Making Microchips Takes Mountain of Materials

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The growing popularity of microchips, currently found in applications ranging from cellular phones to cars, illustrates their increasing affordability. But a new report indicates that the environmental costs associated with producing the small silicon chips are much bigger than their size might suggest. According to a study recently published online by the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, the manufacturing of a typical two-gram chip takes 1.6 kilograms of fossil fuel, 72 grams of chemicals and 32 kilograms of water.

In order to assess the impact of semiconductor manufacturing, Eric D. Williams of the United Nations University and his colleagues studied data collected by the United Nations Environment Programme, the Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation, the Environmental Protection Agency and an anonymous electronics firm. The team found that the materials involved in making a 32-MB RAM microchip total 630 times the mass of the final product. Because of the purification needed for semiconductor technology, manufacturing microchips requires approximately 160 times the amount of energy needed to make typical silicon. Of particular note are the thousands of potentially toxic chemicals used in the manufacturing process. Because microchips--and the smaller, more energy efficient appliciances they power--are no doubt here to stay, the authors emphasize the need to "work toward a wider understanding of and response to the industry's environmental issues."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe