Doesn't chip making a lot of water, most of it in Arizona is fed by Lake Mead?
The same reservoir that is at 30% capacity, with acute water shortages and with 4 years of increased precipitation necessary for an adequate refill.
We are adding a chip making facility which needs a lot of water here?
This sounds like a recipe for disaster whenever there is a period of water stress which appears to be occurring in that region significantly more frequently.
The more I think about it, the more US infra/urban planning makes absolutely 0 sense to me. Seems to more closely follow tax breaks and tax income than necessarily smart resource allocation.
I live in Phoenix and have heard some of the local discourse about this.
Fabs need a lot of water, like a swimming pool. Once you fill it up, then you need comparatively less to stay operational.
Intel has invested in both recycling water as well as partnering with organizations on water conservation and ecology projects.
Arizona does draw water from the Colorado River, but among the four states, Arizona is at the bottom of the water rights. We get what is left over after Colorado, California, and Utah get their legal share.
The biggest user of water here in Arizona are the commercial farmers. (The Hopi people practice dryland agriculture and so don’t irrigate at all; most everyone else irrigates using inefficient and destructive land management practices). Aquifers here have been draining, and it has been a big issue. Farmers are already getting restricted on water use this year (despite an unusually wet monsoon season), and water restrictions has not hit residential users yet. It is on the radar for policymakers though.
Both TSMC and Intel are attracted to Arizona because it is seismically stable. They each had to invest an enormous amount in the more seismically active Taiwan and California, and it gets more sensitive the smaller the chips get.
If we want to conserve more water, the most effective way is to change commercial farming practices. Fabs have already invested a lot to reducing ongoing water use.
For an example of what I mean by better land management practices in regards to water: https://youtu.be/-8nqnOcoLqE
>Fabs need a lot of water, like a swimming pool. Once you fill it up, then you need comparatively less to stay operational.
This is just not true. The amount of cooling required for fabs is extremely significant and without major evaporative cooling you can't get it. With evaporative cooling comes water loss...and not a small amount of it, especially in the desert. You can do a lot to recycle water that is used in the process, but not the water loss using in cooling.
This is also evident in the environmental goals set forth by Intel...they talk about returning 100% water to the environment. Well evaporation is back to the environment...
You’re right, fabs need more water than a swimming pool, maybe a big swimming pool.
The fabs in Arizona are likely not going to be the main cause of water shortages there. How do I know this? Cause when Motorola had its massive (and inefficient) fabs running there in the 90’s-00’s and there were water shortages, they kept running just fine off their on premise reserves.
Modern fabs are even more efficient with water usage.
I know this because I have visited the old fabs and they are quite good at re-using and capturing the water since it’s inside an air controlled bunker. Modern (and older) fabs aren’t open to air, so water loss is minimal.
The latest 300mm fabs use 10-50X the power of what the old 8" fabs used (I know this for a fact...). That power gets turned into heat and that heat has to be removed. I work at an "inefficient" 200mm factory that has pretty good internal recycling (~65%)...we still use 600K gallons per day.
A single state of the art EUV tool uses ~2MW of power...<0.1% of that gets to the wafer. Most of the rest of that is lost to heat...and that heat goes where?
An acre-foot is about 325K gallons, and an irrigated farm uses 1 or 2 acre-feet per acre per year. So the "inefficient" fab you work at uses less than 2 acre-feet/day, or maybe 700 per year. About what a 500-acre farm uses.
Arizona has about 1.3 million acres under irrigation. So 2,500 similar fabs would use all the irrigation water.
It's a lot of water, but maybe not a deal breaker?
The USDA says Arizona cotton farmers make 1,138lbs/acre/year (sorry world, not converting units this time). There are 165,500 acres growing cotton in Arizona, so the 500 we stop to get water for Intel is negligible.
So we are talking about agriculture forgoing 569,000 lbs of cotton per year. Farmers get about $0.60/lb for cotton. The impact on the agricultural industry is $341,000/year.
Buy out the worst cotton farmer in the state. Take his water. Move on.
Seeing those numbers, I wonder how much that affects the local microclimate, as that adds a lot of moisture and heat into the air. And if there are ways to add plant life in the surrounding areas that could benefit from it, and from which people can obtain a yield.
I'm not so sure about the hotter months, but during the colder months, it can potentially be used for greenhouses, or for when temperature dips during nighttimes. Lots of tropical plants want hotter, moist air and will die from frost.
Assuming that those 600kgal start out ice cold and all end up evaporated at the boiling point, that’s 146MW of cooling. LCoE for plain solar power is about $31/MWh. Assuming you could discharge heat without evaporation at a COP of 4, that’s about $26k/day to buy power. Not at all cheap, but not insane. Interestingly, that is a lot more than the cost to buy that much water wholesale, even in Arizona, so I guess this is why people like cooling towers.
600k gallons for us is not all evaporated, thats just what we take in from the city and discharge back to them. There are temperature requirements for discharge as well so you can't just discharge 200 degree water. That doesn't really work anyway since our process cooling water has to stay at ~70 degrees.
We have some evaporation loss, but in the Phoenix climate it would be a lot more.
Right, I think the gp comment is referring to fabs being impacted by water shortages, not fabs causing water shortages.
Although if push comes to shove I guess all of this can be solved trivially by not growing ridiculous water intensive crops and not having golf courses and stuff in the middle of the desert.
Tucson resident here. I see acre after acre of alfalfa being grown, with most of that water then being exported to Saudi Arabia for cattle consumption. There is a geopolitical aspect to this, but I will gladly choose Arizona fabs over exporting cattle feed.
Tucson has been doing a very good job recharging our local aquifers and we also had a good monsoon. I was able to harvest 15,000 gallons of rainwater for irrigation on my land.
I view the construction of the fabs as critical infrastructure . Saudi cattle, not so much.
> Tucson resident here. I see acre after acre of alfalfa being grown, with most of that water then being exported to Saudi Arabia for cattle consumption.
(also Tucsonian) Whats really sad is we still have to search far and wide for decent quality hay to feed to our horses...
The fab investments also create a nexus of interesting jobs related to construction and fab operations. I really enjoy working in the latter sector.
That is not how that works. Las vegas is full of pools and fountains... INDOORS. they retain the moisture in their enclosed ecosystems. We have ACs that pull water out of the air, and we also know how to make buildings.
You can't just have AC when it comes to industrial cooling. You have to have chillers connected to cooling towers and those work on evaporative cooling. Feel free to debate all day on this though...I literally run the department in charge of it at a semiconductor manufacturing plant.
So is the problem then that you can't push enough heat into the air, so you need to evaporate water? Sounds like a nice input to a desalination plant. Does this mean you agree that Arizona is a strange choice?
If they need so much water, does that mean you agree that
Absolutely it's a strange choice. From a power perspective it can make sense since solar works very well, but from a water perspective it's a very strange choice. Cheap land is also a very big factor. TSMC purchased over a thousand acres. Where else in the US can you find a thousand acres so near a populous area and so easily accessible off a major freeway like that?
Tax promises and Trump trying to sway the state for the 2020 election had more to do with the choice than anything I think.
the west coast also has a pretty low incidence of natural disasters. The east coast regularly gets bad hurricanes, the northeast and midwest get really bad snowstorms, plains states regularly get tornadoes, etc, but on the west coast if you pick a region that's not geologically active then there aren't really a ton of huge natural disasters that occur regularly.
of course I guess there's wildfires now too, but that's not really an Arizona thing either.
of course you're not wrong about companies often being lured by the particular states that are willing to offer them massive tax breaks, in some cases even to places like Texas that do get hurricanes on an occasional basis. And that doesn't always work out well in the end like with the Texas power outages that seem to be occurring more and more frequently, there are a LOT of fabs in Dallas/etc that are having to deal with widespread power outages multiple times a year.
(you're the expert here but it seems like the generator capacity usually isn't sufficient to continue normal operation of the fab, it's more to maintain containment/purity of the feedstock and you still lose wafers that were in-process at the time? that's the impression I've gotten at least)
No semiconductor site has enough backup generators to run continuously and you can only have so much diesel onsite to run those generators (a few hours or maybe a full day if you are lucky). They are there for basic safety systems, air handling and lighting. For example Samsung was down for many weeks after the February storm that caused power outages and fuel delivery issues. They literally ran out of diesel to run the generators and their cleanroom air stopped circulating. It took weeks to get things back to normal and my understanding is getting the air quality back was the hardest part.
> the northeast and midwest get really bad snowstorms
I’m curious what the supposed issues around snowstorms are. In the Midwest at least you typically lose a day of “work” (not going into the office) a couple times per winter and that’s only because of school closures. The roads are rarely an issue for more than a couple hours unless it’s REALLY bad storm.
I don’t see why you couldn’t keep running the fabs through that.
Power bumps are a major issue and even with redundant power you get them. Even a bump that loses 15-20% of voltage on a single phase for 3-6 cycles (of 60Hz, so like 0.05-0.1s) is a huge impact to fab production tools.
I've seen impacts from cars hitting telephone poles 20 miles away that have been enough to impact the fab, let alone tree branches snapping from snow and ice.
I guess I don't know why this would be an issue - you just pick an area that uses buried power lines, and there are plenty of them. And ignoring that - if you're Intel building a fab, you setup shop near one of the major transmission lines that run well above the treeline. Or build your fab just down the street from the power plant...
St. Cloud, MN. Palo, IA. Brownville, NE. Burlington, KS. - nuclear plants.
I'm sure they all have plenty of cheap land to put fabs up on and if you take one of the norther states you'll cut your cooling bill to less than zero for several months out of the year without any evaporation.
re: West coast - one of the big wild fires got within five miles of Cupertino two years ago, local friends got evacuation notices before the fire was stopped, and all homes and I imagine even manufacturing buildings have to be built to withstand an earthquake all along the coast.
This is super interesting. Since you seem to have inside knowledge can you compare it to agriculture?
For example: the google machine tells me that cotton production in AZ uses somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5-3.5 acre ft. water per acre. Would a large fab consume a comparable amount of water?
In this case I can't compare it to agriculture. I don't think growing food in a desert is a good idea either.
The Intel site in Portland, OR uses ~2 Billion gallons of water per year. They claim they are bringing enough recycle capacity to save about half that.
That’s not much. The average family of 4 in Arizona uses about 325,000 gallons a year. So a billion gallons is equivalent to 3,000 families, or a very small town.
Doesn't smell right, you're saying a family of 4 in Arizona uses ~900 gallons a day? That's 3500L or 3.5 tons of water every day.
I mean you can flush the toilet every minute for the whole day and only use about that much water, and that's assume the toilet fills up as fast (it doesn't).
Depending upon how they do this and how much they are adding back into the aquifer, that can have a positive impact on the local ecology.
According to those slides, those were not the only strategies Intel used at the Phoenix site. It also added that there are already many water reductions strategies in use (which I agree with), so it doesn’t require groundbreaking research to develop.
What exactly are you thinking? We have a closed loop system on our process cooling water but it is cooled via heat exchangers that use chilled water (in the 40-50 degree range). That water is chilled with extremely large chillers that use condenser water that is run through the cooling towers. It's as much of a closed system as you can get...eventually you need to remove heat and you can't just add energy to get it.
Wondering if it's reasonably possible to remove that last water step that is relying on open air evaporative cooling. Air cooled through big ass fans == no more water losses == profit?
Sounds like it would be multiples more expensive to get that to work though.
I don’t know about a fab, but the design principle I have heard from people making better use of residential and agricultural water is not trying to get it to a complete 100% closed loop, but to get multiple uses (yields) out of it as it flows through the system.
In a residential setting, it is typically a single-use where water purified to drinking water standards are used to flush toilets and water the lawn.
The idea here is to make better use of inputs and outputs. The folks in the Earthship projects just outside of Taos, NM build residences that cycle water 3-4 times before it goes out through a septic field, which feeds vegetation.
In none of those cycles, are the water re-used for the same purpose. You don’t try to purify grey water from bathing to reuse for bathing or washing, and instead, it is treated onsite through plants to reuse for things like flushing toilets. Water transports things, so what you look at is what is the waste being carried and how can that “waste” be used as an input for something else.
In the case of the fab, it sounds as if the major waste being carried is heat, via evaporative cooling. As I have mentioned in a different comment, that likely changes the microclimate near the fabs. So one area to look at are what kind of yields we can get with that changed microclimate? It depends upon the design of the cooling towers, and weather the water carrying the waste heat was still liquid when it got to the tower. Maybe there is another use for heated water, not specifically in the fab process itself, but something that could benefit humans and the ecology in a different way. For example, diverting some of that water to areas where zone 10 (tropical) plants are put into cultivation.
> Both TSMC and Intel are attracted to Arizona because it is seismically stable
There are a lot of places in the US that are at least as seismically stable and also have more abundant water. I suspect the choice of Arizona has more to do with tax incentives and the fact that fabs already exist there (and thus there is an experienced workforce).
Central Washington is ideal for chip fabs: tons of cheap electricity and excellent infrastructure, massive existing water supply, as/more geologically stable than Arizona, zero hurricanes/tornadoes. Three hours from Seattle is not commuting range, but it's close enough that the chip designers could easily do monthly fab visits. People underestimate how much idea exchange we've lost by separating design from fabrication.
Unfortunately Central Washington is part of a state that is known for erratic, wild, and unpredictable whims when it comes to any company whose name isn't "Boeing". It's not about taxes.
> Unfortunately Central Washington is part of a state that is known for erratic, wild, and unpredictable whims when it comes to any company whose name isn't "Boeing"
Microsoft, Amazon, Nintendo, etc., have a strong WA presence and what has WA done to them that is 'unpredictable'? WA has no state income tax and is very billionaire and business friendly. You are perhaps thinking of Seattle politics, but Seattle!=WA. WA votes very blue during elections but it's for the pro-wealthy billionaire-friendly blues. WA doesn't elect the AOC squad type blues.
Well, you can't exactly relocate a campus with 5,000-10,000 employees to another state 'on a whim', but yeah, your point still stands that it's a lot easier than moving a factory that builds physical things.
I recall IBM and other tech companies being called out for occasionally deliberately moving campuses to other states because this creates an excuse to sever certain employees who can't otherwise be lawfully fired.
The part of Idaho where you can build cheaply (Snake River Valley, flat-ish land) is a pretty long way from the major hydro dams on the Columbia. The Snake River dams generate almost zero electricity; they exist in order to allow barge transit for farm goods. So the "cheap power" benefit is out.
Micron is a giant in memory device manufacturing, but they don't do logic chips. Memory and logic manufacturing are pretty different, and get more and more different as you get to more and more bleeding-edge processes. Proximity to Micron is nice but not a huge benefit for a foundry.
Lastly, Idaho is gorgeous and the skiing is awesome, but it doesn't check the box for hipsters who want a coastal city. Don't blame me, I don't think this way. But a lot of people do. Anyways Idaho is definitely way beyond driving distance from Seattle.
> The biggest user of water here in Arizona are the commercial farmers.
And farming has been booming in Arizona. I lived there about 10 years ago and even then there were a lot of complaints about all the tree farms (almonds, etc.) that were showing up in Arizona. Massive water consumption and virtually impossible to be sustainable in the desert.
The irony is that with current incentives, it's a self-reinforcing cycle. Nuts have a huge return on investment, so nut farmers can afford to buy even very expensive water, so they plant more trees, etc etc.
What’s also ironic is that people can grow nut trees in arid land at a smallholder scale. Folks in the permies.com forum talk about chucking nuts randomly, and the ones that survive to grow on their own are more drought-tolerant.
If you are not trying to force greater yield in order to squeeze out profit, the nut trees can do well to yield enough for people to have their fair share.
When done as part of a practice that involves diversifying crops, the entire smallhold is far more resilient to any number of external pressure, including climate, pests, market crashes, etc.
Distributed nut farming is cool, and would solve my dilemma as a voracious nut eater. I cut out almonds for the amount of water they suck up in California, but probably every nut is problematic.
Too bad resilience against future problems loses to maximizing profits, so all the resources are capital-efficiently extracted from one location before moving on. Even if I buy local, it’s likely that it’s farmed at a damaging scale. I’m guessing that sustainable farming, crop rotations, etc have fewer externalities.
> nut farmers can afford to buy even very expensive water
(x) doubt
If they actually can pay for "very expensive water" i.e. water at the rates that residential/commercial users pay, then fair play to them. But from what I heard, they are only profitable by paying near-zero (orders of magnitudes less than other users).
Allow me to rephrase in a way that is more accurate but not substantially more insightful: "Nuts tend to be far more profitable than other crops, allowing nut farmers to expand their operations as escalating water prices squeeze out lower-margin water users."
What's the rough residential rate in AZ? Here in Seattle (obviously a MUCH different situation wrt water availability) I pay $6.96 per CCF (748.052 US gal, 3400 L). Even if every tree used an entire CCF over a season, that'd still be trivial compared to the amount of nuts you'd get (I assume)
California farmers use 40 trillion litres of water per year. At your rate that would be roughly 80 billion dollars a year or so. California's entire agriculture sector is worth around 50 billion a year dollars. So just the cost of water would be way more than all their earnings. And then you have to pay for equipment, pay for workers etc.
Agriculture water != Water you consume in a home. Even Desalinated it's at most 1/10th that price. And there are usually brackish sources that are even cheaper to recycle into farms.
The issue isn't the cost of water, it's that "free" water drives everything else (or imported water - the United States major export often seems to be exporting it's water in the form of crops, food, etc...)
Almonds in California are reported to use about 2.6 billion liters of water and the industry is worth about $5 billion. So still not viable at $6.96/CCF, but maybe more viable than the average for Californian crops.
It's been almost 20 years but when I lived in Phoenix (and had a lawn) my water bill was about $25 a month. Now in the PNW, using a similar amount of water, my water bill is about $100 a month.
Water is heavily subsidized in AZ. There is little incentive to conserve it.
Are you actually spending that much on water though? Or water and sewer? Sewer is a lot (~$18 per CCF, iirc) more expensive. Farmers wouldn't have to pay that. Don't disagree about water in the SW being stupidly subsidized of course.
Wouldn't surprise me. I also think Seattle's sewer fees are probably relatively high because of the upgrades they've had to do to the whole system to avoid dumping so much untreated waste straight into the sound.
I don't think the price you pay has everything to do with the cost of the water, but the distribution, servicing, cleaning of human-consumable quality water. The one price I do know for DeSalinated (among the most expensive) was $0.45/m^3 or 1000 liters (Hyflux 10 year commit, industrial quantity). The problem, of course, being that you need to be near the ocean.
If seismic stability was the primary concern, why not choose a state like Minnesota? (lowest seismic activity in the US) Is it tax / local governments + seismic stability?
Why does this metric matter, when 95% of the water Intel uses is already returned to the water supply?
From the same verge article as the 4 million gallons a day figure:
> Last year, the company pledged that by 2030 it will restore and return more freshwater than it uses. It’s nearing that benchmark in Arizona, where Intel says it cleaned up and returned 95 percent of the freshwater it used in 2020
They can take wastewater (which is no longer fresh), clean it up for use, and return it back to the system.
While Arizona is landlocked there's also not a ton of distance between it and the Gulf of California so they could do desalinization, although I imagine that's too costly to consider at the moment.
> It has its own water treatment plant at its Ocotillo campus in Chandler that’s similar to a municipal plant. There’s also a “brine reduction facility,” a public-private partnership with the city of Chandler, that brings 2.5 million gallons of Intel’s wastewater a day back to drinking standard. Intel uses some of the treated water again, and the rest is sent to replenish groundwater sources or be used by surrounding communities.
They're taking raw untreated river/lake/aquifer water, purifying it to an incredible degree for the fab. When they use the water it gets cleaned again.
Now that water can either be returned to the river/lake/aquifer or if you clean it sufficiently well it can go straight into municipal drinking water supplies. That's how this fresh water comes out of nowhere.
Maricopa and Pinal counties have lots of agricultural water that either comes directly off the Colorado river via canal, or is pumped from shallow alfalfa field runoff groundwater that is too full of nitrates to be even remotely potable.
We also, unlike the CA Central Valley or the Midwest who are apparently cool with depleting their resources as fast as humanly possible, are acutely aware of our groundwater supply constraints, given that we live in a desert, and practice a lot of aquifer recharge and management.
Intel cleans it, uses it, and dumps it into aquifer recharge, which cleans it even further.
The midwest gets more than enough water via rain, so nobody worries about water. Farmers don't irrigate crops, they just accept lower profits in drought years. You might be thinking of the west where water is a problem.
Not to mention that industry itself only accounts for 6% of Arizona's water usage [0] so we're talking about one single structure increasing the industrial usage by ~10%.
Industry is a surprisingly small portion of water consumption in many places. In many states, household water use (including lawns) can handily exceed the water used by industry.
Using this water for domestic chip making is arguably a very reasonable use of water. If we’re going to start cutting water usage, let’s start with things like golf courses in the desert instead of critical chip-making infrastructure.
I feel a bit of tension. I'm not a big fan of people using water to grow grass in the desert, but I'm also not a big fan of making tens or hundreds of thousands of people sacrifice so that one large corporation can profit.
Yeah, I know that chip manufacturing helps everyone by improving our economic independence, and that's not a small thing, but we're already writing Intel a big check and they obviously benefit from the profits of the chips they will manufacture (assuming they manage it correctly and it doesn't just get left behind for cheaper foreign manufacturing the moment the market economics change).
Maybe chip manufacture really benefits from being somewhere arid, and that's probably just pretty incompatible with water conservation?
I used to get so mad about people growing lawns here in Phoenix until I discovered that Burmuda grass will tenaciously grow with little irrigation, and that some kind of vegetation is better for water retention in soil than bare dirt.
As I mentioned in my longer comment elsewhere, Arizona is seismically stable, and fabs don’t need specialized structures when using advanced process nodes.
The biggest misuse of water resources and poor land management comes from our conventional, commercial farming practice. Healthy, living soil can do a lot ecologically including water conservation, but we farm in a way to continually deplete soil.
Changing how residential homeowners do landscaping can help as well.
I switched out my whole yard to zoysia (which is one of those creeping vine grasses like Bermuda). I picked it over Bermuda because it grows in thicker. I went from watering at least once a week to maybe once or twice a year if at all. That is in a area with an ok amount of rain.
I liked this type of grass as it grows relatively slowly which means about half the amount of mowing needed to be done. Low water (less than Bermuda), kills most weeds (less pesticides and weed killers), less mowing, those are the upsides. Downsides are turns yellow in October and does not turn green until the end of april (not HOA friendly), and like most creeping vine grasses is invasive and hard to get rid of if you do not like it, it also grows very poorly in shaded areas. Aggressive trimming is also needed when it reaches walkways, streets, driveways, and the side of your house.
I also spent a good amount of time building up a decent bed for the grass to grow in with mulching and proper aeration. Another thing I did was to make sure I had a good mix of the correct type of insects, moss, worms, and transplanted from local areas potting soils for other bits in the soil, trying to keep area and the type of grass in mind. As the original builder had scraped off the good stuff, leaving me with clay and rocks and rye grass, then took it to another site before I bought the place. This helped tremendously with the soil. Though I could have done better on my homework with that.
Depending on where you live, what sort of rain you get, and the soil types, this can be a 1 year job or a 10 year job. It really takes time to do.
But yeah, there's lots of different types of grasses that are OK to have in arid climates. But most lawns in my region (socal) aren't these special grasses. Subterranean irrigation can help too.
Yeah, I agree that my framing was narrow. Corporations of course benefit society.
> paying suppliers for the parts that go into the useful things getting produced
I suspect this is overstated considering how much of these parts likely come from abroad, especially from oppressive countries that subsidize their manufacturing via pollution and pseudo slave labor. But still there are certainly American wholesale and logistics jobs which are supported.
Its fucking lawn grass. Its one of the most worthless things in the world and a complete waste of resources. At least chips do something other than sit there wasting water.
I agree. But the idea of asking tens or hundreds of thousands to give up their frivolities so a single corporation can profit strikes a nerve in me, however irrational it may be. I'm not reflexively anti-corporation--corporations are economically necessary--but I guess I'm touchy about the question of whether people exist for corporations or corporations for people.
The article didnt say water prices are increasing. They get most of their water from recycling what they use. Regardless filling a pot of water for pasta would go from a fraction of a penny to a fraction of a penny even if intel increased their water use ten fold
Definitely sounds like a lot. Perhaps conservation efforts are in order, to reduce water waste by ~1% to allow for this strategically important, high value added industry to develop further. Thankfully, water waste is so rife in Arizona that it shouldn't be all that difficult to do so.
Maybe, if there are important reasons why this factory should be in a desert state. I think everyone agrees that chips are vitally important now, but chip shortages aren’t nearly as bad as a water shortage is.
Not exactly. Fabs use a lot of water to run, but it's mostly self-contained with very little loss. I can't remember the exact number, but the fabs Intel already have in Phoenix only lose around 4-5% of the water. The rest is reclaimed and recirculated. I believe the two breaking ground today will be even more efficient, possibly even net producers once rain water and other sources are taken into account. It's been a few months since I read into it, though, so I may be misremembering
In chip making they remove all the impurities making it PURE h20, which is in fact too pure to be just dumped back in the ground, needs to be re-mineralized before it can be dumped.
> Last year, the company pledged that by 2030 it will restore and return more freshwater than it uses. It’s nearing that benchmark in Arizona, where Intel says it cleaned up and returned 95 percent of the freshwater it used in 2020
It's unfortunate that alongside this incredibly important detail the article carries a bunch of highly judgemental wording that encourages people to incorrectly interpret "use" not as "cycle through" but as "remove from water supply and banish to a superfund site."
The rest of the comment section is guilty of this too.
I fully appreciate the need for independent verification, but assuming the worst is not that, and it actually leads to bad incentives in the same way as assuming the best (or refusing to think about it at all) leads to bad incentives.
Historically, companies have shown that they will do the worst imaginable.
The bar needs to be set high on holding them too account, or else the shareholders will get their way and Arizona will gets new superfund site. Being charitable will be abused by companies
Good question. I assume rainwater picks up minerals naturally as it filters through dirt and whatnot, but then why couldn't that be the case for fab wastewater? It also makes me think about the sheer amount of polluted filth that must wash out of a city after it gets rained on.
On the other hand, there are very standard technologies for water recycling. UHF, RO, ZLD, MEE etc. Water is quite easy to recycle given intention to do it.
> "Alexa, how much does 4 million gallons of water weigh in metric tons?"
> "4 million gallons of water weighs about 15 thousand metric tons"
:-)
Not that this actually makes it easy to deal with unit conversion, because we still have to find the right gizmo to ask and phrase the question right. "Hey Google" for instance when I ask it the above question just tells me how much a million gallons of water weighs in pounds.
Not being sure if Google was right on that, I asked Alexa how much 1 million gallons of water weighs in pounds. It told me that 5000 gallons of water weighs 41726.320547 pounds. If I ask without saying I want the answer in pounds it then does tell me the answer for the requested 1 million gallons in pounds.
But if we happen to ask the right gizmo, and happen to phrase it just right...unit conversion is no problem for Americans.
(Of course I still had to do it by hand, because Alexa's answer disagreed with the answer at the top of this thread, and I am not confident that when Alexa disagrees with an HN commenter that Alexa is right).
Asianometry did a breakdown on water usage of chip fabs in Taiwan and Arizona, including noting Arizona's state-wide water management plan, and pointing out that land-use wise, a chip plant makes more money per acre (gross revenue, and in property taxes) than other commercial or industrial or farming zones. A gallon of water makes more money in a chip plant than in an almond tree. (Especially since it can be cleaned and reused, rather than evaporated as in a tree.)
Sure, but where else in the country has no hurricanes, no tornados, and no earthquakes? A dry desert on top of a continental plate is a relatively disaster-free zone.
When insuring your multi-billion-dollar fab... apparently zero disasters is a plus.
Arizona is famously good at water management. They require a 100 year plan and are basically completely non-dependent on the ever-shrinking Colorado River. If any state would have a plan for recycling and make sure this plan is done appropriately it’s AZ.
The US southwest is entering its first ever Tier 1 water shortage next year, meaning Arizona will have reduced supply equivalent to 1.2MM people’s annual consumption. No reason to believe we don’t go straight from here to Tier 2, onto Tier 3, and so on. Nature doesn’t provide enough water in a desert to be running sprawling metropolises and even more massive farms and graze land - especially water-intensive cotton farms.
> Already, water levels in Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the two major reservoirs that store the Colorado River’s water, are down to 34% of their capacity and may soon drop too low to spin the hydroelectric turbines in their dams. Some smaller reservoirs began emergency releases in summer 2021 to prop up water levels in these lakes.
> The Tier 1 shortage will reduce water to the Central Arizona Project by 320,000 acre-feet (enough water to supply 1.2 million individuals for a year).
Maybe Arizona is losing this battle as gracefully as anyone could, but they are very much losing this battle.
Contrary to common belief, cities do not really need gigantic amounts of water. You take a shower, water goes down the drain, you can reclaim most of it if you want to. Don't allow irrigated lawns, reclaim gray water, urban water needs drop to a trickle. AZ is a leader in this space.
Oh good, cities can be more water-efficient than people commonly believe.
Guess it’s solved!
Pay no attention to the drying rivers, emptying reservoirs, and depleting aquifers. If cities are more efficient per capita than people commonly believe, we can probably just grow our cities arbitrarily and our cotton farms and golf courses even more so.
Industrial and urban use cases can be very water resource friendly. Sure, maybe we shouldn't grow almonds in the desert. But that's not what's being discussed here.
My point is that saying "Arizona is among the best at driving itself into water depletion" is not a satisfactory answer to "Arizona is driving itself into water depletion."
