Skip to content 
The clash between Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Semiconductors is America’s most significant industrial battleground since World War II. Washington just committed over $600 billion to resurrect domestic manufacturing across both sectors. The CHIPS Act allocated $280 billion for semiconductor production, while the Inflation Reduction Act dedicated $369 billion toward climate initiatives—with EVs grabbing the lion’s share.
These are not parallel industries running their own races; industries are competing against each other for the same resources: capital, engineering talent, government subsidies, and rare materials such as lithium and nickel. China controls 60 percent of the global EV market, while Taiwan’s TSMC manufactures 90 percent of the world’s most advanced chips. America is betting big on both to reclaim technology sovereignty.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. U.S. semiconductor manufacturing dropped to 12% of global capacity. EV production hovers around 7-9% worldwide. Each industry employs millions but is also in the early stages of a historically brutal US-China technology rivalry—one that threatens fair and honest rules of global trade and established supply chains.
- Federal spending pushes the relationship: The CHIPS Act’s 280 billion vs. the IRA’s 369 billion climate total (each program brings funds 100s of billions to EVs and semiconductors, respectively).
- U.S. share of global market: Semiconductors (12 percent) vs. EVs (7-9 percent).
- China controls 60 percent of EVs, and increasingly has capabilities in chips that are advancing rapidly.
Innovation Velocity: Which Sector Is Driving U.S. Technological Leadership Faster?
EVs and Semiconductors show radically different speeds of innovation: Chips iterate faster—Moore’s Law always pushes transistors forward, even as maximum transistor densities begin to reach physical limits. NVIDIA and Intel alone produce new architectures every 18-24 months. Tesla updates vehicle software but takes 4-7 years to develop new models.
Semiconductor patents exploded 34% from 2019 to 2024, according to USPTO data. EV-related patents grew 22% during the same period. The tech competition isn’t even close when measuring pure velocity. Silicon Valley chip designers command $300,000+ salaries while Detroit engineers earn $150,000 on average.
Battery energy density improves each year by 5-7% annually… nominal at best compared to chips. For example, solid-state batteries remain pre-commercial after decades of development. In analogy, TSMC shipped 3-nanometer chips in 2022 and is pushing for 2nm by 2025. Industrial policy needs to take these different timelines into account.
- Chip design cycles: 2-5 years vs vehicle development: 4-7 years
- Patent growth (2019-2024): Semiconductors +34%, EVs +22%
- R&D spending: Intel $18B annually, Tesla $3.5B annually
Venture capital is also driven by the pace of innovation. Semiconductor startups pulled in $15 billion alone in 2023.. EV startups struggled—Rivian burned through $6 billion with minimal revenue. Lucid Motors trades 90% below its SPAC debut price. The technology race rewards faster iteration cycles.
Electric Vehicles vs Semiconductors: Competing Paths to Industrial Sovereignty
Electric Vehicles vs Semiconductors demand different sovereignty strategies. True tech independence requires manufacturing capability plus supply chain control, plus market power. America excels at chip design (95% of advanced architectures) but has lost manufacturing to Asia. EVs face the opposite problem—assembly exists domestically, but battery cells come from overseas.
| Sector Comparison: Key Dependencies | Semiconductors | Electric Vehicles |
|---|---|---|
| Current U.S. Production Share | 12% of global capacity | 7-9% of global production |
| Critical Foreign Dependencies | ASML lithography equipment (Netherlands), photoresists (Japan 70%) | Lithium refining (China 60%), cobalt (Congo 70%), rare earths (China 90%) |
| Manufacturing Cost per Facility | $20-40 billion per fab | $3-5 billion per battery plant |
| Time to Full Production | 5-7 years | 3-4 years |
| Government Subsidy Coverage | 30% of construction costs (CHIPS Act) | $7,500 consumer tax credits (IRA) |
| Primary Bottleneck | Specialized equipment & skilled labor | Critical mineral processing & refining |
TSMC’s Arizona fab won’t open until late 2025. Intel’s facility in Ohio has a completion target of 2027; Samsung’s expansion in Texas is suffering a construction setback. Each facility is projected to cost somewhere between $40 to $100B, and take between 5 to 7 years before reaching full production. The driver of investments at this scale is likely to be state-led policies that offer direct subsidies up to 30% of the construction cost.
EV battery sovereignty looks even tougher. America produces just 7% of global lithium-ion cells. China processes 80-90% of the critical minerals—lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earths. Constructing domestic capacity for refining those minerals will take 8 to 12 years because of environmental permitting and technical challenges. Decoupling tech straight supply chains from China means accepting higher costs and longer time frames.
Economic Control and Market Influence: Who Shapes the U.S. Future Economy?
Electric Vehicles vs Semiconductors creates wildly different economic ripples. Semiconductors produce downstream activity worth $8 trillion per year, in smartphones, data centers, AI systems, and defense systems. All digital devices require chips. EVs will disrupt the $2 trillion auto industry and some energy infrastructure, but they do not have as wide a cascade effect.
