U.S. chip revival plan chooses sites

177 pointsposted a year ago
by pseudolus

64 Comments

chiph

a year ago

Wolfspeed is building a fab in North Carolina that will make SiC based chips. They are receiving $750 million from the CHIPS and Science Act and will likely receive another $1 billion in tax credits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act

SiC transistors and diodes are used in high power applications like locomotives, EV chargers and industrial motor controls. In their catalog they have a half-bridge power module rated for 1200V and 760A, which to me is amazing that a semiconductor can handle that much.

https://www.wolfspeed.com/products/power/sic-power-modules/h...

highcountess

a year ago

It really bugs the hell out of me that we are constantly forced against our will to fund these companies for basically nothing. It’s an utterly insane model. Sure, we get to then give them yet more money to use those critical chips after the same people squandered the time and gutted the American economy and shipped it all overseas for decades prior; but can’t there be a rate of return and not just give, essentially executives huge bonuses forever?

There should be no such thing as free grants, if anything they should be ownership stakes by the U.S. people by way of the government if, e.g., we are handing them 700 Million dollars and then basically deferring on 1 Billion dollars which also has an additional opportunity cost and a cost of the money, i.e., inflation and interest.

I can’t tell you how many people have become extremely wealthy from nothing by getting government grants and contracts that built and funded their companies, paid for by you, with your tax money and inflation you pay at the grocery store.

cen4

a year ago

Whats your solution then, when Taiwan falls to China tomorrow and the chips stop flowing in? The parasite execs are a problem, but a much smaller problem than if the Chinese blocks flow of essential chips. It will cause all kinds of cascading issues. Which we saw when supply chains from there, all shutdown during Covid.

creer

a year ago

> against our will

Let's not push that one too far, there is no "little guy" in these deals.

What does surprise me more is that we don't see "tax credits" in "pay your tax in shares". The amount would be higher then, probably - but many of these deals would in the end be profitable.

ta20240528

a year ago

"… after the same people squandered … decades prior"

The same people? Decades later?

OR perhaps is new, younger people with better ideas who just happen to work at the same company?

photochemsyn

a year ago

It's entirely possible for the government to pressure the corporations in the chip industry to move resources into research, development and manufacturing capacity.

What the government would have to do is increase corporate taxes and capital gains taxes but give various writeoffs and rebates for R & D and new factories. Essentially the government tells the corporation, "you can pay us this tax money, or you can put the money back into R & D and production starts, it's up to you."

This would probably upset the Milton Friedman neoliberalism proponents, but they've made a mess of things IMO. Regardless the shareholders and executives would have to take significant losses relative to their present situation under such new conditions. The money has to come from somewhere and fabs are expensive complicated beasts with demanding supply chain issues.

astrange

a year ago

> after the same people squandered the time and gutted the American economy and shipped it all overseas for decades prior

What same people? The ones who messed up US chips are Intel and the article doesn't show them getting any money. Theoretical neoliberals aren't really relevant here. China did not take the chip fab business - this isn't a deindustrialization issue.

(I believe deindustrialization was mostly Volcker and the 70s oil shock though, not the neoliberals.)

> I can’t tell you how many people have become extremely wealthy from nothing

Not to be rude, but you haven't told us that, that is true. The most important thing to remember here is that economic populism is wrong and you should never believe anything you hear like this because it's probably just made up.

Also, grocery prices are fine.

dylan604

a year ago

> which to me is amazing that a semiconductor can handle that much.

i'm also equally amazed at how much <5v can accomplish. 3.3v is common, but I also think back to the old NTSC video signal was 1v peak-to-peak. Of course, that was just the signal and not the voltage driving the CRT, but still impressive. I've done my own hobby electronics ala Arduino type stuff, and detecting voltage drops in analog of <1v can be challenging to do accurately.

rcxdude

a year ago

The drive voltage of a modern desktop or server CPU is about 1V. Which means there's up to 300-400A flowing through through the motherboard and the pin sockets from the VRM to the CPU. Pretty crazy numbers!

(1V drop, though should be easy to measure. A badly noisy ADC would be at about 10mV. High-precision in analog starts at 10s of uV)

kragen

a year ago

Basically any electroplating tank uses <5V, no matter how large it is. So are basically all line-level audio and most dynamic speaker drive signals: 5V at 4Ω is 6 watts, which is a fairly loud speaker.

