Semiconductors are the backbone of our digitalized world – and at the same time a blind spot in the climate debate. Julia Christina Hess, Senior Policy Researcher at interface, sheds light on the darkness: with new data, precise emissions analyses and well-founded comparisons, she shows where the biggest climate levers in the industry lie – and why sustainability is no longer a nice-to-have, but is becoming a strategic necessity.
Categories
Tags
Contact info
Silicon Saxony
Marketing, Kommunikation und Ă–ffentlichkeitsarbeit
Manfred-von-Ardenne-Ring 20 F
Fax: +49 351 8925 889
Contact person:
Semiconductors are the backbone of our digitalized world – and at the same time a blind spot in the climate debate. The production of chips consumes enormous amounts of energy, water and resources. Julia Christina Hess, Senior Policy Researcher at interface, is focusing attention on this ecological footprint. With her two current studies – “Chip Production’s Ecological Footprint” (2024) and the “Semiconductor Emission Explorer” (2025), she not only provides well-founded data, but also food for thought for industry, politics and investors. Her analyses have met with a global response – both at New York Climate Week and in the EU Parliament. After all, anyone who wants to secure Europe’s technological sovereignty must also understand the ecological realities of the global value chain.
Robert Weichert, head of the Silicon Saxony working group “Sustainability and ESG”, spoke to Julia Hess about transparency, conflicting goals and how climate-friendly chip production can become a reality.
In your opinion, what are the most important environmental challenges associated with semiconductor front-end manufacturing?
Julia Hess: Semiconductor front-end manufacturing is very energy- and resource-intensive, especially in the complex production steps, which comprise over 1000 steps. One of the biggest ecological challenges is the high energy consumption, as cleanrooms have to be constantly supplied with energy. An illustrative example: New semiconductor factories in the USA from Intel and Samsung consume twice as much energy as the city of Seattle. And my last study also showed that energy consumption in semiconductor production has more than doubled globally in the last eight years, increasing by 125 percent to be precise. Water consumption is also enormous – a large factory can use up to 38 million liters a day. In addition, fluorinated gases and PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), which are difficult or impossible to replace, pose a challenge as they cause both high greenhouse gas emissions and environmental contamination.
How does Europe’s current share of global semiconductor production affect the industry’s environmental footprint?
Julia Hess: Europe’s share of global semiconductor production is around eight percent. Currently, the ecological footprint of this industry in Europe is relatively low, as many emission-intensive production steps have been outsourced. Compared to the steel or chemical industry, for example, the semiconductor industry in Europe produces relatively few emissions. In 2021, this was around 11 to 14 million tons of CO2 per year. Compared to the 70 million tons of CO2 emitted by the international aviation industry, this is of course very manageable. It is precisely this small share of the semiconductor industry in current emissions in Europe that probably explains why the issue is not yet so much in the focus of politics.
What are the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions in chip production, and how are they measured?
Julia Hess: There is the Greenhouse Gas Protocol for measuring greenhouse gas emissions, which distinguishes between three categories. In the first category, the direct emissions that arise during production are recorded. In the semiconductor sector, this primarily refers to the chemicals used with a high greenhouse gas potential. The second category comprises indirect emissions, i.e. emissions that arise from chip production but from sources that are not controlled by the semiconductor companies themselves. In the case of chip production, we are primarily talking about electricity consumption. Many of the manufacturing processes are very energy-intensive. This electricity is usually purchased by the chip manufacturers, but the production of the electricity used here naturally also generates emissions. And finally, in the third category, we are talking about indirect emissions that are not generated directly during production, but along the upstream and downstream supply chains. This includes emissions that arise, for example, during the mining and onward transportation of the raw materials, such as quartz sand in the case of silicon wafers. However, the emissions associated with the end use of the chip are also recorded here. Where is the chip used? And what happens when the product is disposed of?
Greenhouse gas emissions are generated in each of these categories. However, it is difficult to generalize where the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions in semiconductor production are, as these are very different processes with different resource inputs. If we take a closer look at the first category, some chemicals with a high greenhouse gas potential stand out. One prominent example is sulphur hexafluoride. Other highly potent greenhouse gases such as nitrogen trifluoride are also used. Both substances have a global warming potential more than 23,500 times higher than carbon dioxide and are mainly used in plasma etching and cleaning processes. What is particularly problematic is that only a fraction of these gases are actually used in the production processes, with the majority escaping unused into the atmosphere. However, it is important to emphasize that we are talking here about very complex and sometimes very different processes that lead to greenhouse gas emissions at many points in the extraction and processing of resources. Identifying “the” main source therefore does not do justice to the topic at this point.
