[HN Gopher] Intel breaks ground on $20B Arizona plants as U.S. c... ___________________________________________________________________ Intel breaks ground on $20B Arizona plants as U.S. chip factory race heats up Author : thunderbong Score : 382 points Date : 2021-09-28 09:59 UTC (13 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com) | robotnikman wrote: | 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. | | It also still amazes me how huge the campus is | kd913 wrote: | 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. | mschuster91 wrote: | > 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. | new_guy wrote: | Probably a good time to remind people that this entire planet | is 70% water. Water shortage shouldn't be a thing, but greed | and short sightedness is. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | Probably a good time to remind people that only 3% of that is | fresh water. Fresh water shortage is definitely a thing. | coldacid wrote: | Desalinization is a thing, and one that's often overlooked | because the people holding the purse strings are generally | cheap-asses. | NineStarPoint wrote: | 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. | standardUser wrote: | Desalination can be achieved using the cheapest energy | source there is, solar. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | 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. | matheusmoreira wrote: | > 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. | pope_meat wrote: | I don't want to be priced out of the water market the same | way I got priced out of the housing market. | | But then again, sacrifices must be made to the profit gods, | it is the way. | | Sigh. | rmah wrote: | 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. | matheusmoreira wrote: | 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. | TimTheTinker wrote: | > 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. | brewdad wrote: | Wouldn't ensuring a reliable supply of safe drinking | water fall under keeping people safe from threats to | their physical safety? | TimTheTinker wrote: | 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. | matheusmoreira wrote: | 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. | thrashh wrote: | It's not greed and shortsightedness. | | It's logistics. Logistics is expensive af | adminscoffee wrote: | 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 | hosh wrote: | 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 | j_walter wrote: | >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... | spaztastical wrote: | 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. | j_walter wrote: | 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. | | Here is proof, it's just some of the cooling towers at | Intel's current site in Chandler: https://www.google.com/ | maps/@33.2451403,-111.8923691,135m/da... | tinco wrote: | 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 | j_walter wrote: | 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. | paulmd wrote: | 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) | softfalcon wrote: | 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. | j_walter wrote: | 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? | softfalcon wrote: | Definitely not arguing that the heat doesn't need to go | somewhere. You're absolutely right. | | All I remember is family saying they had effective means | for recycling the water without losing it in these boiler | chambers. | | I'm no expert, but they were saying significantly higher | efficiency than 65%. | nealabq wrote: | 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? | hosh wrote: | 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. | rland wrote: | 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. | dghlsakjg wrote: | 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? | | 1 acre = 43.5k sq ft 1 acre foot = 325k gallons | j_walter wrote: | 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. | | https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon- | forest/2017/08/intel_wate... | rayiner wrote: | 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. | celestialcheese wrote: | 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? | icemelt8 wrote: | Excellent informative reply. | dillondoyle wrote: | Interesting relevent article came out from Bloomberg | yesterday about Arizona water authority helping boost new | more efficient and cheaper drip tech: | | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-09-23/how- | micro... | UncleOxidant wrote: | > 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). | spaztastical wrote: | and those places have hurricanes or tornadoes | da_chicken wrote: | > 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. | MengerSponge wrote: | 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. | hosh wrote: | 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. | jkestner wrote: | 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. | MagnumOpus wrote: | > 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). | xxpor wrote: | 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) | brewdad wrote: | 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. | xxpor wrote: | 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. | brewdad wrote: | Yes sewer is a lot but I was paying for sewer in both | places. Maybe Phoenix wasn't bothering to put any money | away for future repairs. | xxpor wrote: | 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. | Jensson wrote: | 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. | inglor_cz wrote: | I think their water privileges are not going away. | | After Covid and all the disruption of international | trade, self-sufficiency in food production will be | considered more important than before. | plussed_reader wrote: | With privileges come responsibilities; like forgoing the | profit motive for an activity that must be so heavily | subsidized by gov't influence. | nearbuy wrote: | 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. | MengerSponge wrote: | 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." | Galaxity wrote: | 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. | NortySpock wrote: | https://youtu.be/Dq04GpzRZ0g?t=472 | | 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.) | 1234letshaveatw wrote: | Wouldn't it make just as much money in a spot with no water | usage concerns? | NortySpock wrote: | 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. | kd913 wrote: | Do you really think there will be zero disasters in | Arizona in the coming years? | | Sure the plant may survive a water crisis, how about it's | power grid? How about the local communities and states | who will run out of water? | | Over the next 20 years, I wouldn't rank Arizona highly | for stability. | ktistec wrote: | 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. | | [1] https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona- | environme... | | [2] https://www.reliableplant.com/Read/25055/Ultrapure-water- | sem... | ckastner wrote: | > _Doesn 't chip making a lot of water_ | | 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. | mwint wrote: | 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. | deelowe wrote: | 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). | sanxiyn wrote: | Re use of water in lithography: it became necessary at 90 | nm level (~2004), so it is not exactly new. Water is used | to bend light. (Isn't it amazing?) | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_lithography | | While this use requires extreme purity, it is not a big | use in terms of volume. | ksec wrote: | 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. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrapure_water | cletus wrote: | 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. | HomeDeLaPot wrote: | Intel isn't stupid; they will want a return on their | investment. I would love to see the internal whitepaper or | whatever that summarized the decision. | wibagusto wrote: | It's not about being stupid it's about their self-interests | versus all the folks who live in Arizona and depend on the | water supply. | | Remember intel's modus operandi is increasing profits for | shareholders. | ryan93 wrote: | 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 | ZetaZero wrote: | 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. | | Average chip fab uses 2-4 million gallons per day | wibagusto wrote: | 2-4 million gallons per day is a lot of water to piss away | for some chips that go out of fashion in 5 years. | ryan93 wrote: | The water doesn't disappear. It stays h2o | lazide wrote: | 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. | ryan93 wrote: | Intel recycles and stores the water. They even | remineralize and put back into the city water system. | they don't dump it into the dessert. | lazide wrote: | 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/202 | 1/06/04/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. | jhgb wrote: | 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. | adventured wrote: | 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. | cannabis_sam wrote: | 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.. | ryan93 wrote: | Please try and actually contribute to the discussion. In | reality countries without many billionaires have way more | issues with water supply and heating. | cannabis_sam wrote: | Like you, who didn't engage with what I actually said? | | Please don't waste people's time, thank you. | jmartrican wrote: | From what I understand they will try to recycle the water. | | https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/04/why-intel-tsmc-are-building-... | ovi256 wrote: | > 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. | runako wrote: | > 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. | kesselvon wrote: | It's the lack of unions and cheap wages. Southern states are | famously lax on workers rights and business regulations. | rendang wrote: | Arizona is not a Southern state, and while it is a right- | to-work state, the minimum wage there is higher than in | most of the country. | syshum wrote: | 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 | IgorPartola wrote: | A thousand years from now your last sentence will be a | proverb if unknown origin. | dntrkv wrote: | Israel, UAE, and the Saudis have figured it out, you really | think the US can't? | | Arizona is close to the ocean and has plenty of sunlight. | Solar power + desalination will make this a non-issue in | the next 40 years. | lazide wrote: | 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. | IgorPartola wrote: | 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. | enkid wrote: | It's more about seismic stability from what I've read. | Arizona has much less severe weather than basically anywhere | in the US. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | 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. | 1234letshaveatw wrote: | vs. somewhere like Ohio? It is hard to believe moderate | snowfall would override environmental externalities such as | cooling costs and water use. | bsder wrote: | Salt is _BAD_. | | Sodium contamination messes up the threshold voltages of | transistors. | | And the Northeast uses salt everywhere for snow and ice | control and removal. | brewdad wrote: | 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. | m4rtink wrote: | 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. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | 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. | avs733 wrote: | And power from palos verde nuclear power plant | sitkack wrote: | 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. | | Is it low enough to truck the water in? | seanmcdirmid wrote: | Here is what I can find off hand: | | https://www.theverge.com/22628925/water-semiconductor- | shorta... | | > 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). | sitkack wrote: | Thanks, I appreciate it. | NineStarPoint wrote: | 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. | bserge wrote: | Can they create a water pipeline from elsewhere? Crazy, but not | that far out. Oil and gas is transported this way. | solarhoma wrote: | 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 | pwarner wrote: | 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? | eCa wrote: | Not far out at all. The list of the world's longest | tunnels[1] is filled with water tunnels. | | Added: They are of course short whem compared to pipelines, | but still. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_tunnels | tyleo wrote: | Anecdotal but I have a friend who is an engineer in water | treatment and he said pipelines aren't a silver bullet for | two reasons: | | 1. They are leaky so you end up paying more for the same | amount of water | | 2. Wherever you are buying the water from (the source of the | pipeline) knows their water is valuable and can charge more | gitfan86 wrote: | Also future weather patterns are hard to predict. What if | 20 years from now a place who needs water today is getting | a ton of rain? | uptown wrote: | Reverse the flow? | seanmcdirmid wrote: | Assuming your pipeline or canal is gravity driven, that | could be hard. | lazide wrote: | 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. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | 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. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | Yup, should require only a few adjustments. | | 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. | m4rtink wrote: | 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. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _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. | Workaccount2 wrote: | CME now offers water futures for some regions of | California. | thehappypm wrote: | 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. | ethanbond wrote: | ... what? | | 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. | | https://www.nature.org/en-us/newsroom/drought-water- | shortage... | | > 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. | | https://westernresourceadvocates.org/projects/arizona- | colora... | | > 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. | thehappypm wrote: | 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. | ethanbond wrote: | 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. | thehappypm wrote: | 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. | ethanbond wrote: | 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." | skybrian wrote: | Is gray water reuse happening at scale? | adventured wrote: | > 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 EUR134.5 | million." | | https://www.acciona.com/updates/news/acciona-build- | operate-c... | thehappypm wrote: | Nobody would ever pump water into Arizona from the coast. | That's basically running hydro plants in reverse. | 1123581321 wrote: | 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/ | kirjav wrote: | I am not sure having a giant aqueduct diverting water from | Colorado River counts as "completely non-dependent". | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Arizona_Project | dcchambers wrote: | 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. | nabla9 wrote: | 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. | | https://download.intel.com/newsroom/2021/manufacturing/Intel... | subsubzero wrote: | 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. | heavyset_go wrote: | 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. | willcipriano wrote: | North east isn't that bad, that's mostly the south east. | heavyset_go wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | baybal2 wrote: | Microchips are a more strategic resource than water. | | I would not be surprised if even using tanker caravans to bring | water from Utah is an option for chip production. | phreeza wrote: | 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. | FredPret wrote: | 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. | g_sch wrote: | 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. | lazide wrote: | 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. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | 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. | Sevii wrote: | 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. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > 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 simpler way is to give poorer people money. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _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. | comeonseriously wrote: | That would be, what, several thousand trucks per day? I don't | see how that would be any better. | baybal2 wrote: | Yes, now calculate the fuel cost. Expensive, but not crazy | expensive in comparison to other wafer costs | vmh1928 wrote: | Some statistics about Arizona's water sources and where it | goes. 72% of the water is used by agriculture. 6% to industry | 22% to municipal use | | http://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts | | 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. | buryat wrote: | I decided to check how much water a plant would use | | a plant used 4 million gallons of water a day (according to | https://www.theverge.com/22628925/water-semiconductor- | shorta...) which is about 126000 metric tons a day | | arizona used 7 million acre-foot of water in 2017 | (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona- | environme...) which is about 19000 acre-feet a day == 23014434 | metric ton a day (using http://www.conversion- | website.com/volume/acre-foot-to-ton-wa...) | | so a chip plant would be responsible for about 0.55% of overall | water usage | rrss wrote: | 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 | spiderice wrote: | How is it possible to return more fresh water than you use? | Where does the surplus come from? | jjoonathan wrote: | Because water that isn't fresh can become fresh. We have | the technology. | | They're already purifying a staggering amount of water, | might as well purify a bit more while they're at it. | BurningFrog wrote: | That still doesn't explain where this unfresh water comes | from. | TrueDuality wrote: | 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. | arcticfox wrote: | That doesn't seem right. As far as I know, | rivers/lakes/aquifers are pretty much the definition of | fresh water. | hunterb123 wrote: | Yes they are the definition of fresh water, not purified | water. | | Running fresh water is relatively clean, but it doesn't | mean there isn't giardia or other microbes / impurities. | reissbaker wrote: | Okay, but Intel promised to return more _freshwater_ than | it used. So it can 't simply take freshwater, purify it, | and return it at a surplus. | caeril wrote: | 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. | bluGill wrote: | 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. | caeril wrote: | I'm pressing 'X' to doubt, right now: | | https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured- | images/nation... | | edit: Maybe I should have said Great Plains, which | overlaps, but is not precisely the same as, the