Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TSMC ups Arizona investment from $12B to $40B with second semi fab

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 294 posts

Re: TSMC ups Arizona investment from $12B to $40B with second semi fab

#151

Post by labrador »

Analemma_ wrote: post #141
treesknees wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do need a lot of water, initially, but it was pointed out that it's similar to filling a swimming pool [1]. Yes you need a lot of water at first, however it's not as though all that water is just being dumped outside to evaporate. It's cleaned and recycled, and recaptured from the air within the plant. While Arizona doesn't have an abundance of excess water, they do have pretty strict usage guidelines and rules…

This seems wrong. Didn't TSMC have to throttle down production recently because Taiwan had a drought? Why would they have had to do that if the plants don't need new water after the "initial fill"?

Apparently they've figured it out: TSMC tackles Taiwan drought with plant to reuse water for chips https://archive.ph/XIff9

Re: TSMC ups Arizona investment from $12B to $40B with second semi fab

#152

Post by zdw »

jfghi wrote: post #142
zdw wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also a nuclear plant nearby in AZ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_... Nuclear + Solar seems like it would be a pretty ideal mix in a hot climate, especially given that peak demand for air conditioning coincides with solar maximum output, and Nuclear could handle some of the base/overnight load.

Do these plants not require tons of water?

from the wikipedia link - they use sewage/greywater for cooling:

> The power plant evaporates the water from the treated sewage from several nearby cities and towns to provide the cooling of the steam that it produces.

Re: TSMC ups Arizona investment from $12B to $40B with second semi fab

#153

Post by atlasunshrugged »

samcheng wrote: post #109
thehappypm wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t solar the cheapest energy per KwH? A sunny place like Arizona with tons of empty space should be able to cheaply deploy lots of energy.

The cheapest energy is from a hydroelectric plant built generations ago. Fun fact: That's why Boeing first built their planes outside Seattle - the electricity needed to refine the aluminum was cheap. These days, you can see that effect in the large datacenters that have sprung up near the Columbia River in Oregon. I'd guess TSMC's siting decision had a lot to do with tax breaks, labor pool, and cheap land.

Probably also hedging for geopolitical risk? Not sure how only having facilities in a country at least somewhat likely to be invaded in the next few years affects the stock price but it probably doesn't hurt to put one in the middle of a country very unlikely to be invaded and very likely to want to purchase chips built domestically.

Re: TSMC ups Arizona investment from $12B to $40B with second semi fab

#154

Post by selectodude »

boc wrote: post #69
starkd wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it makes it more likely that China is going to swallow up Taiwan without even firing a shot. Wargame simulations are giving a dim prospect for defending the island. US has removed fighter jets from Japan. And public opinion in Taiwan for resisting China has slightly shifted toward accomadation. I hope I am wrong.

If China really thinks their completely untested military can easily pull off the largest amphibious assault in history, they deserve the results. It would be an absolute bloodbath. Wargame simulations are ways for the pentagon to get more money from congress… the reality is that invasions aren’t easy to hide and never go quite as planned. If you disagree just go read up on the wargames and predictions for a Russian…

It’s also important to remember that a war game that your military wins isn’t a very useful war game. The whole goal is to find blind spots in military strategy and planning. “Nah we’re good everything is great” is how you end up getting worked by Ukraine.

Re: TSMC ups Arizona investment from $12B to $40B with second semi fab

#155

Post by redtriumph »

jfghi wrote: post #142
zdw wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also a nuclear plant nearby in AZ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_... Nuclear + Solar seems like it would be a pretty ideal mix in a hot climate, especially given that peak demand for air conditioning coincides with solar maximum output, and Nuclear could handle some of the base/overnight load.

Do these plants not require tons of water?

This may not be true today. But when I first arrived in US in AZ, I was told Phoenix boasts highest numbers of golf club concentration in entire US, despite high water requirements of a golf club and being in middle of desert.

I suspect the ongoing Western US drought would have worsened the water situation.

