Apple "Clean Energy" charging

[darknessblade]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The feature and update that introduced this is not new FYI, it's been around for a while. September 12, 2022 if I'm looking at the correct iOS version update.

 

Anyway the point is this doesn't have much impact at all, since nobody noticed nor complained about it and a lot of people will have it and it will be enabled. Which comes back to one of the problems I have, where is the data from the preview trial group from Apple that shows this actually does something? Where is the proof this is actually doing something tangible or does people charging habits like plugging it in below say 20% result in charging safety override and full charging speed to X% so people won't complain or won't have problems.

 

With no actual details about how the feature works and with no data from sample testing to show what it does or can do then it could be a box that is enabled that looks and sounds good but does nothing. For all I know there is zero code behind that slide button and it literally does do nothing lol. Jokes aside this really does look to me 99% appearance motived and not benefit motivated.

  This is something I would definitely see apple do, make a feature just for appearances, but with 0 code behind the box.

making it just a FEEL good checkmark, to stroke people their ego.

 

2 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Dude, the problem wasnt slowing down, it 100000000% benefited the consumer(since when is a crash/less battery life beneficial to a consumer), the issue was not telling the user clearly what was going on. 

And the same can be said about the current "feature"

 

How can you as a consumer know exactly how said feature works?

[starsmine]

30 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

And the same can be said about the current "feature"

 

How can you as a consumer know exactly how said feature works?

 

20 hours ago, starsmine said:

it explicitly tells you what is going on when it triggers and is easily overridden temporarily or permanently.

 

20 hours ago, dilpickle said:

MKBHD explained it nicely

 

 

SIR PLEASE

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Apple isn't claiming that it won't do fast charging during peaks if it's necessary though.  The feature the way it's worded to me says they are essentially going to try their best to reduce the footprint, which it looks like it does.  Even if it is by using time of day into account.

I didn't say Apple isn't or said anything. Apple has quite literally given zero details which is my point. I don't think they will have implemented something that will have an adverse effect on their customers so if a phone is very low of battery charge it will most likely charge as fast as it can to a defined point. And since the majority of people most likely plugin only when they go "oh crap my phone is low" and if they do this at peak times where the feature would be most beneficial then it will do nothing since it won't be active.

 

At any other point in time you'd be plugging in when the energy available is the most clean anyway. The greatest difference between clean and unclean energy composition of supply happens in two time periods of the day. This is such a known thing my electricity provider offers free power from 9pm to 12am to incentivize people to move energy usage later at night to lower the peak and to get more usage out of peak demand generation that is costly and has a maintenance toll to bring online and offline.

 

How it looks is exactly the point I am brining up, it's ONLY about how it looks. Any modicum of objective analysis concludes that the potential effect is low and time based controls would be equally as "effective" yet "Clean Energy" wording was specifically chosen and that decision almost has nothing to do with any data evidence about clean energy at all.

 

The fact that you brining up "the way it's worded" is exactly my shining example. Don't tell me it could be good, tell me how good it is... (Apple)

 

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The general duck curve is roughly similar, but yes it can be significantly different effect when charging.  You need to look at how the energy is being produced.

 

I have, I have done a lot of this. A LOT. This is why I am speaking to it and pointing out the time of day because the evidence is there, the data is there, the breakdown is there. It's all there. There are two times of the day where the composition is different, when there is peak demand and peak generation is added.

 

Within the same locality this breakdown is regular, like clockwork outside of generation faults. Week by week, month by month there isn't going to be any more or any less clean energy available because generation sources do not change like this. We have on peak and off peak generation, that's a thing everywhere. Changes happen based on time when you beak it down to daily/hourly usage to look at when it is cleaner and not so clean to charge your phone.

[leadeater]

24 minutes ago, starsmine said:

 

 

 

SIR PLEASE

That video, like Apple, is seriously lacking in detail about how it actually works and proof that it does. He doesn't say nor explain any more than Apple does, without doing a word by word comparison it's basically him reading what Apple said.

[starsmine]

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That video, like Apple, is seriously lacking in detail about how it actually works and proof that it does. He doesn't say nor explain any more than Apple does, without doing a word by word comparison it's basically him reading what Apple said.

True, a white paper would be interesting, but we are nerds here, and I too want to just dig into all the data they have on it.
With that said, I feel like knowing the full scale/magnitude is tangential, and will be used as a red herring though. Like lowering the net output by 1 pound of CO2 vs 100 pounds per person  on average from this specific implantation is inconsequential to the discussion as both are better then saving no pounds when it has no significant impact on usability, and as the energy mix changes over time at a macro scale how much does it change the benefits,

For a consumer its seems completely out of scope knowledge that would only serve to muddy the conversation, telling people the abstract idea clearly and timely is the important part, minimizing the friction of turning the feature on, and giving people enough knowledge to turn it off if they feel the need to, or care to. 

[SansVarnic]

6 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

The phone knows where it is. Using that data Apple knows what power company the phone is being charged with. Knowing that Apple knows if that power grid is using renewable energies. Knowing that the iPhone will adjust its behavior accordingly. 
 

Not that hard to figure out how it works. 

 

You’re missing the point entirely. Clean energy charging isn’t to charge your phone only on renewables. The point is to charge when renewables are producing to most to reduce the impact of charging your phone. 

Funniest thing is I 100% percent understand.

The thing is I do not agree with the argument, or how it's being presented. Simply put my comments were intentionally overly simplistic and the easiest way to convey how absurd this clean energy charging is utter nonsense.

I am not against clean energy, but this is clearly manipulative marketing hype, you can't tell me it's not. That was my point from the start.

[wanderingfool2]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

Week by week, month by month there isn't going to be any more or any less clean energy available because generation sources do not change like this

Yes, yes they do especially when solar is a large source of power.

 

Again, the duck curve and the relation to the power generation does vary greatly based on location.  Plants in California are spun up to account for the massive amount of AC during summer months (even though there is a higher solar generation).  In BC, where we don't really need AC (well up until recently),, solar production during summer would be significantly higher than in winter

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

And since the majority of people most likely plugin only when they go "oh crap my phone is low" and if they do this at peak times where the feature would be most beneficial then it will do nothing since it won't be active.

I know plenty of people who just plug their phone in at the end of the night (dropping it on the charger).  Also, having prompts like it would be regarding the charging might nudge a few extra people into charging it when it's more beneficial.

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

How it looks is exactly the point I am brining up, it's ONLY about how it looks. Any modicum of objective analysis concludes that the potential effect is low and time based controls would be equally as "effective" yet "Clean Energy" wording was specifically chosen and that decision almost has nothing to do with any data evidence about clean energy at all.

 

The fact that you brining up "the way it's worded" is exactly my shining example. Don't tell me it could be good, tell me how good it is... (Apple)

I bring up the wording because the alternative you provided wouldn't be what it does though.  I'm contending that what Apple is doing seems mostly like it would be time based, based on the wording.  Using the term Clean Energy is exactly the right wording I think because it gives people at least a better insight in what it's intent is vs something like "Avoid peak usage"

 

As you mentioned, if someone plugs in their phone and it knows it needs to charge it's going to do that...which means it won't be able to avoid peak usage, and watch how the lawsuits would fly as well when people begin by thinking it was going to charge during the lower rates (which at least in America that what peak usage entails).

 

I'm not arguing the efficacy of charging phones and how little impact it truly as, as I've mentioned charging an EV pretty much makes the phone thing a small fractional percentage.  There's nothing wrong with Apple's wording though (unless if someone shows that it's not doing anything to reduce the emissions, but at that stage as well you will get lawsuits again...so there must be at least some minimal impact).

 

The simple fact is, they can likely reliably guess if someone is on clean energy based on location they live, and time of day.  It's not helpful naming that feature as "Avoid peak usage" or similar because the majority of people won't be able to put 2 and 2 together; so using something like "Clean Energy" is a perfect way to get people to accept it.

[darknessblade]

12 hours ago, leadeater said:

That video, like Apple, is seriously lacking in detail about how it actually works and proof that it does. He doesn't say nor explain any more than Apple does, without doing a word by word comparison it's basically him reading what Apple said.

Exactly, I personally would have expected more from MKBHD. who is well known in the phone space, when it comes to testing phones/strange features phones have.

 

It still does not say why it would incentivize users to use said feature, especially when they do not get green energy from their own utilities company. [Yes in some countries, you have to pay extra for 100% green energy]

So you as a consumer are in the dark, if the power you get during XX:XX to XX:XX is actually green or not.

 

All most users would see is that their phone has not charged when they expected it to be at 100%, during the night when they plugged it in to charge, and use the next day.

-----------

It also does not say how it works with users who have solarpanels on their roof. does the Iphone magically know that you are now charging using 100% solar power? or does it still think the power comes from the utilities company, who is running 100% coal power in that timeframe when you plugged it in?

-------------

Talking about smart meters would not be a valid argument, as a large portion of people still have a old mechanical spinning disk.

especially people with solar panels prefer those over the smart meters, as the disk spins back if they produce more power than they use, meaning the power they produce is sold 1:1 to the utilities company.

 

Having a older meter, means the phone cannot know your current power-consumption, even if that would be a feature connected to this one.

----------------

As long as such answers are not answered, its nothing but a greenwashing campaign from apple.

 

The question why it would incentivize users for using said feature has still not been answered as well.

 

People just want their phone to charge when they plug it in, not wait for a wave of green energy to have their phone charged with barely 10%. because the sun shone brighter in that timeframe, making the solarpanel garden's produce slightly more power than a coal plant.

--------------

Apple turning it on by default is also quite a bunch of BS.

They could just have made a GUI prompt saying do you  wish to enable green-charging?

with a option to say yes or no. allowing people to have a choice in if they want to use said feature after it has been introduced, not having it shoved trough their throat.

Like please try this feature that prevents your phone from charging when you expect it to be charging, because there is now more energy produced with coal than with greener sources, we bet you love this feature, that prevents your phone from working like you always expected it to work.

 

This is also my main issue with the feature, that they do a FORCE OPT-IN. with users having to opt-out later. if they do not want to use it.

I expect them to get a bunch of fines as well, just like when they slowed down users phones, because they claim its due battery degradation without telling them

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51413724

 

This would fall under the same category, even if there is a opt out, if users do not know about it, after they updated IOS, apple can get fined for failing to inform users WHY their phone is not charging as normal. when it always had charged between said timeframe.

 

even android gives a feature list you can clearly see, with what features are changed, and then its a OPT-IN instead of a OPT-out.

for safely features you do get a prompt asking if you want to enable/disable it after a update.

 

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Yes, yes they do especially when solar is a large source of power.

I think you are entirely missing the point. If you at some point in that given day want to charge your phone the 99.99% biggest factor is time. Yes weather does make a difference but if you are forecasting over long periods and talking about typical averages then specific weather of the day doesn't matter in the context. The month of January is on average going to be be the same as any other January.

 

So if I on the day go to plugin a phone to charge the composition of clean versus not clean energy of the day right now, in the moment is 99.99% based on what time it is, nothing else. Unless there is a generation fault at a wind farm or solar farm then it's going to be the same relative composition at the same time the next day etc. Thus this makes location data unnecessary and it also makes knowing local utility grids unnecessary.

 

11am isn't going to be more "clean" than 2pm is. Friday isn't going to be more "clean" than Saturday and the absolutely important thing to point out is the difference between those days is irrelevant to the then and now of plugging in a phone to charge.

 

Of course things like weather influence Solar and Wind production but that's going to have zero effect on a phone feature that is enabled to check if right now is a good time to charge because the energy is more clean than some other time. I can already very reliability know this for 99.99% of the worlds population based purely on is it either 6am-9am or 5pm-8pm.

 

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I know plenty of people who just plug their phone in at the end of the night (dropping it on the charger).  Also, having prompts like it would be regarding the charging might nudge a few extra people into charging it when it's more beneficial.

Night charging is one of the best most beneficial green times to charge anything. It is one of the greatest concerns of utility providers that the difference between day time usage and night time usage is so vast. Turning off generation is not a good thing, it causes more maintenance wear and reduces grid resiliency. It also cannot be done quickly and it also cannot be turned back on quickly. It's also extremely inefficient and wasteful to start them. The startup time is wasted as there is no output only consumption of fuel while the generator gets within operating allowances. It is better to not turn off production over night.

