Zibb

Steve LeibsonLeibson's Law: It takes 10 years for any disruptive technology to become pervasive in the design community. This blog is about the disruptive technologies that either have or will win over electronic engineers, some that won't, and why. Please feel free to link to these blog entries! Written by Steve Leibson, a marketing consultant specializing in lead generation and content creation for high-tech companies, former VP of Content for Reed Business, and former Editor in Chief of EDN. See my consulting Web site at www.sleibson.com and my history site at www.hp9825.com. You can email me at steven.leibson followed by the magic email symbol @ followed by att.net.

View Steve Leibson's profile on LinkedIn


   Advertisement

Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

Blog

Monday, May 5, 2008

Adieu Electronics: The End is Near (Perhaps Nearer than You Think)

May 5 2008 6:32PM | Permalink |Comments (7) |


I just picked up the June, 2008 issue of Asimov’s Science Fiction magazine (a recently acquired guilty pleasure) and read a Robert Silverberg article titled “The Death of Gallium.” This isn’t a science fiction story. It’s a fact article describing some predictions of Dr. Armin Reller, a materials chemist at the University of Augsburg in Germany. Although Silverberg’s article isn’t really targeted at the electronics industry, the outcomes—should they come to pass—are pretty dire for our little piece of the world.

Reller’s thesis is that several rare elements used in the manufacture of many useful products are about to go extinct, as in we don’t have any more of the stuff. A little Googling shows I’m late to the party for this disaster scenario. It seems the story got a lot of coverage by the “big” publications, including the Wall Street Journal and the UK’s New Scientist, back in the middle of 2007. Nevertheless, it’s news to me and worthy of a blog entry.

Here are the New Scientist’s predictions for the remaining time before we use up known reserves of these key elements:

 

 

I don’t know about you, but to me this looks like a doomsday chart for the electronics industry as we know it. Here we are worrying about the end of oil in 50 years, and this list makes it look as though the electronics industry won’t last as long as the oil industry. Although all sorts of bad things happen when we run out of any of the items on the list (after all, we need platinum for making those memristors I just wrote about), let’s just deal with hafnium.

The electronics industry has merrily jaunted along for more than 100 years without needing much hafnium, until now. Suddenly, at the 45nm lithography node, we need it to tame static leakage in CMOS ICs. That’s going to be good for another decade or so and then no more hafnium, according to Dr. Reller. Gallium and indium, used in LEDs, are also in short supply. The metals-centric electronics industry is in pretty serious trouble here.

Now elemental extinction isn’t like biological extinction. Once the apatosaurus and the wooly mammoth become extinct, they can’t return (barring the kind of technology in Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park). However, more of these elemental metals exist on the Earth and even more can be had elsewhere in the Solar System, we merely need to find it and extract or refine it. That doesn’t mean we will. It may not make economic sense.

Who knows what electronics will look like in a decade? Perhaps all circuitry will be carbon based as we transition from silicon semiconductors to etched graphene and carbon nanotubes. After all, we’ve got so much carbon we’re figuring out ways to sequester it. We might as well do something useful with all that extra carbon.

Couldn’t happen, you say? Too far fetched? We’ve made such radical transitions before. Electronics was born in 1906 with Lee de Forest’s invention of the Audion vacuum-tube triode. Tubes held sway for about 50 years. The germanium transistor was invented at Bell Labs in 1947 but didn’t take over most of the jobs done by tubes for another 10 years (that’s Leibson’s Law in action). Silicon transistors took about another 10 years (that’s Leibson’s Law in action too). ICs also took about 10 years, from their invention in 1959, to capture the bulk of the electronics market (Leibson’s Law again). Ditto microprocessors, which showed up in 1971 (another example of Leibson’s Law). So we’ve made many big shifts in electronics over the years. We will no doubt make more.

Elemental extinction may drive the next big shift in electronics. Something certainly will.

