[jiggawatts]

Gold was extensively used in chip manufacturing previously, and wasn't cost prohibitive.

The 60g figure is for the packaging, not the chip. The actual chips are tiny and weight much less than that, probably under 1g for most processors.

This new semiconductor isn't pure rhenium, it's a compound, and hence less than 1g would be needed, or about $10 per chip, maximum.

Realistically, this new semiconductor would be deposited as an extremely thin layer on top of something cheaper like silicon or quartz. The material cost per chip would be measured in cents.

[adrian_b]

The cost of depositing an expensive substance like a rhenium compound on a semiconductor wafer is significantly greater than that of the substance that remains deposited on the wafer.

Depending on the kind of deposition method used, for depositing a certain amount on the wafer, a much greater quantity is used, which ends deposited on the equipment, or as chemical precursors mixed and reacted or unreacted.

Due to the rhenium cost and scarcity, all the rhenium compounds that are not deposited on the wafer must be recycled. That can raise the cost a lot.

Finding a compatible substrate for deposition, with an appropriate crystal structure, can be very difficult.

[happytiger]

That’s extremely interesting. So there is a considerable manufacturing process waste factor that reduces yield.

I had been thinking that viability of yield could be an issue too as it would have the same wafer fabrication yield, wafer sort yield, and packaging yield that silicon does. And as a new and profoundly expensive material there is going to be an appreciable learning curve.

Is that what you’re referring to? Or is there more to it even than that?