Comment by losvedir

Comment by losvedir 4 days ago

84 replies

It's interesting to me that this is in Phoenix. Does that mean good things for the city? I thought they were in a desert and running out of water, and not well positioned for climate change. On the other hand, maybe with more solar panels, electricity and manufacturing will be cheaper there in the future?

kevinpet 4 days ago

There's no problem with residential water use in Phoenix. There are still farms that could be shut down if water is needed.

The biggest problem seems to be parochial NIMBYs. People don't like that TSMC needed to bring in Taiwanese workers to staff up the plant. They are currently posting AI generated renderings of factories with billowing smoke stacks when talking about the proposed Amkor semiconductor packaging plant in Peoria.

  • umanwizard 4 days ago

    It’s also worth nothing that the TSMC plant is basically as far north as it’s possible to be while still counting as part of the (huge) Phoenix metro area. The vast majority of the 5 million residents of that metro area are nowhere near the plant and very unlikely to be affected by it in any way.

  • therein 4 days ago

    > There are still farms that could be shut down if water is needed.

    Wow, that's good, glad you clarified that.

    I was worried there weren't any farms that could be shut down if water is needed.

    Can you imagine a world where we can't shut down farms to produce 4nm chips?

    I am just so glad we can shut down farms to produce chips.

    Farms are useless, but chips, we need it for the control grid. I am just glad we are all on the same page.

    Who needs food when you have 4nm chips.

    • mywittyname 4 days ago

      At least the fabs can recycle the majority of their water. Unlike farms which use more than is needed and are likely producing animal feed for international animals.

      I get your point, but not all farms are created equal. Is it really so bad to shut down farms that grow feed for Arab race horses to produce computer chips?

      • therein 4 days ago

        > I get your point, but not all farms are created equal. Is it really so bad to shut down farms that grow feed for Arab race horses to produce computer chips?

        That, I agree. I noticed a sibling comment also mentioned that. If the farms in question are of that kind, it is reasonable. I'd just like to object to the creation of a general sense of sacrificing farms for fabs.

      • timewizard 4 days ago

        Farms recycle the majority of their water as well. Just instead of it looping inside of a closed process it returns to the broader environment.

    • awongh 4 days ago

      Arizona and California have outdated water management laws that basically mean that big agriculture gets free water.

      Until recently Saudi Arabia was using these laws to grow alfalfa in the desert.

      In California, water intensive crops like almond trees get free water.

      https://youtu.be/XusyNT_k-1c

      https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/03/climate/arizona-saudi-ara...

      • amanaplanacanal 3 days ago

        Yes, but... The way the law works is that the farms own that water. The state would likely have to use eminent domain and pay fair market value if they want to take it away. I have no idea what that would cost.

        • awongh 3 days ago

          I mean, yes, use eminent domain to take the water… and then get TSMC to pay for it.

          Maybe another big player in the system would even help build momentum to get these laws changed permanently…

    • alphager 4 days ago

      The US is a major food exporter with a supply around 125%. Shutting down a few farms in the desert seems worthwhile.

      • adamc 4 days ago

        Doing anything that uses a lot of water in a desert seems problematic to me. Water is only going to get scarcer in the west as climate change goes on.

    • csallen 4 days ago

      This is an extremely over-simplified take. It depends on entirely on what the farms are producing, their water efficiency, etc. Nobody would seriously suggest that people go hungry so that we can have more chips, so responding as if that's the actual suggestion is unwarranted.

    • pstuart 4 days ago

      A fair amount of that farm water is to grow alfalfa for the Saudi's dairy industry. So it's not all essential to US food security...

    • shiroiushi 3 days ago

      The place is a desert. Growing crops in a desert takes a lot of water, as you might imagine. A smarter thing to do is to not try to grow crops in a desert where it needs so much irrigation. The US has plenty of non-desert land for growing essential crops.

      • chii 3 days ago

        desert weather is consistent(ly warm sunny). Irrigation being the missing factor means that you can have a nice long growing season, undisrupted by bad weather, or storms or any other number of unpredictable factors.

