New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

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."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe