5 ms·

This is fascinating and looks promising! I've never heard of this but expect we will more in the near future, especially if they meet that 2028 target. I wonde

This is fascinating and looks promising! I've never heard of this but expect we will more in the near future, especially if they meet that 2028 target. I wonder what the environmental impact of this is versus extreme ultraviolet. Although they mention "cost of ownership" and throughput, I wonder if this has any hidden implications.

huijzer 2y ago
Why should we care about the environmental impact of EUV machines? I think it's probably better to focus on things which have a real environmental impact. For example, EUV machines are estimated to 54 000 GWh per year by 2030 [1]. This number is a extremely high estimate because current usage is much lower (10 GWh per tool annually according to the same article and in 2020 ASM shipped their 100th EUV system, so current total about 1 000 GWh). This is sold as being "power hungry". Let's put these numbers in perspective. The United States alone consumes about 25 000 TWh "primary energy" pear year (includes electricy, transport, and heating) [2]. This means that in the extreme case, EUV machines consume 54 TWh / 25 000 TWh = 0.2% of total energy! In comparison, 27% of total U.S. energy consumption was used for transporting people and goods around in the US [3]. And I made the example here before that if you are considering to turn off your phone in order to save battery at the risk of taking an accidental detour, then the decision is simple. Keep the phone. Driving one kilometer extra consumes multiple orders of magnitude more energy than powering a phone for hours. I think this idea holds in many more cases. Video meetings for example can save people from traveling all over the world. This saves energy and time as well. So I would say please go full power on chip manufacturing. It's way better for the environment (and often saves people time) than deciding to stop innovation and instead keep transporting everything around physically. I'm not saying transport is bad. I'm saying that standing in the way of innovation as an argument for better "environmental impact" is nonsensical. [1]: https://www.techinsights.com/blog/euv-lithography-power-hungry-path-innovation https://www.techinsights.com/blog/euv-lithography-power-hung... [2]: https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/united-states [3]: https://www.eia.gov/kids/using-and-saving-energy/transportation.php https://www.eia.gov/kids/using-and-saving-energy/transportat...
- saagarjha 2y ago
  Nobody has to lose for lithography to win.
- jampekka 2y ago
  It's nice to think that global warming can be solved with some technological gimmics so people don't have to make any lifestyle changes.
  - huijzer 2y ago
    Nobody will make the lifestyle changes. Or do you? Do you sit in a cold house as you type this? Do you not shower? Do you only grow your own vegetables in your backyard? Do you never use a car? Do you not even own a car? Do you have children? It's terrible for climate to have children? I think it sounds somewhat nice in theory to make lifestyle changes, and sure it helps, but it's not a solution. It's like if you are in financial trouble. Sure you can decide to not spend any money anymore. That definitely helps. But if you sell your car to save money and then cannot make it to job interviews anymore then you saved too much. You need to focus on getting money (and maybe spending it in the process) AND saving money. Focusing only on saving money is a losing strategy. Same with climate. Focusing only on using less energy is a losing strategy. Sometimes you need to spend energy to save energy in the future.
    - atq2119 2y ago
      "Nobody", really? As a bare minimum, many people can choose to take more environmentally friendly vacations. You don't have to go on a cruise, and yet that's a booming industry. You don't have to fly across an ocean. Almost everybody who does these things has the option to go on perfectly fine, perhaps even better, less carbon intensive alternative vacations. And yes, there are people who consciously make that lifestyle change. Not enough, of course. But only a Sith deals in absolutes.
      - RealityVoid 2y ago
        You guys are naive. Sure, it's possible, but most people don't do this, don't want to do this and will not do this. And of those that DO some of these things, a large subset probably does it in a ineffective way that OP so nicely illustrated in the phone/1 extra km by car example. No, the solution must be technical while people are allowed to maintain most of the comfort they are used to. Anything else and you will simply not be able to convince people to do so even if that means burning the world down.

huijzer 2y ago

Why should we care about the environmental impact of EUV machines? I think it's probably better to focus on things which have a real environmental impact. For example, EUV machines are estimated to 54 000 GWh per year by 2030 [1]. This number is a extremely high estimate because current usage is much lower (10 GWh per tool annually according to the same article and in 2020 ASM shipped their 100th EUV system, so current total about 1 000 GWh). This is sold as being "power hungry". Let's put these numbers in perspective. The United States alone consumes about 25 000 TWh "primary energy" pear year (includes electricy, transport, and heating) [2]. This means that in the extreme case, EUV machines consume 54 TWh / 25 000 TWh = 0.2% of total energy! In comparison, 27% of total U.S. energy consumption was used for transporting people and goods around in the US [3]. And I made the example here before that if you are considering to turn off your phone in order to save battery at the risk of taking an accidental detour, then the decision is simple. Keep the phone. Driving one kilometer extra consumes multiple orders of magnitude more energy than powering a phone for hours. I think this idea holds in many more cases. Video meetings for example can save people from traveling all over the world. This saves energy and time as well. So I would say please go full power on chip manufacturing. It's way better for the environment (and often saves people time) than deciding to stop innovation and instead keep transporting everything around physically. I'm not saying transport is bad. I'm saying that standing in the way of innovation as an argument for better "environmental impact" is nonsensical. [1]: https://www.techinsights.com/blog/euv-lithography-power-hungry-path-innovation https://www.techinsights.com/blog/euv-lithography-power-hung... [2]: https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/united-states [3]: https://www.eia.gov/kids/using-and-saving-energy/transportation.php https://www.eia.gov/kids/using-and-saving-energy/transportat...

saagarjha 2y ago
Nobody has to lose for lithography to win.
jampekka 2y ago
It's nice to think that global warming can be solved with some technological gimmics so people don't have to make any lifestyle changes.
- huijzer 2y ago
  Nobody will make the lifestyle changes. Or do you? Do you sit in a cold house as you type this? Do you not shower? Do you only grow your own vegetables in your backyard? Do you never use a car? Do you not even own a car? Do you have children? It's terrible for climate to have children? I think it sounds somewhat nice in theory to make lifestyle changes, and sure it helps, but it's not a solution. It's like if you are in financial trouble. Sure you can decide to not spend any money anymore. That definitely helps. But if you sell your car to save money and then cannot make it to job interviews anymore then you saved too much. You need to focus on getting money (and maybe spending it in the process) AND saving money. Focusing only on saving money is a losing strategy. Same with climate. Focusing only on using less energy is a losing strategy. Sometimes you need to spend energy to save energy in the future.
  - atq2119 2y ago
    "Nobody", really? As a bare minimum, many people can choose to take more environmentally friendly vacations. You don't have to go on a cruise, and yet that's a booming industry. You don't have to fly across an ocean. Almost everybody who does these things has the option to go on perfectly fine, perhaps even better, less carbon intensive alternative vacations. And yes, there are people who consciously make that lifestyle change. Not enough, of course. But only a Sith deals in absolutes.
    - RealityVoid 2y ago
      You guys are naive. Sure, it's possible, but most people don't do this, don't want to do this and will not do this. And of those that DO some of these things, a large subset probably does it in a ineffective way that OP so nicely illustrated in the phone/1 extra km by car example. No, the solution must be technical while people are allowed to maintain most of the comfort they are used to. Anything else and you will simply not be able to convince people to do so even if that means burning the world down.