The Environmental Cost of Silicon Chips

Col. Panic writes "Scientific American is running a small story about the amount of material required to produce silicon chips and the potential hazards of associated toxic chemicals." This combined with coltan mining processes sure paints a dark picture of the chip industry.

Comments

How much energy does it take then...

[delphi125]

manufacturing microchips requires approximately 160 times the amount of energy needed to make typical silicon

...to make sand?

Re:How much energy does it take then...

[e8johan]

No, breasts! :)

Re:How much energy does it take then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the cost of unsliced silicon boules.

Re:How much energy does it take then...

[Anonymous Coward]

And Sand is ... Silicon Dioxide. To separate out the silicon from silicon dioxide requires ... Energy

I refuse to use them.

[acehole]

In line with protecting the environment, I choose to use environmentally friendly products in my cpu, such as compost and renewable timber.

Of course my computer doesnt work, but at least i'm helping the environment.

Re:I refuse to use them.

[cduffy]

In line with protecting the environment, I choose to use environmentally friendly products in my cpu, such as compost and renewable timber.

Nifty! I don't suppose you've been trying to build Babbage's Analytical Engine, would you? The concept of building one out of wood sounds interesting... is compost the power source? (I'd suppose you'd still need a combustion chamber... of what are you constructing that?)

Anyhow, good luck in getting it running! (I wonder how many years per frame you'd get playing Quake?)

Re:I refuse to use them.

[kavau]

Me too! I haven't used a computer in the last five years! And I urge all slashdot readers that are still using a computer to follow this example!

That's it!

[empee]

I'm NEVER buying a CPU from DeBeers' ever again.

Re:That's it!

[peterf]

I misread that as "I'm NEVER buying a beer from DeBeers' ever again".

Maybe I should stop drinking?

save some for the fishies!!!

[TOGA! TOGA TOGA!]

a typical two-gram chip takes 1.6 kilograms of fossil fuel, 72 grams of chemicals and 32 kilograms of water Does anyone know if this 'water' is resuable? Is it just for cooling?

Re:save some for the fishies!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The water is used in coffee, Coke and other caffeinated drinks by the nerds who design the chips.

Re:save some for the fishies!!!

[max cohen]

The water is used for rinsing wafers, which happens many, many times in a typical chip process. The water is highly filtered and deionized before the wafers are washed, then is cleansed to remove the acids and solvents that are picked up during rinse cycles. So it is reusable, but only after minerals are added back to it. You cannot drink fab quality water because it a large concentration gradient would form and minerals from the other fluids in your body would be depleted by the migration into the ultra pure water.

Re:save some for the fishies!!!

[Urban Garlic]

> You cannot drink fab quality water because it a large concentration gradient would form and minerals from the other fluids in your body would be depleted by the migration into the ultra pure water.

This has made my BS detector twitch. As soon as the pure water hits my mouth, it becomes impure because it mixes with my spit, so there's really no such thing as "drinking ultra-pure water." Water with the same concentration of saline as your body is actually much more dangerous than fresh water, and fresh water supplies all over the world have widely varying concentrations of minerals, yet people survive on them.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I invoke common sense to assert that as long as the mineral concentration of fresh water is reasonably low, the precise value is not important, and furthermore that the value of zero is not special.

Re:save some for the fishies!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot drink fab quality water because it a large concentration gradient would form and minerals from the other fluids in your body would be depleted by the migration into the ultra pure water.

Except, of course, that osmosis works exactly the other way. The solvent (water) migrates accross the membrane (skin, stomach lining, etc) in order to equalize the solute concentration on both sides. In this case, that means the ultra-pure water would be leached into your body slightly faster than tap water would be, and no harm done.

Re:save some for the fishies!!!

[denzo]

> You cannot drink fab quality water because it a large concentration gradient would form and minerals from the other fluids in your body would be depleted by the migration into the ultra pure water.

This has made my BS detector twitch. As soon as the pure water hits my mouth, it becomes impure because it mixes with my spit, so there's really no such thing as "drinking ultra-pure water."

Yep, it's a myth that pure water leaches minerals from your body. Once it comes into contact with impurities (such as spit, like you mentioned), the water is no longer "pure". So how can pure water stay pure and do damage to our body? Even so, it will only remove minerals that are body has not used, not what has already been absorbed by our cells, which our body didn't need anyway. And our minerals aren't absorbed from water anyway, they're absorbed from food.

The only other way pure water can kill you is in a massive quantity, which would kill you even if it was normal drinking water.

Re:save some for the fishies!!!

[Flummox]

Actually, you are missing something. Drinking the water, by itself, is no big deal. You can do it on rare occasions with no lasting effects. If you drink ultra-pure water on a regular basis, however, your body will lose common minerals that is present in any other form of water.

Simply put, every time you expel waste, some amount of beneficial minerals are expelled as well. If you drank nothing but ultra-pure water, one of the primary vectors for adding these minerals back in is removed and your body gets "cleaned out".

Re:save some for the fishies!!!

[StandardDeviant]

Heh, kind of reminds me of organic chemistry lab. We had to copy down beforehand all the physical ("It set the bench on fire!!!") and health ("It set my arm on fire!!!") hazards of all the chemicals we were to use in the lab... Yes, *ALL* the chemicals, and water is a chemical. (Needless to say this is a fairly boring mickey-mouse procedure, but it is a good way to drill in to people's heads that you need to have complete knowledge of what you're doing with chemicals before you do anything.) So some anonymous wag stuck an Official Hazard Label (orange paper, skull and crossbones, bold 32pnt type face, etc) on the big jug of DI (DeIonized) water in the lab reading:

PHYSICAL HAZARD(S): flooding
HEALTH HAZARD(S): drowning

Re:save some for the fishies!!!

[KnightNavro]

Your BS meter is correct. Without getting into the ultrapure-water-draining-the-body-of-nutrients garbage, water used in chip manufacturing is deadly for another reason. You EEs and CS guys may not fear the etching agent, but we chemical engineers are scared shitless of hydroflouric acid (HF). When I worked in an analytical lab, we had special kits to deal with 3 different chemicals: mercury, cyanide, and HF. It's truly insideous stuff. Most of the water used in chip manufacturing goes to rincing the chips after they are etched. As a result, it contains a fair amount of HF. There are efforts to maximize recyceling and minimize water usage, but they can only go so far. I find it amusing as a ChE to watch non-chemists around chemicals. If they often handle HF, they can be quite casual about safety and may not even wear gloves, but put them in the same room as a fairly innocuous organic solvent like isopropyl alcohol and they're ready to don a hazmat suit.

Re:save some for the fishies!!!

[KnightNavro]

Back in chem lab, we had to note all the safety concerns as well (perhaps not in as much detail). When the lab didn't involve dangerous reagents, I still had to fill up the safety space, so I always fell back on a sage piece of chemistry advice:

Don't eat the product.

Re:save some for the fishies!!!

[Fat Casper]

Yes, *ALL* the chemicals, and water is a chemical.

Not only that, but you need an MSDS if you have distilled water.

Re:save some for the fishies!!!

[max cohen]

You are. I worked in a chip fab for 3 years and is common knowledge that drinking the water isn't a good idea because of its purity. The water in question is *far* more pure than any fresh water supply. The less ions in the water, the less damage to the chips.

A sip here and there probably wouldn't kill you, but drinking DI (deionized) water is certainly not a subsitute for degowning and drinking from the water fountains outside the clean rooms! :)

Re:save some for the fishies!!!

[max cohen]

Not sure which fab you worked in, but the pure water coming into the spin-rinse-dryers and wet benches isn't full of HF, only the used water leaving the process step. The incoming water is the one that folks might think it would be good to drink and what has to be pure.

Re:save some for the fishies!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Drinking DI water might be dangerous!?!
What a load. The amount of minerals in tap or bottled water is miniscule in relation to what you ingest by other means. Any small amount of 'flushing out' that occurs is irrelevant, or possibly helpful given the amount of sodium we eat. God I am sick of quack doctors and urban legend stupidity.

Re:save some for the fishies!!!

[some guy I know]

Except that there is this thing called "food" that will replace whatever minerals the water leaches out (provided that the right food is consumed).
Most of the "beneficial" minerals absorbed or expelled from the body come from food, not what's in drinking water.
(There are exceptions, like fluoridated water, but they are not essential for life.)

A person who eats a balanced diet would have no problems surviving by also drinking only pure water.

ROTF

[dolo666]

Forget the silicon chips! What about the silicon left over from dead strippers?!

Re:ROTF

[McFly69]

As our society ages, silicon implants will become safer for installations and thus will become more popular among woman and men (yes some men want to have the perfect chest). This leads me to think. Five-hundred years from now, when archeologists pull out the bodies of our children's children (~100 years from now), there would fidn several things. They would be the skeleton, a phone/PDA and two dried up sacks of silicon.

That is your food for thought. Those archeologists will do research how silicon was used in our lives and how it affected us.

A clean room

[truthsearch]

I can't seem to find the link, but recently Wired published an article in their dead-tree magazine about replacements for many of the hazardous chemicals used in chip production. There are new ideas which will make most of the run-off biodegradable, and some companies are looking into building new factories to support these new techs in the long term. But there won't be any environmentally safe process anytime in the near future.

Re:A clean room

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

But there won't be any environmentally safe process anytime in the near future.

That's not hardly fair. We have a newly structured govt. in the US that is pushing hard for greener processes. They will cut taxes for big industry, relax emission standards etc...all so our children can have a greener environment to grow up in. Of course green is the color of more than grass.

Re:A clean room

[max cohen]

The replacement they were referring to in that article is super critical carbon dioxide. It is a viable solution to the environmental problem for chip production and already used for "greener" dry cleaning, but definately won't be ramping up in fabs anytime soon. Chip manufacturers are very slow and recluctant to change processes.

Re:A clean room

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of curiosity, so there is some scale to judge this, what is an "environmentally safe process" exactly? Does anyone have a lock on this process?

I know of environmentalists who object at human waste disposal. I know of environmentalists who think slag reused into asphalt is a bad thing.

Steel mills were hammered with regulations back in the day. So many shut down. People lost jobs. And the jobs and mills, just as dirty, polluting, and environmentally unsound, went overseas. Other mills consilidated, then became too big to maintain what they had, resulting in protectionism of that industry, which menat they became noncompetitive, sucking away tax dollars to bolster them (all the while a luxery tax slaughtered the yachting industry which is less environmentally destructive than a mill).

Folks complained about wood products back in the late 80s. So housing material went up as regulations slapped a cap on the amount of deforestation, it pressured the industry to push for "chip wood" and manufactured wood products, which contained glue chemicals, which made plenty of folks sick due to the volatile chemicals used (and some still are), and drove housing costs up. Most of the initial replacement products were shit, so people spent large amounts of their income replacing shoddy material, and that material ended up contributing largely to the landfill anyways.

I can give other examples.

I think the "environmentally safe process" is an overused and mainly done for political purposes. What should be implemented is a system that follows some reasonable logic. a) byproducts and non-final property materials must be recycled wherever possible, and their life followed to ensure they are used for that purpose and not just dumped, b) any remaining material that is deemed safe must be separated out and given to waste management and labelled, c) waste management must correctly dispose of such material, d) what waste management does not accept must be stored in regulated containers and on company property material and inventoried regularly.

Oddly enough, computers would do a terrific job at helping to manage this complex task.

I don't care so much about energy usage, since nearly everything of complex construction (which a microchip certainly is), requires huge amounts of energy. That's a given--any chemist or biologist knows this. It's easy to move a foot if you're a human. It's hard to move .10 microns for humans. Do it repeatedly without error, and more energy is required. And I'm optimistic that energy usage is becoming such a concern that fusion, nuclear, solar, wind is becoming more of an issue for folks (it is for me).

(Note: I'm no tree hugger for sure, but I get pissed at folks driving cars where I can smell their exhaust from 10 feet back (which includes nearly all large SUVs sold today) and folks that drive old cars burning oil or who have purposefully screwed up oxygen to fuel mixtures.)

And what are we supposed to do?

[hbmartin]

Great, another in depth study to tell us how we're so enviromentally wrong. It says that "The team found that the materials involved in making a 32-MB RAM microchip total 630 times the mass of the final product." I bet everybody would quickly switch to 8MB ram if it only took 200 times the mass. You gotta love this academic+eviroment mix.

Re:And what are we supposed to do?

[mumblestheclown]

dittos, rush

or, more likely--this is a reminder to all that are working on this sort of stuff to consider the environmental consequences of their actions.

basically, you could write the same case about the auto industry 30 years ago. then, people started becoming interested in environmental issues, and attitudes within the industry changed. While we're not at ideal yet, we're at least at where even SUV owners have embedded in their minds somewhere that such gas guzzling is not the best idea.

Re:And what are we supposed to do?

[phuturephunk]

. . Its just like any other period of mass adoption of technology in Human history . . I mean, look at the way England and the United states manufactured materials before the beginning of last century . . Smokestacks belching unfiltered by product into the skies and run-off pipes dumping raw sewage into the rivers and seas . . There's a honeymoon period where everybody's eating up the tech and the whole issue of 'cost' other than the bottom line for materials really isn't taken into account . . Only sometime after the initial binge do people finally standup with that hangover and see the potential damage that the consumption really causes . .Now Environmentalists will kvetch about it for a while and we'll go through the cycle of upgrading the process so its greener . . .Its the beauty of innovation :) . . And plus, its pure entertainment to watch both sides hurl statistics at each other with such vicious aplomb . . ;) . . .

Re:And what are we supposed to do?

[tjensor]

The only thing that you can do - tax those who do not clean up their act.
A large company will allways try and producs cheaply . If it becomes too expensive to produce chips using "Dirty" methods you an just bet they will find "Clean" methods to reduce their margins.

Re:And what are we supposed to do?

[jez9999]

we're at least at where even SUV owners have embedded in their minds somewhere that such gas guzzling is not the best idea.

Judging by the whining of most Americans when the price of their fuel goes up about $0.0001/gallon, I wouldn't go that far.

Re:And what are we supposed to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

His "point" - such as it is - is that he just want to be able to get cheap stuff now, and not listen to whiny leftist complaints about how it's not sustainable, as the mess we are leaving to our descendants is not his problem. Of course it's a retarded mind-set, but disturbingly common.

Re:And what are we supposed to do?

[phuturephunk]

. . Taxation would work in a perfect world, so would fining people for infractions, but we've all heard of firms just biting the bullet and actually budgeting for fines in order to dump waste. . .Also, in the case of taxes, I , at least, am so jaded with polititians that I don't believe their gonna use the revenue in any useful way (**cough** tobacco anyone?). There's got to be some kind of more creative and effective solutions to CONVINCE companies to clean it up . . . Taxation aint it . . I was thinking, since everything in business nowadays is the perception of reality instead of actual reality (e.g. the Stock Market) that maybe, since we're in the business of inventing numbers, we should invent a company 'karma' index or something like that . . . Maybe its been done already . .I dunno . .

Re:And what are we supposed to do?

[kevlar]

The problem with reports like this is that you never know precisely what the unbias facts are. In a world where the majority of conservationist organizations are run by zealots who practically hate civilization altogether, you never know who you can trust.... and it only hurts their cause. In this case, nobody is going to stop using computers or even pay attention to this article.

Re:And what are we supposed to do?

[McFly69]

The team found that the materials involved in making a 32-MB RAM microchip total 630 times the mass of the final product

Wait a second, it it took that long just to make the 32 meg chip, why not just make them larger? Larger chips are almost identical is size. Would this not be safer for the environment? Hence eleminate all small ram peices and just sell large ram chips. For example, they would only sell 1, 2, or even 5 gig ram upgrades. In theory the difference in cost would be minimal.

Re:And what are we supposed to do?

[Nexus7]

"Judging by the whining of most Americans when the price of their fuel goes up about $0.0001/gallon, I wouldn't go that far."

The price of gasoline has gone up by way more than .0001, more like 30-40 cents and that above the steady increase since 1/2000. Not a peep from anyone. Time to retire this metaphor.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I advice you to destroy your share of the Earth before others do! Don't be a sucker!

Alternatives

[e8johan]

What are the alternatives. I understand that people compain about other people using cars that use excessive amounts of fuel, but there is no better way to make microchips yet, or is there?

Re:Alternatives

[Mr_Dyqik]

Don't upgrade. Don't play the very latest games with all the graphics turned up to full. Don't install the latest bloatware OS (I'm remaining very carefully vendor neutral here). Buy fewer products with microchips in them.

Re:Alternatives

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

but there is no better way to make microchips yet, or is there?

Fuel cells?

Re:Alternatives

[jez9999]

Aint nowt you can do w'a computer that ya can't do w'an abacus.

Re:Alternatives

[e8johan]

Wow! You can place CS with an abacus! I gotta get one of these! Whats the battery time of one of those, are they portable, can I connect it to the internet wirelessly?!

Re:Alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy fewer products with microchips in them.

Stop buying things with chips in them.

No more computers.
No more cellphones.
And no more 'modern' plain phones, back to electromechanical POTS.
No more TV, VCR, DVD player.
No more stereo.
No more alarm radios.
No more electronic wristwatches.
No more car electronics.
No more microwave ovens.
No more hearing aids and pacemakers.
(BTW, did you know the very first chip ever - meaning more than one transistor on a single chip of semiconductor material - was a hearing aid amplifier made by [Dutch] Philips, a couple of years before the "official" invention of the integrated circuit in the US?)

No more work for most of us.

Re:Alternatives

[tkg]

SuperCritical CO2 is one possiblity.

Re:Alternatives

[BreakWindows]

How did this get modded "insightful"..?

> > Buy fewer products with microchips in them.
> Stop buying things with chips in them.

No, buy fewer things with chips in them. Our problem is not that technology exists, it is the overuse and abuse of the latest trend. The original point was not unreasonable.

> No more TV, VCR, DVD player.
> No more stereo.

Fine. I have one computer that handles the functions of watching movies and listening to music. For that matter, tack in "no more game console, no more calculator". This goes back to the original point of "don't be a putz and buy a dozen devices where one will suffice".

> No more hearing aids and pacemakers.

If that's what you choose, feel free. Keep in mind, you're the one who brought up the complete boycott...the original post said reduce, not eliminate.

Re:Alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot:

Don't whine when the tech industry cuts jobs and overqualified applicants push you out of your burger and fries job.

Re:Alternatives

[Mr_Dyqik]

Also, don't upgrade mobile phone after 11 months of contract, because there's a new more fashionable one out. This is what drives a huge amount of mobile phone sales in Britain now, and there's no reason for it.

I'd upgrade my phone even less if any of them lasted more than 11 months without breaking.

The chemicals

[wiredog]

I used to do programming for automated process lines used in the circuit board industry and quartz chip fabs (the chips used for timing purposes). One of the chemicals used is HF, since that's about the only thing that will etch silicon, which is really nasty. Also used are H2SO4, potassium permanganate, and other fun chemicals.

Important safety note: When working in such a place, always wash your hands up to the elbows before going to the bathroom, or rubbing your eyes. I've been told that sulfuric on the willy is an unforgettable experience...

Re:The chemicals

[Anonymous Coward]

while there are indeed a large number of very nasty chemicals in use in chip processing, to my knowledge they are all meticulously collected and recycled (repurified).

Re:The chemicals

[phuturephunk]

. . I suddenly see a perfect plot for a comic book . . . intriguing . . .

Re:The chemicals

[phuturephunk]

. . Thats what the City of New York said during the boom, now that theres a billion dollar budget gap, everything except tin is being slingshot to jersey for dumping (a mildly appealing thought) . . Now , what do you think companies are doing? . . hmm? . .

Re:The chemicals

[jmcharry]

Those are the least of it. I recall IBM, which was as careful as anyone, had problems with trichlor leaking into the ground water at their NY chip plant. HF is generally mixed with HNO3. The nitric oxidizes the Si into glass, which the HF eats. It is buffered with acetic acid. That stuff is seriously nasty.I don't recall any accidents with it, but there were a couple of legends. The processes also involve heavy metals.

Re:The chemicals

[Zathrus]

Important safety note: When working in such a place, always wash your hands up to the elbows before going to the bathroom, or rubbing your eyes. I've been told that sulfuric on the willy is an unforgettable experience...

Where on earth did you work with such shitty fab safety that you were likely to get any of those chemicals on you?

I've worked in fabs too, and wrote software to control PVD/CVD and etchers. When I started the job I went to about a week worth of fab safety classes where they scared the hell out of you from doing stupid things with chemicals. Probably my favorite line was "if you hear the gas alarm, leave the chemical storage room immediately. If you choose to linger, at least try to die within 6 feet of the door, because that's how long the hook is to drag your body out."

The chemicals being used in modern fabs are, indeed, incredibly, ungodly nasty. HF, arsenic, H2SO4, etc are the tip of the iceberg. We couldn't wear contacts in the fab because of a cleaning chemical in the floor with the trade name Pirhana. If something ever went wrong and the fans backblasted, Pirhana would melt plastic - and thus your contacts. To your eyes. So we got safety glasses. There were gasses in use that would kill you before they could be detected.

