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

161–170 of 294 posts

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

#161

Post by hayst4ck »

vinibrito wrote: post #143
uni_rule wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Policies like this actually move pretty slowly. This is still a reaction to Ukraine in february, not planning for anything in particular, just the possibility of a fucked status quo.

Or maybe even a reaction to the pandemic. Which means a couple years ago at least.

I think not being able to procure n95 masks because mask production was all off-shored, particularly to China, was a real wake up call that supply chain security is integral to national security.

Ukraine was the moment that showed that: "No two countries that both have a McDonald's have ever fought a war against each other." is a false idea.

Hong Kong made it clear that the idea of increasing prosperity in China will not lead to it's liberalization, nor can China be relied upon to be bound by documents that are "historical documents that no longer have any practical significance."

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

#162

Post by totalZero »

CydeWeys wrote: post #126
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…

> Large semiconductor fabs use as much as 100 megawatt-hours of power each hour Ooof, this kind of writing where the author doesn't understand units just gets my goat. Just say it uses 100 MW! Geez.

I prefer it as written, because the additional information of timeframe for measurement indicates that the author is not talking about momentary/peak power.

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

#163

Post by foobiekr »

dsr3 wrote: post #52
_8j50 wrote: post #45

Don't these fabs need like an insane amount of water? Why would they build it of all places in arizona which as far as I know barely meets drinking water requirements (at least at some cities) and is basically mostly a desert?

Some people said because Arizona is in relatively stable seismic region in the US. But I don't buy it. TSMC fab in Taiwan is also located in seismic prone region. Compared to the cost of the fab itself, seismic isolation system is relatively affordable.

Logistics risks around the plant are not nearly as easily done. There is an inherent benefit to not being exposed to seismic and weather issues. AZ isn’t a bad choice.

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

#164

Post by idontknowifican »

adam_arthur wrote: post #107
kortex wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can already pipe oil from texas to Canada with ease, we can do the same from Canada to Arizona with water. Or wherever else. The economics and viability of it is obvious and clear. Oil and gas are far more value dense than water. Pipeline transport adds somewhere around $5-20 per barrel of oil, or $0.03/L. Some quick googling suggests Phoenix residents pay around $0.00022/L. That's a factor of 142x.

If they pay $0.00022/L then its really not that scarce after all huh? True scarcity would drive prices up and increase cost viability of transport, obviously. The reason its not done right now is because its not an imminent problem

it’s an essential for life and the consumer price reflects heavy subsidies

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

#165

Post by CameronNemo »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #160
nickvanw wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

California has had trouble kick starting desalination. It is an energy intensive process, and the California electricity grid (especially in water poor SoCal) is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels (even some coal plants in other states feed into the LA metro). Furthermore, desalination intakes can negatively impact marine life, unless subsurface wells are used. Those are more expensive and companies pursuing desalination are not eager to foot the bill for them. Perhaps most importantly, desalination (even without subsurface wells) is more expensive than current sources of water in Southern California. I've not even mentioned the challenges in achieving safe exhaust of brine.

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

#166

Post by eitally »

rsj_hn wrote: post #158
jfghi wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

The thing you don't mention is that Arizona is wasting other people's water -- nearly 40% is sourced from rivers originating in other mountainous states

https://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts

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

#167

Post by thehappypm »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #156
thehappypm wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%.

146 MW on average is still more than this facility needs.

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

#168

Post by brookst »

thereddaikon wrote: post #86
conradev wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 highest costs in Semiconductor fabrication are the specialized machines needed. Most of them are at best dual sourced. Many are single sourced. The fact a technician in the US can make $100k when their counterpart in China would make $50k doesn't matter when the EUV Lithography machine is hundreds of millions of dollars.

Capex amortizable across the life of the fab and usually treated beneficially for tax purposes (though these fabs are so tax-special that may be meaningless). Opex is with you forever and affects the economics of the business much more profoundly.

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

#169

Post by scythe »

_8j50 wrote: post #45

Don't these fabs need like an insane amount of water? Why would they build it of all places in arizona which as far as I know barely meets drinking water requirements (at least at some cities) and is basically mostly a desert?

While water does seem like a serious issue, it also feels very Monday-morning quarterback: of course the largest semiconductor manufacturer in the world knows that Arizona has low rainfall. What I'm curious about is what makes Arizona preferable over, say, Idaho or Tennessee. Proximity to California? No freeze-thaw cycle? Solar energy?

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

#170

Post by akira2501 »

nonethewiser wrote: post #3

Well that seems significant. Article says the chips in the 2nd fabs will be better than the first. And will meet all domestic US demand. Not sure what all that includes. I wonder how domestic the full supply chain is. If the US is relying on China for rare earth metals or something.

> Not sure what all that includes.

Possibly a lot of currently obsolete military equipment that can no longer be produced due to lack of domestic parts suppliers.

Post reply on HN