Re: TSMC ups Arizona investment from $12B to $40B with second semi fab

#156

Post by Turing_Machine »

thehappypm wrote: post #129
totalZero wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that depends how much build-out you have to do in order to install the kind of capacity required for a $40B semiconductor fab, which would hypothetically need some kind of major energy storage infrastructure or backup source in the event that solar is the main source of electricity. > Large semiconductor fabs use as much as 100 megawatt-hours of power each hour, which is more than many automotive plants or oi…

Here is a solar plant in California, which broke ground over a decade ago, that produces 550 MW of power, for $2.5B. Build even a small version of one of these and its 100 MW power needs are met. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm

The 550 MW "nameplate capacity" is peak. The capacity factor of 26.6% means that it actually only produces about 146 MW on average. Nuclear power plants generally have a capacity factor above 90%.

Re: TSMC ups Arizona investment from $12B to $40B with second semi fab

#157

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

boc wrote: post #69
starkd wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it makes it more likely that China is going to swallow up Taiwan without even firing a shot. Wargame simulations are giving a dim prospect for defending the island. US has removed fighter jets from Japan. And public opinion in Taiwan for resisting China has slightly shifted toward accomadation. I hope I am wrong.

If China really thinks their completely untested military can easily pull off the largest amphibious assault in history, they deserve the results. It would be an absolute bloodbath. Wargame simulations are ways for the pentagon to get more money from congress… the reality is that invasions aren’t easy to hide and never go quite as planned. If you disagree just go read up on the wargames and predictions for a Russian…

> If China really thinks their completely untested military can easily pull off the largest amphibious assault in history, they deserve the results. It would be an absolute bloodbath.

For which side? No one knows.

There would be so many factors at play, both military and economic, that it is almost impossible to predict how things would play out. All anyone knows is that China's capabilities have increased many times over in the last 20 or so years, and that they are increasing every year. However, no country on Earth has fought a war on this scale for decades (with the possible exception of Russia and Ukraine right now), so no one knows what the outcome would be.

Re: TSMC ups Arizona investment from $12B to $40B with second semi fab

#158

Post by rsj_hn »

jfghi wrote: post #142
zdw wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also a nuclear plant nearby in AZ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_... Nuclear + Solar seems like it would be a pretty ideal mix in a hot climate, especially given that peak demand for air conditioning coincides with solar maximum output, and Nuclear could handle some of the base/overnight load.

Do these plants not require tons of water?

Arizona has the reputation of being a desert, but in reality it is a state that is half-desert and half-mountain, and has a tons of water. Enough to waste on ubiquitous golf courses and alfalfa farms. There is a canal system taking the water from the mountains to the drier south where people live.

But the population pressures are realigning who pays what for the water now, so I expect the alfalfa farms are going to go, and chip fabs will take their place.

Re: TSMC ups Arizona investment from $12B to $40B with second semi fab

#159

Post by ouid »

conradev wrote: post #73
adam_arthur wrote: post #63

Onshoring is a logical result of improved automation. When labor costs lessen, transportation and logistics become the primary concern. Wouldn’t be surprised if 100 years from now most final good assembly is done locally. Of course sometimes raw materials and inputs are more expensive to transport than the finished good, so there will always be cases where long distance transportation of finished products is still pr…

Onshoring in this case is a logical result of improved tax incentives. Almost every cost is higher in the US – not just labor. Improved automation does reduce costs, but those cost reductions are even better in places where manufacturing is already cheap. Semiconductors have a very high value to weight ratio, so shipping them globally makes more sense than it does for other items.

the cost reductions are necessarily worse in the places where costs are lower. I think you didnt do that math right. You might be right that the logistics for shipping silicon are still so good that this does not reach the amdahl limit, but it is not a consequence of your argument.

Re: TSMC ups Arizona investment from $12B to $40B with second semi fab

#160

Post by bcrosby95 »

nickvanw wrote: post #148
Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn't it the same as say an oil pipeline? Those can get really long.

Oil is significantly more valuable than water - the added cost per gallon of water would be astronomical. 1 oil barrel is 42 gallons and costs around $75 today. I pay about $6 per CCF of water which is 748 gallons. It might be worth doing this with oil, but even if you scaled it up, it would be hard not to have the transport cost more than the actual water.

It would be cheaper to just desalinate it.

Of course Arizona doesn't really have that option. But California does, and Arizona already sources water from the Colorado River, which California does too.

Anyways. I think moving California off the Colorado River would do a lot to ease the water problems in the southwest.

Post reply on HN