 

 


Reader Comments



at 5/6/2008 12:22:00 PM, Klaus Kaiser said:
Unless you fission or fusion them, elements don''''t go extinct, they go into landfills. When the usual sources of hafnium etc. are exhausted, todays landfills will become profitable mines. Of course hafnium will become more expensive. Today, according to www.corrosionsource.com, it costs $100/lb ... $500/lb. The yearly demand for hafnium in the U.S. now exceeds 100,000 lb (also quoted from www.corrosionsource.com). Assuming an annual consumption of 150,000lbs in the US and an average price of $400/lb, and assuming that all of it ends up in products sold to the U.S . population of 300e6 people, every USian buys hafnium for 20 U.S.Cents per year at today''''s prices. If hafnium prices increase thousandfold to make landfill mining profitable, the price of your annual need of hafnium will rise to $200. Annoying, but not disastrous.



at 5/6/2008 1:57:42 PM, A USain said:
Huperson creativity. I guess we just need to start a bit earlier than when we run out. BTW can we find a way to extract oil fromm landfills? That would really allow me to sleep a bit better-- at night, but perhaps even in the day.



at 5/6/2008 2:27:01 PM, Policebox said:
The item that isn't being discussed is how to reclaim these elements. Vaporizing the chips and running them through a mass spectrometer would be an expensive process, but it would be able to recover pretty much everything. There are probably metalurgical ways of doing it too.



at 5/6/2008 4:41:50 PM, smartie said:
When I was a Kid, we had the so called "oil shock" consequence of the Suez crisys. (Some military trouble between Israel and Egypt, much like waht we see now in Irak.) Consequence was that oil prices soared, and we enjoyed "car free sunday's" here in central europe, to save gass. (Maybe some thing to come soon back, we already hear of the "gass price holiday again"). O.k. back to the subject. By then I read an article which quoted that the first Element to run out would be Silver. I was beeing very clever, and saving away as many silver coins I could get hold of with my pocket money, and started begging silver spoons from my grandma. Since I have not become rich with those treasures, but it seems that each tiem the oil price rises to the 100USD/Barrel range, the general hoax about runnign out comodities goes through the analysts world. Fact is, that elements never run out, as price increases, they will A be wasted less, and exploited more. There is good reason to belive that we will have a post electronics epoche, but the reasosn will be better performance/cost and not "extinct" elements. All in all I guess it is too early to invest in carbon nanotubes jsut because we got more carbon on the planet than hafnium. Afther all it takes only a 5-10 atom thick layer to form the gate insulater of a MOS.



at 5/7/2008 9:47:21 AM, Steve Leibson said:
Smartie, the paper by Dr. Reller appeared more than a year ago, well before the current oil-price ramp and Silverberg's opinion piece was probably written 6 months ago (that's how Science Fiction magazine deadlines roll), which was also before the current ramp in oil prices. It's true that each 45nm IC will use only a tiny amount of hafnium. I guess the big use is as a neutron absorber in nuclear-reactor control rods. (That use is likely to increase as well over the next few years.) Elements never run out in the universe (at least not from our perspective), but they do become scarce, driving us to use what we have more efficiently or to find more on Earth, on the moon, in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, or in the Oort cloud beyond Pluto's orbit.



at 6/9/2008 8:44:18 AM, BarrieG said:
Policebox noted that the issue of reclamation was not addressed in prior comments; but neither was the issue of product obsolesence. Some time ago, a reliable insider of the CPU business told me that they design products to have a 3 year MTTF, based on electromigration estimates. Wider metals extend this time, as do larger spacings. But both of these choices result in slower performance and a larger die. So a compromise is struck at the 3-year point. (I'm told this company also has a 7-yr process).

Perhaps more attention ought to be given to product lifetime. How many cell phones have needed to be discarded so far? How many more will be?
Interestingly, the principal elements used in standard IC manufacture are the Earth's most abundant. Can human life continue without the use of gallium and hafnium? We managed pretty well for a quite long time.



at 6/9/2008 9:13:54 PM, Steve Leibson said:
BarrieG, I intentionally ignored the comments about reclaiming elements from manufactured chips. The recoverable amount of hafnium from a chip and the amount of energy it would take per chip probably argue for practical mining of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Neither is likely. But something will need to happen. Most likely, a renewed push to find more of the elements here on Earth or to find adequate substitutes. As for your comment on giving more attention to IC longevity, I cannot verify that today''s chips are designed for 3-year MTTF and I think it unlikely, except perhaps for those "gamer" processors that push the speed envelope at any given litho level. The gamers themselves overclock processors while raising core voltages to get more speed, because they don''t care about processor lifetimes. They know that in a couple of years they''ll be buying faster processors. Meanwhile, I''m unaware of large numbers of PCs croaking from dead processors at three years. The "mean" in MTTF means that a lot of machines should die even before three years, which I just don''t see in the population of machines just in my own company. That said, the current set of values in our retail system today emphasize speed over product quality and power efficiency. I think something has to change in the societal fabric beyond simple maunfacturing tweaks before consumers demand longevity with their purchasing decisions.

Post a comment



Display Name

Change Image
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above.
Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites