Chipmakers Race To Curb Emissions as Demand Surges (ft.com) 24
A greener future is not necessarily a lower-tech future. On the contrary: policy experts at the International Energy Agency and World Economic Forum see smart, data-driven energy systems as crucial to hitting net zero greenhouse gas emissions. But the chips at the heart of all that clean tech -- found in everything from wind turbines to electric vehicles and smart grids -- come with a big carbon footprint. From a report: According to Harvard research published in 2020, chip manufacturing, not energy consumption, accounts for most of the carbon output from electronic devices. Take water use: a chip fabrication plant can use tens of thousands of cubic metres a day, with each cubic metre creating over 10 kilogrammes of carbon emissions through transportation and purification. Record growth in chip demand in recent years also means more energy is used by manufacturers. Emissions increase with the size of production plants, meaning the carbon footprint gets larger as companies rush to build out capacity.
The problem is most pronounced in Asia-Pacific, which dominates the world's semiconductor industry, with regional revenues of $330bn in 2022, more than half the global total. South Korea and Taiwan are home to the most advanced chipmakers and, although both countries are aiming to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, their semiconductor giants currently have carbon footprints to match. For example, in 2020, emissions from Taiwan's TSMC -- from its own operations (so-called Scope 1) and from the energy it purchased (Scope 2) -- were about 10mn tonnes, not far off the levels for Taipei City. South Koreaâ(TM)s Samsung emitted 15.6mn tonnes in 2021.
The problem is most pronounced in Asia-Pacific, which dominates the world's semiconductor industry, with regional revenues of $330bn in 2022, more than half the global total. South Korea and Taiwan are home to the most advanced chipmakers and, although both countries are aiming to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, their semiconductor giants currently have carbon footprints to match. For example, in 2020, emissions from Taiwan's TSMC -- from its own operations (so-called Scope 1) and from the energy it purchased (Scope 2) -- were about 10mn tonnes, not far off the levels for Taipei City. South Koreaâ(TM)s Samsung emitted 15.6mn tonnes in 2021.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why that was modded into oblivion...it's pretty spot on I'd say.
You will own nothing and be happy. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it." [frinkiac.com]
Re:Fuck the Metric Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a piece of news from a newspaper based in London, UK, where experts from the WEF in Davos, Switzerland had a talk with experts from the International Energy Agency from Paris, France and discussed an academic paper published by Harvard Research, USA. All these people are using metric units (you can check the Harvard paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.028... [arxiv.org] ) Also the target audience of the World economic forum are the world leaders are nearly all of them use metric units.
The very practice of units in USA is that specific quantities amounts get ad hoc units (due to the very absence of a uniform system); screwdriver sizes are measured in inches; house sizes in feet; road distances in miles. Or for weight, lotion weight is measured in ounces, body weight in pounds. you just need to know that "CO2 emissions" are measured in the unit called "kg". You don't have to know what a "kg" of CO2 looks like (nobody does). The same way, nobody has a practical understanding of what trillions of dollars/euros/yen are, but we are able to process these values in terms of comparing them to a yearly objective.
Out of curiosity: the chemical calculator from KDE Kalzium says 1 kg of CO2 at NIST Normal Temperature and Pressure (101 325 kPa, 293.15 K) corresponds to a volume of 546.6075 L or 144.3985 gal.
Re: (Score:2)
Net zero just means the amount of CO2 you put in the atmosphere is not more than the amount of CO2 that gets broken down by natural phenomenom (plants photosynthesis, ocean carbon lifecycle, etc...). It doesn't mean we can't use energy, or even that we can't burn any fossil fuel at all. There are some use cases for which we haven't found a better thing than fossil fuels, so we might as well save the little we have left (in comparison with what we already burned) for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Or as they say: a few hundred people driving a car all day to, even for 500 meters to go buy their groceries, is not a problem. Six billions people doing that is a problem.
My Google: carbon neutral since 2007 (Score:2)
FUD much? (Score:2)
"A greener future is not necessarily a lower-tech future. On the contrary: policy experts at the International Energy Agency and World Economic Forum see smart, data-driven energy systems as crucial to hitting net zero greenhouse gas emissions.
But the chips at the heart of all that clean tech - found in everything from wind turbines to electric vehicles and smart grids - come with a big carbon footprint."
The article tries to confuse electronics used in green energy systems, with semiconductor manufactu
Nut Nipping (Score:2)
A good Nut Nipping will reduce emissions.
Haa, this is comedic (Score:2)
This is nothing (Score:2)
This is the same as that government propaganda commercial from years back with the kid who left his USB cell phone charger plugged in and they shamed him for it and told everyone to unplug it. I got out my meter and my two USB wall adapters were dr
The problem is not the energy (Score:2)
All nations need to quit ADDING new fossil fuel plants, though replacing one with a newer one that has less emissions DOES make marginal sense.
But, replacing clean nuclear power or even O&G, with Coal is just about the m