[HN Gopher] House Bill Funds CHIPS Act, Stresses R&D ___________________________________________________________________ House Bill Funds CHIPS Act, Stresses R&D Author : Trouble_007 Score : 72 points Date : 2022-05-30 16:46 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.eetimes.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.eetimes.com) | scottcodie wrote: | Glad to see the US subsidizing chips for the entire world market. | It's about time we pay our fair share to give back to the | subsidizes that asian countries have been putting in. | newaccount2021 wrote: | xiphias2 wrote: | ,, Despite new U.S. fab initiatives announced by Intel, Samsung | and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., each has said those | investments require tax breaks and other incentives beyond what | states have offered'' | | Tax breaks sound much more reasonable way to improve onshore | manufacturing if that would be the real goal. | [deleted] | mikepurvis wrote: | I think the issue here is figuring out how to make sure the tax | breaks and other stimulus/incentives are "let's put some | temporary fuel on this fire until it becomes self-sustaining" | vs how it's seemingly gone for most other industries (ag, | resources, banking, etc) where it becomes a long-term | dependency and every new shakedown is anchored in a combination | of emotional arguments and sunk cost fallacy. | xiphias2 wrote: | Chip technology looks like a critical long term dependency | for all nations, and I don't think China will shy away from | providing practically infinite incentives for it happening | there. | onepointsixC wrote: | While it's good that the CHIPS act is being passed, it's far too | modest of a bill considering how important semiconductors are to | the US. Just compare it to the South Korean $450Bn bill[1]. In | the 80's enormous foreign subsidization of commercial ship | building by South Korea, Japan, and others, saw the near total | loss of that key industry in America. Semiconductors must not be | allowed to suffer a similar fate. | | [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-13/korea- | unv... [1 Non paywalled]: https://archive.ph/9Gs8q | scottcodie wrote: | US consumers got a lot of cheap chips from their subsidy. US | businesses had to close because they couldn't compete but US | consumers still won in the end. I wondering if the US | government will have to subsidize this industry in perpetuity | if the subsidized fabs can't become competitive. | samstave wrote: | > _but US consumers still won in the end_ | | Sure, but the point is that an entire industry which added | employment and other positives to the economy evaporated. | | By saying "customers won, because they could still buy stuff | through sending money to companies and industry in other | countries" -- could be argued as a loss. | | The US is so myopically built around consumption its | sickening. | scottcodie wrote: | Your argument falls under the lump of labour fallacy, a lot | of new jobs were created when we had cheaper chips. If it | was a loss then it wouldn't have been an economic loss :) | remarkEon wrote: | The loss of commercial ship building in the US is something I | want to learn more about. Did it happen simply because other | countries subsidized their own industries and the US couldn't | compete? Would love a long form history of that industry going | back a few centuries. | samstave wrote: | Im sure environmental aspects play a role - the shipyards in | asia are unbelievably huge. | | Plus the chinese shipyards build literal | battleships/aircraft-carriers and cruise ships and cargo | ships sitting right next to eachother - and its said they | steal/share technologies from the various contracts/products. | | https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6520357/Satellite-i. | .. | | --- | | And there is this: | | China builds mock-US ships in what seems to be for battle | scenario training ops.. | | https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/08/satellite-china- | us-... | donthellbanme wrote: | pfisherman wrote: | Agreed. If you consider chips to be a strategic resource - like | the food supply - then the government will need to step in and | set a subsidy / price floor to ensure over production. | | Fyi, the US government subsidizes the overproduction of food so | that we do not experience famine in the event that a | significant portion of the food supply gets taken out (e.g. bad | harvest, drought, etc). | throwaway4good wrote: | I know that it is the way us politics work but it is pretty wild | skimming through the text and seeing just how many things are | cobbled together. Eg: | | Sec. 30219G. Requirements relating to vaccine branding. | | Directs the President to ensure that every vaccine donated, | procured, or financed by the U.S. Government is clearly branded | with the U.S. flag. | thatguy0900 wrote: | I dont understand how the government actually follows all these | rules (to the extent that they do). Imagine if your job | requirements and duties was spread out in single paragraphs in | thousands of hundred page long documents | daemoens wrote: | It's also on page 1011 of a 2912 page document. How would you | ever know that something in there applied to your company? | 01100011 wrote: | Thanks to the Triffin Dilemma | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma) the US is | fighting an uphill battle to repatriate key industries. | mjevans wrote: | While more R&D is good, if their intent is to stabilize the | production markets other changes are likely required. | | It must be at least moderately profitable to build and run _new_ | fabs that produce the simple 'jelly bean' components that have | been in dire shortage. | | Inventories, both of sellable common 'ingredients' and also of | shelf stable commonly desirable outputs should probably be | reflected differently on asset books. Cutting buffers to the bone | should not be good accounting practice as that encourages | vulnerability. Laws need to change how that accounting is | performed. | xadhominemx wrote: | Why would any laws need to be changed? Companies should and | will just start holding higher levels of inventory as a | business practice. | JaimeThompson wrote: | Companies should not spend billions on stock buybacks instead | of keeping their factories in running order but the recent | baby food issues in the US show that isn't always the case. | bloodyplonker22 wrote: | It's not one or the other, they can do both. You think that | a company would rather do a stock buyback and NOT keep | their factories in running order so their stock will tank | right after they buy back their stock at a higher price? | vkou wrote: | Depends on the vesting schedule of the people doing the | buybacks. | xt00 wrote: | So I wonder if anybody here could compare what Phoenix has vs | Hsinchu in Taiwan. It seems like the closest the US has to what | Taiwan has.. (Intel, new TSMC, various other fabs are there).. | so making Phoenix the Mecca of semiconductor jobs in the US | seems like a pretty smart goal .. while the federal govt loves | to spread money around it seems wise to just say let's be real | folks, it's way easier / efficient to pour gas on an existing | fire than to build totally greenfield.. like pump tons of cash | into the AZ universities for semiconductor work. But I wonder | if people have some history / perspective on why people don't | say "oh you want to work in semi area? Go to Phoenix..".. | Kadin wrote: | Seems a bit strange that Phoenix would be a desirable place | to build a fab, given how water-intensive most processes are. | Yes, the water can and should be recycled... but it just | seems weird to build a plant like that in one of the parts of | the country that will probably never have enough fresh water, | compared to other areas where they can't get it out of the | way fast enough. | | Is it the labor pool there that makes it attractive? Energy | costs? Something about state/local subsidies? | windowsrookie wrote: | The reason I heard is that Phoenix is seismically stabile, | and weather stabile. Both of those things can cause power | outages which are incredibly expensive at a fab. | 8note wrote: | The water involved is mostly recoverable and reusable | | While there's cost involved, its shortage probably won't be | a bottleneck? | rocqua wrote: | I recall a video by asianometry stating that best case | water re-use is about 70%. That will be rough in the | desert. | daniel-cussen wrote: | Just keep the MBAs with their Midas touch away from basic tech. | Engineers are good enough at math to balance the books, it's | not really harder than balancing a checkbook. I had better | finances as a high school student than most Wall Streeters at | the peak of their career. Got alpha they didn't, accounting for | real is just mathematical horse sense. | bsder wrote: | One of the big problems in the US is accounting for | inventory. If you're buying "tax-free" from a supplier, that | part goes "onto your books" when it goes into your inventory. | If you don't put that part into a product and sell it | relatively quickly, you owe tax on that part as it sits on | your shelf. | | There are some other issues with inventory taxation like how | fast you can depreciate it (ie. for tax purposes, chips are | treated like mechnical inputs even though chips depreciate | _MUCH_ faster). | | This all _strongly_ discourages holding inventory. | | And even engineers running companies will come to that | conclusion. | Kadin wrote: | > If you're buying "tax-free" from a supplier, that part | goes "onto your books" when it goes into your inventory. If | you don't put that part into a product and sell it | relatively quickly, you owe tax on that part as it sits on | your shelf. | | I admit to not being a CPA, but that... doesn't make a ton | of sense to me. What sort of tax do you pay on inventory? | | My understanding is that it's not tax that's the issue, but | the tying-up of capital in inventory that's generally being | minimized. If interest rates are 3% and you have $1M in | inventory, that's $30k per year in interest you're paying | in order to hold that inventory, plus the physical costs of | warehousing it. | | And the MBAs naturally look at cutting costs as the fastest | and most direct route to improving profitability. | bsder wrote: | > I admit to not being a CPA, but that... doesn't make a | ton of sense to me. What sort of tax do you pay on | inventory? | | Welcome to the US taxation system. | | As I understand it, VAT solves a lot of this silliness. | However, the US doesn't do VAT for a bunch of historical | reasons. | WalterGR wrote: | > Efforts aimed at reviving U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and | strengthening technology supply chains advanced this week with | the introduction of a catch-all bill that funds "surge | production" of U.S.