The point of all this is that safety procedures were taken very, very seriously. It didn't matter if it was deionized water or 80 molar HF - you didn't screw around with the chemicals. Having to "wash up to the elbows" wasn't necessary because there weren't going to be chemicals around that you could get on you. Not to mention that you were in a fab suit in the first place.

Damn, I'm glad I didn't work wherever you did. I value my health more than that.

Re:The chemicals

[Anonymous Coward]

Sci American ran a story once on how the fab suits are designed to protect the chips from you and not you from the chips.

They also looked at some huge safety problems, mostly at IBM, and found out that lots of IBM fab employees are getting extremely sick.

IBM is one of the worst fab pollutants out there, and their employee practices are reprehensable. Lots of Fab Employees there get very sick, lots of safety violations are had, and its just a generally bad place to be.

Re:The chemicals

[giminy]

. . I suddenly see a perfect plot for a comic book . . . intriguing . . .

A superhero doped with arsenic, making him able to conduct electricity one way but not the other? What would you call him? The Human Diode?

Re:The chemicals

[Phronesis]

It didn't matter if it was deionized water or 80 molar HF

Just a second... Pure liquid HF has a specific gravity slightly less than 1.0, so even pure liquid HF would be only about 50 molar (20 g/mole). In aqueous solution, the concentration would be smaller. Where did you get 80 M HF?

Re:The chemicals

[phuturephunk]

. . That's beautiful!! . .Lemmie get started on rounding up capital!! . . . ;)

Re:The chemicals

[Zathrus]

I'm not a ChemE... all I know was that there were overhead lines and storage tanks marked 80M HF (as well as dilutions ranging from 40M to 0.8M).

I could very well have misread the markings though.

Re:The chemicals

[SacredNaCl]

The chip business must be thriving in Columbia -- they are the largest importer of potassium permanganate in the world.

Oh wait..It's used to make cocaine too. ;-)

Re:The chemicals

[jafac]

Yes, we all remember the story about the organic chemistry class, where some female student was mixing something, and it went very wrong, and became a vapor, which rose up and dissolved her polyester blouse. . .

Re:The chemicals

[FuzzyDaddy]

What? HF+nitric can be used as a silicon etch, but most HF is used for oxide patterning and removal. I don't think isotropic silicon etches are much used in CMOS (the bulk of the mass produced silicon.)

Also, HF is buffer with NH4, not acetic acid. Also Acetic acid is basically distilled white vinegar.

Many of these chemicals, particularly HF, are very nasty. When I was doing safety training for using the fabrication lab at Berkeley, the answers to half the questions were "Put down whatever you're doing and get the hell out of the lab." I still get nervous when I have to use it.

The best warning was for florine gas, which we used in an excimer laser. I was told "Don't worry, it'll either kill you or you'll be fine - it doesn't give you cancer or anything."

Re:The chemicals

[Guppy]

We couldn't wear contacts in the fab because of a cleaning chemical in the floor with the trade name Pirhana. If something ever went wrong and the fans backblasted, Pirhana would melt plastic - and thus your contacts.

I believe this may be a reference to Pirhana Solution, a mixture of Sulfuric Acid and Hydrogen Peroxide. Very effective at removing even the slightest traces of contaminants from a surface, but also known for it's nasty habit of detonating when mixed with organic solvents.

Newsflash!

[Noryungi]

Complex chemical compounds can be harmful to your health and to the environment! (Wow!)

And, in related news, Bill Gates is incredibly rich and Saddam Hussein may not be such a nice guy after all! (Amazing!)

More information in our next news program... Film at 11.

So what are environmentalists going to do now?

[Mantrid]

Well I expect hear that Greenpeace and their ilk. are going to keep whatever hardware they have now indefinitely. If it breaks down, too bad! They'd better at least just replace it with recycled servers, PCs, and laptops. And they'd better run from a windtower or solar...which probably means they won't be using AMD servers hehe.

(Now if your an anti-globalization protester as well you're really screwed - most companies that can provide you with internet access are multi-nationals - or at least linked upstream to them. Somewhere along the way you'll be supporting them...)

And while they're at it, they'd better start walking every where they go as well. Nope can't use electric cars - well unless they have their own windtower. Whoops - did they check into the processes involved in making the batteries? How long do the batteries last? The plastics in the electric car? Ah crap there's silicon chips in them fancy electric cars too...

Guess it's back to the stone age for us! Oh wait no fire though please - that's burning trees and releasing green house gasses.

Re:So what are environmentalists going to do now?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have it all backwards....
I tis not about assigning blame and protesting, not all environmentalists do this. Serious environmentalists try to find new alternatives to the way we make things in our world today. You should read "Cradle to Cradle" by William McDonough and Michael Braungart, it may show why we should care about this and think towards a redesign of today's products.
There ARE ways to manufacture the things we use today so they are Eco-effective (which doesn't mean less bad).
Don't generalize environmentalists.

Re:So what are environmentalists going to do now?

[Mantrid]

I suppose I was generalizing a bit. But the main thrust is towards radicals that run around shouting 'stop doing X right now!', without offering real alternatives or considering the implications.

People looking towards clean, efficient ways of doing things seem to be rare - mostly because the media would rather show radicals I suppose. As a result this is the filter with which I view most environmental writings.

When something truly interesting, such as those compressed air powered cars (if they really are the marvels of efficiency and compression pumps are clean as well), I do take more notice and am much more optimistic about it.

I may just check out that book...

At least get the words right.. ok?

[nurb432]

Umm that's Silicone..

One of my pet peeves, when people mis-pronounce it, saying silicone when they mean silicon..

Benefit too great

[Apreche]

while there may be some environmental issues concerning chip manufacture. The benefit that the microprocessor has brought to human society far outweighs any environmental cost.

Re:Benefit too great

[tigress]

The benefit that the microprocessor has brought to human society far outweighs any environmental cost.

What? Like, the digital watch?

Re:Benefit too great

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm...

it outweighs extinction?

(thats extinction... to the max!)

Re:Benefit too great

[MobiusKlein]

The point is to know what the costs are, and how to reduce them.

For example, if it takes X amount of energy to make a solar cell that creates X/2 energy in it's lifetime . . .

If one chip creates 20% less waste, but costs 20% more, would you buy it? Should the government regulate this? While you're at it, don't forget the monitors, which are responsible for far more waste than chips, I bet.

rbb

Thankfully, I use an AMD K6-2-350

[Adam Rightmann]

which is manufactured in sweatshops in third world countries, like the Phillipines, from scrap wire, metal and plastic, so at least American doesn't get polluted.

Re:Thankfully, I use an AMD K6-2-350

[squarefish]

Actually, I kinda liked Austin, TX

and...

[RebelTycoon]

Imagine how expensive computers would be without it.

The environmental impact is high because the countries that are either being mined or being dumped in (China) have low or non-existent environmental controls.

Don't blame the industry when countries don't stand up to corporations. In the case of Africa and the mining there, I think a little toughness on American and other foreign corporations would go a long way. But as long as those governments are corrupt and willing to take bribes over protecting their people, such is life.

In China, the government has taken steps to help solve the mess, but it will take time. For China, I'm suprised they aren't using prisoners to forage the components... But I guess that's because they need their organs to harvest, and lead contamination lowers their value on the black market.

Re:and...

[tjensor]

Yes but it doesnt have to be those countries that stand up to them. The consuming countries can do it just as effectively. The US and/or Europe alone could do it by simply saying "Show us an audited trail of how you produced these chips. For every gram of crud you produce thats an extra 10% sales tax".

The manufacturers need these markets. If the markets dont like the manufacturers methodds, they can force them to change.

Re:and...

[Anonymous Coward]

So in turn the manufacturer's pass on the 10% onto the consumer. So the products get more expensive.

Profits go down. Research into alternatives go up--curious, having worked in a biology lab, research itself to find better products is an incredibly wasteful activity--lotsa energy used, lots of waste.

Back on track, if the products are more expensive, do people still get to bitch about the digital divide?

This like a bad reoccuring theme. On the one hand, pro business leads to environmental concerns. On the other hand, environment concerns leads to worsening of the social stratification seen in society.

as if a geek's taken a breath of fresh air lately

[colnago]

a *real* geek doesn't get outside enough to care about the environment.

Okay, it's not very funny. Don't laugh.

I make waste, too

[MobileDude]

Last time I checked, *everything* we do has some form of by-product that could be considered waste. Heck, I can turn a bowl of beans into a mean ol' cloud of gas.

What they fail to mention is the benefit of the chip manufactured. Cost/Benefit - sound familiar?

This article is just reason # 87 why I cancelled my SciAm subscription earlier this year after 15 years of subscribing. They've veered from true science and now feel the need 'preach' environment, evolution, abortion, etc. in the monthly Editor's Perspectives (and various articles).

Re:I make waste, too

[gosand]

This article is just reason # 87 why I cancelled my SciAm subscription earlier this year after 15 years of subscribing. They've veered from true science and now feel the need 'preach' environment, evolution, abortion, etc. in the monthly Editor's Perspectives (and various articles).

I have subscribed for about 6 years, and I noticed that there have been more environmental articles, but I don't consider them to be preachy. They give some good environmental data, and ususally don't go into too much politics about it. I know recently there was a story on how some impoverished countries get a lot of our scrap electronics, and how they salvage metals from them. They point out how toxic this is to the people and the water supplies there. I like finding out about this stuff, because nobody else is reporting on it. We use a LOT of microchips, as do other countries. We need to know that there are dangers in this. Granted, I haven't read this article yet (I am a couple of months behind on my issues) but I'll bet that they are simply pointing out the environmental hazards of chip production, and as chip use increases, the hazards increase. Why is this such a bad thing to know? The more chips we produce, hopefully the better our processes will become, and eventually we will come up with a replacement technology that will make silicon obsolete. Hopefully this new technology will be more friendly to the environment. I'm no Moby, calling the turkey hotline to save the widdle turkeys, but I think we do need to consider our environment.

Re:I make waste, too

[Anonymous Coward]

'Preach' evolution, abortion, and the environment? I can't say I've ever seen abortion mentioned in SciAm.

As for evolution and the environment, perhaps you've missed the name of the magazine: SCIENTIFIC. Evolution is a scientific fact. Deal with it, thumper. It is also painfully and unarguably obvious that a healthy environment is most beneficial to humans in every way: health, economics, quality of life, and so forth. There is also that nagging issue that the study of the environment is a SCIENTIFIC discipline, so it is natural for it to be addressed in SCIENTIFIC American.

