{"id":290909,"date":"2023-12-11T13:41:27","date_gmt":"2023-12-11T12:41:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=290909"},"modified":"2023-12-11T13:41:30","modified_gmt":"2023-12-11T12:41:30","slug":"energy-density-and-micron","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=290909","title":{"rendered":"Energy Density and\u00a0Micron"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Roger Caiazza<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2022, Micron announced its plans to build the largest semiconductor fabrication facility in the history of the United States. Micron intends to invest up to $100 billion over the next 20-plus years to construct a new chip fab plant in Clay, New York.   A recent letter to the Editor of the Syracuse Post-Standard posed the questions: I wonder why the citizens of our state must be the sole providers of electricity to Micron? Shouldn\u2019t Micron at least share in producing electrical power?  The author went on to make recommendations that are inconsistent with the energy density of wind and solar that relate to the viability of the venture.  This post documents the response I submitted to that letter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am following developments at Micron because the facility is going to be built within five miles of my home.  I also follow the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act<\/a> (Climate Act) because of its impacts on New York. The letter relates to both interests.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Climate Act established a New York \u201cNet Zero\u201d target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be \u201czero-emissions\u201d by 2040. The Climate Action Council<\/a> (CAC) is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to \u201cachieve the State\u2019s bold clean energy and climate agenda.\u201d  In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible using zero-emissions electricity. The Integration Analysis<\/a> prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan<\/a>.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan recommendations were finalized at the end of 2022.  In 2023 the Scoping Plan<\/a> recommendations are supposed to be implemented through regulation, PSC orders, and legislation.  Environmental permitting is part of these implementation concerns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Micron Chip Fab Faciliity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The description in the Environmental Assessment Form states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Micron intends to invest approximately $100 billion over the next 20 years to build a leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing campus in the Town of Clay on the approximately 1,400-acre White Pine Commerce Park. Micron intends to acquire the White Pine Commerce Park from the Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency (OCIDA) and construct a campus for four (4) memory fabrication plants (also known as Fabs) on the site. Each Fab, and their related facilities, would take approximately three to five years to construct. Interior fit-out of each Fab would continue after the building is complete, resulting in continuous site activity over approximately 20 years. It is anticipated that the first two (2) Fabs would be complete within approximately 10 years, and the second two (2) Fabs would be complete approximately 10 years thereafter. Skilled trade labor will be employed throughout the 20-year period. Each Fab would occupy approximately 1.2 million square feet (sf) of land and contain approx. 600,000 sf of cleanroom space, 290,000 sf of clean room support space, and 250,000 sf of administrative space. Each set of two fabs would be supported by approx. 360,000 sf of central utility buildings, 200,000 sf of warehouse space, and 200,000 sf of product testing space housed in separate buildings.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Micron should share in producing power for its chip fab letter<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scott Love from Jamesville, NY sent a letter to the editor<\/a> proposing several actions for the power needs of the facility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

After reading the article \u201cLeaders: Grid must grow for Micron, others<\/a>\u201d in the Dec. 3, 2023, Business section of The Post-Standard, I wonder why the citizens of our state must be the sole providers of electricity to Micron? Shouldn\u2019t Micron at least share in producing electrical power? The acreage covered by the Micron facility roofs should be used for producing solar power. In addition, hydro generators should be considered for the almost 40 miles of pipeline to and from Lake Ontario. On-site wind power should also be considered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Micron is to be considered a leader to the future of our community, then it is time for them to be forward-thinking in their planning.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

There are several points raised that are ripe for comment in this letter.  I submitted the following in response:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Scott Love recently suggested<\/a> that Micron should share the responsibility to provide the electricity necessary for the facility.  I agree with the idea but not his suggested approach. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

He suggested that the facility use rooftop solar, think about on-site wind power, and consider hydro in the pipeline from Lake Ontario. That won\u2019t work.  The energy density of solar and wind is low.  Even if the entire Micron footprint of 1,400 acres was covered with solar panels, panels would provide less than 1% of the power needs.  Wind requires even more space so would provide less of the energy needed.  Lake Ontario is lower than the Micron site so the water must be pumped up to the facility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I believe a co-generation facility using natural gas or nuclear power is appropriate.  For starters, it would eliminate the need for energy storage when the wind is not blowing or sun not shining.  On-site generation makes sense because it reduces line loss and waste heat produced can be used for heating and manufacturing processes.  Small modular nuclear reactors are not yet commercially available, but the facility could be designed to use that technology in the future.  In the meantime, a combined-cycle gas turbine facility could be built.  Carbon dioxide could be minimized by using it in on-site greenhouses that convert it to food.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Micron is going to be a part of our community, it is time for everyone to be forward thinking and pragmatic about how best to make them competitive.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The remainder of this article summarizes the overall issue of Micron energy requirements and specific concerns with the letter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Micron Energy Use<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In August I prepared an article<\/a> that described the reaction of Richard Ellenbogen to the massive amount of energy needed by the facility. I correspond with him regularly because he has spent a lot of time evaluating the Climate Act net-zero transition.  I recently described his comprehensive   presentation<\/a> on the transition.  When I let him know that the original projection for energy use that would be the same as the state of Vermont has been expanded to be the same as Vermont and New Hampshire he responded with the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

I have been using the Micron facility as an example of how the Climate Act is actually going to increase NY State\u2019s carbon footprint because transmitting all of that energy to the Micron site, as much as is used by the state of Vermont, over long distances was going to result in an amount of lost energy on the wires that could operate 1-3\/4 Cornell Universities.  One of my readers sent me an update of energy use because now it is projected that the Clay complex will consume 16 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, as much as Vermont and New Hampshire combined, or 16,000 Gigawatt Hours annually (16 Tera-watt hours).  That is double the original projections and the idea that this could be supported with renewable generation is laughable.  16,000 GWh is an 11%  increase in NY State electric usage just related to the one facility.  The line loss will also double to consume the output of about  a 100 megawatt fossil fuel plant under continuous operation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To put the Micron facility\u2019s usage into perspective, in its last full year of operation the 2 Gigawatt Indian Point nuclear plant generated 16.3 Tera-watt hours so the Micron facility will need to be supported by a 2 Gigawatt fossil fuel or nuclear plant on site or  2.1 Gigawatts of generation off site, 5% more.  NY State\u2019s policy makes absolutely no sense.  To run the Micron facility would require using about 4 GW of the projected 9 GW of offshore wind to support the plant or 16 GW of solar arrays covering 128,000 acres (80 acres per 10 MW)  or 200 Square miles.  NY State has 7 million acres of farmland so solar arrays to support the Micron facility  would use almost 2% of the farmland in the state and would also require an enormous amount of battery storage, the cost of which would greatly exceed the cost of a nuclear plant on site.  A combined cycle generating plant on site would be about 75% less than the cost of the nuclear plant.  Both the combined cycle gas plant and the nuclear plant on-site offer the option of recovering the waste heat and using it in the plant to make Micron even more energy efficient.  With regard to the solar and wind, NY State is having major difficulties getting all of their renewable projects finished because of cost issues and interconnection issues, let alone adding this gigantic lead weight to the Camel\u2019s back.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Micron Sustainability<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact sheet<\/a> for the proposed plan describes sustainability initiatives planned:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n