Chicago Working Group

Map of Chicago

A different type of data center is possible, one that gives heat back where it's needed instead of dumping it. This working room it is for the people working to build that data center in Chicago.

Watercolour architectural sketch of a Chicago site, concrete walls and ribbon-window building with vehicles and hills in background

We bring established thermal and compute architecture, proven operational patterns, and deep experience at industrial hosts. We also bring questions. What does the contract look like? How do we sequence permitting without blocking either track? Where do the sites land relative to existing thermal distribution? What guarantees matter most to each partner? This deck explores those questions in parallel. We're not here to propose a fixed solution. We're here to work.

MICROLINK DATA CENTERS
  • Nick SearraCEO and Co-Founder
  • Sancha OlivierCEO, Design
  • Shane PatherChief Technology Officer
  • Andrew ThomasChief Commercial Officer
  • David HasslerHead of Sales
  • Jeff SvedahlCEO, MicroLink Edge
  • Deniz AkgulCapital & Investment Advisor
  • Farren ClasseMedia
PROJECT WORKING GROUP
  • Maddy Fairley-Wax, P.E.Jacobs
  • Mats ErikssonArctos Labs
  • Deborah S EgelandSage Oak AI
  • Ryan BirdFuelCell Energy
  • Andrew MontgomeryIndoor Farm Foundation
  • Haseeb BudhaniRafay
  • Victoria DinovStanford University
CITY OF CHICAGO
  • Heng ZhangMWRD, Engineering
  • Joseph GrabowyMWRD, Engineering
  • Kishore KumarMWRD, Engineering
  • Catherine FitzpatrickMWRD, Engineering
  • Marcelino GarciaMWRD Board, Finance Chair (invited)
  • Cameron DavisMWRD Board (invited)
  • Kalindi ParikhCurrent Water Org
  • Nina DudnikCurrent Water Org
  • Jonathan GoodellCurrent Water Org
  • Melissa PierceCurrent Water Org
NVIDIA
  • Jumbi Edulbehram, PhDVP Global BD, Public Sector Head
  • Andria ZouSr Director, Global AI DC Strategy
  • Jared CarlGlobal AI Data Center Lead
  • Karthik MandakolathurProduct Manager, Magnus
  • Elad BlattHead BD, Telco Networking
  • Ben GueretTechnical Program Manager
  • Danny ZaidifardBD, Strategic Partnerships
  • Alex PazosSr BD Mgr, Smart Spaces
  • Claudio FassiottiEnterprise Lead, Africa
  • Wendy Zhu, PhDValidation, partner-adjacent
  • Chris ChoCloud and partner technical
  • Rodney ShetlerPre-sales and Solutions Eng.
  • David MessinaInception VC Alliance, adjacent
01 · Thesis

Three discussions,
one city.

Thermal-integrated compute infrastructure solving concurrent infrastructure crises.

Boston faces three converging infrastructure challenges. King County's wastewater treatment, the University of Washington's Energy Renewal Plan, and a third partner are aligned around the same opportunity: liquid-cooled compute pods that return waste heat to existing infrastructure. Together they establish Boston as the template for what happens when data center design aligns with municipal infrastructure needs.

MicroLink Seattle HQ scale model, cutaway view: sawtooth roof above two-storey internal gantry, green compute and TPM container modules on the ground floor, mechanical room with copper pipework and isolation valves to the right. IMAGE · Seattle HQ model Scale model of the Seattle HQ platform, two compute container floors with mechanical room, sawtooth roof for daylight and reject air paths. img-thesis-hq-model
MicroLink HQ courtyard with mature tree, stone façade.

MicroLink designs, builds, owns and operates
data centers inside of industrial facilities.

We place liquid-cooled compute inside working industrial sites and return the waste heat to the host process. The pods are modular, repeatable, and upgradable. The buildings they live inside are not.

WWTPs
District heating
Greenhouses
Sewer heat recovery
Aquaculture
Affordable housing
Hospital laundry
Brewery
Illustrated Chicago watercolor map highlighting MicroLink host-site geography across the metropolitan area.
Service · 01

Distributed DC as a Service

Efficiency-driven compute, distributed close to where it's used. Liquid-cooled data centers on industrial host sites, with waste heat returned to the host process. Hosts contribute land and thermal offtake. Customers consume compute. The pods are modular, repeatable, upgradable.

I lived in Lagos for five years. Then Nairobi for five more. In 2001, if you weren't in the same room as someone in Nigeria, they were unreachable. No reliable post. No working landlines for most of the country.

Then GSM arrived. Half a million subscribers in 2001. Eighty million by 2010. Two hundred and twenty million today. Our current moment could be an even greater shift. It seems only right to ensure it's another good one.

Nick Searra
CEO and Co-Founder
Liquid-Cooled Colocation

02

High-density colocation.

GPU-as-a-Service

03

Managed NVIDIA clusters.

Inference-as-a-Service

04

Production model serving.

02.A · The portfolio · six projects, six host categories, one model
01 · Wastewater

San José and Santa Clara RWF · California

The city-owned regional wastewater facility, 11 km [7 mi] from NVIDIA HQ. Site identified, characterised, and shortlisted as the lead candidate for a sovereign municipal AI cloud deployment. NVIDIA engagement is opening across multiple channels, beginning with the project working group convened in May 2026.

WORKING DOC · MAY 2026
11 km · 7 mi TO NVIDIA HQ
5 → 15 MW PHASED
San José–Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility · MicroLink data center at golden hour, modular white architectural form against South Bay foothills
02 · Wastewater

MWRD Stickney · Chicago

The largest wastewater treatment plant in the world. Engagement spans five MWRD teams across multiple working sessions. MWRD requested a deployment proposal, which we delivered. Proposal currently under MWRD legal review. Site supports a multi-phase deployment from first phase through scale.

LARGEST WWTP GLOBALLY
45 MW PHASED
124 COMMUNITIES
MWRD Stickney WWTP, aerial along the Sanitary and Ship Canal at sunset, Chicago skyline in distance
03 · Wastewater

Newtown Creek WRRF · Brooklyn, NYC

10 MW deployment integrating with the eight egg-shaped digesters that have made the site one of NYC's most photographed civic infrastructure landmarks. The first East Coast sovereign municipal AI candidate.

EIGHT DIGESTER EGGS
10 MW DEPLOYMENT
EAST COAST ANCHOR
Newtown Creek WRRF, silver digester eggs and waterfront pavilion with Manhattan skyline in distance
04 · Brewery

Anheuser-Busch · St Louis

The largest beer production site in North America. Brewery as host category, with reject heat into wort and clean-in-place water as the deployment hypothesis. Initial engagement with the AB InBev technology team established the corporate-track framing. Pipeline qualification ongoing.

LARGEST US BREWERY
60–70 °C TO WORT
AB InBev TRACK
Anheuser-Busch brewery, St Louis · historic brick complex with twin smokestacks and clock tower
05 · District heating

University of Washington · Seattle

A pod at the West Campus Utility Plant Annex (P-4), tied into UW's Energy Renewal Plan. Phase 1 at 1 to 2 MW IT load, Phase 2 scaling to 3 to 5 MW. Reject heat at 65 °C feeds the new Primary Heating Water loop directly.