 

If I remember correctly last I heard from one of our energy producers is that  the start up and cool down time of a gas generator is 2 hours. So if you turn it off you have to wait 2 hours before you can turn it back on and to turn it back on is another 2 hours, so a 4 hour turn around time with 2 hours of wasted consumption.

 

This is why energy prices plummet overnight, to try and increase usage at night so generation doesn't have to be turned off. The ideal is for a flat curve energy demand but that's not the situation and it's not realistically ever going to happen either. Natural sleep cycles dictate this.

 

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I bring up the wording because the alternative you provided wouldn't be what it does though.  I'm contending that what Apple is doing seems mostly like it would be time based, based on the wording.  Using the term Clean Energy is exactly the right wording I think because it gives people at least a better insight in what it's intent is vs something like "Avoid peak usage"

If it's time based then using wordage of "time" is the most accurate, period. Using clean energy is 100% chosen for company image. Because what I have contented from the start that it is NOT Apple's intention of being green at all, the effectiveness of this feature is not proven and falls apart under even the smallest amount of scrutiny.

 

If I turn my brain off and "just believe" then sure this feature it makes charging more green, I am not willing to turn my brain off and just believe without evidence and better reasoning.

 

I'm sorry but I am highly unsupportive of corporate self interest PR moves that don't actually do what is advertised. This is the only reason I care at all, accountability matters. This is to me wasted effort that could have been spent elsewhere that would have actually done something but was chosen because it benefits Apple's corporate image. I'm sure it started off as a well intended good idea but I do not believe that is the reasoning behind why it was approved to be developed as a feature.

[Dracarris]

15 hours ago, leadeater said:

The feature and update that introduced this is not new FYI, it's been around for a while. September 12, 2022 if I'm looking at the correct iOS version update.

 

Anyway the point is this doesn't have much impact at all, since nobody noticed nor complained about it and a lot of people will have it and it will be enabled.

Just like they did with the battery-preserving feature that does not charge past 80% shortly before you actually use the phone on a typical day. It was enabled by default, it works, nobody complains, and allegedly it actually extends the battery lifetime because it does not trickle charge between 99 and 100% half the night. 

[leadeater]

51 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Just like they did with the battery-preserving feature that does not charge past 80% shortly before you actually use the phone on a typical day. It was enabled by default, it works, nobody complains, and allegedly it actually extends the battery lifetime because it does not trickle charge between 99 and 100% half the night. 

At least the battery-preserving feature benefited the consumer. Hell I thought that was a really good idea and didn't like the backlash it got from people who didn't understand that without it the device would either become unusable much faster due to degraded batteries and run time or the device would start crashing.

 

I'd be quite curious to see some data on how much performance was actually lost versus the slowness people were experiencing was actually just from apps updating over time and becoming more demanding.

 

My really old iPhone used to play PoGo fine at release but after a few updates the game became too demanding for that phone, it wasn't the battery since it exclusively played with a giant (for the time) 10,000mAh battery pack connected to it so it was always in a "powered" state.

[Dracarris]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

At least the battery-preserving feature benefited the consumer. Hell I thought that was a really good idea

yeah you know that can‘t be, because you know, Apple. I think the last time some genius claimed they only produce „disposable trash“ was at the beginning of this thread.

[wanderingfool2]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

I think you are entirely missing the point. If you at some point in that given day want to charge your phone the 99.99% biggest factor is time. Yes weather does make a difference but if you are forecasting over long periods and talking about typical averages then specific weather of the day doesn't matter in the context. The month of January is on average going to be be the same as any other January.

I'm not denying it, but it's foolhardy to try assuming that Apple doesn't use that as the primary factor.  It also ignores that people won't always be having their phone plugged in during the most optimal but you can still try minimizing it by charging when you think it will be the best.

 

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

11am isn't going to be more "clean" than 2pm is

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

Night charging is one of the best most beneficial green times to charge anything

For your area perhaps.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2020.12.11/chart2.svg

Literally charging your phone at 2 pm vs 11 am has drastic differences if you are in Jan vs July in California. 

 

Here in BC it's more likely opposite (not really bothering trying to hunt down the data), but I can tell you during Jan/Feb since it's colder we use more electricity during Jan/Feb than we do in July/Aug (where AC is less of a thing).

  

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

If it's time based then using wordage of "time" is the most accurate, period. Using clean energy is 100% chosen for company image. Because what I have contented from the start that it is NOT Apple's intention of being green at all, the effectiveness of this feature is not proven and falls apart under even the smallest amount of scrutiny.

Again, it could be completely not 100% time based though, which is why using the word time would not be a good thing.  Even if it only manages to do it a small fraction of the time, it does technically have an impact.  Not a large one since it's just a phone, but still it would have one.

[Obioban]

From Apple https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213323):

Quote

Use Clean Energy Charging on your iPhone

With iOS 16.1, your iPhone can try to reduce your carbon footprint by selectively charging when lower carbon-emission electricity is available.

 

Learn about Clean Energy Charging

When Clean Energy Charging is enabled and you connect your iPhone to a charger, your iPhone gets a forecast of the carbon emissions in your local energy grid and uses it to charge your iPhone during times of cleaner energy production.

Clean Energy Charging is available only in the United States and is on by default when you set up your iPhone or after you update to iOS 16.1. To turn off the feature, go to Settings > Battery > Battery Health & Charging and turn off Clean Energy Charging.

 

---

Some settings need to be turned on

Clean Energy Charging works together with Optimized Battery Charging to learn your charging habits. Clean Energy Charging engages only where you spend the most time and regularly charge your iPhone for long periods of time, such as your home and place of work. The feature doesn't engage if your charging habits are variable or you're in a new location, such as when you travel. Because of this and to get the carbon-emission forecast for your area, some location settings must be turned on for Clean Energy Charging to activate. Your iPhone doesn't send any of the location information that it uses for this feature to Apple.

Check the settings needed for Clean Energy Charging:

1. Go to Settings > Battery > Battery Health & Charging and make sure that Clean Energy Charging is on.
2. Go to Settings > Privacy & Security > Location Services and make sure that Location Services is on.
3. Go to Settings > Privacy & Security > Location Services > System Services and make sure that System Customization is on.
4. Go to Settings > Privacy & Security > Location Services > System Services > Significant Locations and make sure that Significant Locations is on.

 

---

If you need to override Clean Energy Charging

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.

Seems logical enough to me.

 

I do a similar thing with my entire house. I have net metering, with time of use power pricing, which bills our as follows:

 

Assuming the grid is online, I charge my 4x powerwalls overnight, when power is $0.04 per kwh and sell it to the power company between 2 and 6 pm, when power is $0.30 per kwh (plus any solar I generate in that time period). I drain them to 30%, to leave a buffer in case of power loss before the sun shines (aka overnight), and to optimize battery longevity (depth of discharge). So, I get paid $10/day just from charging, discharging my batteries. Generally my 19kwh solar array gives me another $5-15 in that period. Similarly, my water heater doesn't run between 2 and 6pm, and I use the delay start function on my clothes dryer and dish washer, so that they don't run till midnight (unless I need them sooner for some reason), and my car delays charging till midnight. If I can add my apple devices to the cheap charging pile, so much the better. 

 

The net result is that the power company owes me a couple hundred dollars every month, despite every utility in my house being electric and daily driving an electric car.

 

... and if the grid goes down, I'm indefinitely self sufficient without a generator-- I just run on solar and batteries. If it's really cold and there's no sun for a couple days, I have a wood stove to make it still work.

 

The marginal power that utilities have to spin up for peak demand is less green. The power that can spin up to meet peak demand and be shut off during low times is the dirty stuff. I don't particularly care (as in, besides the EV my other cars are 400-600hp gas guzzlers), but that doesn't make it not true. "green charging" translates to me as "cheap charging".  The power a phone uses (very little) means I won't really notice with that one, but on the scale of phones that Apple has sold (billions) it's absolutely going to be a meaningful difference.

[starsmine]

10 hours ago, darknessblade said:

This would fall under the same category, even if there is a opt out, if users do not know about it, after they updated IOS, apple can get fined for failing to inform users WHY their phone is not charging as normal. when it always had charged between said timeframe.

are you intentionally being obtuse? Like I really question your intentions here when you have been explicitly told over 3 times now. 

  

On 3/4/2023 at 7:46 PM, starsmine said:

it explicitly tells you what is going on when it triggers and is easily overridden temporarily or permanently.

The users are explicitly told, as in EXPLICITLY TOLD.  

IDK why people are mad at MKHB for a youtube short to give people the abstract idea of what it is. It wasn't a deep dive, its literally a youtube SHORT. as in under 1 min abstract overview. 

[wseaton]

2 hours ago, Obioban said:

From Apple https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213323):

Seems logical enough to me.

 

I do a similar thing with my entire house. I have net metering, with time of use power pricing, which bills our as follows:

 

Assuming the grid is online, I charge my 4x powerwalls overnight, when power is $0.04 per kwh and sell it to the power company between 2 and 6 pm, when power is $0.30 per kwh (plus any solar I generate in that time period). I drain them to 30%, to leave a buffer in case of power loss before the sun shines (aka overnight), and to optimize battery longevity (depth of discharge). So, I get paid $10/day just from charging, discharging my batteries. Generally my 19kwh solar array gives me another $5-15 in that period. Similarly, my water heater doesn't run between 2 and 6pm, and I use the delay start function on my clothes dryer and dish washer, so that they don't run till midnight (unless I need them sooner for some reason), and my car delays charging till midnight. If I can add my apple devices to the cheap charging pile, so much the better. 

 

The net result is that the power company owes me a couple hundred dollars every month, despite every utility in my house being electric and daily driving an electric car.

 

... and if the grid goes down, I'm indefinitely self sufficient without a generator-- I just run on solar and batteries. If it's really cold and there's no sun for a couple days, I have a wood stove to make it still work.

 

The marginal power that utilities have to spin up for peak demand is less green. The power that can spin up to meet peak demand and be shut off during low times is the dirty stuff. I don't particularly care (as in, besides the EV my other cars are 400-600hp gas guzzlers), but that doesn't make it not true. "green charging" translates to me as "cheap charging".  The power a phone uses (very little) means I won't really notice with that one, but on the scale of phones that Apple has sold (billions) it's absolutely going to be a meaningful difference.

So, basically I could open a big warehouse, stuff it full of Ambri batteries, charge them during off hours, sell the power back during peak hours and make a nice profit. Meanwhile I'm not contributing a single kH of renewable energy.

 

This is why many states are eliminating energy surplus credits, and the list is growing faster. 

 

The amount of cumulative power savings via a few hundred thousand iPhones switching to off peak charging is likely negated by by said person sitting in their car once a week in the drive through at Starbucks while texting on their phone about how much they are helping climate change.

 

This is all feel good marketing. Ironically putting faith in this kind of crap is why the human race is in this predicament in the first place. 

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

For your area perhaps.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2020.12.11/chart2.svg

Literally charging your phone at 2 pm vs 11 am has drastic differences if you are in Jan vs July in California. 

Well the problem here is this is only looking at the gas production and not anything else so while it is higher, especially during the problem times, other sources may also be higher. So if the whole point and argument is about trying to charge when it's "cleaner" being roughly 50% higher gas electricity generation at 2pm between Jan and July certainly doesn't mean the overall "cleanness" of the total supply has changed that much.

 

Lets for argument sake say it's 70% "clean" at 2pm in Jan and 65% at 2pm in July. The phone is still going to charge, this does not prevent charging, only slows it down. So had you not slowed it down it could have finished charging within an hour but now it hasn't because you slowed it down, well good job you've just pushed more energy demand to later in the day where it's even more expensive and if we believe the cleanness of supply is meaningfully changing outside of peak hours then charging from less clean power.

 

And in the above example the "worse" you account for July being the worse impact you are having, not making it better.

 

Lowering peak demand is certainly a good thing, phones are a poor target device to try and achieve it and there is no way this will result in utility providers being able to bring on less capacity or delay it so your Jan vs July graph is not going to change at all due to this.

 

So if it's not going to have any impact on electricity supply at all then may I ask what is the real achieved benefit?  Is it actually there or is there more about image of looking to do good rather than actually achieving good?

[wanderingfool2]

30 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well the problem here is this is only looking at the gas production and not anything else so while it is higher, especially during the problem times, other sources may also be higher.

Which is why earlier on I had already posted to the article where I got that image from.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2020.12.11/main.svg

Which here you are, the breakdown.  It's effectively still what I was saying during July it's more punitive to charge at 2pm than lets say noon. 

 

30 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Lets for argument sake say it's 70% "clean" at 2pm in Jan and 65% at 2pm in July. The phone is still going to charge, this does not prevent charging, only slows it down. So had you not slowed it down it could have finished charging within an hour but now it hasn't because you slowed it down, well good job you've just pushed more energy demand to later in the day where it's even more expensive and if we believe the cleanness of supply is meaningfully changing outside of peak hours then charging from less clean power.

Which again is why I'm saying that it's not good to label it as charging based on time to day alone.  Apple, I'm sure has a bunch of analytics on your battery/charging usages.  They know on average your habits (like if you are someone who leaves their phone in the charger the entire day).  Also, how do you know it doesn't prevent charging during certain points?

Quote

With iOS 16.1, your iPhone can try to reduce your carbon footprint by selectively charging when lower carbon-emission electricity is available.

That greatly implies that yes, it will cut charging at certain periods.  So in the case of California it might know that you wake up at 6am so charge it up between 5am and 6am, while if you are someone who has to wake up at 5 am to charge between 4-5.  Or if you are a person who frequently leaves their phone on a charge for most of the day, then do it between 10-11am during July but in Jan do it around noon (as iirc that's the peak time that California exports energy due to too much energy on the grid).

 

30 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Lowering peak demand is certainly a good thing, phones are a poor target device to try and achieve it and there is no way this will result in utility providers being able to bring on less capacity or delay it so your Jan vs July graph is not going to change at all due to this.

I don't deny that it's a poor target device, but overall it's also about changing customer habits and getting a certain mindset.  It can also be to get a bigger push for different industries to follow suit, like some where it's cooling the house throughout the day to have it so that the AC is used less later on in the day.  Or like having your water heater turn on only during the low period of the day.

[Obioban]

3 hours ago, wseaton said:

So, basically I could open a big warehouse, stuff it full of Ambri batteries, charge them during off hours, sell the power back during peak hours and make a nice profit. Meanwhile I'm not contributing a single kH of renewable energy.

 

This is why many states are eliminating energy surplus credits, and the list is growing faster. 

 

The amount of cumulative power savings via a few hundred thousand iPhones switching to off peak charging is likely negated by by said person sitting in their car once a week in the drive through at Starbucks while texting on their phone about how much they are helping climate change.

 

This is all feel good marketing. Ironically putting faith in this kind of crap is why the human race is in this predicament in the first place. 

You’re not making it more renewable, but you are making it cleaner (peak power additional power is dirtier, so the more you can raise the base like the cleaner the grid is)— and apple never claimed renewable. Cleaner is greener.
 

By enabling this as default, it’ll be billions of iPhones— not a couple hundred thousand. Any change at the scale of billions makes a difference.

 

Not sure what you mean by this is going away— lots of places are now going to a virtual power plant model with home batteries, which is taking the stored energy bought back to the next level— specifically to spin up less dirty peak/marginal power plants.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I don't deny that it's a poor target device, but overall it's also about changing customer habits and getting a certain mindset.

I do not see how it will change habits. Unless you know in July it's better to plug-in at 11am rather than 2pm and then actually do it how are consumers going to know this followed by will they actually do it?

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Or like having your water heater turn on only during the low period of the day.

A lot of places have ripple control water heaters where the utility provider can turn them off to load shed. This has been a thing well before I was even born. It's actually really cool that this was possible. Not sure how common this is in North Americas region though. It's also been a thing for night store heaters, commonly used by elderly home owners.