I believe the user is saying that AZ planned ahead to end the necessity of using too much CAP water, which would mean that the Colorado River declaration won’t devastate their industry/ag. Reading some of the articles on its water authority website seems to bear this out, but certainly a lot depends on good management of their renewable sources and how strictly new construction like Intel’s is held to water reclamation standards (Intel is claiming to be a net positive contributor to the water supply.) https://new.azwater.gov/
> Nature doesn’t provide enough water in a desert to be running sprawling metropolises
It sure does. Nature created us. We build desalination plants and pipelines. Humans are amazing.
There's no reason Arizona can't work with California to fund a bunch of desalination plants along the coast near San Diego (which already has relevant expertise at it). It's something like 120 miles from the ocean to Arizona's border, a quite solvable problem if an arrangement can be made with California.
Alternatively the Gulf of California is 50 miles away. Arizona can do a deal with Mexico. Mexico would agree to that instantly. See:
May 2021 "ACCIONA will build and operate a desalination plant in the municipality of Los Cabos, in Baja California (Mexico). The project has an overall budget of €134.5 million."
> Seems to more closely follow tax breaks and tax income
It follows feasibility, AFAIK. All new manufacturing is in Southern US states because they're the ones that allow new plants to be built. The others tie projects down in long, expensive, non-successful environmental studies.
At this point, it's easier to bring water to the desert (Arizona) than get approval for a manufacturing facility in a non-desert.
Intel has built fabs in Arizona for a long time, this isn’t a new thing. They do this because of seismic stability and a lack of severe weather. Water isn’t a huge concern because they can internally recycle most of it.
I’d argue there are plenty of other places in the US that fit that bill, but Intel having built fabs in Arizona for a long time is an important point on its own. Because of local history that’s where expertise for running a fab exists, so they’ll have a better supply of workers if they keep building fabs in Arizona than trying it out somewhere new.
Not challenging you, but I'd love to see some hard numbers on this. Like what is the total volume of water, recycle rate and. discharge rate and intake rate over a year.
> Last year, the company pledged that by 2030 it will restore and return more freshwater than it uses. It’s nearing that benchmark in Arizona, where Intel says it cleaned up and returned 95 percent of the freshwater it used in 2020. It has its own water treatment plant at its Ocotillo campus in Chandler that’s similar to a municipal plant. There’s also a “brine reduction facility,” a public-private partnership with the city of Chandler, that brings 2.5 million gallons of Intel’s wastewater a day back to drinking standard. Intel uses some of the treated water again, and the rest is sent to replenish groundwater sources or be used by surrounding communities.
I'm not sure what 95% is based on, and it seems like they can't reuse it all, but other clients can (e.g. it isn't suitable for cleaning machines, but is ok to drink).
A thunderstorm will wreak havoc on a fab. A single, power blip lasting less a second can ruin whatever chips were being processed. At a minimum there will need to be additional testing done to ensure there is no hidden damage.
The thunderstorms that central AZ gets are extremely isolated and basically only happen for about 6 weeks a year.
Don't they have any backup power to cover short blips ? Sure their power draw is massive, but given the potential loses one would exect sufficiently beefy and expensive backups in place so that a burned out generator in a power plant or tree on a line does not cost you billions.
You would basically need to isolate yourself from the grid to be immune to any blips...it takes a while for a backup to come on line and even things out.
UAE and the Saudis are desperately diversifying their economies and the royal families of those countries are desperately extracting wealth from those nations because they know their current approaches are fundamentally economically unviable without very high margin oil - and the market value, margins, and quantity available of that oil long term is highly suspect.
Israel is also investing heavily in knowledge work and other high margin industries, as well as investing outside the country, in an attempt to get high margin, high value income to offset the dangerous economic risks they have, in part due to limited and expensive water - and which for very strong and fundamental religious reasons still gives a very, very strong incentive for them to stay and stay functional. Israel in particular has a history of wars and armed conflict around the Jordan River (November 1964 to May 1967 and others).
There is a saying in the West - Whiskey is for drinkin', water is for fightin' - and it is very apparent how true it is if you watch how things develop over time. Water is life in the desert.
That’s not what I’m saying. I am saying that tax incentives will always create artificial conditions such that it’ll be cheaper to bring the mountain to Muhammad than Muhammad to the mountain (or ship a pair of sneakers half way a cross the world than to make them locally, or to build a water using plant in the desert than by the ocean).
Globally centralized allocation of resources would solve this, but that’s not feasible for a whole number of reasons, so instead it’s every desert for themselves.
There are many business friendly regions in the US with plenty of water. The mid-West for example. is pretty business friendly. KY, IN, TN, AR, MO, WV, and others all have plenty of water, and more business friendly laws than AZ
> All new manufacturing is in Southern US states because they're the ones that allow new plants to be built.
New manufacturing is built in the South because that's where wages are low, worker protections are weaker, and there is less union activity. Companies will essentially tell you this in their PR about opening new plants.
The "average" chip fab uses about as much water as 3 "average" irrigated center pivot farms. If the fab land was previously irrigated farm land, this will be a net savings of water.
Math:
130 acres at 0.25 inches of water = 10 million gallons of water. Done once per week for 3 farms = 4.3m gallons per day.
Pretty much any facility capable of manufacturing semiconductor components has been very busy for the past few years -- Intel even had to resurrect 22nm chips at some time. Why do you assume that this will "go out of fashion in 5 years"? Historically this seems extremely unlikely. If anything, tens of millions of people going out of poverty every year are going to be consuming even more chips.
And every year 80+ million people come of age such that they become electronics consumers, buying smartphones, laptops and so on. A billion new electronics consumers every ~12 years. The world is going to need a lot more chip manufacturing capacity over the next few decades.
Just now in a place/form (underground or in the sky, and if underground usually contaminated) that makes it economically far less valuable - maybe even useless.
If the economics of water didn't matter, we'd be happy to build nuke power plants and run condensers all day to get it, but the reality is the marginal cost of water determines the feasibility of vast sections of economic activity, and that determines the fortunes (or not) of people and their leaders in concrete ways.
This is also true of other natural resources of course - oil, iron, coal, uranium, etc.
They don’t do that for a large portion of the water - they dance around that with weasel words (like ‘return to the environment’), aka evaporate. You can see they are constantly weaseling out of giving anything concrete that someone could accuse them of lying, or could use to point out the actual impacts, and stating ‘a lot’ can be reclaimed from evaporation for instance in the building - while ignoring cooling, which is evaporative at these scales [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/06/04/why...]
It’s pretty typical corporate green washing of a real problem that other folks will end up having in diffuse, hard to pin on them ways, that with some nudging on the right officials will never be pinned on them. In my experience, anyway.
Can anyone share an insight on why this is the case? (I'm assuming it is true because I've heard the claim quite often on HN.)
It's not really obvious to me where water is consumed during the fabrication process. It doesn't end up in the chips, so where does it go? If it were just used for cooling, it would be returned somewhere.
There’s a lot of chemistry as part of the chip making process. Water is often an ingredient mixed with concentrated nasty stuff to get less concentrated, but still nasty stuff. Then they do something with it (like wash a part), but you can’t then effectively recover all the water.
This is how it was explained to me by someone who works directly on the process; I could be butchering the explanation.
This is my understanding as well. There's a lot of washing of components involved in the process. Cleanliness is crucial to chip manufacturing so wafers are constantly being washed. In newer lithographies, water is a crucial part of the the photo etching process itself (X-Ray IIRC).
As mentioned, they are used to clean / wash off chemicals from wafers. And not just any water, but Ultrapure Water [1], it is an actual terminology, not marketing speak.
The average golf course in Arizona uses 450,000 gallons a day according to [1]. According to [2], this means we're talking about 4-8 golf courses per day. There are over 200 golf courses near Phoenix, so your concern is legitimate the water usage here is marginal relative to the economic impact. As other commenters have pointed out, if you really want to impact water issues, there are far more efficient ways to tackle them.