Initial Discussions
1 → 5 MW PHASED
UW ENERGY RENEWAL
UW West Campus Utility Plant Annex · modern facility with curved zinc roofline in industrial setting
06 · Hospitality

Choice Hotels · 25-site pilot

A 25-site initial deployment scaling to 200 properties under Phase 2, structured as the MicroLink Edge SPV. Sub-MW pods per property using NVIDIA Jetson Orin and IGX at the host edge, federated back to regional cores at MicroLink WWTP and brewery sites.

25 → 200 PROPERTIES
SUB-MW PER POD
MicroLink EDGE SPV
MicroLink pod on a commercial tower plant deck, flanked by Vertiv hardware and rooftop chillers
07 · District heating

Columbus · Ohio

A 5 MW data center deployment integrated with a municipal district heating network. Reject heat at temperature feeds directly into the district loop, displacing gas-fired heating across connected buildings. Midwest district energy host with year-round heat demand and established municipal infrastructure.

5 MW DEPLOYMENT
DISTRICT HEAT LOOP
MIDWEST DISTRICT ENERGY
Columbus, Ohio · MicroLink district heating site, 5 MW data center integrated with municipal district heat loop
The Architecture

How the system works

The diagram below is the three-loop thermal architecture that links a MicroLink deployment to its host facility. The first loop carries heat away from the compute. The second isolates the two parties. The third delivers usable heat into the host's process.

Use the toggles to see how the system behaves. The loops only couple when both sides are running: MicroLink producing heat, and the host needing it. Switch either off and the two operate independently, MicroLink rejects its heat through the dry-cooler path, the host runs its own heating as before. Neither side is ever captive to the other. That independence is what makes the partnership financeable.

Cooler Idle
L1 SERVER LOOP L3 HOST DELIVERY EXCH A EXCH B SERVER RACK MICROLINK COOLER Cooler idle DIGESTER 38 °C (100 °F) 15.5 °C (60 °F) 65 °C (149 °F) 31 °C (88 °F) 18 °C (64 °F) 38 °C (100 °F) HOLD 37 °C (99 °F)
San José–Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility — clarifier basins and treatment cells

Eight zones of collaboration.
Named participants on each one.

Currently active

These are the areas we are currently working on. Click here if you would like to add new areas to that.

Zone 01 · Build

Grid independence and heat recovery

Diesel-free 2N power topology. MCFC on biogas as prime, LFP for transient, PEM hydrogen for ramp. Server reject heat into host process loop. The closed thermodynamic loop.

NVIDIATBD
MicroLinkShane Pather
KING COUNTY WTDTBD
Explore further Zone 02 · Build

Inter-pod and multi-site fabric

Quantum-X800 + AC SU at 576 GPUs, twin-plane fat tree. Spectrum-X for multi-tenant scale-out. Site-to-site federation via Spectrum-XGS. Edge-to-core hierarchy with Jetson at sub-MW host sites.

NVIDIATBD
MicroLinkShane Pather
ARCTOS LABSMats Eriksson
Explore further Zone 03 · Build

Monitoring and control

DCGM, NVML, Mission Control at IT layer. Metropolis for building-as-managed-asset. Omniverse / DSX Blueprint for digital twin. Jetson / IGX Orin for facility-side control loops.

NVIDIATBD
MicroLinkShane Pather
ARCTOS LABSMats Eriksson
Explore further Zone 04 · Build

Data center design

Liquid-cooled from day one. Sized for next-gen hardware envelopes (B300, Vera Rubin path). Architectural shell with civic intent. Co-developed reference architecture for the canonical pod.

NVIDIATBD
MicroLinkSancha Olivier
JACOBSTBD
Explore further Zone 05 · Product

Sovereign public-sector AI

One of MicroLink's four product lines, alongside colocation, GPU-as-a-Service, and inference-as-a-Service. Confidential compute, multi-tenant isolation, per-tenant clusters, sovereign fine-tuning on local weights. Six public-sector customer segments.

NVIDIATBD
MicroLinkNick Searra
KING COUNTY WTDTBD
Explore further Zone 06 · Product

Sustainability and climate reporting

Co-authored white paper. ERF, WUE, CUE, PUE published metrics. EU EED 2027 waste-heat compliance. California SB 253 / SB 261 / AB 1305. Net Grid Energy Position. ISO 14064-3 third-party assured.

NVIDIATBD
MicroLinkShane Pather
SAGE OAK AIDeborah S Egeland
Explore further Zone 07 · Contributions

Open-source contributions

Heat-coupled control loop to LF Energy. FacIT semantic conventions to OpenTelemetry. DSX Max-P module co-developed. OCP liquid-cooling spec. Thermal Lab dataset. Apache 2.0 default.

NVIDIATBD
MicroLinkShane Pather
MICROLINKSancha Olivier
Explore further Zone 08 · Contributions

Workforce and ecosystem

University of Washington AI Infrastructure Apprenticeship with NVIDIA DLI. NCA-AII entry, NCP-AIO exit. Three sub-tracks: liquid cooling, fuel cell, AI infrastructure operator. Inception startup hosting at preferential rates.

NVIDIATBD
MicroLinkJeff Svedahl
MICROLINKAndrew Thomas
Explore further
Energy balance 2 of 4
Design · Energy balance

San José energy balance, today and post-ADFU

The case for MicroLink at San José is not heat supply gap-filling. The plant has more cogen heat available than it needs. The case is thermal substitution: MicroLink absorbs the low-grade duty currently met by cogen, freeing high-grade cogen capacity for the new MHP module and freeing the post-upgrade biogas surplus for monetisation.

TodayPost-2022 cogen, pre-ADFU
Plant electrical demand~11 MW
Cogen output11–14 MW
Cogen recoverable thermal17–19 MW
Plant thermal demand5–7 MW
Heat rejected to atmosphere8–12 MW
Biogas production50,000–65,000 m³/d
Biogas energy600–900 MMBtu/d
Post-ADFU + MicroLink2028–2029
Plant electrical demand12–13 MW
Cogen output14 MW nameplate
Cogen recoverable thermal17–19 MW
Plant thermal demand7–9 MW
Heat rejected to atmosphere→ 0 MW (absorbed by MicroLink)
Biogas production85,000–120,000 m³/d
MCFC electricity (BTM)2.3 MW (FuelCell SureSource 3000)
MCFC thermal output1.8 MW
H₂ capability (tri-gen)up to 1,200 kg/day
Net grid draw at 10 MW IT8.9 MW (−21%)
CO₂ avoided11,750 tCO₂e / year

Two simultaneous shifts. First, biogas production increases by 60 to 80 percent through the combined MHP uplift and FOG co-digestion. Second, plant thermal demand increases only modestly because the new MHP module concentrates duty at 75 °C, not at the mesophilic temperature where most of the existing demand sits.

The combined effect: a substantial biogas surplus the existing 14-megawatt cogen cannot consume at full duty cycle, paired with a heat-rejection problem that has not improved. Both are resolved by a colocated thermal partner.

Aerial site plan, San José–Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility DIAGRAM · Sankey Biogas energy flow at the post-ADFU plant: cogen consumption, digester thermal duty, MHP HFR duty, and surplus available for monetisation. img-5-1

Site plan · RWF and surrounding context.

S-section cross-section, integrated facility

Integrated facility section: compute on top, mechanical below, host process beyond.

The integrated facility section illustrates how a MicroLink deployment occupies a compact vertical envelope adjacent to the host process, with the thermal interface running horizontally between them at digester level. The MCFC sits behind the compute envelope, fed by the freed biogas line from the digesters.

Freed value 3 of 4
Design · Freed value

Three pathways for the freed biogas at 2026 California prices

The freed biogas (both the MHP and FOG yield uplift and the cogen displacement that MicroLink enables) has three monetisation pathways. Each has been priced at 2026 California market terms, drawing on CARB LCFS quarterly transfer reports through February 2026, CPUC Decision 24-08-007, the IRS final rule on Section 45V, the OBBBA, and the Jacobs McLeod and Horrax 2022 hydrogen series.

A
Cogen export and behind-the-meter offset
PG&E SRAC · BioMAT Cat 1 · retail offset
$19/MMBtu
range $8–33
Annual at 5–10 MW IT scale
$0.6–4M / year
Recommended
B
RNG injection with LCFS + D3 RIN
PG&E G-BIO interconnection
$20/MMBtu
range $15–25
Annual at 5–10 MW IT scale
$1.5–7M / year
C
Hydrogen via Pathway 5 SMR
Biomethane upgrading + SMR
$30/MMBtu
range $22–60
Annual at 5–10 MW IT scale
$3–18M / year
Range reflects 45V status uncertainty post-OBBBA.

Pathway B is the primary monetisation route at San José. The all-in value reflects 2026 California market conditions: CARB LCFS pathway value at $5–10 per MMBtu (post-2025 LCFS market amendments), federal D3 cellulosic RIN value at $5–10 per MMBtu, gas commodity at PG&E citygate at $3–4 per MMBtu, and avoided distribution charges. PG&E's Schedule G-BIO interconnection programme provides the technical pathway. SB 1440 capital incentives offset interconnection capex up to $3 million for non-dairy WWTPs. WWTP biogas carbon intensity is structurally distinct from deeply-negative-CI feedstocks like dairy or food-scraps RNG; the figures here reflect a realistic +30 to +55 gCO₂e/MJ Tier 2 pathway.

DIAGRAM · LCFS price trend California LCFS credit price, 2024–2026, with diesel benchmark and CNG-equivalent pricing overlaid. img-6-1
Aggregate value · central case

Combined gross value at the post-ADFU plant, with a 6 to 10 megawatt MicroLink IT deployment:

approximately $7 to $16 million per year

Freed-biogas pathways: $5–14M/year. Plus the MCFC tri-generation layer adds ~$1.8M/year of behind-the-meter electricity at avoided-cost rates. This is the prize. The commercial structure between MicroLink and the City (the value share between host and developer) is a separate negotiation. This figure illustrates the magnitude, not the eventual allocation.

Two-track partnership 4 of 4
Design · Partnership

A two-track partnership structure

The partnership is structured to protect each party's interests, to fit the ADFU project's design schedule, and to support MicroLink's ability to raise the capital required for the eventual deployment. It runs on two parallel tracks anchored on a sequenced commitment instrument: Expression of Interest, Letter of Intent, Definitive Agreement.

Track 1

The stub-out and the EOI

A future-ready thermal interface, designed and built by Jacobs as a defined scope addition to the existing $200 million ADFU progressive design-build contract.

Three interfaces
Tap on the mesophilic digester recirculation manifold; parallel branch on the cogeneration jacket-water return loop; tap on the raw sludge feed line.
Sized for
A future 5 to 10 megawatt thermal interface, designed by Jacobs to specification, owned by the City as part of the ADFU asset.
Funded by
MicroLink at approximately $1 million, contributed to the City under a Cost-Sharing Agreement structured through San José Charter §1217 (developer carve-out) layered on a Government Code §4217 finding (energy-services framework).
First commitment
A short-form Expression of Interest signed within 30 days, scoped to authorise inclusion of the stub-out concept in the ADFU design-basis discussion. Three EOIs together (City of San José, NVIDIA, Jacobs) anchor the equity raise that funds the stub-out and the eventual deployment.
Track 2

The LOI and the Definitive Agreement

Within 90 days of EOI signature, both parties commit to a full Letter of Intent. Within 9 months, the Definitive Agreement is signed.

Letter of Intent
Captures the technical specification, the commercial framework principles, and the timeline for Definitive Agreement negotiation.
Definitive Agreement
Land licence or lease for the future MicroLink facility on the freed footprint; thermal services agreement; biogas monetisation framework; operational protocols, performance standards, and dispute resolution; right of first negotiation for MicroLink on thermal interface use post-commissioning; information rights on plant operating data; performance milestones and termination provisions.
Trigger
The Definitive Agreement triggers escrow release on the stub-out funding. ADFU stub-out construction proceeds in base scope. MicroLink construction begins, with the modular first-deployment structure operational in the 2028–2029 window.
DIAGRAM · Escrow flow Escrow mechanics: EOI signed (Day 30) → LOI signed (Day 90) → Definitive Agreement signed (Day 270) → escrow releases on the stub-out funding. Capital protected on either path. img-8-1
The trigger

The two tracks are connected by a single trigger structure. The $1 million stub-out funding is held in escrow against execution of the Expression of Interest and releases on signature of the Definitive Agreement. If the Definitive Agreement does not sign, for any reason, the stub-out is value-engineered out of ADFU at no cost to the City, and the escrow returns to MicroLink.

This protects MicroLink's capital, gives the City a structured commitment, gives Jacobs a clean engineering scope, and creates a sequenced set of signed instruments (EOI, then LOI) that supports MicroLink's fundraising.

Eventual deployment scale
Eventual deployment capex$80–120 million
Stub-out contribution$1 million (~1%)
Term of host paymentsTBD in DA

MicroLink team: Nick Searra, CEO & Co-Founder · Sancha Olivier, Design, Site Inspection & Review · Shane Pather, CTO · David Hassler, Sales & Customer · Andrew Thomas, CCO · Deniz Akgul, Capital & Investment Advisor.

The site, and the technology approach.

Seattle aerial watercolour, University of Washington campus and Lake Washington
MicroLink Data Centers / King County Sewer Heat Recovery / May 2026 · Working Draft v3

Thermal integrationas infrastructure strategy

A comprehensive brief on MicroLink's partnership with King County WTD Resource Recovery. This document consolidates four work streams (submission pathway, thermal economics, engineering logistics, and regulatory context) into a unified strategic framework. Everything here has been tested against program requirements and stakeholder feedback.

Overview and positioning

What we are proposingand why it works

A bidirectional thermal node that serves both MicroLink's cooling infrastructure and King County's wastewater treatment system. The same hardware extracts heat from the sewer conveyance in winter and injects waste heat into the system in summer. All existing program requirements apply unchanged. Value flows asymmetrically in MicroLink's favor, so MicroLink pays the resource owner.

After six months of technical research and sustained dialogue with King County's WTD Resource Recovery team, we are positioned to submit a design that fits cleanly within the Sewer Heat Recovery program authorization and responds directly to the political and regulatory environment created by the November 2025 leadership transitions.

The core insight is directional: rather than a pure heat injection play (which would be novel and politically risky), we frame this as a bidirectional thermal user that serves both the on-site building load and the WRRF's district infrastructure needs. Same hardware. Same site. Two service directions. Both parties benefit from day one. The asymmetric value distribution is the structural soundness of the deal. MicroLink extracts the dominant benefit from a public resource. MicroLink therefore pays the resource owner. This is not generosity; it is alignment.