    • mtoner23 4 days ago

      theres not exactly a lack of food in this country

    • gosub100 4 days ago

      > Who needs food when you have 4nm chips.

      Who needs logic and reason when you have false dichotomy?

    • x3n0ph3n3 3 days ago

      We don't need farms in Phoenix. Farming in the middle of the desert where there's already limited water is pretty stupid.

    • zaik 4 days ago

      20 dollars? I wanted a peanut!

    • bcrosby95 4 days ago

      Lots of the farms exist to provide year around salad. What is more important, year around salad or computer chips? Economically, for Arizona, the answer is pretty clear.

      This is also why I laugh when people in wet areas talk crap about my state's water problem. My state's problem is your problem too buddy.

      • QuercusMax 4 days ago

        Also, eating raw salad veggies (lettuce in particular) is one of the best ways to get foodborne illnesses like E. Coli.

    • Apes 4 days ago

      Hello, sir? I think you need to go to the hospital, because it seems like you had a stroke or something else serious happen to you.

hosh 4 days ago

Water in the fabs gets mostly recycled. There’s an old slidedeck from Intel’s Chandler (Phoenix metro area suburb) fab about it. This includes discharging what isn’t recycled to refill ground aquifer.

From what I understand, the area is more seismically stable, so the special building structures and equipment for more seismically active places are not needed.

There is the presence of ASU. The ASU president had been hired a while back to implement a very different kind of university system focused on broadening (not gate keeping) higher education and building up innovation. This includes both improving graduation rates in the traditional tracks and expanding non-traditional educational tracks. I don’t know if all those were considered by TSMC; they like hiring engineers straight out of college and training them in their methods.

derektank 4 days ago

Phoenix the city is limited by its existing water rights but the geographical area isn't really that constrained; water rights are just held by private parties, particulaly farmers. ~70% of all water used in the state is used in agriculture. Industrial and residential consumers simply have to purchase those rights if they want to continue to expand in the area and chip making is a high value add industry.

  • azemetre 4 days ago

    Is there any historical reason why farming is a big industry in a state associated with deserts? Did manufacturing never take root there until after WW2 when air conditioning became more affordable?

    • hosh 4 days ago

      Before Phoenix the city was founded, there was a canal built by the indigenous people who live there in the lower Sonoran.

      That canal became the basis for Phoenix, and eventually, the big canal that transport water long range through the state.

      The other is that, with sufficient water, you can grow year round.

      Not that I think industrial ag is good for society.

      Phoenix itself is a metro area whose primary economic driver is real estate speculation. Many older citrus orchards has been surrounded, and sometimes bought and redeveloped.

    • derektank 4 days ago

      Farming isn't really that large of an industry in Arizona today, maybe 2% of GDP tops. But my understanding is that surface water rights were allocated over a hundred years ago and naturally those rights were allocated to the people that wanted them then, i.e. agricultural landowners.

    • johnvanommen 4 days ago

      > Is there any historical reason why farming is a big industry in a state associated with deserts?

      California is a desert too.

    • kragen 4 days ago

      Farming isn't an industry. It's just how you have a civilization when population density is higher than a hunter-gatherer lifestyle can support. People have been farming in Arizona for several thousand years.

      • hosh 4 days ago

        I don’t know why this was down voted. This is historically true.

        The modern canal that runs through Phoenix is built on top of ruins of a much older canal built by indigenous people for farming.

      • chrisco255 4 days ago

        Agriculture is an industry. Of course it is. It employs people, it makes use of technology, it is a distinct sector of the economy.

      • stackghost 4 days ago

        >Farming isn't an industry.

        It both is and isn't. Have you seen PETA footage from inside factory farms? It's hellish in that special way only the industrial revolution could produce.

    • hibikir 4 days ago

      I am sure that some people will question some of the historiography there, but Cadillac Desert is a book all about the history of water management of the great plains, from Kansas onwards.

      TLDR: America has spent a whole lot of money trying to make land more productive for farming, including land where it probably doesn't make much economic sense once you account for the infrastructure costs.