Job creation trajectories differ dramatically. The number of workers employed by a semiconductor fab will be 3 to 5K engineers at 3 to 5X the engineers’ salaries for each facility. The number of workers at an EV assembly plant will be 3 to 8K workers with a variety of salaries. Intel’s fab in Ohio is expected to employ 3KS at an average salary of $135K. Ford’s plant in Tennessee is hiring 6KS at a $65-80K salary range. Economic policy must choose between concentrated high wages and distributed middle-class employment.
Market concentration tells another story. TSMC, Samsung, and Intel control over 80% of advanced chip manufacturing. The EV market is fragmented across Tesla, legacy manufacturers, and dozens of manufacturers in China. Concentration provides market power on price. There was a chip shortage in 2021 that cost auto manufacturers $240 billion in lost production. The debate about technological governance is a discussion about whether monopolies or competition protect national interests better.
- Implications for trade. The U.S. imports more than $100 billion in semiconductors each year.
- Stock market capitalization. NVIDIA has a $2.3 trillion market cap compared to Tesla’s $800 billion.
- Negotiating power. Chip sellers are in a strong position compared to EV buyers.
- Supply chain resiliency. EV batteries have more dependency on materials than chips.
Supply Chain Resilience: EV Batteries vs Chip Manufacturing Dependencies
The intersection of Electric Vehicles & Semiconductors reveals some of America’s most dangerous vulnerabilities. Supply chains for both run through chokepoints that bad actors could weaponize overnight. Remember the chip shortage in 2021 that brought the automotive sector to a standstill? Lithium prices skyrocketed almost 500% in 2021 and 2022, significantly squeezing the economics of the EV sector.
Semiconductor dependencies are primarily based on specialized equipment and materials. ASML has a monopoly on the extreme ultraviolet lithography machine in the Netherlands. Each machine costs $150 – $200 million and takes 18 mos to produce. The Japanese own the photoresist and specialty chemicals market. Ukraine was responsible for approximately half of the neon gas required to produce chips and was disrupted by the war with Russia.
Electric Vehicles vs Semiconductors reveals even scarier battery dependencies. China processes almost 60% of the world’s lithium resources (with only 6% of the world’s reserves). Congo produces 70% of cobalt under conditions that fail Western labor standards. And, they process 90% of the rare earth elements used in permanent EV motors. Supply chain disruptions here lack quick fixes; you can’t email minerals into existence.
- Chokepoints in Semiconductor: ASML Lithography (Netherlands monopoly), Japanese Photoresists (70%), Ukrainian neon gas (50% to produce chips pre-war).
- Chokepoints in Electric Vehicle Batteries: China Lithium refining (60% of the world’s production), Congo Cobalt mining (70% of the world’s production), China Rare Earth processing (90% of the world’s production).
- The 2021 worldwide chip shortage cost the U.S. auto industry $240 billion while producing 7.7 million fewer vehicles.
- Diversification efforts take time. Direct lithium extraction.
Diversification efforts proceed slowly. Direct lithium extraction technology promises domestic supplies but remains unproven at scale. Battery recycling could supply 25% of U.S. demand by 2030—if infrastructure gets built. Semiconductor stockpiles exist but cover weeks, not years. Trade barriers complicate allied partnerships when everyone pursues self-sufficiency simultaneously.
Technology Convergence: How Electric Vehicles Depend on Semiconductor Breakthroughs
Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Semiconductors are not a competition but rather a dependent relationship. Next-generation EVs include $1,000 to $2,000 worth of semiconductors, while the luxury segment has up to 3,000 chips for purposes like battery management systems and autonomous driving decisions. EV Sovereignty cannot be achieved without chip sovereignty, and chip sovereignty can be achieved without EV sovereignty.
Regarding silicon carbide semiconductors, power semiconductors determine the efficiency and range of EVs. When Tesla switched to their silicon carbide (SiC) inverters, they saw an increase in range of 5-10% and saved money through cost reductions in the size of the batteries. The global market for SiC exploded from $600 million in 2020 to a projected $6 billion by 2027. This is also another area of concern, given the tension with China, as they are investing $5 billion to gain a foothold in SiC production.
A battery management system requires precision with analog chips that measure voltage differential in hundreds of cells. Failure to protect cells from overvoltage (or current) is often the cause of fires, and it is not uncommon for automakers to have several recalls for battery defects. Less than 100 watts of power is often required to process what is known as a top-of-stack (TOPS), even when systems have advanced features like autonomous driving systems.
NVIDIA’s Drive Orin is the processor for many systems, but at $1,000 or more per vehicle, these systems can become expensive depending on top-level features.
- Average chip content per EV: $1,000-2,000 (luxury EVs exceed $2,000).
- Critical chip types: SiC power semiconductors, MCUs, AI accelerators, and analog sensors.