MicroLink commercial tower plant deck render: Vertiv-branded edge compute racks flanking a central control cabinet, with outdoor heat-rejection arrays and thermal coupling pipework, city skyline at dusk.

The national data-center backlash has blocked or delayed $60+ billion of projects in the past year. In November 2025, both King County's new Executive and Seattle's new Mayor took office on platforms criticizing corporate special arrangements. Any project framed as "data center wins" is structurally vulnerable in this moment. The bidirectional framing resets the narrative: "King County extends its Sewer Heat Recovery program to serve bidirectional thermal loads. MicroLink participates as the first bidirectional node, paying an annual fee for the right to use a public thermal resource." This is infrastructure extension, not corporate carve-out. It aligns with the existing Alexandria extraction precedent. And it provides political cover in the current environment.

Core strategic alignment
Value flows determine payment direction

In the Alexandria extraction pilot, King County licenses heat to a private extractor. The extractor pays because it captures dominant value from a public resource. MicroLink is in the same position: we capture 80% of the recurring value from using the sewer as a thermal source. By the same logic, MicroLink pays King County. This creates immediate operational benefits for both parties. No subsidy needed. Partnership is self-sustaining from day one. The program structure, fee basis, and use agreement are already drafted for extraction. We are extending them, not inventing new instruments.

The economics at a glance

MicroLink value capture

Recurring annual benefit from avoided cooling infrastructure and parasitic load

  • $365–615k/year recurring: avoided chiller plant, dry cooler capex, fan/pump parasitic load reduction, PUE improvement, thermal lease premium
  • $600k–$1.2M one-time: avoided capital equipment for full-scale cooling deployment
  • ~80% of the total partnership value

King County value capture

Real operational cost reduction plus research opportunity

  • $35–50k/year recurring: reduced winter aeration demand on the affected conveyance fraction
  • $10–30k/year secondary: thermal source for downstream extractors (13% COP improvement)
  • Zero capital exposure: County contributes permission to use a public asset, not money
  • ~10–15% of the total partnership value
Process and timeline

Six stagesfrom intent to operations

The program's own milestone structure, drawn directly from the application form, design guidelines, and use agreement. Each stage has specific deliverables and procedural requirements defined by King County.

We have read the program documentation carefully. This is how we are sequencing the work. The boundaries between stages are real procedural milestones in the County's documents, not invented by us.

01 Pre-application conference Q2 2026 · 2–6 weeks
Required by §5.14 of the use agreement

Statement of intent letter to WTD, pre-application fee payment, and formal conference with the Resource Recovery team. This is the critical gate where we disclose the bidirectional framing and confirm whether it fits within the 2020 ordinance or triggers supplemental Council action.

Deliverables: Intent letter, pre-application fee, pre-app conference notes, receipt of as-builts and layout drawings from WTD.

02 Engineering and feasibility build-out Q2–Q3 2026 · 4–6 months
Internal MicroLink work, with WTD coordination on technical questions

Site selection completes, engineering and geotechnical firms are engaged, MWBE partners are brought into real design roles, WA Department of Ecology is engaged on the diversion plan, and insurance brokers are solicited for coverage quotes. This phase produces the 30% design package that satisfies the program's readiness criterion.

Deliverables: Site selection finalized, 30% design package (P&IDs, plans, profiles, geotech report, controls), feasibility memo and risk register, geotechnical report, WA Ecology acceptance, insurance broker quotes.

03 Application packet submission Q4 2026 · Submission target
Email submission to drthompson@kingcounty.gov

Full packet delivered after 30% design lock and feasibility is proven. After submission, WTD's formal readiness review begins.

Deliverables: Application form, feasibility memo with risk register, 30% design package, project administration documents, cover letter restating bidirectional framing.

04 Readiness review and selection Q4 2026–Q1 2027 · 2–4 months
WTD technical and administrative review; selection decision

WTD reviews for completeness against checklist. The program authorizes three pilot spots; two remain. Selection is first-come-first-served after readiness review. If multiple applications pass readiness, selection applies portfolio diversification criteria. If those tie, ESJ impact tiebreaker applies. Monthly billing for County review costs per §5.14 of the agreement.

Gates: Completeness check, technical review by WTD engineering staff, selection decision.

05 Use agreement execution Q1–Q2 2027 · 1–3 months
Filling in bracketed terms of the template agreement

The agreement template contains bracketed fields for term length, milestone dates, thermal use area, connection location, fee waiver years, and design submission days. Insurance policies are procured and bound. If supplemental Council action is needed for bidirectional design, it is resolved during this stage.

Actions: Sponsor entity and project description finalized, milestone dates set per §2.2, fee waiver election made, insurance policies bound with King County named as additional insured.

06 Design, construction, and operations Q2 2027–2030 · 24–36 months to COD
Per §4.2 of the use agreement and County inspection protocols

30% / 60% / 90% / Final design milestones, each with a 30-day County review window. All non-WTD permits acquired. Construction with County inspector access. Pre-final and final inspections. Commercial Operation Date triggers the 30-year term clock and fee schedule.

Milestones: Iterative design submittals with County review, all non-WTD permit acquisition, construction at prevailing wage, pre-final and final inspections, Commercial Operation Date.

Critical decision point
Bidirectional design authorization

The 2020 ordinance was written with extraction-only projects in mind. Most existing requirements apply unchanged to bidirectional design. The narrow departures: withdrawal-rate reporting convention (net loop rate + heat direction indicator), thermal propagation analysis for injection temperatures, and operating decision logic. The single material question: does the 2020 ordinance cover bidirectional use, or does it require supplemental Council action? If supplemental action is needed, submission shifts from Q4 2026 to Q2 2027 to allow for Council amendment process.

Financial analysis

The value casefor all parties

A 3 MW continuous thermal injection generates measurable value across four parties: MicroLink, King County WTD, downstream extractors, and the broader municipal energy system. The distribution is steeply asymmetric, which determines the payment direction and validates the partnership structure.

One-time capital comparison

Cost category Standard (air-cooled) Bidirectional (sewer-coupled) Savings
Chiller plant $400–600k $0 (sewer provides source) $400–600k
Dry cooler tower $200–400k $0 (conveyance carries heat) $200–400k
Thermal coupling node $80–120k
In-pipe HX $60–100k
Net avoidance $600k–$1.2M
Technical framework

How the system worksand where it connects

The bidirectional thermal node operates as an interchange between two separate loops: MicroLink's sealed on-site system and King County's sewer conveyance infrastructure. Heat direction varies by season and IT load. All equipment is proven; the novelty is the integration, not the components.

MicroLink operates a sealed three-loop system: GPU-to-intermediate loop via sealed water circuit, intermediate loop to heat exchanger (HX), and HX outlet connected bidirectionally to the King County conveyance system via a dedicated thermal coupling node. The node includes a connection point for extraction (when building heating demand exists) and an injection point (when server cooling load requires heat rejection).

