For those asking “Why bother? The energy usage is tiny”.
https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en#consumers-1
Mobile phones and tablets produced under these rules will save almost 14 terawatt hours in primary energy each year by 2030. This is one third of the primary energy consumption of these products today. The new rules will also help to optimise the use and recycling of critical raw materials.
In 2030, the savings on EU27 acquisition costs are € 20 billion, which combined with € 0.6 bn lower energy costs and € 0.8 bn additional repair costs, leads to € 19.8 billion (22%) expense savings (€ 98 per household).
So basically, by promoting energy efficient and repairable devices, the plan is to save €20bn annually in savings and not to generate 14TWh of electic power across the EU. That power saving is about the annual output of a single nuclear reactor. (1.6MW x 24h x 365.25d = 14TWh)
I was thinking at first that this would lead to even more aggressive “app optimization” where it would refuse to notify alarms you’ve explicitly set due to battery life concerns.
But instead there’s a better way, which I hope manufacturers will take. Perhaps smartphone chips can stop chasing absolute peak performance and instead focus on good performance at a reasonable power budget.
Of course the biggest problem is bloated software but idk how we can fix that.
There’s multiple levels to it:
Sure, the chip makers make halo performance chips, but that’s because the phone makers are pushing them to make those chips for halo phones. The reason for that is that the public buy (or at least rent) halo phones.
Educating the public that there are reasons to buy more efficient phones should help shape the demand curve of the whole industry.
… optimise the use and recycling of critical raw materials
Does anyone have an idea how this helps with recycling?
Designs which can be repaired can have specific parts taken out and recycled in isolation. If you can take the battery out easily you don’t have all the materials from the rest of phone contaminating your recycling pipeline.
I was about to comment how this number doesn’t make sense, but reading the article they mention the power savings for phones specifically is actually 2.2TWh per year, which might be realistic. The rest of the 14 TWh comes from landline phones (2.2TWh) and energy used to produce phones that would be saved (8.1 TWh) from the lifetime extension measures, that aren’t even related to the power efficiency of phones and won’t take place in the EU.
However, even these numbers are overinflated when you take into account they’re using a PEF factor of 1.9, meaning they multiply the actual power usage by 1.9 to adjust for stuff like power transfer losses (only 5-10%) and the inefficiency of generating power from e.g. fossil fuels (because e.g. petroleum might only convert 40% of its potential energy to electricity), but when people typically talk about power usage they’re talking about the actual amount of electricity that needs to be generated, not this abstract representation of it, meaning that e.g. phone electricity savings are actually only 1.1TWh-1.2TWh.
I’m having trouble finding actual ratings for anything on this site
Good ol XY00x cycle count. That’s a nice battery. Gotta say. Cause I know exactly what XY00x means.
I genuinely can’t figure this out. I found an iPhone label with 1000x, which seems obvious. So what the hell is XY00? Everything else in the image is an example value.
Edit: right reading through this thread it seems its 100x the value, so XY represents a number, e.g. 15, then it would be 1500 cycles. The iPhone label I found must be from an earlier test or something. I like the rest but this seems unclear.
I like the other info, but I feel like energy efficiency is completely useless as a metric for phones. They already use such miniscule amounts of power that it really doesn’t matter that much, especially compared to appliances.
I think that’s the wrong way to look at it. Times any of those metrics by the literal billions of phones out there and it adds up quite quickly.
Sure on an individual basis it might mean savings of a few bucks over the course of the lifetime of the phone, but scale that up and we’re talking entire power plant’s worth of electricity that isn’t required.
You don’t care about battery life?
Battery life is already on there as a separate metric
…but the power draw is what sets the battery life for a particular size of battery. We don’t particularly want to set up a game that just incentivises putting bigger batteries in, so we have a metric for power draw.
I feel this way about washing machines already. Oh wow, this one uses 0.6kwh less per wash. That’s like 30kwh a year!
meanwhile my fridge
Agreed, it’s just that they unified it for all electronic devices.
Kinda dumb.
I think the ratng is too forgiving with not much room for improvement. A lot of phones are already class B og A so no incentive to innovate and improve or we are going to end up with nonsensical A++++ ratings.