Re:I make waste, too

[MobileDude]

>>'Preach' evolution, abortion, and the
>>environment? I can't say I've ever seen
>>abortion mentioned in SciAm.

From December 2000:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID= 000B959 1-ABDF-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7&pageNumber=1&catI D=2

Do a little research before you post next time.

In retrospect, *preach* was a bit strong for me to state. I still stand by my thought that SciAm has gone from hard science to 'soft' science.

Read the original chip article. Only states estimated costs - no mention of any benefit.

I can get my political spin from other sources
(The Nation, National Review, etc.) than SciAm.

Re: I make waste, too

[Damek]

Read the original chip article. Only states estimated costs - no mention of any benefit.

It strikes me as only healthy to take time to examine the costs of our actions. It seems to me that people do not do this often enough.

It also strikes me that criticizing a study of the costs of computer chips for not taking time to point out the benefits of computer chips is like criticizing a study of the costs of cars for not pointing out the benefits of cars. Everyone knows the benefits of cars already; that's why we all use them. And car manufacturers do a good enough job of advertising their products. I would say the same goes for the info tech industry. Computer chips are already everywhere, in practically everything. It would be irrational *not* to wonder about possible downsides, and it seems a bit irrational to demand that everyone speaking up about the downsides should do a full cost-benefit analysis.

And besides, the benefits are going to vary widely across all the many possible uses. The environmental costs of a chip might not outweigh the benefits of using said chip to computer protein folding, but I'd think they might outweigh the benefits of using said chip to animate a child's toy...

I'm not saying they shouldn't do such an analysis or such a study. But of course, as with all things, science must go forth in steps - first you do the smaller study pointing out the problem with the sewer system, then people give you more money to help with solutions or to do the fuller analysis. At least that's my impression.

As for the fact that you "make waste, too", your personal byproducts are decidedly different from the byproducts of silicon manufacturing.

I would hope...

Re:I make waste, too

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because everyone does something -- does it make it the right thing to do? Or, in other words -- do you care to explain to your descendants (or mine, should you not have any) why our planet has been shat on from such a great height?

The resources of the world do not exist for your amusement.

Re:I make waste, too

[Delos]

How the hell does a guy who opens with a fart joke get moderated so high?

Re:I make waste, too

[Anonymous Coward]

"I make waste too."

Please.
Sure you make waste. And so did all the little blue-green algae that gave off Oxygen and converted our atmosphere into one freindly for
more than bacteria and viruses.
That helped build our current eco-system.
Industrial Waste tars it down.
The cockroaches can survive almost
any apocalyptic scenario but we throw at them.
How nice for them.

Your waste is natural by-product of constituent
of an integrated Eco-system.
It's part of the system.
In India they cook food over dried cow dung.
You should favour yourself with just such a meal and contemplate mushrooms growing out of a cowpie vs yelow foam colored lakes with a lot dead fish floating on them while you are enjoying your dahl.

Re:I make waste, too

[mesocyclone]

I still have my subscription, after 40 years of reading the magazine.

But I really don't like the way the magazine is going. It has long had a bit of a political skew (it frequently ran articles on nuclear deterrence, for example, which is hardly a scientific policy).

But it is really sad what is happening now. The percentage of science articles to environmentalist articles is declining. Sure, there are scientific issues with the environment, but it is a small part of overall science. Where are the major physics articles? Why are most biology articles now about species diversity or global warming impact on the biota, or whatever?

The answer is simple: the magazine has become a shill for a particular viewpoint.

If one wants to see how biased it has gotten, and how the editors consider pushing their viewpoint more important than informing the public on science, just look at how they handled the debate over "The Skeptical Environmentalist." They spent 14 pages debunking it, with articles that were more venom and ad-hominem than scientific. They forced the author to take down his point-by-point refutation from his website (copyright violation, they said, even though it was obviously fair use).

Another example is how they treated Forrest Mims on the Amateur Scientist issue. Forrest Mims is an anti-evolutionist, which is unfortunate. But he is also very good at the sort of thing that the Amateur Scientist used to be known for: doing practical science experiments and building interesting scientific gadgets. They hired him for the job, then found out he was anti-evolutionist, and promptly dropped him.

I see no place for anti-evolutionist views in Scientific American, but he had promised not to put those views into his work. It appears that he was sacked just because they couldn't stand to have a person whose *private views* disagreed with them.

The result of the bias and changed focus at SciAm shows. The magazine is shrinking. Obviously they are having financial troubles. I am afraid that this 150 year old American classic is doomed to extinction. Its great tradition is being destroyed by those who want to inject their political views into every aspect of life.

Re:I make waste, too

[dmiller]

They've veered from true science and now feel the need 'preach' environment, evolution, abortion, etc.

I suppose you'd prefer them to state the "facts" of creation "science" instead.

Re:I make waste, too

[Fat Casper]

I see no place for anti-evolutionist views in Scientific American, but he had promised not to put those views into his work. It appears that he was sacked just because they couldn't stand to have a person whose *private views* disagreed with them.

I see no place for someone holding anti-evolutionist views anywhere near something that uses the word science. I can't stand intellectual dishonesty. It doesn't take much in the way of practical science experiments to demonstrate evolution. It also doesn't take much of a brain to see the trend backwards and put 2 and 2 together. This Mims guy is apparently only a highly developed ape.

Re:I make waste, too

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen brother,

I have been a subscriber to SciAm for 8 years and I can barely stand to read it anymore. Wish they would go back to the old format.

Re:I make waste, too

[mesocyclone]

Obviously you would fit well at scientific american. Categorizing someone with silly views as "a highly developed ape" is pretty pathetic. Oh, and there is a difference between intellectual dishonesty, and the sort of world view that lends itself to anti-evolution views. I have never seen any reason to consider Mims to be intellectually dishonest. He just has a blind spot.

I would argue that if there is no place for folks whose views on a scientific area are shaped by religion, then there is no place for folks whose views are shaped by politics. And yet scientists frequently make political statements that are just as silly. And Scientific American is among the worst in that regard.

Re:I make waste, too

[Fat Casper]

My highly developed ape remark was meant to echo creationists' view of what evolution implies about people. To someone at Mims' level, a blind spot of that nature is intentional, hence intellectual dishonesty.

...then there is no place for folks whose views are shaped by politics.

Agreed. pure science isn't a stone for grinding your axes. Your inference is flawed, however. Scientists can make silly political statements. Their view of the facts can lead them to overly optimistic policy wants. Politicians should not bring their views into science. Your political leanings can't change objective, scientifically proven facts.

Re:I make waste, too

[gosand]

Your political leanings can't change objective, scientifically proven facts.

Exactly. Only further scientific research can do that. ;-)

Re:I make waste, too

[mesocyclone]

>i>My highly developed ape remark was meant to echo creationists' view of what evolution implies about people.
Very funny NOT!

To someone at Mims' level, a blind spot of that nature is intentional, hence intellectual dishonesty.

As far as I can tell, Mims firmly believes in creation. This does not strike me as dishonesty, which by its very definition means doing or saying something that you do NOT believe in.

New Linux Add

[Martigan80]

Not only is it FREE, but it also prolongs the useful life of your CPU, unlike other OS's that require a system upgrade as well.

Re:New Linux Add

[jez9999]

Actually, damn good point. The Wintel strategy of requiring an 'upgrade cycle' (new hardware) every few years instead of coding more efficiently probably doesn't do the environment any good, besides the consumers.

Re:New Linux Add

[Joe Enduser]

Maybe for a really nice home server/firewall, but not for a desktop station surely!

This kind of propaganda only makes people dissappointed about Linux after they give it a try on their old Pentium 66.

The Enduser

Re:New Linux Add

[Anonymous Coward]

And a new ad for "the other OS": frequent use of our OS doesn't impair your spelling skills.

getting better!

[lopati]

at least from the intel press release :D

The new manufacturing technology enabled by the 300-mm technology also provides significant benefits from an environmental perspective. The chips manufactured in Fab11X will require less water and generate fewer emissions per chip than other fabs. Water and chemical use will be more efficient. When compared to a 200-mm facility Fab 11X will produce 48 percent less volatile organic compound emissions, use 42 percent less ultra pure water and will use approximately 40 percent less energy.

Re:getting better!

[Chaset]

Yes, it's an improvement, but IA32 is still one of the least die-area inefficient designs out there. Better process technology, as stated here, helps make up for it, but better design would have been better.

Case in point, (back when it was most noticeable): The Pentium/Pentium II was approximately 3x-4x the die area of a PowerPC 603e/604e/750, with corresponding power dissipation. Performance of the chips were quite similar. On the other end, the Alphas at the time had similar die sizes, but had approximately 3x the (FP) performance. The market, of course, picked the Pentiums, because the systems based on them were "cheaper". Too bad environmental costs don't usually get included in the price of the product.

How about solar cells?

[Deton8]

One thing I've often wondered is whether a typical solar cell produces more energy in its lifetime than it takes to manufacture it?

Re:How about solar cells?

[chrysrobyn]

One thing I've often wondered is whether a typical solar cell produces more energy in its lifetime than it takes to manufacture it?

I'm sorry I can't cite a reference, but it was either Home Power magazine or the US Department of Engergy that claimed solar cells pay for their energy (in terms of CO2 emissions) after 2-5 years of use, depending on location. 2 closer to the US Southwest, 5 closer to the Canadian border.

Re:How about solar cells?

[Eccles]

One thing I've often wondered is whether a typical solar cell produces more energy in its lifetime than it takes to manufacture it?

I don't have numbers, but I'll point out that there are a number of variables to consider. Location is one, but also you can use solar cells more efficiently if you use focusing mirrors to reflect a large collection area onto a strip of cells, the mirrors not requiring nearly as intensive manufacturing processes.

Re:Yes, it's true

[jez9999]

TAANSTAAFL.

I believe the traditional language spoken on Slashdot in English. I can just about put up with 5 letter acronyms, but what the FUCK are you talking about here?

Yeah, but whatcha gonna do?

[Rogerborg]

Don't worry, our grandkids can clean it up. Luckily, they'll have plenty of oil wealth to help them do it.

No, wait...

</sarcasm> aside, this just goes to show that capitalism means cutting off your nose to pay for your facelift.