Heating mode (winter)

MicroLink extracts low-grade heat from the sewer conveyance to serve building thermal load

  • Sewer water (~12–16°C winter inlet) flows through the HX to preheat return water
  • Reduces building boiler demand, displaces fossil fuel heating
  • Extraction rate: 200–400 gpm depending on flow conditions and building setpoint
  • No modification to sewer; injection circuit remains isolated
  • Follows Alexandria pilot operational precedent

Cooling mode (summer)

MicroLink rejects GPU waste heat into the sewer conveyance for downstream use

  • Server loop water (~40–45°C) flows through HX into the conveyance system
  • Heat injection into treated effluent (post-treatment confirmed with WTD)
  • Injection rate: 300–600 gpm depending on server load and thermal demand
  • Sewer conveyance carries heat downstream to digester or to downstream extractors
  • Requires thermal propagation analysis and temperature monitoring

The tap point into the conveyance system is a critical King County coordination item. The County's Sewer Design Standards specify connection methodology for extraction projects; bidirectional injection adds requirements for backflow prevention, thermal safeguards (temperature limits, monitoring, outfall location), and thermal propagation modeling. Both direct tap and in-pipe thermal exchanger approaches are technically viable. The Alexandria extraction project used in-pipe HX to isolate the system; for injection mode, WTD guidance will determine methodology preference.

Direct tap approach
Direct connection to the conveyance pipe via a lateral tapping tee. Simpler installation, smaller footprint on WTD property. Requires thermal injection safeguards and seasonal switching logic. Temperature control is critical to avoid pipe damage. Cost impact: baseline.
In-pipe HX approach
Thermal exchanger installed inside the conveyance pipe (Alexandria precedent). Isolates the on-site system from direct sewer contact. Eliminates thermal shock risk but adds engineering complexity. Cost impact: +15–20% capex, but reduced footprint and simpler WTD oversight.

The use agreement requires continuous monitoring of thermal transfer rates, water quality (temperature, pressure, flow), and operational logs per §6 of the template. MicroLink operates the controls; King County retains the right to curtail injection if conveyance conditions require it. Control logic defines when bidirectional switching occurs: engage extraction mode if sewer inlet temperature exceeds building setpoint; engage injection mode if server loop temperature exceeds conveyance setpoint and extraction is not active; stop injection immediately if WTD curtailment signal is sent; default to all circuits shut with no interaction with conveyance system.

Design questions
Three critical decisions for WTD guidance

Q1: Connection methodology. Both direct tap and in-pipe HX are technically viable for bidirectional service. The Alexandria extraction project used in-pipe HX to isolate the system. For injection mode, which methodology does WTD prefer? The choice affects design schedule (in-pipe HX adds 4–6 weeks), capital cost (+15–20%), operational footprint, and WTD oversight burden.

Q2: Injection location and thermal destination. Where does injected heat go in the conveyance system? Three options: digester preheat circuit (reduces biogas heating load, displaces natural gas), district return preheating (minimal downstream effect), or immediate downstream extractor source (provides thermal source for sewer-source heat pumps serving other municipal buildings). Each location affects thermal modeling scope, temperature monitoring, and seasonal operational flexibility.

Q3: Temperature limits. Maximum allowable injection temperature? (40°C? 45°C? Higher if post-treatment?) This affects chiller design strategy.

External environment and framing

Why narrative is load-bearingin this moment

The political environment shifted in November 2025. Both principal offices that must approve this project have new leadership elected on platforms criticizing corporate special arrangements. The framing of this project will determine its reception.

This is the macro context in which any large data-center deployment in the Pacific Northwest sits: $60+ billion of data-center projects blocked or delayed in the past 12 months due to environmental and equity concerns. 14 states actively legislating restrictions. 230+ environmental groups called for a national moratorium in April 2026. The backlash is not anti-technology; it is anti-carve-out. Any project framed as "data center wins" is structurally vulnerable in this moment. The only durable defense is to reframe as a data center contributing public benefit: paying into a public program, solving a shared infrastructure problem, and delivering decarbonization to municipal systems.

Jahm Zahilay (County Executive, sworn January 2026, District 2 south King County) has an EJ-anchored campaign platform. Bruce Wilson (Seattle Mayor, sworn January 2026) ran explicitly against corporate carve-outs ("Anti-Amazon" rhetoric). Both are pragmatic leaders in their early months of office, still defining their agendas. Both are watching how corporate-municipal partnerships are framed. The framing of this project must arrive in their inboxes pre-aligned with their priors.

Framing that works vs. framing that fails

Frame that fails: "MicroLink proposes to inject waste heat into King County's sewer. In exchange, we get to use public infrastructure at a discount." This reads as: private company wins, County subsidizes. It aligns with the national backlash narrative.

Frame that works: "King County extends its Sewer Heat Recovery program to serve bidirectional thermal loads. MicroLink participates as the first bidirectional node, paying an annual fee for the right to use a public thermal resource. Both parties benefit immediately. County gains operational cost savings on the sewer system. MicroLink makes an infrastructure investment decision that pays off through avoided cooling capex." This reads as: infrastructure extension, fair value exchange, County leverages a public asset to generate municipal savings. It aligns with the new leadership's priors.

The most important strategic observation
Framing as infrastructure extension, not corporate favor

The Alexandria precedent is extraction: King County licenses heat to a private extractor. The extractor pays because the value flows from County to extractor. That structure works. We are the mirror image. Here the value flows from sewer to MicroLink. MicroLink captures dominant value from a public resource. By the same logic, MicroLink pays King County. The payment direction is therefore symmetric with the existing program, not inverted from it. Politically, this is defensible because it is operationally true, it aligns with precedent, and it avoids the "corporate carve-out" narrative entirely. We are not asking for special treatment; we are participating in an established public program as the resource user, not the resource provider.

Key decision points: WTD Resource Recovery needs to confirm bidirectional use fits within the 2020 ordinance (determines timeline and procedural path). King County Council attention is a risk if not prepped; early communication with Council helps. City of Seattle: does the project serve climate and infrastructure goals? Wilson administration has signaled interest in district heating. Framing this as decarbonization infrastructure is politically smart.

Shared decision-making

What we needto finalize the strategy

Six specific questions where WTD's guidance will shape the submission path, timeline, and technical direction. These are not obstacles; they are the boundaries of collaborative design.

We have read the program documentation thoroughly and built a strategy that fits cleanly within the existing authorization. These six questions are where we need your read before we lock the approach.

01. Authorization pathway
Does the 2020 ordinance cover bidirectional thermal use, or does it require supplemental Council action? Timeline impact: High.
02. Connection methodology
Direct tap or in-pipe thermal exchanger? Both are technically viable. Cost impact: 15–20%.
03. Withdrawal rate format
How should bidirectional flow be reported on the application form? Net rate with directional footnote? Separate rows? Procedural clarity needed.
04. Injection location
Digester preheat? District return? Downstream extractor source? Affects design scope.
05. Temperature limits
Maximum allowable injection temperature? (40°C? 45°C? Higher if post-treatment?) Chiller design impact.
06. MWBE preferences
Does WTD have preferred MWBE firms for engineering, geotech, or controls roles? Partnership impact.
Question 01 is decision-gating
Does the 2020 ordinance cover bidirectional authorization?

If YES (fits within existing ordinance): We submit pre-application Q2 2026, application Q4 2026, targeting selection Q1 2027.

If NO (requires supplemental Council action): We shift timeline to allow for Council amendment process. Pre-application Q2 2026, but application deferred to Q2 2027 to allow Council action window (January–June 2027 ordinance adoption cycle).

Both paths are viable. The second is not fatal; it just requires early coordination with Council and political messaging around the "infrastructure extension" framing. Knowing which path you are on in advance shapes everything downstream: financing, permit coordination, partner onboarding.