What role do chemicals, especially PFAS and fluorinated gases, play in the environmental impact of chip manufacturing?
Julia Hess: Both chemicals often have a negative impact on the environment, although they have a different impact on the environment. Fluorinated gases have a high global warming potential and are therefore particularly problematic from an emissions avoidance perspective. PFAS, on the other hand, are problematic because they do not biodegrade and therefore contaminate the environment. However, both groups of substances are currently indispensable in semiconductor production as they fulfill essential functions. The challenge is to find alternatives that are more environmentally friendly without compromising efficiency. At the same time, it is important that environmental compatibility is considered and evaluated from both perspectives: Replacing fluorinated gases with PFAS may reduce global warming potential, but environmental protection is only helped to a limited extent at this point.
Why is the transition to more sustainable chemicals in semiconductor manufacturing expected to take more than 15 years?
Julia Hess: Semiconductor production is highly complex and each process step is precisely tailored to the chemicals used. The transition to alternative chemicals requires not only the research and development of new substances, but also extensive testing, adjustments to production lines and major investments in new equipment. This process is time-consuming and explains why such a transition could take at least 15 years. Unfortunately, the industry’s transition at this point is not only dependent on the development of new substances, but will be determined to a considerable extent by their integration into the currently established processes.
How high is the water consumption of large semiconductor manufacturing plants compared to other industries?
Julia Hess: The water consumption of large semiconductor factories is immense, around 38 million liters per day. A comparison with other industries shows that water consumption in semiconductor production is significantly higher, as the processes largely require highly purified water. However, some of the water is recycled. If the extracted water can be treated and reused, this puts the actual water consumption into perspective.
What are the current limits in assessing the overall environmental and climate impact of semiconductor production?
Julia Hess: One of the biggest challenges is that most analyses only focus on direct emissions. A holistic view that also includes resource consumption and the entire supply chain is often missing. Furthermore, there are no uniform standards for reporting emissions, which makes comparisons between different regions and companies even more difficult.
How does the environmental footprint of compound semiconductors differ from that of silicon-based wafers?
Julia Hess: Compound semiconductors have a higher environmental footprint because they use rarer and harder to extract materials such as gallium and germanium. These materials are often by-products of other highly emission-intensive industries, which increases the overall footprint of these semiconductors. However, they are essential for certain high-performance technologies, including renewable energy technologies. Depending on the application, this can put their ecological disadvantage into perspective.
_ _ _ _ _
👉 Interface Website
👉 Julia Christina Hess on LinkedIn
👉 Publication: “Chip Production’s Ecological Footprint: Mapping Climate and Environmental Impact” (2024)
👉 Semiconductor Emission Explorer: Tracking Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Chip Production (2015-2023)
_ _ _ _ _ _
Semiconductors enable digitalization, AI and the energy transition – but their hunger for resources is enormous: millions of liters of water every day, hundreds of chemicals, a rapidly increasing energy demand. Europe wants to achieve a 20% share of the global market. But what does this mean for our carbon footprint? Many large companies have already committed themselves to CO2 neutrality. With corresponding consequences for the supply industry and SMEs, which are not currently required to report.
Host Julia Nitzschner takes this as an opportunity to talk to Silke Bremen (Environment, Safety & Health Manager, ESMC), RenĂ© Reichardt (Managing Director, DAS Environmental Expert GmbH) and Robert Weichert (Managing Partner, WeichertMehner) about the status quo of ESG regulation, TSMC’s ambitious sustainability goals, the pressure along the supply chain, innovation potential as well as issues that have already been addressed and challenges that still need to be solved.
👉 Listen in now (German)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Would you like to know more about the topic, network or actively promote sustainability issues? Then become part of the sustainability working group.
Next event: CSRD im Wandel – Aktueller Stand und Auswirkungen des EU-Omnibus-Verfahrens
June 26, 2025; 4 to 6 p.m. (new date)
👉 To the event
_ _ _ _ _ _
30.000 square meters of clean room, 450,000 cubic meters of excavated earth, 2,000 people on the construction site – the dimensions of the Smart Power Fab in Dresden are impressive. What is even more impressive is that one of Germany’s largest construction sites is growing in record time while remaining sensitive to the environment, surroundings and ongoing high-tech production. In this interview, site manager Holger Hasse explains how mega dimensions and micro-precision come together under the “zero defect” requirement.
👉 To the interview