Oh, sorry, my <sarcasm> must have been nested, along with a <mixed metaphore>. But really, why is this a suprise to anyone? Our entire economy is based on the premise that the lowest bidder is always the best one. Without artificial (read: gubmint) controls (which we're not going to get under undisputed reign of George II), using the cheapest process without regard for the consequences is inevitable. It's actually the fiduciary duty of the execs in these industries to do this! If they were to switch to using a cleaner (but more expensive) process, they'd be sacked at best, and quite probably sued by their shareholders.

Re:Yeah, but whatcha gonna do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, I suppose. Take a look around the world, the freer the market, the cleaner the environment of that nation.

Environmental cleanup is expensive. Only free-market economies can produce the wealth necessary to pay for it.

Re:Yeah, but whatcha gonna do?

[Jodka]

Without artificial ... controls .. using the cheapest process without regard for the consequences is inevitable. It's actually the fiduciary duty of the execs in these industries to do this! If they were to switch to using a cleaner (but more expensive) process, they'd be sacked at best, and quite probably sued by their shareholders.

You got that totally ass-backwards:

An industrial process which consumes fewer resources is cleaner because it consumes fewer resources. An industrial process which consumes fewer resources is less expensive because it consumes fewer resources.

More efficient methods of production are more profitable because they consume fewer resources to produce the same amount. So long as resources cost money, there will be financial insentive to conserve resources. (One corallary is that government giveaways promote wasefulness.)

If I adopt a new manufacturing process which yields two widgets from every one pound of raw widgiteum, whereas previoulsy I only produced one widget for each pound of widgiteam, then I lower my costs of producing a widget. The cost which I charge for widgets is unaffected. Therefore, my profit, the difference between what I spend in producing a widget and what I earn from its sale, increases if I conserve resources.

This can apply to public goods such as the air and the oceans just as it can to exchangable goods such as steel and oil. For example, with air, all that is neccessary is to charge air polluters in proportion to how much pollution they release into the air. Doing that provides financial insentive to pollute less, in the same way that the cost of a good provides financial insentive to consume less of it. The profit motive can work to lower pollution. If it costs money to pollute, then the profifit motive works for the environment, not against it. For those who understand such terms, all that is necessary is that the government internalize exterternalities.

(which we're not going to get under undisputed reign of George II)

If you look at who lines up on the side of tradable pollution credits, a way of charging polluters according two how much they pollute, it is conservatives. If you look at who is against that, it is liberals.

Re:Yeah, but whatcha gonna do?

[LaughingMoon]

What is all this talk about 'artificial/government'-control? Luckily, economy is a very democratic thing. It is us, being consumers and financers at the same time, who make the rules of the game.

Think about it: Somebody issues an investment fund, which only invests in environmentally sound corporations (read: no stone age, just companies that care more for environmental issues than their competitors). Put enough money in this fund (as pension funds?), and _that_ will make a change. Sure enough, the return would be a bit lower than the usual PROFIT-fund, but it will make a change. The problem is, that too few people (read: you an me) would invest in such a fund.

Another thought on the consumers: The next time you buy a car (or anything else), don't look too closely at the price tag or the size, or the speed, but on fuel consumption. Guess what happens. Guess why US-built cars are incredibly hard to sell in Europe.

Why trust a (more or less) corrupt politician, when you can make the change on your own? The free market is very democratic...

Just my 0.02

1.6kg fossil fuel

[jolshefsky]

It's interesting that it takes just about the same 1.6kg of fossil fuel to drive 10 miles to a store and back to buy that chip. Curious.

YOU FAIL IT!

[Anonymous Coward]

The only moderation you'll be getting is -1, FAILURE! The burn you're getting is the burn from knowing you FAILED!

Re:Yes, it's true

[slashbofh]

What, too lazy to try Google?

I'm shocked.

Here is a result that is pretty good if you know the author of the phrase.

Hence PV is not good for the environment

[wbtittle]

The obvious extension of this study is that PV cells are also bad. If they weren't made out of the remains of the chip industry, they would truly be unenvironmental.

The Green Party

[truthsearch]

The Republicans and Democrats should merge and rename themselves the Green Party. They have far more green than the current Green Party. Then the current Green Party could change to maybe the People's Party... oh, that sounds communist. Well, Nader would come up with something.

Yeah, it's flamebait, but I'm so fed up with the system...

Cost benefit analysis

[panurge]

Every time I send a 5Mb file by internet, that is packaging and carriage that has been avoided.

Every time I use conferencing over the internet, I am saving (typically) about 30lb of Diesel (and it would have been nearer 45lb of gas in my last car)

I'm not arguing that we should ignore the environmental costs of technology - places like the former Communist block and Texas are unpleasantly polluted as a result of doing just that - but that we should look closely at the costs and benefits. Given the potential of global warming and the eventual runout of oil, the more we use silicon to reduce the number of boring journeys we have to do, whether by mobile phone, networked computer, or whatever, the better it is going to be for us.

And for those who don't already know - substances like sulfuric acid and HF are widely used in the petrochemical industry. And what happens to all the sulfur they have to remove to get low-sulfur fuel? It surely doesn't get fired into space by a rail gun.

Re:Cost benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the point.

No one is saying that ALL microchips must be eliminated. Current manufacturing technologies are just very inefficient, and they could be greatly improved.

More environmentaly friendly manufacturing process won't stop you from downloading PDFs.

Re:Cost benefit analysis

[Damek]

That's an incredibly good point - I hadn't thought of the benefit of reduced fuel consumption thanks to info tech.

Still, it's always good to make known the costs of any tech, old or new, if you can. If the 20th century has taught us one thing, it's that waste shouldn't be ignored.

You're right that internet commerce and communications enhancements help reduce our reliance on transportation technologies.

Still, I hope just a few power gaming addicts might reconsider the necessity of the latest & greatest power-hungry chips... Just repeat after me:

"It's OK to use my current silicon a few more years."

"The games I enjoyed playing yesterday are still fun today." ...and so on.

Re:Cost benefit analysis

[Damek]

I wholeheartedly agree. I consider myself a green, but I'm more of an electric green... In no way to I scream "down with tech!" - but I see no reason not to be conscious of our wastes and to be willing to improve our tech in that respect.

People who love a certain tech, whose lives are wrapped around that tech, will always complain when others start pointing out the downsides of said tech. Yet they should see calls for improvement as nothing more than calls for improvement; certainly if they love the tech, they should jump at the challenge to improve it!

Yeah, some people will start going around saying "down with microchips - back to the trees", but you can safely ignore them (or at least their "solution").

Re:Cost benefit analysis

[trala]

This is like saying you are "saving money" by buying your designer clothing on sale, when you still could have clothed yourself at WalMart for a tenth of the price. Okay, maybe it's not that good of an analogy, but bear with me. Yes, internet conferencing "saves" over driving, but there used to be such things as walking or biking or sailing which were even better (though much more inefficient). To tie it all together:

efficiency = money = designer clothing

It just seems that all our technology keeps making things worse and worse, from an environmental perspective.

Re:Cost benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

"...technology keeps making things worse and worse..."

No, that's counter to what the original poster was claiming. Your claim is that the trend is strictly in one direction, i.e. "worse". The original poster's point was that there are other factors to consider, and in this case the trend may actually be in the opposite direction, i.e. "better".

If the trend can move in both directions - and I believe that it can - then your assertion that the trend is one way only is incorrect.

1.6 grams of fossil fuel

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems I read somewhere that the average car now comes equipped with over 2000 microprocessors.

So now your environmentally unfriendly SUV will have bad Miles per Gallon and Mips per Gallon ratings.

Maybe we should just !#!#ZAP#!#! them all.

Re:Yes, it's true

[Anonymous Coward]

TANSTAAFL is the correct spelling.

A Robert A. Heinlein invention: "There Are No Such Things As A Free Lunch."

Re:Yes, it's true

[shilly]

He means "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" (TANSTAAFL). This acronym was introduced by Robert Heinlein, who is sometimes also cited as the originator of the phrase as well. It features in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and several of his other books as well. Robert Heinlein was one of the most popular science fiction authors of the 20th century, especially in the US. It's not such an obscure phrase, given Slashdot's audience.

Something the article doesn't mention...

[cowbutt]

...is the net conservation of resources and energy by the use of semiconductors. For example, if by having a PC and internet connection at home, it becomes possible to work from home, I wouldn't be surprised if the breakeven point between that and driving to work was reached very quickly.

Re:Something the article doesn't mention...

[Junks Jerzey]

For example, if by having a PC and internet connection at home, it becomes possible to work from home, I wouldn't be surprised if the breakeven point between that and driving to work was reached very quickly.

So the 0.2% of people that this applies to makes it the general rule?

Re:Something the article doesn't mention...

[Da VinMan]

Well, you have to consider that it extends far beyond telecommuting. Think of all the CAD/CAM systems for example that save companies from having to construct hundreds, if not thousands, of prototypes of a product or product assembly process. Think of all the efficiencies gained on those lines by the fact that the computer can (properly programmed of course) think far enough ahead to reduce or eliminate waste. I would guess that those impacts are very big. What we lack here is a cost benefit analysis of the computer technology that we have. No one really knows the real net impact/savings that the technology has made/enabled.

Of course, one could argue that all the above is for naught anyway and does nothing more than feed our materialistic urges, but that's a whole nuther can of worms.

Coltan mining

[Anonymous Coward]

So that's what the Firefly episode was based on.

Oh, I absolutely agree.

[Gruneun]

Our entire economy is based on the premise that the lowest bidder is always the best one.

That explains why everyone here drives a Yugo, eats Big Top-brand cereal, and writes their posts from an eMachine.

Re:Oh, I absolutely agree.

[Damek]

Not to speak for the parent to which you replied, but...

Sure, that's a good point - people do consider a little more than money when making decisions. Quality of product is definitely a concern (if you can afford it).

Yet, the question then is, do people still consider everything they could? Have we perhaps learned, at some time in the 20th century, that there might be some costs we tend to overlook, that we weren't even aware of before?

But of course, it may be too costly to worry about hidden costs...

Re:Oh, I absolutely agree.

[Rogerborg]

Sure, because Yugo's were the lowest bidders in the mid sized executive auto class, Big Top the lowest bidders in the "tastes like Kellogs cereal" class, and eMachines the lower bidders in the "computer that plays Quake 3 at 30fps" class.

Sorry, clearly I needed to spell out that "lowest bidder" means "lowest bidder actually tendering the desired goods". If you want to class eMachines and P4's in the same category, we'd currently all be trying to play Doom 3 on pockets calculators. Or slide rules, for that matter.

I do take your point though, especially in the 2nd case. Let's make an exception for those people who keep advertising weasels in a job.

