3 ms·

Ahhhh, makes sense. Also, after reading further, it appears I was wrong - TSMC has some operations in the US including some in Arizona - plus their interest in

Ahhhh, makes sense. Also, after reading further, it appears I was wrong - TSMC has some operations in the US including some in Arizona - plus their interest in maintaining friendly terms with the US in order to preserve the existence of Taiwan is also an angle. What still worries me is that ramp up time for fabs like these are on the scale of years - if we assume a fab started right now, we'll be making semiconductors in ~2 years at the earliest (very optimistic)? It seems like the root of the issue seems to be the inventory tax and accounting rules - perhaps an exception for the semiconductor industry would help rather than even a single domestic fab (which could be impacted by natural disasters as well).

jvanderbot 5y ago
Well, we dumped a lot of money into the F-35 to fill a perceived strategic gap in fighter jets that had not yet arrived. This was many years before we actually received such a jet. This kind of long-term investment of lots of money for (arguably) public good is what federal governments are _for_, in my mind. A 250M$ - 1G$ investment / year is big, but if it's self-sustaining in a couple years, that's a huge win.
to11mtm 5y ago
> What still worries me is that ramp up time for fabs like these are on the scale of years - if we assume a fab started right now, we'll be making semiconductors in ~2 years at the earliest (very optimistic)? TSMC announced the Arizona fab in May of 2020. They estimate it will be at volume production by 2024. The challenge is that it's not just building the fab, but also the lead times for all of the equipment involved, getting the specialists in to install+calibrate, then doing some initial runs to work out issues before going to volume production.
- baybal2 5y ago
  Totally correct, by 2024 a 20k wpm N5 fab will not be able to break even unless wafers would cost $50k+. Who will be billed for this negative equity? TSMC's economists certainly know what they do when they put a $12B investment: this can only happen with US government guarantee, thus taxpayers paying.

jvanderbot 5y ago

Well, we dumped a lot of money into the F-35 to fill a perceived strategic gap in fighter jets that had not yet arrived. This was many years before we actually received such a jet. This kind of long-term investment of lots of money for (arguably) public good is what federal governments are _for_, in my mind. A 250M$ - 1G$ investment / year is big, but if it's self-sustaining in a couple years, that's a huge win.

to11mtm 5y ago

> What still worries me is that ramp up time for fabs like these are on the scale of years - if we assume a fab started right now, we'll be making semiconductors in ~2 years at the earliest (very optimistic)? TSMC announced the Arizona fab in May of 2020. They estimate it will be at volume production by 2024. The challenge is that it's not just building the fab, but also the lead times for all of the equipment involved, getting the specialists in to install+calibrate, then doing some initial runs to work out issues before going to volume production.

baybal2 5y ago
Totally correct, by 2024 a 20k wpm N5 fab will not be able to break even unless wafers would cost $50k+. Who will be billed for this negative equity? TSMC's economists certainly know what they do when they put a $12B investment: this can only happen with US government guarantee, thus taxpayers paying.