      • azemetre 4 days ago

        Thanks for the rec, another comment mentioned water rights and that never came to my mind.

    • ahoka 4 days ago

      I guess the Mexican border has something to do with it?

chris_va 4 days ago

Both are true.

Looks like the fab requires about 40,000 acre-ft/yr of water. If they really do start running out of water, adding desal of AZ's brackish aquifers would cost the fab about $20m/year. Not really worth it for farming, but completely fine for a fab.

  • stackghost 4 days ago

    >40,000 acre-ft/yr of water

    ... is "acre feet" a common measurement of volume in the USA?

    • schaefer 4 days ago

      Yes, It's from farming. To state the obvious, it's the volume of water you'd have if a foot of rain fell on an acre of field.

      So, it's the unit that gets used when discussing irrigation. Or water usage that competes with irrigation. :P

      • chrisco255 4 days ago

        Makes sense, since we usually measure rainfall in inches, it's pretty easy to look up weather records for an area to see what the minimum annual rainfall is expected to be.

    • ranger207 4 days ago

      It is specifically for reservoirs and by extension municipal water supply systems because it's relatively easy to determine the surface area and height of a reservoir

    • connicpu 4 days ago

      We'll use anything but metric lol. It's about 1,233 cubic meters of water.

      • syncsynchalt 3 days ago

        The comparable unit (in terms of estimating irrigation needs vs rainfall vs reservoir draw, which are the terms we reason with in this part of the US) would be the hectare-meter, which is 10,000 cubic meters.

      • kkg_scorpio 4 days ago

        Which is incidentally only 1% off from half an olympic-size swimming pool.

        In other words, the fab requires about 20,000 swimming pools of water every year... or equivalently, 1 swimming pool every 27 minutes.

    • rad_gruchalski 4 days ago

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acre-foot

      > The acre-foot is a non-SI unit of volume equal to about 1,233 m3 commonly used in the United States in reference to large-scale water resources, such as reservoirs, aqueducts, canals, sewer flow capacity, irrigation water,[1] and river flows.

      Seems to be.

      • chris_va 4 days ago

        It's a surprisingly convenient unit of measurement. Rainfall and irrigation typically are 0-1m per year, so if you have a 10acre farm you need 10acre-m of water to grow... Though, can't mix units, that would be silly :).

    • syncsynchalt 3 days ago

      Specifically in the desert west, yes.

      We measure our land in acres and water is the limiting resource for using it. Water requirements for crops are expressed in feet/year (or inches/day). Combine the two and you get acre-feet.

      m^3 would be a less useful unit in terms of calculating water needs out here, the metric equivalent would be hectare-meters (10,000 m^3).

    • Glyptodon 4 days ago

      Yeah, not uncommon at all in most scenarios where water volume is large enough.

imzadi 4 days ago

I live here and we are definitely looking toward impending water shortages, and no one care at all. Nestle is in the process of building a 200 acre coffee creamer factory. The major flower delivery services grow their flowers here. We have tons of cotton and alfalfa fields. There are 100s of golf courses and in the wealthier areas everyone has a lush green lawn.

  • 0_____0 4 days ago

    Sounds like a resource that isn't appropriately priced

    • syncsynchalt 3 days ago

      Water rights in the western US are mercenary. There's a healthy market in prior appropriation rights.

      Just because people don't like what the water is used for doesn't mean the water isn't priced appropriately. You'll still get farmers growing thirsty / pricey crops in the desert if it covers the cost of irrigation.

    • paustint 3 days ago

      We pay about $130/mo for water in north phoenix even if we don't use a drop.

      • 0_____0 2 days ago

        That's nuts. Is that just the customer fee?

    • amelius 4 days ago

      priced -> rationed

      • mrsilencedogood 4 days ago

        in capitalism, prices are literally how rationing happens. the theory is that it distributes the resources to those who can make them most productive. here, theoretically the water will be used more productively by chipmakers than by farmers, so the chipmakers will be able to out-bid the farmers and the water will be allocated to them. this is the "invisible hand" of the free market.