This happened with appliances. They ended up with the silly A++++ ratings added in 2010 as otherwise everything would be an A.
In 2021 they decided to redefine grades instead. A fridge at A+++ became a C. A became the top grade again.
It’s also worth noting that as they push the whole scale and G into being more efficient that essentially bans products that can’t achieve a rating.
if everything becomes an A the system has worked and increased the efficiency across the market. They’ll adjust the goals every 5 to 10 years.
The EU battery life measure is going to be the most interesting battle ground in my opinion. “All day battery life” will have a measured metric in hours.
If the EU have managed to make that metric representative of an amount of screen time in a busy day it could become the first thing consumers look at. Or at least a deal breaker when that number is too low.
Thing is, battery drain in a good cell coverage are while on wifi is significantly lower than using cell data with no wifi in a poorly covered area.
If only there was a way to count up instead of down
Blame the education system. They ingrained the concept of A being the best in all of us.
i have a weird concept. give each phone a tortilla chip for each positive rating. the final score is the size of the pile of nachos the phone has.
even tho i dont live in the eu or European union i see eu labels, So i cannot wait to see them.
Whilst I get the idea the implementation is currently unusable:
So I filtered for “Battery user-replacable” and found 117 smartphones (out of ~500). This is a straight up lie because all these phones are glued together (nearly all are IP68) meaning that you need some special tools.
It lacks a lot of phone models. I couldn’t find any Google Pixel or Fairphone.
The “Battery endurance in cycles” (number of charge/discharge cycles a battery can withstand until its usable electrical capacity has reached 80 % of its rated capacity) attribute is completely broken: It never seems to exceed 15? I had phones for years that withstood hundreds/thousands of battery cycles and the battery still nearly behaved like it’s new and you’re telling me the maximum number is 15??? Did you guys just stop testing after 15?
Also “with regard to energy labelling” what is this labelling about? Energy? Ok then why are there values about the phones “Repeated free fall reliability” or IP protection inside there?
The whole thing looks way to intransparent and useless for the average phone buyer and definetly needs some improvement…
General labelling about repairability/phone lifetime (e.g. receives updates for X years, replacement parts are avilable for X years, can install another OS, can replace battery without external tools, etc) without a overall score that merges all aspects would be a lot better and useful IMHO.
Agreed that a lot of the phones’ batteries are not actually replaceable without serious disassembling most of the phone. The common names of the phones are not front and center either. It’s quite disappointing from an official governmental service.
I couldn’t find any Google Pixel
They have 5 models listed for Google
The “Battery endurance in cycles” […] never seems to exceed 15?
It’s hundreds of cycles. So 1500 cycles.
They have 5 models listed for Google
Touché. However this doesn’t change the fact that the interface is absolutely useless.
When I’m searching for Google I just get the model ids:
- GUR25
- GEC77
- GZC4K
- GTF7P
- G6GPR
None of these phones have the word “Pixel” anywhere and I have to look the market name up on a 3rd party website.
It’s hundreds of cycles. So 1500 cycles.
Seriously? Maybe they should include the unit of measurement or just print two extra zeros.
Again these points just highlight that this utterly unusable for a normal user.
The “battery endurance in cycles” is the weirdest thing to me. Even Li ion batteries from 20 years ago could achieve 100+ charge cycles before <80% capacity is hit. Fifteen (or lower) is suspect for the testing method or concerning for the engineering.
A3083 and A2764, both Apple, get me no results
Starting today?
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/1669 of 16 June 2023
Seems to have been around for a while…
Ahem:
Article 8
Entry into force and application
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day > following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 20 June 2025.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 June 2023.
Source: EurLex
Thanks for finding that part…
I wonder if that’s the date it was created or agreed but there’s a lead time to allow manufacturers to test and prepare.
There’s always a time between signing the law and the entry into force. It’s hard to imagine actors being ready to comply on day one after a new law is passed if they had no time to prepare.
Agreed. I couldn’t see any dates at that time, but looks like others have found it
That OUKITEL WP35 S is a beast. I guess it’s not for gaming, but man I can go to war with it.