Detecting 1-volt voltage drops is not at all difficult; that's enough to turn on any BJT, and any random opamp can measure voltage differences down to millivolts, often nanovolts. https://www.diodes.com/assets/Datasheets/AS321.pdf is a 50¢ random opamp, the one Digi-Key has the most in stock of at the moment; its offset voltage is specified as 5 millivolts max, but of course it can measure much smaller voltages than that if you null out the offset with a trimpot, or if you just don't care about it.

This is not Arduino's strong point, but it doesn't have any difficulty with that task either. The ADC in the ATMega328P used in most Arduinos has a resolution of about a millivolt when referenced to its internal bandgap https://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/Atmel-7810-..., and it also has an analog comparator with a maximum offset voltage specified as 40 millivolts. And any random cheap-shit multimeter can measure down to a millivolt or so. And, from the discussion above about audio line levels, it should be obvious that just about any dynamic speaker, and most headphones, can easily make millivolt-level signals audible.

Maybe you meant "detecting voltage drops in analog of <1 microvolt can be challenging".

freilanzer

a year ago

And apparently they cancelled their fab in Germany.

InDubioProRubio

a year ago

It seems that the world is dividing into two camps- the ones who want to hunker down and bunker down into mini-empires, shunning globalisation. Expecting great rewards, by turning economics into trapdoor functions with loads of export and zero imports and tarifs as shield.

And the others, who don't want - because they can't. For some globalisation is a navel, a lifeline without which there countries economies would wither and die. The exact same layout pre-WW2.

corimaith

a year ago

Mercantalism begets more mercantalism. Many of those who don't want the "end" of globalism are the same ones pursuing mercantilist policies despite decades of calls of reform from the developed import markets.

You can't run a massive trade surplus against USA, gouging their industries while simultaneously calling for the "fall of Westen hegemony" forever. "The Global South" had a chance for the last 20 years to peacefully rise up into the Liberal International Order, they blew it all for the sake their own pride and greed. When any sort of adherence of rules or frameworks is labelled as "imperialism" then unfortunately we'll all have to go back and suffer the 1920s to understand why those rules exist again.

Maxion

a year ago

The writing is starting to become quite stark on the wall, soon the only ones who don't see it are the ones intentionally turning their head away.

b112

a year ago

Rebalanced local production isn't necessarily a rejection of globalization.

It is ridiculous to have a military, for example, depend upon supplies which may be cut off during conflict.

It is also ridiculous to have your entire economy dependent upon foreign powers which seek to subvert and destabilize you.

The US and most of the West undertook plans to "uplift" countries such as China in the 70s. The thought was that by opening up trade, prosperity would follow, a middle class would follow, an upper class, and democratic principles might follow.

This had not entirely failed, but at the same time that experiment has been taken too far, especially during the current climate.

Most specifically, China's refusal to sign on to a key, pivotal aspect of access to western markets, IP, eg copyright and patent law, means that their access to these markets is slowly being withdrawn.

What we granted 50 years ago, open, mostly tariff free access to our markets is being taken away, removed as conditions for that access are not being respected.

Only China is to blame for this. The rampant IP theft, the lack of respect for the collective market's rules, the flagrant and egregious espionage, have resulted in this fate.

The West will still trade with anyone that follows such common market principles. The West is not closing down international trade. The West is instead ensuring that when we completely cut off China, and its lack of regard for our common market rules, that we are not harmed.

Thinking this is all about a reduction in trade is wrong.

None of this new, or a surprise to anyone paying attention to geopolitical issues during the last 50 years. When the markets opened, when tariffs were dropped, China was told the rules for that access.

In the ensuing decades, attempts to negotiate and work with China over IP issues have seen zero progress.

We offer access with open hands under specific terms. We happily wanted to engage in profitable business ventures. China, its leadership perhaps thinking it is clever and somehow tricking us, did not realize that the West is very open, forgiving, and willing to discuss a lot prior to hitting an impasse. We believe in democratic principles after all, and try to negotiate.

But now that this next segment of the process has started, China has effectively shot itself in the foot. Like a noisy person repeatedly warned in a movie theater, it is being shown the door.

Access to our market is being withdrawn for China.

Expect this to hit the next level in perhaps 5 years, where all imports hit heavy tariffs... after we've ensured our stability in key areas.