-made chips while investing in broad-based | technology R&D. | | There's a ton of Superfund[0] sites in Silicon Valley[1]. What's | the current situation re. semiconductor manufacturing and toxic | waste? | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund | | [1] "The Superfund Sites of Silicon Valley" | https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/lens/the-superfund-sites-... | rossdavidh wrote: | So, I haven't worked in semiconductors since the mid-noughties, | so keep that in mind. However, essentially every company in | semiconductors in the 60's and 70's ended up with a Superfund | site in Silicon Valley (back when the "Silicon" referred to | actual chip manufacturing, not software). Fabs built in the | 80's and 90's were much different in regards to how toxic | chemicals were handled, and I believe have continued to | improve. | | Some of this improvement came naturally, as the requirement for | cleaner and cleaner manufacturing environment for the wafers | themselves (to keep particulate contamination from lowering | yield) meant that the chemicals were kept in enclosed systems, | thus easier to keep from leaking out. | | Some of this came about because, from what I was told by "old | timers", in the 60's and 70's part of the problem was that fabs | were not thought of as being very dangerous. This sounds | incredible now, but the risks people thought of from | manufacturing then were those present in steel mills, coal | mines, auto factories, etc. Big heavy things and molten steel | and roofs that can collapse on you; physically obvious risks. | It took some time to realize that semiconductor fabs were just | as dangerous; no doubt longer than it should have, but the | realization did arrive in time. | | I left the semiconductor industry because it was outsourcing, | not because of concerns for my safety; in new fabs, there was a | great emphasis on safety and the environmental impact (which no | doubt raised costs relative to some of the other places that | manufacturing shifted to). | [deleted] | lumost wrote: | Manufacturing is generally pretty messy. But green tech has | come a long way in identifying effective alternatives to toxic | chemicals, as well as effective management and disposal | techniques for what is toxic. | | Odds are good that re-shored manufacturing will be cleaner than | older plants built in regions with lower environmental | regulation. | aaronbrethorst wrote: | Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is about to gut the EPA's | authority. Hope you're able to afford to move far away from | plants that spew toxic chemicals! | | https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1082934438/supreme-court- | to-h... | [deleted] | colechristensen wrote: | Eh, I'm relatively in favor of limiting government agencies | effectively making law up all by themselves. That is not | the correct fix for a dysfunctional legislature. | paulmd wrote: | If you think Congress is dysfunctional now, wait until | you require congress to individually specify safety | limits for each compound, etc. You'll have congresspeople | grandstanding about how restricting X chemical is killing | hardworking small businesses in their state, etc. | | Which the court knows damn well will be the outcome - | that's the _goal_. Keep anything from being done. | colechristensen wrote: | That kind of thinking leads to "the only way we'll get | anything done is with a dictator" and it's not like that | is an unprecedented outcome for a country. Fix what's | broken, don't use authoritarianism as a patch for | dysfunction. | iancmceachern wrote: | From my understanding the chemicals haven't changed, and | can't really be changed. As far as i understand we will | always need these crazy bad chemicals to make chips. | | What has, hopefully, changed is we aren't allowing companies | to store it in leaking underground tanks, etc. All these | superfund sites aren't a result if business as usual, in each | case there is some major, systemic, intentional oversight and | frankly corruption. | | Source - I've worked some in that industry designing | automation for asml, applied, etc. | | Not in the semiconductor industry but a good example of the | kind of thing that results in a super fund site is Rocky | Flats in Colorado. There is a now famous news broadcast where | the representative from the department of energy is saying | "there is no fire" and a big fire can be clearly seen behind | them. | | They were machining plutonium and uranium nuclear bomb | triggers on lathes in special glove boxes with particle | capture and ventilation systems that were supposed to scrub | the air before venting it to atmosphere. These systems | weren't properly maintained and they got clogged up with | radioactive dust and caught fire. It was later found that | they were dumping radioactive dust into the air, and had | hundreds of barrels of radioactive waste in steel barrels | that were rusted through leaking into the ground for decades. | It's the only time one federal agency (the FBI) raided a | facility of another federal agency (DOE). | nickff