[huijzer]

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-hung...

[2]: https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/united-states

[3]: https://www.eia.gov/kids/using-and-saving-energy/transportat...

[franga2000]

> So I would say please go full power on chip manufacturing. It's way better for the environment

The flip side of this is that chips becoming so cheap has caused a huge increase in e-waste. Basically everything has a computer inside it (think smart toothbrushes, fridges, toys...) and it usually leads to shorter product lifetimes. Manufacturers drop support for their apps and shut down cloud services sometimes as quickly as two years after manufacture, so things are thrown away. Smart gadgets are also generally more prone to breaking due to having more, more complex more and sensitive parts (no way that 10c MCU in a smart toaster is survivng 10 years of hot-cold cycles).

If chips were more expensive, we wouldn't waste machine time on dual-core mediatek SOCs for 100 € smartphones with a "life expectantly" of less than two years. Manufacturers would make expensive and quality phones and those that can't afford them (I've been there) would buy older models used or refurbished. Longer product lifespans, more reuse, less waste.

[XorNot]

Or you could regulate the problem at it's source by passing laws to require the release of source code and flashing instructions for any product the manufacturer is dropping support for, required by escrow to the relevant governing authority of such tools for a product release when revenue exceeds a couple million dollars.

[jampekka]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

[atq2119]

This is one those cases of "why not both"?

I totally agree that we need technical solutions. We have no hope without them. But it's also naive to think that endless growth without lifestyle changes is possible.

That said, if you really think about it, the most important lifestyle change of all is happening, and quite dramatically so: People are having fewer children.

[landryraccoon]

This is problematic though, isn't it?

It's effectively mass subsidization for bad behavior at the expense of people who are altruistic. I don't see how it can be a winning strategy in the long run.

For just a second, let's set aside our hopes and idealism, because I do realize how distasteful this world view may be.

If the best hope for the environment is that altruistic people suffer a disadvantage so that everyone (including defectors who don't want to help anyone and only help themselves) can win, how is that not a strong long term advantage for anti-social behavior?

"Great, don't take that plane ride, stop burning fossil fuels. More for me until we run out! I can even afford to have more kids because I don't care how impactful they are, while you responsibly go extinct."

Feels like a losing battle, and not a fun way to lose either. I suspect that we all know, despite our hopes, that eight billion people will not decide to collectively give up their own happiness for the betterment of billions of strangers they aren't related to.

[geysersam]

Tons of people are doing lifestyle changes. Eating less meat, taking the train more, driving less etc etc.

It's not enough, but it's necessary to limit CO2 emissions during the transition.

[tehjoker]

It's also a question of whether the higher powered process produces many lower power chips. I suspect this is the case.

[saagarjha]

Nobody has to lose for lithography to win.