Gradual increases in Chinese import tariffs will ensure local businesses spring up, replacing what will become more expensive Chinese alternatives.

It will be an economic boom for the West.

nonethewiser

a year ago

"The world under heaven, after a long period of division, tends to unite; after a long period of union, tends to divide."

- Romance of the Three Kingdoms

It's really is kind of inevitable that this will happen. We've had unprecedented peace and prosperity for many decades. Everyone is getting rich and fat (relatively speaking) and more capable of projecting their power and protecting their interests. The unification of Europe (rebuilding, euro EU), the rise of China, the nuclearization of North Korea, etc. There is no governing body above states - its an anarchic system in that regard. It's just not possible to achieve full globalization and keep it. We'd need something to fundamentally change the game like competition with another world. Im not sure if you've noticed but the world order has been degrading since the 90's.

ToDougie

a year ago

The trade wars never stopped, some countries just took a break.

throw0101a

a year ago

Well the revival may be halted depending on the election:

> The US CHIPS and Science Act's future may depend on the outcome of Tuesday's Presidential Election after House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested the GOP would likely move to repeal the $280 billion funding bill if the party wins a majority in Congress.

* https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/04/chips_act_repeal/

but a little while later:

> Johnson, who voted against the legislation, later said in a statement that the CHIPS Act, which poured $54 billion into the semiconductor manufacturing industry, “is not on the agenda for repeal.”

* https://apnews.com/article/mike-johnson-chips-act-d5504f76d3...

so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

kevin_thibedeau

a year ago

Micron is a defense critical company. They're getting their new fab no matter what because China can more readily target Boise.

pitaj

a year ago

My understanding is that Micron only does R&D in Boise, they don't run any production manufacturing there.

j2bax

a year ago

What makes Boise a more readily available target for China?

alephnerd

a year ago

> Well the revival may be halted depending on the election

Not a fan of the GOP, but industry is operating on the assumption that most industrial policies under the Biden admin will continue to remain.

There's been a lot of policy research and lobbying on this front for over a year at this point [0]

Doesn't hurt that a number of major Trump-Vance donors have benefited from these industrial policies as well.

Sadly, most deal flow is anyhow locked up because the Commerce has been slow at disbursing funds due to bipartisan politicking (eg. GOP trying to undermine the CHIPS act due to pettiness, CPC affiliates trying to launch unnecessary NEPA and Labor fights)

That said, even companies knew that would happen - and a lot of deal flow was strategically placed in purple districts for that reason.

Foreign automakers and their supppliers used a similar strategy in the 1990s-2000s when entering the US market by opening factories in then-Purple Tennessee, Kentucky, WV, etc.

[0] - https://www.eiu.com/n/us-election-its-impact-on-industrial-p...

wumeow

a year ago

I would trust his first statement more than his second. He only backed off after he faced criticism that could affect the congressman's election. The CHIPS act is a huge Biden policy win so you can bet the GOP will want to repeal it.

brutal_chaos_

a year ago

My hunch is something like NAFTA -> USMCA would happen with CHIPS. Repeal and replace with basically the same to make it look like a GOP win.

Loughla

a year ago

>The CHIPS act is a huge Biden policy win so you can bet the GOP will want to repeal it.

It does seem like politics at the presidency now is less about what you'll do and more about undoing everything the other side did during their time in office, regardless of utility or popularity of what it is.

Is it me or is this worse now? Had it always been like that and I'm just now seeing it?

alephnerd

a year ago

> The CHIPS act is a huge Biden policy win

I'm a huge fan of the CHIPS Act, but most Americans have not heard of it [0].

That lack of noteriety is what protects it.

Doesn't hurt that most deal flow is in purple districts, so most shit-slingers tend to be far removed and shut up pretty quickly after a quick rebuke from Party Chairs about how close the election is.

[0] - https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000018f-3fe4-dc61-adff-7fe53...

user

a year ago

[deleted]

GenerocUsername

a year ago

Partisan scare tactics? Which outcome would result in loss?

Wasn't it Trump who popularized the pullback of Chip manufacturing to the US for security ad prosperity reasons.

standardUser

a year ago

Trump's tariffs were aimed at a lot of goods, but not chips. The push and subsequent law to get chip manufacturing back into the US was entirely a Biden project.

jonnycomputer

a year ago

Rebuilding our microchip manufacturing base is critical part of US national defense. Why in the world would Donald Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson want to repeal the CHIPS act?