You are not wrong, but having access to people with right experience and companies that supply the products and services for chip manufacture chips is more important. Seismic stability is another benefit.
They have to spend more on recycling and cleaning the water than in other places.
In 2020 Intel cleaned up and returned 95 percent of the freshwater it used in Arizona. They have their own water treatment plats and public-private partnerships for water purification that purify Intel’s wastewater back to drinking standard.
But yes, water usage is a big issue in AZ at the moment with Lake Mead and Powell at very low levels which has triggered and will trigger more cuts to the use of Colorado River water via the Central Arizona Project canal.
Arizona has no law even measuring, much less restricting groundwater pumping which is a big problem getting bigger as cuts in Colorado River usage lead to more pumping.
I don't understand why people keep saying Lake Mead when referring to water use. Technically the CAP canal come from Lake Havasu. But it's all from the Colorado River.
Regardless it's not the primary source of water. The majority of water for the Phoenix area comes from central Arizona rivers. The Salt river project, the Salt river and Verde, etc. You can see the big reservoirs to the east of Phoenix and from groundwater.
The general perception of Arizona is that of a desert. But did you know that Arizona has ski resorts? The Rocky Mountains extend into Arizona and they get snow in the winter. >90% of Arizona's water comes from snow melt.
> Wherever you are buying the water from (the source of the pipeline) knows their water is valuable and can charge more
Less “knows their water is valuable” than “knows you have a massive, immovable infrastructure investment they have a natural monopoly with respect to.” Pricing piped non-traded commodities are complicated negotiations.
Over here (NL) they're looking into repurposing the existing natural gas network to transport hydrogen instead. I mean we're years away from removing the use of natural gas entirely, but the idea is there.
Given how small hydrogen atoms are, causing all kinds of leaks even in purpose built equipment & that hydrogen fires are invisible in sunlight I'm skeptical.
It may also be economically unviable. Phoenix is around
1000 ft AGL, and much of the rest of Arizona that is populated is higher (Tucson 2300, Prescott ~5k, and Flagstaff almost 7k ft above sea level).
Someone above was quoting CCF/HCF (Centrum Cubic Feet, or 100ft^3 of water or 748 gallons), which is a customary way to measure water volume in many utilities, and noting ~ $6.89 per CCF I believe. I did some random googling and ran across [https://www.tucsonaz.gov/water/residential-rates-and-monthly...], which shows a connection charge of ~ $12
Which shows that the average Tucson resident seems to be paying less then $5/ccf right now - discounting connection fee- with 'high use' (~ 60 CCF, the top bracket they list), around $10/ccf.
1 ccf being 748 gallons, and each gallon weighing 8.34 lbs means you're getting 6238 lbs of water for less than $5 if you're a typical Tucson resident, and for ~ $10 if you're a high use resident.
Lifting water from ~ sea level to the 2300 ft AGL level takes energy (in a conservation of energy sense, regardless of efficiency). Specifically, approx 27,176 joules per gallon (yeah sorry) to lift in this case, or 20,327,648 joules per CCF, or in 'American' raw energy terms 5.65kwh.
Properly sized electric motors are around 90 percent efficient, with the best possible about 97%. Large centrifugal pumps, properly sized, can hit up to 93%.
Combined, that means in theory we could pump water uphill at, at best, 90% efficiency, and assuming no losses to friction in the pipes (which would be notable over the distances we're talking about, but is too complex to guesstimate here, but feel free to check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction_loss),
So, if we pump in energy at 90% efficiency, we need 7.38 kwh of energy to get that water from sea level to Tucson - not counting cleaning or treating the water, infrastructure maintenance/piping, friction losses moving it over that distance, losses due to leaks, etc.
Tucson has cheap electricity by California Standards (my typical price per kwh is ~ $.45, there are a lot of misleading numbers out there), and though I see .12/kwh, CA says .24 and that is blatantly false. Even so, if we use that number .12, it would add $1, literally if all we were doing was taking perfectly great water and just pumping it to Tucson, with no need for pipes, or any other infrastructure.
That may not sound like much, but for a typical Tucson resident that would increase their bills by 20%. High users less as a percentage, but still over 10%.
When you add in the major infrastructure building and maintenance costs (which probably swamp the energy costs), you're looking at 50% or more increase. If you add in acquisition of drinkable water from somewhere closer than Oregon (which bringing it up and over multiple mountain ranges is going to be fun), also even more of an increase.
California electricity is generally cheap in the sense that you don't need to use much of it (the big metro areas with the most people have very mild climates). I imagine AC is important in a place like Tucson.
The fact that pumping water uphill is so expensive is why most of the water in the mountain west comes from the Rockies (where it flows down hill), though the exhaustion of the rocky mountain glaciers (due to global warming or whatever one believes is the reason) means that all that water built up over millions of years is coming to an end.
you use a lot more water than oil, maybe 100x?
I think 100 gallons / person / day is not crazy for water, and I hope you don't use that much oil, maybe a gallon a day?
Society pays significantly more for a gallon of oil than water. Water can cost less than a cent in some municipalities. Building a pipeline would increase that cost 100x easily
One thing I don't see discussed in the comments is the trade off of resources. While water is an important resource, a quick Google show that a "Large semiconductor fabs use as much as 100 megawatt-hours of power each hour, which is more than many automotive plants or oil refineries do." [1] If you look at a cost analysis, I'm sure the price of energy far outweighs the total price of getting their water for the plant. By building in AZ, which has the ability to get a lot of solar and cheaper energy, they can reduce that cost dramatically, so the economics can still seem viable. My company is also energy constrained and we went through a similar analysis recently. It's hard to say no when you can cut your energy costs literally by a third.
[1]: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_serv....
very good point about the water, side note for anyone reading this. we really ought to invest heavily in permaculture (restoring eco-systems). anyone who doesn't know exactly what i am talking about please check out the this "tech". it is a lot cooler than it sounds. the process can restore underground watersheds in the dessert and bring back forests. it's a science, but can be learned outside of a university on your own if you don't want to do more schooling, at first i thought it was some hippy dippy stuff but it has fangs
I enjoy a lot of aspects of permaculture, but a lot of it is cargo-culting pseudoscience. There's very little understanding of _why_ the techniques that they espouse work except for vague principles. I really wish more engineers took the time to do permaculture and documented their designs, instead of hippie experimenters.
And yet you have the east coast(north east in my example) which is extremely lush and has 0 water issues and most companies are building these large sites in western water poor areas, intel - arizona phab, tesla - nevada gigafactory, facebook, datacenter southern new mexico.
The east coast gets hit by several hurricanes each year, some of which result in disasters and states of emergency being declared and cause billions of dollars worth of damage.
There are at least a few devastating storms in the Northeast each decade. Even the ones that aren't completely devastating can impact sensitive production equipment.
Wishful thinking, but would be nice if Intel could take over that Foxconn plant in Wisconsin that has been a complete failure. There's 1180 cubic miles (1299318214239334 gallons) of fresh water right there in Lake Michigan.
These fabs will likely be water neutral because requirements that they treat the water before giving it back to the city basically make it clean enough to use again.
> The more I think about it, the more US infra/urban planning makes absolutely 0 sense to me. Seems to more closely follow tax breaks and tax income than necessarily smart resource allocation.
An issue that doesn't just plague the US. Here in the EU, we have similar issues with governments from local city councils to federal governments doing anything they can to poach businesses. Tax breaks, subventions, lax law enforcement (e.g. Ireland vs GDPR)... it's madness. And the problem is, you can't simply go ahead and centralize that planning because you always have to be afraid of a political party taking over and completely abusing that power in the next legislative period.
