🪫🔌🔋Here's a table I made that most folks don't fully appreciate in terms of AI and power. It maps NVIDIA GPU's from Ampere to Feynman and by all estimates in 2030, the most powerful NVIDIA GPU will draw 6kW - an order of magnitude more an A100, and the estimates are it'll deliver 250x the compute (at FP4/FP2).
If we layer in what we know about frontier model scaling:
➡️ GPT-4 training: ~50 GWh
➡️ Gemini Ultra: ~50-75 GWh (estimated)
➡️ GPT-5+ class models: 500+ GWh (projected)
➡️ 2028 frontier models: 2-5 TWh (if scaling laws hold)
At 2-5 TWh, you're talking about 0.5-1% of total US electricity generation for a single training run. 1,000 Feynman Ultra racks = 1 nuclear reactor running 24/7.
This is why:
☢️ Microsoft is restarting Three Mile Island
⚡️ Amazon bought a nuclear-powered datacenter campus
🔋 Google signed the largest corporate PPA in history
🔌 Oracle is designing datacenters with small modular reactors (SMRs) on-site
If it isn't already obvious - the companies that will train the next generation of frontier models are competing on gigawatts. Jensen wasn't being hyperbolic when he said "a gigawatt per rack sounds like a good limit." He was describing the inevitable.
The question isn't whether AI will reshape our energy infrastructure. It's whether our infrastructure can scale fast enough to keep up with AI. Power is the new MOAT (and GOAT) of AI.