Re:Oh, I absolutely agree.

[tobes]

I think you are getting the roles of consumer and producer mixed up. Producers will always try to optimize their product for price (often at the sacrifice of quality). Consumers (in our materialistic society) will usually consume the most expensive products they can afford.

So what's the problem?

[RallyNick]

I'm not quite sure what the problem is. I'd think the tipical finished chip is much lighter than 2 grams so maybe they refer to a whole wafer (which can yield many circuits)? Either way, I'd burn that much fuel just driving to the mall to buy the thing. Chemicals, as long as they are neutralized properly shouldn't be a problem. And water, filter it well and reuse it in a closed cycle.

taxes?

[fluor2]

here in norway we allready have enviroment-taxes on things like tv's and pc's.

i only wonder if the taxes actually will help lower the pollution to the environment.

Re:taxes?

[suss]

i only wonder if the taxes actually will help lower the pollution to the environment.

No. It ends up in the government's general spending pot. It's just another meaningless tax which is not being used what's it supposed to be used for.

Re:taxes?

[jaoswald]

Your answer is incomplete. If the tax is enough to represent the societal cost of the pollution, then the increase in net selling price will give buyers the incentive to change their buying habits to optimize the tradeoff between societal costs and their personal benefit.

Prices drive behavior. They serve as the mechanism for resource usage (of all kinds) to be regulated. E.g. using scarce precious metals vs. less scarce minerals. The problem with pollution is that it causes a decrease in people's well-being without an accompanying payment.

In principle, you could bid with me for the privilege of making my air dirtier in exchange for money. If I decided I wanted pristine air, the bid would have to be high, and there would be few polluters who could afford to pollute. As long as I voluntarily accepted the bid, and were fully informed as to the effects of the pollution, I would have no reason to complain. I gave up my clean air for good money. Perhaps even enough to buy an air filter that would remove the pollution with some left over.

The problem is that we don't have the power to control the air we breathe, except through governmental regulation. Therefore, one alternative is to tax activities that cause pollution. The government collects the money, instead of the individuals, but in principle, it has a similar effect on polluters. Presumably, it would be even more effective if a market existed to determine the price of pollution, with producers having to bid for the right to pollute, instead of having a fixed, somewhat arbitrary tax rate. (Good luck trying to explain this to an Earth-firster.)

When I'm at my computer

[The Evil Couch]

I hardly notice when I have to eat, sleep, drink or go to the bathroom. They expect me ot notice that my new chips destroyed a chunk of the planet? HA!

Energy useage to make chips

[Alcohol Fueled]

...the manufacturing of a typical two-gram chip takes 1.6 kilograms of fossil fuel, 72 grams of chemicals and 32 kilograms of water.

Hmm.. what kind of fossil fuel? Coal, oil, what? Why haven't chip makers tried to find a renewable source of energy to make chips? Is it possible to do that, somehow? And as far as the water goes, we can reuse it!! Haven't these people ever heard of Brita or Pur!?

But their 'wafer thin'. . .

[Bill_EEE]

Clean rooms are NOT clean for the people, but for the chip. Should we be making these things in outer space? maybe in 100 years.

What about natural environmental damage?

[Bill_EEE]

Should Italy's allotment of CO2 be used up by the natural explosion of Mt. Etna? Is CO2 really damaging or is the limitation of it a ploy by patent holders of fuel cell technology to sell their expensive product? Should a large person who uses more air and thus produces more CO2 be taxed higher? Just wondering. I care about the environment, however I don't believe that the regulators, who are typically very well-fed elites, understand the environment well enough to be telling me that I can't lite a fire to heat my house or run my old car because it is dirty. If I am poor and living in the hills of Vermont, I will run my old car and cut down trees to heat my house. I will kill a deer to eat. Is Norway is willing to pay repartions for the Vickings and their warmongering from a thousand years ago? Probably not. Nor do I think that they should. The past is gone. More taxes are not the answer. Taxes contribute to larger government that is often wasteful.

It's an add-subtract thing!

[KarmaPolice]

With enviroment it's always easy to look at the expenses but what about the benefits of microprocessors on the enviroment?

Think of waste-plants being monitored by computers so the waste is constantly being processed ideally.

But it's an interesting set of numbers, though.

Re:It's an add-subtract thing!

[panurge]

Yes, this is a valid point. In my time I have built a number of systems for environmental monitoring and waste control, and the cost/benefit can be enormous (savings of tonnes of chemicals every year using a small box with little more than a PIC processor and a few analog devices.)

Someone said elsewhere I was missing the point, and that silicon manufacturing processes need to improve. OF COURSE. But what drives the improvement is that it is invariably CHEAPER in the end to make things using best environmental practice, unless the State gives the manufacturer a dispensation from paying the costs of the environmental damage - a statist subsidy. And it is usually cheaper anyway because of the savings on materials and consumables. As an example, one project I looked at (to prevent the discharge of cesium by monitoring the composition of a bath and reprocessing it) had a payback of about a week based on the cesium savings alone: the management simply didn't know what was going on in their own plant and had accepted the costs blindly. In another project, a closed loop treatment plant turned out to be cheaper than open-loop because the cost of the electronics was more than offset by the smaller outlet holding tank that was required. I could go on and on...but then, I got into the computing business because you can, actually, do much more interesting things with silicon than make Word or Quake run faster.

Oh no!

[autopr0n]

And not only that, their waisting our precious "chemicals"!

Earthquakes at the Fabs

[Bill_EEE]

I went to a conference when I worked for the semiconductor industry. I asked the salesman for the equipment manufacturer that was selling his stuff why so many fabs are built on fault lines with high amounts of earthquakes. I had my own idea: the companies are hoping for an earthquake because then they get big insurance money. Semiconductor equipment goes out of date very quickly and a large insurance check is a kiss for the semicondutor manufacturers. Then I asked the fellow about the safety of the equipment during an earthquake. I wondered about all of the poison gas that is being piped through the fab, and are their procedures and safeguards in place for the (inevitable) time that an earthquake hits the fab in these danger zones. The saleman told me that at the time of the earthquake no one worrys about the gasses. They worry about the roof falling on their heads. And, no, there aren't any safeguards for the poison gases. This was five years ago. I doubt that they worry now.

Re:Earthquakes at the Fabs

[Anonymous Coward]

Gas bottles with dangerous gases will shut down in an earth quake.

Re:Earthquakes at the Fabs

[Bill_EEE]

nice.

Huh?

[autopr0n]

If you read the NYT article it makes it sound more like those Africans would be sitting around starving or something if it wasn't for the coltan mining jobs. I mean god forbid someone should do manual labor in the outdoors... it's just horrid!

I'm not saying that people should be digging in animal preserves, but that is 'illegal' over there.

If you read the article, the author seems to think that self-righteous bans on material from certain countries, as well as the tech slump are causing more harm to people then the mining system.

Oh no!

[autopr0n]

Someone should tell that to the bottled water folks!

circuit board industry

[wiredog]

Not just fabs. Circuit board shops are very dirty places. Board cleaning lines. Plating lines. Etc.

Obligatory Dilbert Reference

[Paul Burney]

See: http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert- 20021014.html

In unrelated news

[Anonymous Coward]

That food you just ate had "chemicals" in it.

Please, less smoke and more solid info.

OK, so it takes a certian amount of power, water (another chemical), and other materials. What materials? Are any reuseable? How bad environmentaly is it?

How does the environmental impact per a 2 gram chip compare with one day of my 50 mile comute? Or the water I use showering each day?...

Re:In unrelated news

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, less smoke and more solid info.

OK - here is another article, and at the bottom is a link to the actual study. However, you have to be a subscriber to d/l it or you can whip out your credit card.

If only there were a 'TRUE' moderation

[sweatyboatman]

or perhaps a 'Regretfully True'

judging by some of the posts here there are a lot of people who think it doesn't really matter. As long as their CPU isn't burning a hole through their desk, who cares.

And when the computer's thrown away and the components start to leak out... ah well, it isn't my computer anymore. I threw it away. I have this new shiny computer with twice the RAM and 120GB RAID-5 blah blah blah blah blah...

My point isn't that we techies should stop using computers, but that we should at least be a little concerned about what it's costing us in the long run.

Sweaty

Re:If only there were a 'TRUE' moderation

[evilpenguin]

While there are indeed nasty things in your consumer electronics, the real nasties they are talking about here are used in the fabrication of the components, and (AFAIK -- the weasel word that lets me say anything) they are not still present in the finished components. Your PC does contain lead and probably some cadmium and some other toxic heavy metals. It has been illegal to throw electronics in the trash (at least here in MN) for many years now.

Silane was the nasty gas Union Carbide leaked at Bhopal (sp? Bopahl?) India that killed and maimed hundreds. It is bad stuff. Highly reactive with organic molecules.

I maintain a FAQ on solar PV at my web site and one of my "open" questions is about the environmental hazards of PV. The finished product (at least Si PV cells, not so much the CdTe or CIS cells) is safe and stable, but the same nasties are used to make PV cells as other silicon semiconductors. I'd say that one of the "problems" of consumer culture is information hiding. We're pointing out the hazards of semiconductor production, but are you aware of how environmentally damaging many things you buy and discard without thinking are? Paper? Flour? Textiles? Don't even get me started about how much waste is produced to make an automobile. As a consumer, how do you know? Would you pay more for something if you know a cleaner but more expensive process was used to make it? Or if you knew that the manufacturer recycled and cleaned up beyond legal minimums?

I'm not a huge fan of mandates, but I am a huge fan of information. It bothers me that I can't easily find out the materials and labor (and labor conditions) that went into the manufacture of any product I think about buying.

Industry's answer to environmental regulation is predictably "It is too expensive," but I think a large number of affluent consumers would pay more for the "green" stuff (witness the surge in "organic" foods -- even though these same people often ignore public health issues in going organic) and industry wouldn't lose a dime.

There is no place to start, however, without the information.

Who's afraid of H2SO4?

[Phronesis]

HF, H2SO4, etc. are nasty, but easy to neutralize. If you neutralize them, they become aqueous solutions of relatively benign salts. The problems are more with organic solvents that have to be burned at high temperature and with heavy metals that cannot be rendered safe, but must be segregated from the environment.

What about carbon nanotubes?

[muixA]

When they come into practical use, we will all be saved. ... Slashdot Told me so.

--
Matt

Translation for "foreigners"

[MacAndrew]

Now, many readers are not Americans and may not recognize the allusion to green. I believe the poster refers to iron-rich leafy green vegetables such as spinach, which research has show grow wonderfully in a unnaturally hot, stinking, polluted environment where all the humans have been reduced to compost.

Just thought I'd set that straight.

What's that -- our money is green, too? No, I think these industrialists find currency denominations too small and trade only in gold, platinum, diamonds, and the occasional dab of strontium-90. Out government is committed to the environment, one in which oil and gas are plentiful and burned inefficiently.

I'd grin but my teeth seem to be loose today. :-P /SARCASM

Sorry, I'm grumpy since Tuesday, but I don't take all this too seriously. Besides, how much electricity is it that I read these Internet nodes consume? Logging off now...

Apparently, you didn't take my point...

[Gruneun]

Sorry, clearly I needed to spell out that "lowest bidder" means "lowest bidder actually tendering the desired goods". If you want to class eMachines and P4's in the same category, we'd currently all be trying to play Doom 3 on pockets calculators.

My point is that each person defines what "lowest bidder actually tendering the desired goods" and, therefore, it's relative. Some people will buy an eMachine because they need to send email. For those people, an eMachine is perfectly adequate. For most of us, an eMachine isn't adequate.

By the same token, some of us are more concerned about the environment or other variables, than the rest of us. For example, I refuse to buy anything from Sprint, ever. Besides being extremely annoying, every commercial with the guy in the trenchcoat implies that anyone without a Sprint PCS phone is an ignorant buffoon. It's important to me that a company that wants my money not imply I'm an idiot.

Because of the article, the manufacturing costs associated with making a processor are now known to me. Like most people, I've evaluated those costs versus my need/want for a faster processor. I decided it's worth it. Frankly, until I find out that for every P4 processor, Intel clubs a baby seal, I probably won't give a damn. That's not a defect in the principles of capitalism, it's a reflection of human principles.

Re:Apparently, you didn't take my point...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but you are just chasing your tail here. So everyone has a different idea of what they want in a product. Ok fine, that's established now, but its still irrelevant to the point.

If any given person has the choice of 2 products that they deem equivalent, and one product is cheaper than the other. They will choose the cheaper product unless they r dum.

Wired story about clean ship production

[iamr00t]

here
actualy tells you about ways to use clean technology in chip business

Um ... before you listen to Zathrus

[MacAndrew]

Before you listen to Zathrus about worker safety, consider what he looked like at his last physical.

Oh, wait ...ZathrAs? Are they related?

If Dickens were alive today, he'd probably use a "shitty fab plant" as a setting for a novel!

Easy to neutralize?

[Anonymous Coward]

With your skin?

Re:Easy to neutralize?

[Phronesis]

The main article was about environmental hazards, not personal hazards. These acids are nasty to your skin, but they can be neutralized and made safe to pour down the drain without endangering the environment.

bring gas prices to European levels and...

[fantomas]

I'd be interested to see the reaction in USA if gas prices were brought to European levels (in the UK we pay somewhat over 4 dollars a gallon). I think you'd see a shift towards more fuel efficient cars. Can't see it happening, mind...

Re:bring gas prices to European levels and...

[jez9999]

Actually, to give you some idea of what Americans do whine about, here's a conversion:

Assuming it costs us 75p per litre (it's been known to be in the 80p region before), that's $5.37 per gallon. And some Americans complain about $1.40.

Re:bring gas prices to European levels and...

[Disoculated]

Gas isn't inherently more valuable in Europe. You too could have 1.40$ gas if you invested in the supply and delivery infrastructure and didn't tax the bejeesus out of your gas.

In the USA, gas *must* be that cheap, or the economy collapses. Think I'm joking? We don't use rail to move goods here, we use long haul trucking and jets. A large percentage of the population drives over 30 miles each way to work. Not having a car is simply unthinkable for anyone except core-city dwellers, and in America (unlike Europe), most people aren't city dwellers, they live in sprawling suburbs.

That's why the country flips out in a military manner when oil supplies get threatened or prices go up. For good or for bad, we've built our whole economy and way of life on the internal combustion engine, and a nickel rise in the cost of a gallon means a similar rise in the price of ALL GOODS in the local store. In Europe, where you can burn enough local coal to power your electric genereators and zoom around your city centers in electric mass transit, transport by car is practically a luxury, and your government is happy to let you deal with $5.37 a gallon because you won't vote them out of office for it.

Re:bring gas prices to European levels and...

[jez9999]

Gas isn't inherently more valuable in Europe. You too could have 1.40$ gas if you invested in the supply and delivery infrastructure and didn't tax the bejeesus out of your gas.

Yup.

In the USA, gas *must* be that cheap, or the economy collapses. Think I'm joking? We don't use rail to move goods here, we use long haul trucking and jets.

Funny. So do we (in the UK). That's why our haulage firms are getting beaten on price by haulage firms coming over *from the continent*. Of course our government are now introducing measure to tax the hell out of them too, so that's ok.

A large percentage of the population drives over 30 miles each way to work.

Many people here drive into the city, or 'commute', on a daily basis.

a nickel rise in the cost of a gallon means a similar rise in the price of ALL GOODS in the local store.

It's not like we don't use haulage firms over here to transport goods.

In Europe, where you can burn enough local coal to power your electric genereators and zoom around your city centers in electric mass transit,

'Mass transit' in the UK is a joke. It's probably BETTER in America.

transport by car is practically a luxury,

TRANSPORT is practically a luxury; the hell I have to go through to get to a nearby town every day is ridiculous.

and your government is happy to let you deal with $5.37 a gallon because you won't vote them out of office for it.

If only that were the case. A combination of EU regulations and lack of choice of decent governments mean that we could never get the tax on fuel back down. NO party that we ever vote in will lower the taxes again. This country's transport system sucks.

Sorry about the rant, I just have strong feelings on this issue.

Re:bring gas prices to European levels and...

[jaoswald]

It wouldn't bring the economy to collapse, although it would cause great changes.

The U.S. certainly uses rail to move goods, just as we use trailer trucks. The ratio of the usage is different in Europe, but that is largely because of the costs involved. Change the costs, and the behavior will change.

In Germany, automobile travel is considered desirable, although more expensive than in the U.S.. Another thing to be considered is the quality of the inter-city highways, which is *much* higher in Germany. How else do you think people can drive 180 miles per hour on the autobahn? How do they afford to build such nice roads....the tax revenue from gasoline, perhaps?

Re:bring gas prices to European levels and...

[Disoculated]

Yes, we do use rail to move goods, but on a much smaller scale, and the infrastructure to do so is ancient and decaying. It pales in pure throughput and time/cost when compared to trucks on the Eisenhower Interstate System.

That's part of the problem of changing the cost/behavior. Making rail more desireable will require a public works project rival to the EIS, which nobody is going to finance (especially not right now). Simply changing the costs without changing the infrastructure will just result in higher prices and inflation.

As for Germany, it doesn't have any 3000+ mile long highways, while the US has hundreds of them. We use our land much differently than they do, so comparisons like that don't really work. And while I can't vouch for EIS quality compared to the autobahns, there's no reason you can't go 180 on most interstates except for the desire of local law enforcemnt to line their pockets with citations. Maybe the Germans tax gas, while we tax speed? Miserable choice.

Would improving rail and reducing reliance on gas be a good thing? I believe so, but only because of the political and pollution issues. Reducing use of gasoline so we can tax it more doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Re:bring gas prices to European levels and...

[netsharc]

Well, you see, that's why Bush wants Iraq... so he can let his buddies Cheney and Ken Lay go over there and drain the oil out of the place..

And the stupid part is...

[Junks Jerzey]

...that millions of people will upgrade from a PC using a 1GHz processor to a PC using a 2.5GHz processor even though they cannot tell the difference in performance at all. And in the process they put an old PC in a landfill and end up with one that uses more power than the last one.

I'm getting really, really, really tired of the extreme minority of PC users, such as people who annually put down $400 for a new video card, driving the entire PC upgrade cycle.

This stuff ends up as hazmat in other countries.

[CowbertPrime]

And after you throw out your used mobo/computer/monitors, where do they end up? Most of it gets shipped to developing nations especially closest to the booming tech countries - southeast asia. There are entire villages in southern China and Thailand where poor families and their children spend 12 hour days meltiing down chips and boards for gold as well as raw materials to be recycled. The problem is, there is about as much gold in pcb etchings and chips as there is mercury, lead, and cadmium, not to mention melting plastic over an oven is not a very good idea.

This finding was published in Harper's Magazine a few months ago.

environmental cost of making 10^6 vacuum tube

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a disingeneous article.

I suppose the environmental cost of making 20 million vacuum tube will be LOWER?

The article doesn't discuss how the industry has reduced the cost of chemical per transistor down by a factor of over 10^8 or so (from wet etch to dry etch, increase integration). The semiconductor industry is actually getting GREENER.

Fun with chemicals: Silane (SiH4)

[RobertB-DC]

My favorite chemical to imagine working with (when I worked at Texas Instruments and wandered around the 3rd floor pipe space looking at labels) was Silane. With a chemical formula just like Methane, with Silicon in the place of the Carbon, you'd imagine it would be explosive but not otherwise interesting. Wrong! Silane can spontaneously explode when exposed to air. It has to be specially ducted and burned off or blown out quickly enough to prevent creation of a flammable concentration. A friend of mine where I work now, though, had more direct experience with Silane while working at another semiconductor manufacturer. He claims that he once liberated a small volume of silane in the air, and found that it formed a bubble... the silane reacted with the air on the edge to form a protective shield around the remaining gas. Of course, when the bubble burst... the explosion was deafening. Strangely enough, I don't think my friend ever found the opportunity to experiment further. But should you care to try it yourself on a smaller scale, go for it!

That's it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just like to point out that 1.6 kg of fossil fuel is less than half a gallon of gas, 32 kg of water is about 8 gallons, and the chemicals used are all processed before being released such that they have little environmental impact. So the environmental cost of buying that new chip is roughly equivalent to driving around the block and then taking a shower. And we do all take showers, right?

US - total car culture

[fantomas]

Jez, US public transport makes the UK system look good (how rude is that!).

I was over there in February and I tried to get a train from New York to Detroit. Kind of assumed I could wander down to the train station and book a ticket for the next day and it wouldn't cost too much. Bit like how you would pop into Kings Cross London and get a ticket for Edinburgh or Glasgow. Hmmm.... well it was going to take something like 12 hours for a start compared to an hour's flight and the cost was far worse than the flight. Would have to book my place on a sleeper.Nobody takes intercity trains over any distance as far as I can work out. Imagine if London to Edinburgh was going to take 12 hours by train, with only one or two a day going there? Even in the UK we'd get upset. As for what people think about Greyhound coaches...