Well, it’s a market, so the corporations with cashflow stand at the front of the queue. There is no other way of organizing this in our late stage capitalist shitscape…
It’s unfortunate that poor people need to starve or freeze to death to keep billionaires “alive”, but that’s what our genocidal, fellow citizens have been voting for..
Please try and actually contribute to the discussion. In reality countries without many billionaires have way more issues with water supply and heating.
And we could have no issues with water or heating and no billionaires, unless you're suggesting that billionaires alone make such problems go away. In that case we should send ours to the countries without so many.
We're a wealthy country, that's obvious, and while we've demonstrated the power of greed to get things done, we have done poorly at keeping it in check and harnessing it for good. We don't need to do away with billionaires or take away all corporate power but they shouldn't be making up the rules to suit themselves.
On this point of water access, it seems pretty reasonable to charge progressively, but not so progressively that it's practical for small consumers to sell their excess cheap water to large consumers.
Surely water is more strategically important than chips? It's just that chips are scarcer and thus easier to deny an enemy. If an enemy had the choice to deny one of the two resources, water would be the better strategic choice.
No way, if water gets really scarce, the price will go up, and two things will happen:
1. many frivolous uses will go away - swimming pools, spray-and-pray agricultural irrigation
2. new sources will become viable - like desalination
Ultimately we live on a planet replete with water, it's just uneconomical to purify most of it for use at current rates. The same is not true of microchips.
Markets aren't going to fix everything. You know what else desalination requires a lot of? Energy, which currently comes largely from nonrenewable carbon-intensive fuel sources. Can we simply spend more money to bring renewable energy sources online? It's unclear, because in addition to being pretty expensive, it raises questions of resource extraction (lithium for batteries, rare earth minerals for wind turbines) and land use (wind and solar farms take up a lot of space). And while we're spending all that money, we're presumably deciding not to spend it on other stuff, like other types of critical infrastructure or social programs.
At some point it becomes simpler to address this problem at the starting point rather than assuming the market will automatically fix any downstream issues.
The problem is (and why market driven or markets as a major component countries do tend to do better over the long run, near as we can tell), is that there IS no 'starting point', and downstream/upstream is often oversimplifying.
Everything interacts with everything else in a way far to complex to fully understand for any one person or organization. The most we can do is pick something and try to set it, and let the other knock on effects work themselves out (which markets help with), and then when THOSE cause undesirable problems, rinse and repeat.
Given that there's numerous cities and countries that are suffering from water shortages, you'd think that the price of water would go up already. But it hasn't, because there's interests at play to keep the price of water relatively low.
Anyway you'd need different prices for different types of consumers, because it's a basic need for humans; you can't make water unaffordable for poorer people.
I'm all for increasing the price of water and electricity for big consumers though, so that they will invest more R&D into reducing their consumption. Because when it's cheap, they'll just use more of it without thinking. That's also why coal power was (is?) a thing for so long.
> you'd need different prices for different types of consumers
Water shortages are a policy choice in any country above middle income. A simple x gallons for free per person or residence and market pricing thereafter would solve the issue for 90% of the spectrum, with potentially agricultural subsidies filling the gap. Instead, we choose a regressive policy system where individuals subsidise almond farmers.
> Given that there's numerous cities and countries that are suffering from water shortages, you'd think that the price of water would go up already. But it hasn't, because there's interests at play to keep the price of water relatively low.
That just means the shortage is not sufficiently severe to cause prices to move.
> Anyway you'd need different prices for different types of consumers, because it's a basic need for humans; you can't make water unaffordable for poorer people.
The price of water can't go up significantly because the marginal cost of water to farmers is lower than that to residential consumers. Its a lot easier to buy out a few farmers than to take the political hit on high residential water prices.
Desalinization is an extremely energy intensive process for the amount of water we use. Eventually we probably will produce so much energy that that’s less of a concern, but at the moment we’re having plenty of issues getting our fossil fuel usages lowered without adding Desalinization to our civilization’s requirements.
Desalination requires high energy inputs. It also creates highly salted water as waste (some gets cleaned, other water gets i cleaned) that is difficult to deal with. Given cheap energy and somewhere to store the waste water, it could be viable.
> Water shortage shouldn't be a thing, but greed and short sightedness is.
Yup. We'll never ever run out of water. Whatever problems arise, there are solutions for them. People just don't want to pay. They want it cheap and convenient.
Water should be a basic human right. No human should ever be priced out. Whatever infrastructure is needed to bring potable water to people, the government should pay for it. The whole point of governments is to pay for basic infrastructure like this. Taxes ought to fund something other than politician corruption.
Corporations on the other hand have no human rights at all. They can and should be priced out.
> The whole point of governments is to pay for basic infrastructure like this.
That's a pretty steep oversimplification there. Governments usually exist to promote justice and rule-of-law, keep people safe from internal and external threats to their physical safety, and to protect individual freedoms and liberty.
Paying for infrastructure is only a small part of all of that.
Everything you cited is part of the common good. So is infrastructure. Governments exist to pay for this stuff, especially the unprofitable endeavors that benefit everyone.
They essentially rob their population in order to do it. If a government isn't paying, it's corrupt.
I dont want to speak directly for the person you are replying to, but I think the point they are trying to make is this. Government exists for lots of reasons. If government has to spend more money to provide fresh water of the people (as it should if needed), it costs more. To cover the costs, there are two direct resources. Higher taxes or taking funds from elsewhere. Higher taxes would also mean less funds to draw from for other projects.
And I dont think it is to be taken in an anti-tax way, but a statement on resource allocation. If water becomes expensive for the people and government needs to subsidize or up subsidies, is there a risk that infrastructure for bridges get ignored to keep taxes low? Or to not tax people into poverty. Of course we can offset this with closing loop holes and upping taxes on the higher brackets.
Technically, no. But safe drinking water does fall under other categories of "promoting the general welfare", so that's not to say it shouldn't be under government's purview.
That will only happen if you live in a region that is arid or semi-arid. Most of the US is literally overflowing with fresh water and almost all the expense for water is related to simply piping it to you or cleaning up the wastewater you create. For the vast majority of people in the USA, water is very cheap.
Thank you for informing hacker news that companies want to make a profit. Now. Do you have some evidence that intel is harming people? The water is almost completely recycled
Arizona is a place where, with enough investment (like the billions here) power can be extremely green and cheap, with solar. Needing a huge amount of air conditioning is not a problem when it coincides with the moment the sun is pouring huge amounts of energy into your solar array.
This is the first time I've heard this from someone besides me :) I am involved with an effort to plant arbors to shade homes in low income areas of my city so that residents can afford the A/C costs. A typical home we work on has no central HVAC and has 3 or 4 window units running non-stop 6+ months of the year (Texas). Vines are fast growing and shade makes a huge impact!
this leaves out the issues with the large amounts of water needed for semiconductor fabrication, although another commenter noted that Arizona has pretty good water management (I guess this includes recycling?)
Water needs are local, except where it is explicitly part of the same watershed/supply system. 'Net positive' here means 'we help retain a bunch of water over there... <points to other side of state where no one lives and the water isn't captured well>, and use it over here <points to middle of extreme desert with greater outflows than inflows of water into all sources>', and we're net positive!
Semiconductor manufacturing needs constant power aside from AC though, it presumably doesn't stop at night due to high automation and the capital involved.
As an antiexample, the Bay Area has every negative attribute you could hope to think of for basing a software company there, and yet everyone does it anyway, just for hiring.