The path forward

This brief is a working document, not a proposal we want to defend. We want to build it with you. Tell us where we are misreading the program and where we have it right. Your answers to the six questions above will determine the submission strategy, timeline, and technical direction.

We are ready to move into formal pre-application meetings as soon as the bidirectional framing is confirmed and we have clarity on the authorization pathway. Our target is a pre-application meeting in Q2 2026 (June latest).

Questions or feedback? Contact Nick Searra directly. We will turn around responses to your clarifications within 48 hours.

Prepared by MicroLink Data Centers in partnership with King County WTD Resource Recovery
May 2026 · Working Draft v3 (Final Layout)
King County Partnership

Heat recovery as infrastructure.

A collaboration with WTD Resource Recovery to solve a concurrent challenge: winter aeration demand, electrode boiler load, and data center thermal integration.

King County's wastewater treatment system moves 150+ million gallons daily through West Point WRRF and downstream conveyance. In winter, that flow demands intensive aeration to maintain dissolved oxygen. That aeration consumes energy. Electrode boilers supplement heat in the district return. Both are cost centers. Both are where compute infrastructure's waste heat becomes an asset instead of a liability.

We spent six months working through the technical and contractual questions with Drew Thompson's team at WTD Resource Recovery. This is not a vendor pitch. This is a design collaboration on how two infrastructure systems — wastewater treatment and data center operations — can align to solve a shared problem.

What we bring.

Thermal architecture + operational experience at industrial hosts.

  • Three-loop thermal system: server loop → intermediate loop with HX → district return integration.
  • Proven operational patterns from brewery, food processing, and district heating deployments.
  • Design flexibility: modular compute blocks scale from pilot to full capacity without rearchitecting thermal integration.
  • Contractual clarity: heat injection is a service, not a carve-out. Both parties benefit from day one.

What we need to know.

Questions that shape the partnership.

  • Where does the heat go? Digester loop, conveyance preheating, or district return?
  • What setpoint and flow rate does WTD target for maximum value?
  • How do permitting and easements work if compute modules sit on WTD land vs. adjacent property?
  • What guarantees matter most — uptime SLA, heat output, contract length?

The pathway forward.

Six months from pre-application to design review. Three decision gates. Questions answered at each stage.

Process schematic showing thermal integration points: heat exchange between compute return loop and treatment plant intake, valve and instrumentation symbols, partner-team annotations. IMAGE · Phase 1 Pre-application process schematic, Jacobs reference. Thermal integration points and partner-team annotations. img-kc-phase1

Phase 1: Discovery & Pre-Application

Months 1–2

We confirm thermal integration points with WTD ops and design teams. Where does the heat physically land? What's the existing conveyance temperature profile? What capacity does the digester loop have for additional thermal load?

We submit the pre-application package to King County: site plans, thermal specs, electrical load, permitting pathway. We answer the initial questions: "What is this thing? How does it connect? What's the contract?"

Deliverables: Pre-app submission, thermal integration diagram, WTD partnership agreement framework.

Phase 2: Design & Regulatory Pathway

Months 3–4

King County Planning reviews the pre-app. We clarify any technical questions — HX sizing, CDU specs, electrical interconnect, stormwater management. We work with Ecology on the thermal discharge permit: is injecting 40°C water into the sewer considered a discharge? What testing is required?

In parallel, we finalize the WTD partnership agreement. What happens if compute goes offline? What's the minimum uptime commitment? What's the heat output guarantee vs. the actual delivered thermal energy?

Deliverables: Design review submittal, thermal discharge permit application, final partnership agreement.

Isometric section drawing of the Seattle HQ platform: stacked compute floors, mechanical room, conveyance interface to the building line, dimensioned for design review submittal. IMAGE · Phase 2 Isometric section drawing for the design review submittal, showing thermal interface points to the conveyance line. img-kc-phase2
Architectural streetscape rendering of the commissioned Seattle HQ in operation, building integrated into the surrounding context, lit at dusk. IMAGE · Phase 3 Commissioned site at the close of Phase 3, integrated into the streetscape and operating against the WTD partnership baseline. img-kc-phase3

Phase 3: Implementation & Proof of Concept

Months 5–6+

Design review approval. Site prep and thermal integration installation. We commission the first compute block and establish baseline thermal performance: actual heat output, response time, seasonal variation. We run a 90-day operational test with WTD ops to validate the partnership model. Does the heat injection actually reduce aeration demand? Can we prove the energy offset?

Success criteria: Compute module running, thermal injection measurable, WTD energy data showing reduction, both parties ready to expand.

Deliverables: Operational baseline report, energy offset validation, path to scale-up.

The questions we're still working through.

Design collaboration means both parties bring answers and unknowns.

Unknown 1: Contract Structure

Is this a thermal-as-a-service agreement? A revenue-share on energy offset? A fixed capacity lease?

Our thinking: Thermal-as-a-service (you get X MW/h at Y setpoint, we get reliability credit). WTD sees energy savings; we see operational anchor. No carve-out language needed.

Unknown 2: Permitting Jurisdiction

Is the compute module a "data center" or "industrial equipment"? Does Ecology or WDOE govern the thermal discharge?

Our thinking: It's not a discharge—it's an injection into an internal process loop. Should be industrial equipment classification. But we need Ecology's read.

Unknown 3: Scalability & Thermal Limits

How much heat can West Point actually absorb without destabilizing the biological process or conveyance return?

Our thinking: 3 MW pilot proves the concept. Seasonal testing will show if we can go to 5–10 MW. WTD's thermal modeling should tell us the ceiling.

Unknown 4: Failure Modes & Uptime SLA

What happens if our compute goes offline? What if we over-heat the conveyance? What's acceptable downtime?

Our thinking: Redundant circulation, passive failsafe (heat injection stops, system defaults to bypass). SLA: 95% uptime with 24-hour response to failure. WTD keeps their baseline capacity; we're always an addition, never a requirement.

Why this matters beyond Seattle.

The King County partnership is a proof point for a global pattern.

Every city in the developed world runs wastewater treatment, district heating, and data centers as separate infrastructure silos. Each consumes energy independently. Each solves for its own constraints. The King County partnership proves they don't have to be separate.

If a 3 MW compute deployment can reduce West Point's winter aeration load by 5–10%, and displace electrode boiler runtime, and provide data-grade infrastructure to a research university, then the pattern scales. Not just at other WWTPs — at district heating networks, industrial hosts, campus utility plants. Anywhere that needs predictable heat and has infrastructure that can consume it.

Seattle doesn't need to be the only city solving this problem. Seattle needs to be the city that *proves* the problem is solvable in a way that other cities can copy. That's the benchmark we're building with King County.

Next conversation.

If you're at King County, WTD, or another municipal utility asking these questions, let's talk. We'll bring the thermal architecture, the operational experience, and the willingness to design a partnership that works for both of us—not just one. The hard questions are the ones that matter. The answers are what make it real.

03 · Technology approach

Combining existing technologies.
Each option assessed for benefit and cost.

Sewer heat recovery hardware, conveyance integration, and the MicroLink three-loop architecture.

The Seattle approach combines proven extraction and injection methods. King County's SHR program uses SHARC and Huber extraction hardware. MicroLink adds the injection half, using three-loop thermal architecture. The result is a closed-loop system that moves heat from sewers into data centers and back into district infrastructure. Below, we assess each technology component for benefit and cost.

