, and addressable market size — and package each as a proposal in the spirit of Musk’s Hyperloop Alpha. This document is the proposal for ai datacenter power. Every number below is sourced and tagged with confidence. Every ranking is a conjecture, open to refutation.
Quantity · humans affected
8.2B
lowSeverity · WTP / wealth
50%
lowCurrent solutions
2.5 / 10
lowMarket size · TAM
$1.3T
medWhat we are trying to solve
Nvidia and the hyperscalers already captured the AI compute layer — Nvidia alone is worth $5.27T (live, companiesmarketcap.com), and hyperscaler AI capex will hit $775-800B in 2026 (CFA Institute / Alcapital Advisory). None of that is bottlenecked by chips anymore. It is bottlenecked by power: nearly 2,300GW of generation and storage sits stuck in US interconnection queues, transformer lead times have stretched from 24-30 months to 5 years, and the three grid-hardware majors (Hitachi Energy, Siemens Energy, GE Vernova) already carry a combined $180B+ backlog with 6+ years of revenue booked. McKinsey's own "$7 trillion race to scale data centers" report splits the AI-datacenter buildout through 2030 into ~$3.1T for chips/tech (captured) and ~$1.3T for power: generation, transmission, cooling, and electrical equipment. That $1.3T is not one company's market — it fragments into real sub-niches moving at different speeds, some already spoken for (SMR fleets: four vendors hold nearly every hyperscaler off-take deal), some genuinely still open (behind-the-meter battery storage for GPU-cluster load smoothing, still uncaptured as of 2026).
The gap between the world and the world that is physically possible
Today: AI datacenter buildout is power-constrained, not chip-constrained: 2,300GW stuck in US interconnection queues, 5-year transformer lead times, and grid-hardware majors already booked 6+ years out. Real capital is chasing SMRs and gas, but nobody has meaningfully attacked GPU-cluster-specific load smoothing yet.
Current solution quality is rated 2.5 / 10 (low confidence) — meaning there is substantial unclaimed ground between what exists and what is possible. estimated — real capital is flowing (SMR/gas/battery deals signing), but grid hardware and interconnection reform lag years behind compute demand growth (17% overall, 50% AI-specific in 2025, Spheron Network / arXiv 2605.14109).
Who is already working on this
No companies have yet been tagged to this problem in the dataset. If you know one, open a PR.
If we solve this, here is the world we get
After · 10-15 years
Power stops being the binding constraint on AI compute growth. Interconnection queues clear in months, not years. A real market exists for datacenter-specific power smoothing, grid-scale storage, and fast-deploy generation, not just chip supply.
Requests for startups · 1 concrete companies to build
Behind-the-meter battery storage for datacenter power smoothing
GPU cluster load spikes whipsaw the grid in a way ordinary datacenter loads never did. Build the fast-response battery system purpose-built for that exact transient signature, not adapted grid-scale arbitrage storage.
- why now
- FERC's co-location rules for behind-the-meter storage at datacenters were still being written as of 2026 — the regulatory window is open now, not closed, and no player has captured this specific niche yet.
- shape
- A battery-plus-power-electronics company selling fast-response, GPU-cluster-tuned smoothing systems directly to hyperscalers and colocation operators, distinct from general grid-scale storage.
- success
- Datacenter operators treat GPU-cluster power smoothing as a standard purchased line item, the way they already buy UPS systems, and this company is the default vendor.
full rubric + framing on the Requests for Startups page.
What the market can pay
The world is already paying $1.3T per year against this problem (McKinsey, "The cost of compute: A $7 trillion race to scale data centers" — power/generation/transmission/cooling slice of the AI-datacenter buildout, distinct from the ~$3.1T chip/tech slice; med confidence).
A successful solution does not need to capture more — it needs to redirect a meaningful slice of existing spend, plus the latent willingness-to-pay implied by the severity score above. The cost ceiling for a real solution is bounded by this number; everything cheaper is dominated, everything more expensive is a non-starter.
What could go wrong, and how we know we are not wrong
Section in progress
Failure modes, ethical considerations, and the conditions under which this whitepaper would be falsified are being authored as the weekly cadence ships. The Deutschian commitment: every claim above is a conjecture; we publish the conditions under which we would update. New whitepaper sections ship with each Monday newsletter drop. Subscribe to get the upgrade, or contribute on GitHub.
Who would back this
Section in progress
No capital allocators have yet been tagged to this problem in the dataset. New whitepaper sections ship with each Monday newsletter drop. Subscribe to get the upgrade, or contribute on GitHub.
Where this is wrong, tell us
Every number on this page carries a source and a confidence tag. Every section open to refutation. If a citation is wrong, a number is stale, or a conjecture is unfounded — file a correction.
- [1] McKinsey — The cost of compute: A $7 trillion race to scale data centers
- [2] Spheron Network — AI datacenter power constraints, 2026
- [3] companiesmarketcap.com — live market capitalization data
corrections → use the feedback widget in the nav · open issue at github.com/adamtpang/optimism.fun