- Autonomous driving compute requirements: 1,000+ TOPS for Level 4 autonomy.
Electric Vehicles vs Semiconductors exposes a one-way dependency. The shortages of chips directly inhibit EV production–Ford and GM had idled plants over the timeframe of 2021- 2022. But chips continue to be produced, regardless of the demand for EVs. Tech autonomy necessitates prioritizing chips.
Investment Battles: Where U.S. Capital Flows Between EVs and Semiconductors
Electric Vehicles vs Semiconductors attracts different investor profiles. Patient capital flows to semiconductors–fabs cost $20-40 billion and a 5-7 year runway until they are profitable. EV investments promise faster returns but higher failure rates. Strategic planning decides which sector will get advanced funding.
Private sector commitment dwarfs any government subsidizing. Semiconductor companies have announced over $200 billion in U.S. fab construction—Intel leads with $100 billion across Arizona, Ohio, and New Mexico. TSMC committed $40 billion to Arizona. Samsung pledged $17 billion in Texas. These facilities won’t produce revenue until 2025-2027.
There have been plans for $130 billion post-2020 for electric vehicles and batteries. Tesla spent $10 billion enlarging their Austin and Nevada facilities.
GM committed $35 billion to EV development. Ford allocated $30 billion through 2025. Battery makers LG, Samsung SDI, and Panasonic invested $15-20 billion in U.S. plants. Nationalization fears don’t apply—private capital leads both sectors.
- Government funding: CHIPS Act $52B incentives vs IRA EV $7,500 consumer credits
- Private semiconductor investments: $200B+ (Intel $100B, TSMC $40B, Samsung $17B)
- Private EV/battery investments: $130B+ (GM $35B, Ford $30B, Tesla $10B)
Electric Vehicles venture capital tells a darker story. Chip startups raised $15 billion in 2023 despite difficult markets. Electric Vehicles startups collapsed—Arrival went bankrupt, Lordstown shuttered, Fisker struggles. Only Rivian and Lucid survive among pure-play Electric Vehicles startups, both burning billions quarterly. State control of tech debates misses the point—markets already picked winners.
The Road Ahead: How Electric Vehicles and Semiconductors Will Redefine U.S. Economic Power
Electric Vehicles versus Semiconductors will determine whether or not America maintains its superpower status through to 2050. China is targeting semiconductor self-sufficiency by 2030 while cornering the export market for Electric Vehicles. Europe owns ASML’s lithography equipment and is itself constructing the manufacturing basis for Electric Vehicles, and America, while under institutionalization.
The best-case scenario sees America achieving complementary leadership—designing cutting-edge chips while innovating EV technology through superior software and integration. Tesla’s vertical integration model combines both sectors effectively. Ford and GM partner with semiconductor firms rather than competing. The technical decoupling of the world proceeds selectively based on security threats, not blanket protectionism.
Moderate scenarios maintain competitive positioning through alliances. The U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands coordinate semiconductor equipment restrictions on China. Electric Vehicles benefit as critical mineral partnerships with Australia, Canada, and Chile diversify Electric Vehicles’ supply chains. Logistics challenges ease through nearshoring to Mexico and strategic stockpiles, strengthening the Electric Vehicles industry’s resilience.
- China’s 2030 targets: 70% semiconductor self-sufficiency, 50%+ global EV exports.
- U.S. 2030 goals: 20% chip manufacturing share, 50% EV sales domestically.
Electric Vehicles vs Semiconductors frames the wrong question. Industrial sovereignty isn’t choosing between sectors—it’s recognizing their inseparable nature in 21st-century economic power. Nations that master this interdependence will write rules for decades while others follow.
READ ALSO: Core Surge: MediaTek Dimensity 9500 Chipset Redefines Flagship AI, Gaming, and Efficiency
FAQs
Which sector creates more jobs—electric vehicles or semiconductors?
EVs create 3,000-8,000 jobs per assembly plant at $65,000-80,000 average salaries. Semiconductor fabs employ 3,000-5,000 workers but pay $135,000 on average.
Can the U.S. achieve semiconductor independence from Taiwan?
Not completely by 2030. TSMC’s Arizona fab will produce just 5% of Taiwan’s capacityAmerica will still rely on Asian manufacturing for 70%+ of semiconductors through 2035.
Why do electric vehicles need so many semiconductors?
Modern EVs contain 3,000+ chips managing battery systems, power conversion, autonomous driving, and connectivity. Silicon carbide chips alone improve efficiency by 5-10%.
How does China dominate both EV and semiconductor supply chains?
China produces 60% of global EVs and refines 60-90% of battery minerals. In semiconductors, China invests $150+ billion targeting 70% self-sufficiency by 2030.
What happens if semiconductor shortages hit electric vehicle production again?
EV production stops completely, automakers require 1,000+ chips per vehicle.. The 2021-2022 shortage cost the auto industry $240 billion globally.