MicroLink's Seattle pilot submission to King County's Sewer Heat Recovery program brings together established sewer heat recovery hardware, established conveyance integration methods, and MicroLink's three-loop thermal architecture. The combination is the innovation. Each component is proven.

Options under combination
Option · SHARC Energy
SHARC WET-class extraction

Vancouver-based, deployed at Seattle reference

Vancouver-based SHARC Energy operates the closest reference to a King County deployment with the Alexandria Real Estate project in Seattle. Proven at municipal interface. Direct extraction from the conveyance line via filtration and shell-and-tube heat exchanger. King County program documents reference SHARC as one of two vendor exemplars.

Benefit: proven at WTD interface. Cost: proprietary system, vendor lock-in.

Option · Huber SE
Huber ThermWin in-pipe

German-engineered in-pipe extraction

German-engineered in-pipe heat exchanger. Lower extraction temperatures, no diversion required, proven across European municipal deployments. King County program documents name Huber alongside SHARC as the second vendor exemplar.

Benefit: no flow diversion, lower civil cost. Cost: lower delta-T per metre.

Option · Pipe wall extraction
Pipe wall extraction approach

Conveyance integration method

Heat extraction at the conveyance pipe wall, upstream of the treatment plant. Applies to interceptor-class pipes. King County WTD's published Sewer Heat Recovery Standard Design Guidelines define the connection requirements. Department of Ecology diversion plan acceptance is a parallel requirement.

Benefit: site flexibility, multiple basin options. Cost: 30/60/90 percent engineering review cycle, $0.005 per ton-hour Energy Transfer Fee, CPI-U Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue escalator.

Option · MicroLink three-loop
MicroLink three-loop thermal

Server reject heat into the King County interface

Server reject heat injected into a sealed secondary loop, exchanged through the King County Energy Transfer Station, with a dedicated rejection path for thermal balancing. Target PUE 1.12, target ERE below 0.5. Same architecture deployed across the MicroLink portfolio, adapted to King County's WTD interface specifications.

Benefit: portable across host basins. Cost: secondary loop capex, dry cooler footprint.

03 · Regulatory pathway

King County Wastewater Treatment Division process.

Pre-application conference, statement of intent, 30, 60, 90 percent engineering review, Department of Ecology diversion plan, Connection approval, Approved Final Design. Submission currently in preparation.

The Sewer Heat Recovery program operates under the King County Council-approved template Agreement for Sale and Use of Thermal Energy from King County Wastewater. Energy Transfer Fee at $0.005 per ton-hour, annual escalation by CPI-U Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, 30-year maximum term. Up to three years of fee waiver available in exchange for data sharing under section 9.2.

03 · Thermal source positioning

Why Seattle, why now.

Seattle's hydropower base, the King County Sewer Heat Recovery program's mature regulatory framework, and the University of Washington's active steam-to-hot-water conversion combine into a deployment context unmatched in any other US city.

King County

The Sewer Heat Recovery pilot program was established in 2020 with three pilot slots. Alexandria Real Estate operates the commissioned reference. MicroLink is positioned as a technology-combined applicant, bringing established extraction hardware together with the MicroLink three-loop thermal architecture and a public-sector deployment model.

University of Washington

David Woodson's Energy Renewal Plan calls for Power Plant electrification and a campus-wide steam-to-hot-water conversion. The new hot water loop is actively seeking low-grade heat sources. MicroLink server reject heat at 40 to 50 °C is a direct match. The conversation with Campus Energy, Utilities, and Operations is ongoing.

Aerial sunset over the bay

A hydropower base, a working regulatory framework, and an active customer. This is why Seattle, why now.

What's being built
from here

The Boston programme runs three workstreams in parallel. Site assessment across seven host candidates. Customer engagement across four clusters. Regulatory and capital advocacy across BERDO, ISO-NE, MassDEP, EOED, and Mass Leads / Mass Wins. Twelve months of work feeds three decision gates.

Illustrated watercolor map of Chicago showing Lake Michigan on the left, the Chicago River and city street grid, district heating context for the What's Ahead section.

Workstreamsplaceholder · Boston content

Workstream 01 · Coalition outreach

Contact and convene the 241 named stakeholders

241 named contacts · eight categories · May 2026 onward

The Boston coalition is built in public. Host operators, customers, partners, research anchors, municipal and state leadership, investors, community organisations, trades. Every named contact receives a tailored first touch within the working window. The coalition is the deliverable.

Workstream 02 · Site review for offtake

Review every host site for thermal and electrical offtake

Seven host candidates · three categories · May to December 2026

Each site assessed across two dimensions: what we can recover from the site (waste heat, biogas, water flows) and what we can generate on site (biogas SOFC, behind-the-meter cogeneration, solar plus battery). Each site has its own thermal regime, regulatory pressure, customer adjacency, and decarbonisation roadmap. Phase 00 site walks in progress. Decision gate Q4 2026.

Workstream 03 · Partners and approvals

Lock in host partners, customer anchors, and city approvals

Host LOIs · customer LOIs · BERDO methodology · ISO-NE interconnection

Convert assessed sites into signed Letters of Intent with the host operator. Convert engaged customer clusters into anchor customer LOIs. Secure city and state regulatory pathways: BERDO Review Board methodology recognition, MassDEP WWER pilot, ISO-NE interconnection scoping. Definitive Agreements target Q3 2027.

Workstream 04 · Research and R&D

Lock in research partners and define R&D goals

BU CISE · MIT Decarbonization 2050 · Boston Dynamics · MGHPCC

Co-authored technical thesis anchored on the BU CISE / MIT Decarbonization 2050 axis. Joint research programmes on grid flexibility, retrofit thermal integration, robotics co-deployment, high performance compute operations. R&D milestones aligned to deployment timelines so the first Boston site is also the first reference research instance.

Who we're busy speaking to

MWRD ENGINEERING
MWRD EngineeringHeng Zhang
MWRD EngineeringJoseph Grabowy
MWRD EngineeringKishore Kumar
MWRD EngineeringCatherine Fitzpatrick
CURRENT WATER ORG
Current Water OrgKalindi Parikh
Current Water OrgNina Dudnik
Current Water OrgJonathan Goodell
Current Water OrgMelissa Pierce

Who we're going to be speaking to

MWRD BOARD
MWRD BoardMarcelino Garciainvited
MWRD BoardCameron Davisinvited
A1 · Questions

Five questions
we keep asking

Not a questionnaire. A way of opening a conversation that continues from here. These are the questions MicroLink keeps thinking about: the ones where another perspective would change how we think. Rank what resonates, add a note, or both.

Watercolour rendering of an angular white MicroLink data center building under a blue sky.
Three MicroLink modules. One thermal story.
01
On the next decade

Where will sovereign and municipal AI infrastructure look most different five to ten years out?

The genuine inflection points are usually visible before they become consensus. We want to know which of these moves the most, and which one will move first.

Rank the top three0 of 3
0 / 1500
Submitted. 0 people have shared their view on this so far.
02
On the compute and host boundary

Where does the seam between compute and industrial process go next?

Integration is happening at thermal, electrical, control, and commercial layers, each one a separate negotiation today. We want to know where the deepest unlock sits, and what's blocking it from becoming the default in industry reference designs.