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Which is why earlier on I had already posted to the article where I got that image from.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2020.12.11/main.svg

Which here you are, the breakdown.  It's effectively still what I was saying during July it's more punitive to charge at 2pm than lets say noon. 

Right, so solar does also go up and so does "other" What is this other? Is it hydro?  I'll have to go read it however I don't think it really will or does change the points I made about it.

 

So you still have the problem of how different it actually is and will that resulting in a meaningful difference. I content not. And as per above, relies on people choosing to charge at 11am and not 2pm.

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Which again is why I'm saying that it's not good to label it as charging based on time to day alone.  Apple, I'm sure has a bunch of analytics on your battery/charging usages.  They know on average your habits (like if you are someone who leaves their phone in the charger the entire day).  Also, how do you know it doesn't prevent charging during certain points?

My contention is that this can basically entirely be achieved with time alone and avoiding the known peak usage times where if it would be effective will be the most effective. And I don't know they do not prevent it however I do know they will never disallow a phone to charge when it actually needs to, how much and how fast may indeed change. It may even stop then carry on later. What I also know is that this has been enabled and on people phones for many months without anyone noticing much or being impacted by it so I similarly content that if it's so unnoticed it's efficacy is very low.

 

Why overengineer something, why make it more complicated, why present it as something so good and special that can do so much when the most basic of implementations would be equivalently effective. My opinion on that reason has been quite clear.

 

With a total lack of data proof to show the actual effect this feature is having, should even be able to get it from an ever larger data sample than a trial group since it's been in the wild now for a long enough time. I would like to see how often the feature actually kicks in, for how long, the metrics around it etc. I know yearly data cannot be looked at since it's not been that long but it should still be possible to prove that it is in effect and show something and project the difference between on an off for this feature.

 

If it truly was that groundbreaking and would have such a great impact because there are so many phones out there then I guarantee Apple would have come with all the data, graphs and visuals singing their praises to the high heavens. If that had happened and I could objectively see this information then I would no doubt congratulate them but I can't do that because I'm not going to go on faith alone that this is really actually doing something meaningful.

 

I understand it looks good on paper, but that's the problem. I believe that's the extent of it, great on paper but not in reality.

[da na]

On 3/4/2023 at 9:17 PM, TopWargamer said:

All this arguing about grid this, clean energy that. All nonsense.

 

If you're not hand crank charging your electronics you hate the planet.

Hear me out. 

Hand crank connected to electric motor. 

Plug electric motor into wall.

Connect electric motor to hand crank.

 

Now you don't have to turn it yourself!!!

[Dracarris]

7 hours ago, Obioban said:

Any change at the scale of billions makes a difference.

No. Because even a billion phones are negligible to the other billion devices on the grid. Also, even globally, I'd estimate the number of iphones eligible for this program (ignoring current location restrictions) at around one billion devices and not several.

I guess it would make a measurable impact though if rolled out to ipads and Mac.

[suicidalfranco]

5 hours ago, Mel0n. said:

Hear me out. 

Hand crank connected to electric motor. 

Plug electric motor into wall.

Connect electric motor to hand crank.

 

Now you don't have to turn it yourself!!!

yo dog, use magnets: free infinite energy. 

The oil lobbies are scared of magnets and have been doing to shut it down since ancient Greeks times where we have proof that they assassinated Aristotle to not let the technology expand 

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Mel0n. said:

Hear me out. 

Hand crank connected to electric motor. 

Plug electric motor into wall.

Connect electric motor to hand crank.

 

Now you don't have to turn it yourself!!!

I've got solar charging a battery that starts my generator which runs a microwave.  I just put my phone in that for a minute...

[BabaGanuche]

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

A lot of places have ripple control water heaters where the utility provider can turn them off to load shed. This has been a thing well before I was even born. It's actually really cool that this was possible. Not sure how common this is in North Americas region though. It's also been a thing for night store heaters, commonly used by elderly home owners.

This is quite common in NA, along with interruptible service for air conditioning. The water heating has been a thing since at least the 80's and the AC since at least the early 90's. Both could have been in place longer, I just do not have any personal knowledge of it older than that.