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

Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

datacenterdynamics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 453 posts

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#321

Post by bob1029 »

wonderwonder wrote: post #220
josaka wrote: post #69

After the TX grid failure last winter, it's probably not a coincidence that Samsung's new facility will be near ERCOT's operation center in Taylor, which manages the TX grid, and will likely be the last load to shed when the grid's stressed. Used to work in the Austin fab, and the amount of money lost per minute in a power failure is mind boggling. The tax breaks Taylor offered ($314m) are not that different from wha…

They are setting up fairly close to Tesla. Wonder if they are working on a deal for Tesla to provide battery backup. Interestingly enough Austin, TX appears to be rapidly approaching SF status as a tech hub and may soon surpass them. Its an interesting thing to watch and really gives insight into how politics and taxes affect business and growth.

> Wonder if they are working on a deal for Tesla to provide battery backup.

Running an entire leading edge semiconductor plant on battery backup is a crazy proposition in my view. Especially, for intentions of surviving another Texas winter situation without any disruption to operations. Approximately 24 hours of full-coverage battery backup would have been required to bridge the rolling blackouts.

Last I checked (about a decade ago), the SAS A2/S2 lines accounted for ~13% of the electrical load for the entire city of Austin. Just look at the amount of power one EUV light source requires today. These lines will have potentially dozens moving forward. Then consider that all of the photo area accounts for a tiny fraction of total power consumption in one of these plants.

If it were even remotely feasible for the Samsung semiconductor lines to operate on standby generator power, they would have installed these units already and no losses would have been incurred.

They might as well be smelting aluminum behind those walls. Any backup generator power or UPS devices are designed for life safety and stopping the line without causing 10+ figure losses. You cannot run one of these facilities on in-house power. Another commenter proposed a nuclear reactor installation. This is actually not a terrible idea once you understand the scale. Putting 10-15 semiconductor lines around a nuke plant makes perfect sense to me.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#322

Post by varenc »

petersellers wrote: post #310
PeterisP wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, from the perspective of TSMC, if production does not get transferred to USA mainland, then it secures the future of TSMC because in that case USA will ensure that they do not get taken over by a geopolitical adversary in the coming decade. Geopolitical risk is not something external that exists in isolation; the location of semiconductor manufacturing is a big factor that shapes the geopolitical ri…

> in that case USA will ensure that they do not get taken over by a geopolitical adversary in the coming decade How will the USA ensure that?

I suppose "ensure" is too definite of a claim. But it's clear that the US can apply all types of pressure to try to hinder a takeover of TSMC/Taiwan. Methods range from open negotiations, to trade/economics sanctions, etc.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#323

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

0_____0 wrote: post #93
josaka wrote: post #69

After the TX grid failure last winter, it's probably not a coincidence that Samsung's new facility will be near ERCOT's operation center in Taylor, which manages the TX grid, and will likely be the last load to shed when the grid's stressed. Used to work in the Austin fab, and the amount of money lost per minute in a power failure is mind boggling. The tax breaks Taylor offered ($314m) are not that different from wha…

tangentially related bit of trivium... when i was house hunting a looked at a house across from a fire station, and upon doing research about what it's like to live across from one, found that a.) they tend not to blast sirens upon exiting the station, in contrast to living near a hospital with an ED, and b.) the power grid segments that fire stations are on have priority and are less likely to lose power during blac…

I lived in an area that lost power every time there was a stiff breeze. This was back in the 1990s, when we still used telephone modems. I blew up 3 of them. 2, even with surge protectors.

But power came back quickly, because I was on the same trunk as the fire station.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#324

Post by ksec »

m0zg wrote: post #313
ksec wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He can be "exceptionally clear" and still biased in favor of TMSC. Probably. But It wasn't that TSMC doesn't want to move, he made it clear the maths doesn't work out. Giga Fabs operate at scale and efficiency is precisely why you could make a $30 M1 Die. >Well, we'll have to pay a few cents (or dollars) more per chip then. That is easier for mature node. But most of the time we are not talking about mature node but…

OK, then we'll pay $20 more for a $3K laptop. Hardly a tragedy. Same with labor by the way. If Apple made phones here and charged $20-30 more per unit, their user base wouldn't even blink.

I guess I have to be explicit.

For a $3K Laptop you are looking at M1 Pro or M1 Max, those would cost at least $50 to $100 more BOM cost. Excluding other factor. That translate to roughly $125 to $250 retail price increase at the same margin.

For a labour of $20 to $30 increase per iPhone unit, would equate retail price increase of $50 to $75. Excluding other factors. Not to mention I seriously doubt labour would be an increase of only $20-30 per unit. The different in cost / productivity is likely higher than 3x.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#325

Post by chrisco255 »

adrianmonk wrote: post #266
tyingq wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, the problem wasn't a generalized grid management problem. It was a failure to properly winterize gas plants for rare freezing events. The Texas grid itself is in reasonable shape as far as I know.

Also, as I understand it, there's another "grid" which failed, which is the network of natural gas wells and pipelines. Natural gas wasn't being pulled out of the ground and pumped to the electric generation plants. Apparently natural gas isn't easy to store, so basically there's not a lot of buffer, and everything needs to stay online or there won't be any natural gas to burn at power plants even if they were winter…

The natural gas load was nearly double it's average load, because the entire state of Texas was below freezing for a week solid and almost nobody has gas heat in Texas. Everyone was pulling on inefficient electric heaters to warm their house. And the Windmills, which power about 22% of the Texas grid, went almost entirely offline.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#326

Post by johnchristopher »

dboreham wrote: post #286
johnchristopher wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't Samsung big enough to simply ask permissions to build their own nuclear reactor at that point ? Or wind turbine farms or whatever ?

Reactors and wind farms still need a grid.

Not if they are only interested in getting power to their factories ^^.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#327

Post by whichfawkes »

trasz wrote: post #292
swagasaurus-rex wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Xi Jinping has been threatening invasion for years, and before that, decades of CCP threats. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-58854081

>he said unification in a "peaceful manner" was "most in line with the overall interest of the Chinese nation, including Taiwan compatriots". Are you sure that’s the article you wanted to link to?

As far as American access to semiconductors goes, it doesn't matter if the takeover is peaceful or not. Chinese control over Taiwan could easily disrupt the supply chain through tariffs, export bans, backdoored hardware, etc etc.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#328

Post by ironchef »

chrisco255 wrote: post #325
adrianmonk wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, as I understand it, there's another "grid" which failed, which is the network of natural gas wells and pipelines. Natural gas wasn't being pulled out of the ground and pumped to the electric generation plants. Apparently natural gas isn't easy to store, so basically there's not a lot of buffer, and everything needs to stay online or there won't be any natural gas to burn at power plants even if they were winter…

The natural gas load was nearly double it's average load, because the entire state of Texas was below freezing for a week solid and almost nobody has gas heat in Texas. Everyone was pulling on inefficient electric heaters to warm their house. And the Windmills, which power about 22% of the Texas grid, went almost entirely offline.

“Almost nobody has gas heat in Texas” That’s incorrect. Approximately a third have gas heat per https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47116

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#329

Post by PeterisP »

petersellers wrote: post #310
PeterisP wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, from the perspective of TSMC, if production does not get transferred to USA mainland, then it secures the future of TSMC because in that case USA will ensure that they do not get taken over by a geopolitical adversary in the coming decade. Geopolitical risk is not something external that exists in isolation; the location of semiconductor manufacturing is a big factor that shapes the geopolitical ri…

> in that case USA will ensure that they do not get taken over by a geopolitical adversary in the coming decade How will the USA ensure that?

If the push comes to shove, a US carrier group parked in Taiwan's territorial waters makes any sea invasion impossible if it's willing to shoot at Chinese ships; you can't ship and land a million soldiers across a hostile sea, and China can't (at the moment) win the sea battle.

It's debatable to what extent USA is willing to fight for that, but if it chooses to do so, then now and at least until 2030 USA has enough military might to enforce a stalemate/status quo across the Taiwan strait, no matter how much it gets escalated. China can force Kinmen and Matsu islands, but invading Taiwan proper requires either USA not joining the war or a stronger China.

So IMHO the fate of Taiwan in this century depends on how much USA will be willing to intervene to protect it; and the physical location of semiconductor factories is a big factor influencing that willingness.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#330

Post by kwillets »

JavaBatman wrote: post #11

I am still amazed by the shortsightedness of how these critical and strategic goods are off-shore. No wonder why the supply chains are fragile and not robust. It should be illegal for strategic goods and components such as chips and semiconductors to be produced offshore. Yes, it will raise prices in the short and medium-term, but it will make the domestic economy and manufacturing sector more robust, resilient to su…

Samsung is considered the epitome of state capitalism, so there may be some confusion about that last sentence.
Post reply on HN