Yeah, my points are in no particular order. Specifically avoided using numbered points for that reason. You’re right in that effective hiring is a major draw.
I think it's because it's dry. Facilities guy in the semi plant I used to work in told me that their highest energy usage was when it was humid, not when it's hot or cold. Said the energy cost to cool the humid air to pull out water and then heat it back up to the fab's target temp was pretty massive.
You don’t need a large constant source of water. It’s a bit like filling a very large swimming pool. They also already have plants down there and it works for them because AZ is surprisingly shielded from natural disasters. Also they can utilize solar power down there.
AZ suffers from heat waves, which are steadily getting worse over time. Last year in a heat wave Phoenix saw several days above 115F. A 115F heatwave is a natural disaster mitigated by air conditioning. Hopefully a heat wave doesn’t coincide with a 2020 Texas sized electrical blackout.
This isn’t a massive problem now, but imagine how bad AZ heat waves will be by the end of his factories life.
Where do you propose to build, then? Alaska? I live near the massive Intel campuses in Hillsboro, OR. We rarely get above 100F, but we experienced the same several days of 115F+ weather this last June just before summer officially hit. Almost 200 people died in Oregon/Washington directly from that heatwave and up to 500 in BC, Canada[1].
I don’t think heat is an issue. I remember a bunch of Middle Eastern countries considered building fabs in order to diversify away from oil about 20 years ago. Of course, they also realized they’d need to import labor as well due to low-skill and unwilling local labor.
There were also a lot of Tax incentives for building in this location. The company I work for is doing the electrical work and all of our materials are tax free.
I pass by there every day on my way to work. Based on all the construction equipment I saw around the campus I figured the new fabs were going to start being built soon.
I often wonder if Intel and Boeing are going to end up as effective branches of US government, too big/strategic to ever let actually fail (or even let be sufficiently battered by market realities).
Boeing seems like it's already there, and Intel can't be far behind.
They are supposed to start production in 2024 (which sounds very quick, considering they just started construction). No idea how quickly they can ramp up production from there, but delays wouldn't be anything unusual for a new semiconductor plant.
I've heard that the general industry estimates for something like this are 5 (up to 10) years. However, both Intel and TSMC's USA are saying 2024. Potentially related is that 2024 is a presidential election year.
It's like trees: a long-term investment, and you might as well start now.
I think they're doing ok. I don't follow too closely, but 11th gen intel mobile is behind AMD. The good new for intel is they're not so far behind this generation that no one will buy their chips.
Intel have new management and some optimism and by the time the plant is finished in 2-3 years they'll have their ducks in a row, but who knows what the market will be like then. In a bad scenario they could be a end up a bulk supplier to other companies of close to state-of-the-art chips, which might be an ok place to be.
If you look at many applications that are absolutely guzzling chips -- automotive, appliances, IoT -- you don't need cutting edge chips. Cheap and fast enough is a great market niche. Especially when "fast enough" is state-of-the-art from 5 years ago.
So many of the AMD laptops I see are geared towards gaming. Makes sense in that they're powerful, but I wish there were more options for general purpose lightweight laptops.
Next time the communication department says "less is more", I'll explode. Do we really need to produce more IC's ? Can't we just limit the demand a bit ?
Can't we make washing machines, cars, bikes, fridges, dish washers, coffee machines,... without IC's ? My Core2 Duo is 12 years old and I still use it 8 hours a day, do I really need a new generation CPU ?
I understand that global economy (and thus employment and other important stuff) rely on the trade of IC's but do we really need so much more ?
(kiddo's have been waiting their PS5 for 9 months now, but is that a insurmountable problem?)
Not to say that IC's are bad (I'm CS :-)) but just asking if the current IC shortage may be a good time to think about the sustainability of our appetite, or if it's the good time to think about living in a world with actual limits...
How exactly do you expect to build an EV without ICs? We’ve already tried cars without ICs, they’re noisy polluters. You talk about sustainability like we weren’t pumping carbon into the atmosphere before computers.
Also maybe your job is such that you can get by with and old power hungry cpu like the core 2 duo, most people can’t.
Most newer CPU power is geared towards AI and telemetry (IoT, web advertising), which essentially feed the surveillance economy. Desktop CPUs have been powerful enough for non-ad driven web browsing and office applications for at least a decade.
note that global CO2 has risen since the birth of my CPU. So I doubt the next gen leads us to make less CO2... I know, the current CPU's consume less energy, but globally, because of the fall in price, I'm pretty confident that the energy saved on the CPU is completely offset by the number of CPU sold.
Plus the total consumption of a CPU doesn't actually go down, they just do more with it. They look at thermal limits more than power consumption, like, how much work can we make it do within these temperature ranges.
Mobile chips are a bit different, but to a point it's the same story there. If you put the chips of today in the smartphones of a decade ago they would probably last a week on a battery charge.
It surely needs a lot more power to do the same work as a modern CPU. Like if you were encoding a video on it where against a modern CPU that may use the same power but finish many times sooner.
The new CPU has another carbon footprint added, plus the RAM and motherboard, etc. to overcome before it is comparable. I doubt a new CPU is effective enough to offset that anytime soon on an average use PC.
Without ICs, these devices have to rely on mechanical controllers, which are much larger, more expensive, less reliable, less efficient, louder, and really worse in ever metric.
I think your sentiment is not to produce wifi-powered, ad-driven refrigerators, and yeah, I can agree with that point. But the core ICs in these devices have been there for decades and do provide substantial, tangible benefits.
I can't speak for every device, but I've replaced the circuit board on a few appliances over the years and they are mostly generic boards with really cheap, ancient chips produced by brands most people have never heard of and sell in bulk for a quarter each. These are definitely not cutting the cutting edge designs that Intel will be building here. So let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In this case, it's not so much about more ICs (although we do need more right now), but it's who's making the ICs. The US is trying to ramp up their internal production capability, rather than depending on Taiwan as heavily.
The US is looking more and more like ancient Rome. In 10-15 years it likely neither can win a war against China but it will also likely not have many allies on its side if it tries.
China doesn’t have many allies either. They have managed to piss of just about everyone. There are few countries in Asia that wouldn’t be happy to see China taken down a peg or a dozen - and probably wouldn’t mind discreetly giving the US a hand.
As romantic as the US gallantly defending Taiwan from the Chinese invaders sounds, let's be honest. The US could do little more than buy the Taiwanese some time to escape.
If the CCP ever decides it's time to take control of Taiwan by force, they could. It's the economic backlash from the rest of the world they are currently worried about, not military resistance. Although I'm not sure just how much they even have to be worried about economically considering how the world has handled recent CCP atrocities.
Crossing a wide span of water (wider than the English Channel) against a determined defender is really hard. Taiwan is bristling with anti ship missiles and are very much against being taken over by the PRC.
That doesn't change that fact that Taiwan doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell. At most it adds a few days from start to end. It is extremely unrealistic to have Taiwan not become part of PRC if war breaks out. The US only have one way to win and that's all-out invasion after nuking mainland China - but then no-one wins.
In the worst case I can see a Taiwan getting nukes. Nukes are pretty old tech, if North Korea can get them I’m sure Taiwan who is vastly more wealthy can too.
The same reservoir that is at 30% capacity, with acute water shortages and with 4 years of increased precipitation necessary for an adequate refill.
We are adding a chip making facility which needs a lot of water here?
This sounds like a recipe for disaster whenever there is a period of water stress which appears to be occurring in that region significantly more frequently.
The more I think about it, the more US infra/urban planning makes absolutely 0 sense to me. Seems to more closely follow tax breaks and tax income than necessarily smart resource allocation.