3 ms·
That's precisely why. It costs A LOT to make a fab seismic resistant They've done this and know the costs
by jeppesen-io 5y ago
That's precisely why. It costs A LOT to make a fab seismic resistant
They've done this and know the costs
- culturestate 5y agoMy point is that if you already successfully operate several seismically stable fabs and you're building a new one that's gonna cost you tens of billions of dollars anyway, there must be other factors that are higher on your requirements list.
- sanxiyn 5y agoFabs deal with earthquakes by stopping. They'd rather not stop.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- culturestate 5y agoThis still doesn't make sense to me. If seismic stability is a top-of-mind problem, why do they keep building new fabs in Taiwan? Why not move to diversify higher-end production sooner? Why build in Arizona, a state which - while less seismically active than Taiwan - has multiple active faults and regular earthquakes? It really seems like "a place that's flat and has a relatively low occurrence of natural disasters" is more of a would-be-nice than a must-have.
- dageshi 5y agoIf the operation you currently operate is made significantly more complicated to design and run due to seismic issues and you have the opportunity to start from scratch in a location which doesn't have those issues, why wouldn't you?