Rank the top three0 of 3
0 / 1500
Submitted. 0 people have shared their view on this so far.
03
On the public-sector path

Where is the path forward for public-sector AI infrastructure that isn't built for hyperscalers?

State, municipal, and non-federal public buyers don't fit cleanly into the major reference programmes today, which are built for hyperscalers and federal-scale sovereigns. The demand is real, the gap is real, and deployments are happening anyway. We want to know what unlocks a recognised path.

Rank the top three0 of 3
0 / 1500
Submitted. 0 people have shared their view on this so far.
04
On heat as a first-class output

What would make heat recovery a default specification rather than a project-by-project negotiation?

Server heat into industrial process is standard in district heating across Northern Europe and is becoming standard in our deployments. We want to know what would tip it from edge case to expected default.

Rank the top three0 of 3
0 / 1500
Submitted. 0 people have shared their view on this so far.
05
On San José

What is the question this site should answer first?

San José is one site, one set of conditions, and a chance to learn things that scale to other public-sector deployments. From the design-review seat, what should the site most settle?

Rank the top three0 of 3
0 / 1500
Submitted. 0 people have shared their view on this so far.
A2 · LIBRARY

The collection of MicroLink Briefings.

Domain knowledge we accumulate as we work with partners. Each briefing is a working document.
WRRF REFERENCE · V1 · APRIL 2026 COMPLETE

Wastewater treatment, a working reference.

A briefing on wastewater treatment processes: anaerobic digestion, MHP, thermal hydrolysis, cogeneration, biogas pathways, and how MicroLink integrates with them. Originated from a technical conversation with Maddy Fairley-Wax (Jacobs Solutions).

Open briefing →
NCP ARCHITECTURE · IN DEVELOPMENT OPEN INVITATION

The 1 MW pod, in detail.

Quantum-X800 + AC SU at 576 GPUs, three-loop thermal architecture, diesel-free 2N power topology. The reference architecture for the canonical pod is being written with NVIDIA, so the document reads as a joint template that other deployments can adopt.

Build it with us→
SOVEREIGN MUNICIPAL AI · IN DEVELOPMENT OPEN INVITATION

The product, end to end.

Confidential Computing on Hopper / Blackwell, BlueField-3 multi-tenant isolation, Run:ai per-tenant clusters, Llama-Nemotron sovereign fine-tuning. The stack is being co-authored with NVIDIA's product and public-sector teams, so the document reads the way both organisations would describe it.

Build it with us→
More briefings to follow, added as the work continues.
A2 · References

Glossary, sources, and citations

Technical terminology used throughout this working document, followed by the primary, regulatory, and industry sources behind the figures and claims.

Physical scale model of a MicroLink two-container compute module, shown in section to reveal internal layout
Glossary
ADFU
Additional Digester Facility Upgrades; the $200 million Jacobs progressive design-build contract awarded by the City of San José in January 2026.
CDU
Coolant Distribution Unit; isolates the chip-side fluid loop from the facility loop and provides redundant pumping.
CI
Carbon intensity, expressed in grams of CO₂-equivalent per megajoule, used by CARB LCFS.
CIN / TAN / SMN
The three Ethernet/InfiniBand fabrics in the NCP architecture: cluster interconnect, tenant access, and secure management.
D3 RIN
Federal cellulosic Renewable Identification Number under the EPA Renewable Fuel Standard, Pathway Q for RNG dispensed as transportation CNG.
DA
Definitive Agreement; the substantive partnership contract concluding the EOI → LOI → DA sequence.
DTC
Direct-to-Chip liquid cooling; cold plate mounted directly on the GPU/CPU package.
EOI
Expression of Interest; the short-form first-commitment instrument signed at Day 30, scoped to authorise inclusion of the stub-out concept in the ADFU design-basis discussion.
GMP
Guaranteed Maximum Price; the second-phase commercial structure of the ADFU progressive design-build contract.
HFR
Hydrolysis Fermentation Reactor; the 75 °C sidestream vessel in the Jacobs MHP three-vessel architecture.
HRT
Hydraulic Retention Time; reactor volume divided by daily volumetric feed.
LCFS
Low Carbon Fuel Standard; California's transportation fuel decarbonisation programme administered by CARB.
LOI
Letter of Intent; the second-stage commitment instrument signed at Day 90, capturing the technical specification and commercial framework principles.
MCFC
Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell; produces electricity, recoverable heat, and hydrogen from biogas at ~47% electrical efficiency.
MHP
Microbial Hydrolysis Process; Jacobs' proprietary biological hydrolysis process at 75 °C using Caldicellulosiruptor bescii.
MMBtu
Million British thermal units; standard unit of energy commerce in US gas markets.
NCP
NVIDIA Cloud Partner; NVIDIA's reference architecture and partner programme for AI compute facilities.
NVL72
NVIDIA's 72-GPU rack-scale unit (Blackwell GB200 and successor GB300 Vera Rubin); the atomic compute unit of an NCP facility.
PUE
Power Usage Effectiveness; the ratio of total facility energy to IT equipment energy in a data center.
RNG
Renewable Natural Gas; biogas upgraded to pipeline-quality natural gas for injection into utility distribution.
RWF
Regional Wastewater Facility; the San José–Santa Clara plant.
TPAD
Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion; the staged thermophilic-then-mesophilic digester train at San José.
TPAC
Treatment Plant Advisory Committee; the City of San José advisory body overseeing the RWF.
VSR
Volatile Solids Reduction; percentage of organic solids destroyed during digestion.
WRRF
Water Resource Recovery Facility; the contemporary term for a wastewater treatment plant operating with resource-recovery functions.
Sources and citations
Primary sources & regulatory documents
  • City of San José Council Item 26-02813 January 2026 · ADFU contract authorisation.
  • City of San José Capital Improvement ProgramAdditional Digester Facility Upgrade project page.
  • City of San José Climate Adaptation & Resilience PlanMarch 2026 (Provenzano).
  • US Patent 12,359,225Microbial Hydrolysis Process (Jacobs).
  • BAAQMD Title V Permit A0778RWF combined air permits.
  • CARB LCFS Reporting ToolQ3 2025 transfer reports.
  • EPA Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 202217,544 publicly owned treatment works.
  • EPA Opportunities for CHP at WWTPs2011 update; plant-size distribution and AD subset.
  • IRS final rule · Section 45VOne Big Beautiful Bill Act, July 2025.
  • CPUC Decision 24-08-007Avoided Cost Calculator.
  • Keyser Marston Addendum No. 2June 2025 · RFQ structure for up to 99-year leases on the freed footprint.
Industry sources & technical literature
  • Jacobs press release · 21 January 2026ADFU contract award.
  • Egeland 2023Driving Sustainability in Data Centers, Jacobs white paper.
  • McLeod & Horrax 2022Hydrogen from Wastewater, Jacobs six-part series.
  • Fairley-Wax, Parry, Nielsen · WEFTEC 2024Application of the Microbial Hydrolysis Process on an Existing Anaerobic Digestion System.
  • Jacobs 2025 StrategyChallenge Accepted.
  • Smart Water MagazineADFU coverage, January 2026.
  • ENR Top 500 Design FirmsWastewater rankings, FY2024.
  • Argus MediaLCFS pricing analysis, 2025.
  • IETA · September 2025California Low Carbon Fuel Standard brief.
  • Bioenergy NewsVVWRA SB 1440 first contract, March 2026.