wrote: | There have been a huge number of changes to the chemicals | used in photolithography over time, specifically the | photoresists. | iancmceachern wrote: | Yeah but lots of the super terrible stuff is in the | surface prep and etching chemicals. All those crazy acids | and bases that eat through everything, are highly toxic, | and deadly in tiny quantities. | | https://www.prevor.com/en/chemical-risks-in- | semiconductors-i... | nickff wrote: | My understanding is that photoresists are actually some | of the most toxic chemicals in the process, and their | heating/irradiation makes them especially dangerous. | | https://en.hesperian.org/hhg/Workers%27_Guide_to_Health_a | nd_... | iancmceachern wrote: | The context of my comment was in response to the parent | saying they've phased out/changed many of the worst stuff | in the photo resist side and so I said there is still | pretty bad stuff on the etch side and then you commented | that there are worse chemicals on the photo resist side. | We're in a weird circular argument. | | Point is - there are lots of bad chemicals used in | semiconductor manufacturing, even today. | [deleted] | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | _> crazy bad chemicals_ | | Exhibit A: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/sand- | won-t-save-yo... | sremani wrote: | >> green tech has come a long way in identifying effective | alternatives to toxic chemicals | | Enlighten us, how manufacturing 'silicone' has become less | chemical intensive. | throwaway743 wrote: | FTFY: Silicon | sremani wrote: | between spelling nazis and reflexive downvoters .. who | are entitled their respective actions.. what I am looking | for is, how is the whole Quartz to Wafers process has | become green and what kind of reduction and/or | elimination of toxic materials has been achieved. | | A good proper justification of the claim from the | claimant or supporters of that argument is useful. | acomjean wrote: | I don't have exact details but I did work in an | civil/environment consulting companies (we worked | remediating the GE silicone waste site in Upstate NY .. ) | which might be why people are senesitive to the | spelling.[1] | | But generally those chemical engineers are pretty good at | cleaning up the processes (it cheaper, also cheaper to | ship manufacturing overseas...) | | The Resource Conservation and Recovery act https://en.m.w | ikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Conservation_and_Re... | | And toxic substance control acts seemed to rules of note. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_Substances_Control_ | Act... | | GE silicones | [1]https://www.epa.gov/hwcorrectiveactionsites/hazardous- | waste-... | adrian_b wrote: | In this case the spelling nazis had rightfully pointed to | the correct spelling, because the wrong spelling is not a | problem of style or preferences, but it causes a | confusion between two different chemical substances, with | very different properties and applications. | | "silicon" is the chemical element number 14, and this | name, which is used in the English-speaking countries, | was coined by someone who believed that it is a good idea | for it to rhyme with "carbon" (actually a bad idea in my | opinion) | | "silicone" is the generic name for a class of plastics, | i.e. the polymers with a poly-siloxane structure. This | name was coined by someone who believed that it is a good | idea for it to rhyme with "acetone", because he | erroneously believed that these polymers have a structure | similar to ketones. | karmicthreat wrote: | It's not less chemical intensive at all. Some aqueous | processes have replaced more toxic ones. But dissolved | copper and solvent waste makes up the majority of ever fabs | waste stream. TSMC/Intel etc have made pretty big strides | in zero landfill hazardous waste. It just gets recycled and | used in other processes internally or by other companies. | | I don't know what the Chinese fabs do, so I have no idea if | pump their waste out into the environment. | Kadin wrote: | > dissolved copper | | You would think that dissolved copper would have some | recovery value, given the price of copper. | | I am reminded of the waste from silver halide | photographic processing, which at one point was just | dumped into rivers (an unfortunate amount went into the | Great Lakes); when the price of silver increased, | suddenly it became worthwhile to recover the silver | rather than let it go down the literal drain. | tmaly wrote: | I wonder how much of this funding will go to producing chips that | are in shortage verse just a blitz of money at all chips | regardless of supply? | Kadin wrote: | Given the lead time of building a fab and producing components, | trying to incentivize the production of specific devices that | happen to be in short supply right now is probably not a great | plan. | | The market does a pretty good job of sending demand signals to | producers, faster than the government can generally create and | pass incentivizing legislation. | | But if you don't have the production capacity in the first | place, encouraging that to be built out (which is a long-term | process) does seem like something where government can | meaningfully intervene. | madengr wrote: ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-30 23:00 UTC)