I believe a city in the West Coast had a big bus service back in the 60s , all painted red, and the oil companies pretty well closed it down to force people into cars.

Long distance, it's the same as over here - flying - and guess what, same tax on air fuel - zero. Have you ever wondered why those flights across Europe are so cheap? zero tax on fuel. I think we'd be taking the ferry /Eurostar more often if the airlines had to pay equivalent taxes for all that gas.

Rant over! (In fairness I am pretty impressed by Santa Monica's blue buses and the New York Metro, they got me round ok).

Re:US - total car culture

[jez9999]

You said it yourself - airplanes are almost public transport over there, they're so widely used. And London/Edinborough is INCREDIBLY expensive over here. I remember my dad saying, when he went to Scotland for his holiday and back, it was so expensive that they would take a car if he ever did it again... for one person, it was bad enough, for 2, the train was much more expensive than to drive it. In the UK.

And also as you said, the US metro systems are pretty good. Although I do like London Underground :-)

Re:US - total car culture

[Fat Casper]

Jez, US public transport makes the UK system look good (how rude is that!).

Quite. When comparing mass transit, one must remember that your tiny little country is about the size of New England and has been heavily populated for a few years longer. New England is a very small part of the US and like the UK could very easily get lost in a country of this size.

I was over there in February and I tried to get a train from New York to Detroit. Kind of assumed I could wander down to the train station and book a ticket for the next day and it wouldn't cost too much. Bit like how you would pop into Kings Cross London and get a ticket for Edinburgh or Glasgow.

Look at a map. A NY-Detroit trip is more comparable to London-Edinburgh-London. Except that the people of NY and Detroit don't have such limited horizons. What is mass transit? It makes sense when a whole lot of people have one or two places that they are able to go. If they can go elsewhere, they will. In tiny little countries, it doesn't take long to carpet them with all the rails you'll ever need. It also doesn't take long to take a train from one end of the country to the other. Try maintaining the amount of rails we've got sometime. Then look at the number of New Yorkers that need to be in Detroit by lunchtime. After remembering that you can't go anywhere near as far as that in England without drowning, buy a plane ticket and stop whining.

Wrong Focus

[Anonymous Coward]

I have worked in the chip industry for a bit more than a couple of decades. E.g. I remember when Fairchild in silicon valley was sued because of ground water contamination and child deformities showing up. It has always been recommended that pregnant women not work in the fab, but in this case it affected women outside the fab. A certain three initial company then quietly removed massive amounts of dirt from under another facility and trucked it away. I saw it being done.

As pointed out in other posts, the environmental impact due to the materials used in making just the chip, under normal circumstances, is small in the context of our industrial world. However, the real environmental impact is when things don't go as planned at the facility. Pipes and tanks leak, material transfers miss, gasses vent, etc. People sometimes hook things up wrong, turn the wrong valve, or push the wrong buttons. These are mostly low probability medium risk events - but we have a lot of chips being made and they do happen.

It is particularly distressing to find facilities with hazardous materials located on earthquake faults. I say this both because of the long term affects spills have, and because of the difficulties of getting workers out of a facility unharmed. E.g. HF once on the skin eats through until it makes it to calcium, i.e. the bone.

Remember Bhopal?

(On the subject of tantalum capacitors. No, we don't have to use tantalum. Capacitors can, and often are, made of other materials. In fact, I have found the failure rates on tantalum to be higher than for other materials despite the manufacturers published MTBF rates, so I prefer other materials.)

Content Free - just the way we like 'em

[Etrigan_696]

I love it when people throw around words like "Chemicals" when they really mean "TOXIC chemicals".
Such as - "That hot dog you are eating has lots of chemicals in it! You shouldn't eat it!"

At which point, I slap the hippy herbivore and say "There's even more chemicals in your bean curds, you idiot. Chemicals like 'hydrocarbons', 'hydrogen di-oxide' etc. etc.....Did you know that Hydrogen Di-Oxide is a mild acid, typically in nature is a breeding ground for bacteria and infectious diseases? It's addictive! Once you take it once, you have to take it for the rest of your life...or the withdrawls will kill you!"

Specifically WHAT evil chemicals do they use in making microchips? How much as compared to making...the jars they sell babyfood in? What exactly is the environmental impact of these evil chemicals?

Until those questions are answered, this article is just running around screaming that the sky is falling....

BAh!

No - that's not enough...

[Etrigan_696]

Still too much pressure in my spleen - gotta vent it on this....

IANAME (I Am Not A Microchip Engineer) but I would assume the "chemicals" they use in processing silicone would be something acidic (rinse away everything but the silicone) and then water to rinse away the acid. Those can all be neutralized easily.
Then there would be the pollutants in the silicone, but typically that shouldn't be anything REALLY bad in large ammounts. Then there's the germanium, gallium et al. that they dope the semiconductor with - but the idea is to keep those inside the chip. Then there's the lead solder.

If you want to bust some ass on heavy metals, how about we go after battery makers - you know - those HUGE batteries they want to put in gas/electric hybrid cars... How much "chemicals" do they produce as waste to make one of THOSE?

That should just about do it...

About the sulfur

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to do IT work at a refinery compex. They sell of the sulfur, along with almost all of the other byproducts.

America is bigger, idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

All these fine comparisons to Europe are making me gag. Don't you imbeciles know that the USA is fucking huge next to Europe? All of England from North to South is about 1000 miles. In the USA you can drive for 1000 miles and never see a city. Perishable items are routinely shipped across the entire country, like California vegetables. Y'think they show up in New York City markets by fucking magic? You think New York can grow tomatos in January?

Mass produced cars were invented in the USA because they NEED them. Anybody who thinks they could just switch to rail transport and blow off the investment in road infrastructure is vacant. Go look up the debt load on the national highway system some time, it will blow your mind.

distances...

[fantomas]

Fair comment on the size of the countries, perhaps a better analogy is Europe to the USA. I think we have a much better city - city infrastructure for trains and coaches (only way to travel London - Paris is Eurostar!).I agree people travel longer distances by plane, more of that later...! I think part of it is a difference in basic cultural attitude towards public transport, *but* heavily influenced by taxation on different fuels.

Ignore the social side of things for a moment, if gasoline *was* 5 dollars a gallon in the USA and there was nothing you could do about it, I really do think after a few years people would think about travelling in different ways.

New York - Detroit = 650 miles

London - Edinburgh = 496 miles

So actually I'd beg to differ that NY-Detroit = Lon-Edi-Lon. Cost is about 70 pounds for a return ticket by train, petrol for 1000 miles will cost approx 80 pounds, plane tickets go from about 60 if you get a cheap flight to about 120-150 for a standard scheduled. My personal rant is that air fuel has no tax on it, if it was taxed to the equivalent of car fuel, you can only imagine the price increases and how people's preference for travel modes might change.

A small aside - Edinburgh is in Scotland. Please don't confuse England and Britain/UK as being the same, it might get you into a bit of trouble when you are wandering around Edinburgh.

oops, distances

[fantomas]

Oops Fat Casper,apologies, got my distances wrong. Lon - Edi 412 miles apparently so NY-Detroit approx 1.5 times Lon-Edi. Still sticking with the rest of my stuff though ;-) Happy travelling! and don't forget which bit is England, and which is Scotland !

Re: transportation mix in Europe

[jaoswald]

You think England is somehow all of Europe? Europeans would be surprised. Ever hear of Norway, Spain, Poland, Italy? Those are the extremes you should be considering. Europe as a continent is basically the size of the U.S. You think Europeans only eat what is grown in their back yards?

The question is whether a similarly huge investment in rail would have resulted in more efficient rail service. For example, passenger rail service in the U.S. is, through some miracle, supposed to pay for itself, although it does so in no country that I know of. Highway expenditures are, however, huge and unquestioned. Gas taxes are low and unquestioned. Truck transportation is cheap, but only because the highway use is subsidized through government expenditure. Road use taxes and fuel taxes paid by trucks doesn't even come close to paying for the upkeep of roads.

Government expenditures subsidize trucks, they don't subsidize rail. That is obviously going to favor trucks.

I am not arguing that Europe is morally superior, simply that economic incentives are what determine the transportation mix, not some massive distance requirements alone. In fact, the longer the distance, the *greater* the inherent advantage of rail transport for goods.

Re:Content Free - just the way we like 'em

[Azathoth_lca]

Did you know that Hydrogen Di-Oxide is...
H02? Perhaps you meant Dihydrogen Monoxide (H20).

Tragedy of the Commons

[luciuskwok]

Whenever I read about issues about environmental pollution, I think of the Tragedy of the Commons. Essentially, things like air pollution and industrial run-off are absorbed by the community at large, while cost of using cleaner processes are borne by the producer with little benefit to the producer. The referenced article does a better job of explaining it:

At the point when the carrying capacity of the commons was fully reached, a herdsman might ask himself, "Should I add another animal to my herd?" Because the herdsman owned his animals, the gain of so doing would come solely to him. But the loss incurred by overloading the pasture would be "commonized" among all the herdsmen. Because the privatized gain would exceed his share of the commonized loss, a self-seeking herdsman would add another animal to his herd. And another. And reasoning in the same way, so would all the other herdsmen. Ultimately, the common property would be ruined.

Environmental concerns are very important. If there was no mechanism for controlling pollution, we would still have smokestacks belching out coal dust and blackening our buildings. We would have raw sewage being dumped in our streams and lakes.

But the solution as I see it is not heavy-handed government regulation to regulate every step of producing microchips. Ideally, each producer would have to pay a tax according to how much pollution they create.

Certainly, the purification process requires a lot of work and generates waste, but this is not limited to the semiconductor industry. Take a look at the petroleum, steel, or electricity production industry. In western Pennsylvania, the steel industry and power plants continue to produce the majority of air pollution in the area.

It would be more worthwhile to seek to reduce pollution from those industries which produce many more pounds of pollution than the semiconductor industry.

Detroit's not on the rail line.

[luciuskwok]

I don't think it's a fair comparison between London-Edinburgh and NYC-Detroit, since Detroit doesn't have a rail line directly from NYC.

Last Post!

[alpg]

There was a college student trying to earn some pocket money by
going from house to house offering to do odd jobs. He explained this to
a man who answered one door.
"How much will you charge to paint my porch?" asked the man.
"Forty dollars."
"Fine" said the man, and gave the student the paint and brushes.
Three hours later the paint-splattered lad knocked on the door again.
"All done!", he says, and collects his money. "By the way," the student says,
"That's not a Porsche, it's a Ferrari."

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...