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

371–380 of 453 posts

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

#371

Post by kurthr »

kortilla wrote: post #349
kurthr wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL, the current political heads for the state of Texas (and county of Taylor) will happily trade future liability of their constituents for investment now (and kickbacks later). Honestly, I think Samsung's management is more comfortable in this sort of "political" environment than many others. If you watch local news reporting, it's hilarious that they (politicians) have no idea what the "factory" does. I'm personal…

> the current political heads for the state of Texas (and county of Taylor) will happily trade future liability of their constituents for investment now (and kickbacks later) Do you have some examples of this?

ERCOT, the massive statewide blackouts, and bailing out massive price gouging of the electric utilities that basically makes the reliability of the grid an issue in the first place? https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/25/electricity-market-f...

Or, in general: https://www.texastribune.org/2017/08/09/are-business-ties-be...

Billion dollar "public/private" investments turn in to boondoggles except for those who retire as lobbyists or foreign firms who pick up the pieces of the bankruptcy.

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

#372

Post by beezle »

scottcodie wrote: post #295
jkestner wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The going deal is, if there’s a power failure, we’ll let you recoup your costs from the taxpayers even as you profiteer. The governor can be bought for a very affordable $1 million. Certainly the incentives are aligned to solve this problem! https://www.texasobserver.org/after-kelcy-warrens-energy-tra...

It remains to be seen if shifting the cost to taxpayers is harmful to the economy or not.

Crony capitalism, the best kind of capitalism eh?

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

#373

Post by geoduck14 »

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…

If you are that big of a deal, wouldn't you have your own power plant with reserve power? My university had 2 power plants. Surely it isn't that hard

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

#374

Post by eigenman »

scottcodie wrote: post #369
mmrezaie wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad logic. If the governance e.g., TA is not manipulating market e.g. giving this sort of subsidies in case of failure then market could find the right place. Instead of behind the scene talks, a measurable study would be done and then fabs would be finding a suitable place to establish. I am not saying Samsung has not done studies on the location. Just pointing out the fallacy in the dangerous logic.

That's a lot of what-ifs with the assumption of corruption. There is no fundamental reason why companies and the government can't cooperate for mutual benefit.

There’s plenty of precedent for corruption with respect to tax incentives, see, e.g., what Foxconn did in Wisconsin:

https://www.theverge.com/21507966/foxconn-empty-factories-wi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_in_Wisconsin?wprov=sft...

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

#375

Post by grayfaced »

scottcodie wrote: post #295
jkestner wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The going deal is, if there’s a power failure, we’ll let you recoup your costs from the taxpayers even as you profiteer. The governor can be bought for a very affordable $1 million. Certainly the incentives are aligned to solve this problem! https://www.texasobserver.org/after-kelcy-warrens-energy-tra...

It remains to be seen if shifting the cost to taxpayers is harmful to the economy or not.

The ONLY reason to care about the "economy" is the secondary benefit it provides the "taxpayers". The health of economy and the people should never be weighed against each other.

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

#377

Post by Robotbeat »

posguy wrote: post #201
Robotbeat wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The energy prices are low because Texas has tons of oil and gas and wind. The energy grid is actually more efficiently managed than California, which has had similar problems with electricity supply. But the main reason Texas comes up is it has a very long history in semiconductors with a big workforce and lots of semiconductor companies.

Efficiency in electrical grids can often be counterproductive to reliability. It is economically efficient to not winterize your generation capacity or build longhaul electrical transport infrastructure to move electricity regionally, but without these rarely used elements you could end up with severe load shedding or a black start event.

Clearly. Texas needs winterization.

But of course, you can be both economically inefficient AND unreliable. California is one such example.

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

#378

Post by scottcodie »

eigenman wrote: post #374
scottcodie wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a lot of what-ifs with the assumption of corruption. There is no fundamental reason why companies and the government can't cooperate for mutual benefit.

There’s plenty of precedent for corruption with respect to tax incentives, see, e.g., what Foxconn did in Wisconsin: https://www.theverge.com/21507966/foxconn-empty-factories-wi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_in_Wisconsin?wprov=sft...

I'm sorry, am I missing some sort of evidence of corruption for the Samsung plant? Is that a serious accusation?

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

#379

Post by cplusplusfellow »

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…

It has nothing to do with ERCOT presence, despite the social karma of referring to the “grid disaster.”

There have been literally hundreds of other grid disasters in New York, Chicago, the entire state of California, and yet no one would be surprised if the plant showed up there. Why?

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

#380

Post by jquery »

cplusplusfellow wrote: post #379
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…

It has nothing to do with ERCOT presence, despite the social karma of referring to the “grid disaster.” There have been literally hundreds of other grid disasters in New York, Chicago, the entire state of California, and yet no one would be surprised if the plant showed up there. Why?

Because they aren't known for being racist backwaters that banned abortion?
Post reply on HN