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/why-on-earth-does-trump-want-t...

jerlam

a year ago

It's associated with a member of the opposing party, so it must be opposed. Especially since it has a chance to be successful.

Similar situation with the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) - it was opposed not on its merits, but because it was from the opposing side.

nickff

a year ago

The Affordable Care Act came with a lot of baggage (as similar plans had been advocated for decades by various proponents), and President Obama was arrogant and dismissive of any need for Republican buy-in (telling them they could take a back seat). CHIPS seems much less divisive, though it seems stalled (at least based on recent statements by Intel and other CEOs).

ChrisRR

a year ago

The same reason he does half of the insane shit he does. Because it serves his own interests

He doesn't want to actually improve america, he just wants fox news to pay attention to him 24 hours a day

jimbob45

a year ago

Surely HN of all spaces would understand why giving free money to Intel is a massive waste? Also if they genuinely need the money, they should be offering ownership in return.

vel0city

a year ago

Surely HN of all spaces would understand there are far more chip manufacturers than just Intel.

the5avage

a year ago

Do you have some secret intel? They make the best chips in the USA.

dylan604

a year ago

Yes, we should be giving that money to Boeing instead!

reynard_le_faux

a year ago

Trump didn’t seem to disagree with the premise just the funding. His argument is that the US shouldn’t be funding it. His strategy is to put tariffs on chip imports and foreign chip manufacturers would have to build US based plants on their own dime.

throw0101a

a year ago

> His strategy is to put tariffs on chip imports and foreign chip manufacturers would have to build US based plants on their own dime.

The counter-argument (FWIW):

> Tariffs are paid by the importer and not the exporter. The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) claims that tariffs would not cause fabs to be built in the US, due to the cost of the factories, which can run from $18bn to $27bn.

> "No tariff amount will equal the costs of ripping apart these investments and efficient supply chains that have enabled current US industry leadership," SIA said.

> It added: "Moreover, chip tariffs will drive away manufacturing in advanced sectors that rely on semiconductor technology, such as aerospace, AI, robotics, next-generation networks, and autonomous vehicles. If the cost of key inputs like semiconductors is too high, tech manufacturers will relocate out of the US, costing jobs and further eroding US manufacturing and technological competitiveness."

* https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/trump-bashes-chip...

Foreign chipmakers would not pay the tariff (contrary to what Trump thinks) but their US customers, and what incentive to the foreign chipmakers to make changes? They're getting the same money and it's not costing them a dime. And where else are US businesses going to go for the product?

newprint

a year ago

Lol, yeah. They will not do that.

jonnycomputer

a year ago

China has a history of buying out its critics, and I do not doubt for a second that Donald Trump is for sale (notice how he changed his tune on TikTok?)

wavefunction

a year ago

He changed his tune on electric vehicles after Musk started backing him.

t-3

a year ago

There's been many complaints about DEI requirements in the CHIPS Act. Given that DEI is a favorite right-wing talking point, amendment or repeal+replace might be likely, but I doubt it would be scrapped altogether.

patricklovesoj

a year ago

So they spent $13B + existing $25B in Albany = $38B

For scale comparison I checked TSMC and they will spend ~$35B in R&D and capex in 2024 and it will only grow.

neves

a year ago

Are them swing states?

supportengineer

a year ago

[flagged]

jcrash

a year ago

The locations of the two sites— .... Sunnyvale, Calif., .... Albany, N.Y. ...... The location of the third planned center ..... is still a matter of speculation.

Why would you add a 'saved you a click' comment and then literally post BS?

johnea

a year ago

[flagged]

b3ing

a year ago

The same thing will happen to software development and India

gosub100

a year ago

not the same thing. in that case they are bringing India to the US, with trillion-dollar companies claiming "we just can't find enough qualified applicants!", meanwhile I'm working for the same salary I earned in 2012.

2OEH8eoCRo0

a year ago

Did companies outsource due to greed or did US consumers select for price forcing them to outsource to compete? Or both?

standardUser

a year ago

Trade policy was set entirely by the elites, not consumers.

fny

a year ago

Did the neoliberal lobby block “protectionist” legislation? Did income inequality balloon in the US while Chinese wages exploded?