Saving CO2 using location and time shifting in Azure(devblogs.microsoft.com) |
Saving CO2 using location and time shifting in Azure(devblogs.microsoft.com) |
[1] https://app.electricitymaps.com/map?wind=false&solar=false
[2] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-46
[3] https://www.sec.gov/securities-topics/climate-esg
[4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/secs-climate-disclosure-rule-is...
[5] https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/audit/articles/sec-cli...
(no affiliation with any org mentioned)
In general ESG reporting is pretty lackluster since its hard to set the acceptable metrics.
> The latest version of iOS has a new daemon (a process that runs in the background) that collects carbon emission data from the local load balancing authority (like the US EIA) based on the device’s location. Then, iOS also downloads a carbon emission forecast from a server. With all this data combined, the system controls when Clear Energy Charging goes into action.
> As a result, iOS 16 will wait to charge the iPhone at a time when power grids are less constrained and more clean energy capacity is available. With recent concerns about power grid capacity in US states like Texas and California, this feature couldn’t come at a better time – and will certainly be very useful for other Apple products as well.
Consider how broad efficiency measures (Energy Star, LEDs, etc) have kept electric demand flat in the US; that is generation that will never have to be built.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/us-electricity-demand-flat-since-2...
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/2/27/1705248...
(if I can find objective measures of this Apple feature, I will start a new thread)
https://support.apple.com/en-us/108068
also:
> When Clean Energy Charging suspends charging, a notification on the Lock Screen says when your iPhone will be fully charged. If you need to have your iPhone fully charged sooner, touch and hold the notification and then tap Charge Now.
There is something like 135M iPhones in the US, for scale. Each device is immaterial, but that is a material amount of aggregate load that can be orchestrated. And all we're saying is "heh! if you don't need to charge right now, wait until the local grid carbon intensity is forecasted to be lower." Same as we do for EVs, thermostats (Nest "rush hour" and similar load shedding ops), etc.
EVs and thermostats make complete sense because they dominate energy consumption.
I think 10 minutes less of air conditioning will probably offset the entire lifetime of my iPhone’s energy consumption.
We are in an attention constrained world and people focusing on shit like this to make themselves feel like they are helping when they should be replacing insulation in homes or building solar is a real issue.
It’s the same thing as making restaurants ask before providing water to “solve the drought”.
But that you're saving a minuscule amount of carbon still doesn't change the fact that it's feel good activism that does nothing about the real challenges, which lie in transportation, agriculture and infrastructure. These contribute to huge chunks of our emissions, are indispensable and at the same time cannot be solved simply by switching to green electricity. Every time we feel good about saving 0.03% of our emissions gives us a reason not to feel so bad about the 70% of our emissions that are the real problem for which practically anyone has not even a good idea yet.
People are already accustomed to the idea of running their laundry or dishwasher based of time-of-day electricity pricing.
Apple is introducing people to the idea that they can also change their electricity usage patterns based on how “green” the marginal electricity production is. The familiarity people gain here can be build upon for laptop, which have a bigger energy draw, and eventually for their electric cars.
> Running laundry or charging an AV at a different time of day doesn't materially impact energy usage and emissions, it just increases the bottom line of the utility company.
This is objectively false. The non-uniform nature of the energy demand necessitates, currently, natural gas peaking plants. Time of use pricing, and demand side management allows us to spread/shift those peak to times where the peaking plants would not come online.
And those peaking plants are very expensive, since their contract with the utility company includes getting paid for idling those plants waiting for the peaks to occur. Getting rid of these plants, lower the price to the consumer AND lowers emissions generated.
Doing it when there is surplus renewable capacity has beneficial impact on emissions compared to doing it when marginal demand is met by fossil fuel sources, even though it doesn't impact total energy usage.