Midwest. | bluGill wrote: | The great plains does have issues. The rest of the | midwest doesn't. | tedivm wrote: | 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. | lovemenot wrote: | Thanks for doing a fact-check. | | Might there be other other downstream states in USA or Mexico | that would push that 0.55% ratio higher? | BurningFrog wrote: | Note that the Verge quote is | | > _It'll guzzle between 2 to 4 million gallons of water a day | by some estimates_ | Buttons840 wrote: | So one business / structure will use 1/200th of all water? | That does sound like a lot. | baron_harkonnen wrote: | 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%. | | [0] | PragmaticPulp wrote: | 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. | throwaway894345 wrote: | 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? | imajoredinecon wrote: | Is it potentially a little narrow to frame "one large | corporation... profit[ing]" as the main result of | consuming the water? | | They're also: | | - producing useful things | | - employing people to do said production (and design the | production process, and the thing that's getting | produced) | | - paying suppliers for the parts that go into the useful | things getting produced | throwaway894345 wrote: | 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. | ryan93 wrote: | What sacrifice are people making when the water is | recycled? | throwaway894345 wrote: | I was responding to the implication that people should | reduce their water consumption for this facility. | selectodude wrote: | Chip manufacturing benefits from somewhere that has very | predictable weather and low/no seismic activity. | hosh wrote: | 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. | bcrosby95 wrote: | It also helps with the heat island effect. | | 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. | sumtechguy wrote: | 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. | NikolaeVarius wrote: | 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. | throwaway894345 wrote: | 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. | ryan93 wrote: | They can keep their lawn. She's should just have to pay | more money since the water has more valuable uses | elsewhere | 8note wrote: | Itel can also move somewhere else. It's bad coming into a | community and telling everyone their water costs more now | because you want a lot of it. | | If anything, Intel should pay them to get rid of their | lawn | ryan93 wrote: | 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 | BurningFrog wrote: | The simple answer is to set the water price so supply | matches demand, and let everyone sort out what they | prioritize. | | I don't expect this to happen. | apocalyptic0n3 wrote: | 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 | mistrial9 wrote: | net producers of water? check this please | kspacewalk2 wrote: | 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. | Nbox9 wrote: | 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. | bottled_poe wrote: | That's one metric for impact. Perhaps you can think of some | other metrics to compare it to before influencing the | reader's opinion? | spaetzleesser wrote: | Sorry, can't resist but you gotta love the units. Gallons, | acre foot. Thank god the US isn't socialist metric where one | unit can easily be converted to another :) | tzs wrote: | We can easily convert just fine in the US: | | > "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). | kiklion wrote: | What is 'using water' in this context? Is it boiled off? | Contaminated and needs to be cleaned? | [deleted] | brianbreslin wrote: | 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. | TimTheTinker wrote: | Sounds like an excellent candidate for re-use. | LgWoodenBadger wrote: | If that's all that it needs, why would they not recycle | it back into the water supply? | rrss wrote: | From the same verge article: | | > 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 | jjoonathan wrote: | Yeah. | | 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. | rrss wrote: | yeah. If there is something I'm missing, hopefully | someone can point out what it is, because I don't really | understand why this matters. | 8note wrote: | 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 | jhpankow wrote: | Clean, pure, delicious semiconductor wastewater. | NikolaeVarius wrote: | You do understand that literal sewage is treated and | returned to the water supply just fine | mentos wrote: | "It's got what plants crave" | throwaway946513 wrote: | "It's got electrolytes!" | sgc wrote: | Probably better to just re-filter it back to pure H2O and | reuse on site. | bernawil wrote: | > which is in fact too pure to be just dumped back in the | ground, needs to be re-mineralized before it can be | dumped | | how so? isn't rainwater also "pure H2O"? | bluGill wrote: | No, rainwater has dissolved air and dust in it. | [deleted] | smolder wrote: | 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. | dralley wrote: | One single factory using 0.55% of the entire state's water | consumption is pretty massive. | iamgopal wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | [deleted] | tzs wrote: | 4 million gallons X 3.785 kg/gallon X 1 metric ton / 1000 kg | = 15140 metric tons, not 126000 metric tons. The calculation | for Arizona is correct. | | That gives 0.066%, no 0.55%. | buryat wrote: | yeah, you're right, I accidentally used "US short ton" smh | that one of the online calculators gave me, very | embarrassing | black_13 wrote: | For years ive been reading these apologist news articles about | how chips or laptops or phones or so on couldn't be made here but | here we are. | _Understated_ wrote: | What kind of ramp-up time are we looking at here? This can't be a | quick process to get chips out the door I imagine! | wongarsu wrote: | 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. | acoard wrote: | 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. | sneak wrote: | 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. | dillondoyle wrote: | There's already precedent with a fab in MN | https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14416247 | | And the US Govt props up other critical industry, not just for | military but trade, gas, & food. | | Personally I support it. | wiz21c wrote: | 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... | Nbox9 wrote: | How is raising the information processing capabilities of | humanity anything but a net good thing? | Dah00n wrote: | If it is to scan milk inside a refrigerator? Most can do | without "smart" functionality. | valine wrote: | 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. | speed_spread wrote: | 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. | wiz21c wrote: | > old power hungry cpu | | 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. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | 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. | theandrewbailey wrote: | Power hungry is not a term I'd use to describe a Core 2 Duo. | | Or do CPUs need more power to run as they get older? That | would be news to me. | kcb wrote: | 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. | Dah00n wrote: | 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. | mcphage wrote: | > Do we really need to produce more IC's ? | | 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. | seanw444 wrote: | And then when (if*) we become independent, and China finally | gets the balls to scoop up Taiwan, our administration will be | nowhere to be found. | CivBase wrote: | 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. | dsq wrote: | 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. | Dah00n wrote: | 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. | PerkinWarwick wrote: | A lack of Taiwan dependency may well avoid a world war. | josephcsible wrote: | I'd rather have another world war than for China to slowly | but "peacefully" conquer the world. | beebeepka wrote: | That's how I know you imagine yourself to be on the | winning side of this world war. Good luck with that. Not | really, though | josephcsible wrote: | I do think we would win in the end, but even if we | didn't, I'd rather go down fighting than graciously | accept our new CCP overlords. | Dah00n wrote: | 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. | PerkinWarwick wrote: | I might have thought so some years ago. | | In an era when 1/2 of the Western world hates Western | civilization, I'm not sure that it matters anymore. | | Of course, in the long run, it's all just fodder for a | history book. The further out you go, the less the | details matter. | mywittyname wrote: | 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. | bloopernova wrote: | Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't you want to build a | semiconductor fabrication factory somewhere cold? | | Or is it because Arizona is dry? | | (honest questions, I don't know what impacts the location of a | fab) | newacct583 wrote: | You want to build them where you can staff them, and these fabs | are going up next door to Intel's existing fabs in Chandler. | user568439 wrote: | Why should it be cold? This is necessary for data centers but | for factories probably it's much better to have your own solar | powered energy | josaka wrote: | 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. | dv_dt wrote: | seems like you should be able to dump part of the waste heat | back into the output air after the cooling stage. | jdshupe wrote: | 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. | lvl100 wrote: | 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. | Nbox9 wrote: | > AZ Natural Disasters | | 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. | KingMachiavelli wrote: | Sure but a chip fab is a giant flat building with lots of | AC and plenty of solar panels. | | At this point you really can't rule out 115F heatwave | anywhere since the PNW just had one. | clarkmoody wrote: | Usually a heat wave isn't accompanied by thick cloud cover | that shades your solar panels. | pm90 wrote: | It can kill your (human) staff though. | [deleted] | cronix wrote: | 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]. | | [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us- | news/2021/jul/08/pacific-nort... | Izikiel43 wrote: | I think in the vancouver news and investigation | afterwards, a bit over 1k people died. | lvl100 wrote: | 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. | thehappypm wrote: | 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. | raverbashing wrote: | If you can manage to build your solar as to shade your | building, your AC costs will greatly diminish as well. | conductr wrote: | 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! | zwirbl wrote: | 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?) | minhazm wrote: | > Globally, Intel is on track to achieve net positive water | use by 2030. Today, in Arizona, we're already at 95%. | | https://download.intel.com/newsroom/2021/manufacturing/Inte | l... | lazide wrote: | This is PR. | | 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! | dragonelite wrote: | You already need extreme climate and dust control don't think | the location will matter that much. | CompuHacker wrote: | As I understand it, you want inexpensive power and water. Bonus | points for environmental stability over absolute temperature. | softfalcon wrote: | Arizona has a few major things going for it: | | - lack of seismic activity | | - very cheap, flat, easily excavated land | | - rich history of fab production (see: Motorola) which provides | the necessary city infra, construction groups, supply | distribution to build such fabs | | - consistently dry climate that despite being hot, is easily | controlled for humidity | | - numerous tax and subsidy enticements to do business there | sbierwagen wrote: | >rich history of fab production | | I would rank this way higher. Clustering fabs together makes | it much easier to hire. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabricat. | .. Intel, Microchip, NXP, TSMC and Entrepix all have plants | in Arizona. | | 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. | softfalcon wrote: | 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. | jmpman wrote: | Is there any evidence that Intel has fixed its process problems? | Otherwise aren't they building a $20B liability? | acomjean wrote: | 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. | thehappypm wrote: | 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. | comeonseriously wrote: | 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. | phkahler wrote: | Has Intel mastered EVU lithography yet? They've been close for a | long time now. | htrp wrote: | Nope... still getting pretty bad yields. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-09-28 23:00 UTC)