How Green is the New iPad - part 2: comparing energy efficiency with the iPad 2

The new iPad has been with us almost 4 months and we decided it's about time to analyze its carbon footprint. Yesterday we started a 7-part series in which we explore the carbon footprint of the new iPad, compare it to the carbon footprint of iPad 2 and try to figure out if Apple has made any progress from environmental perspective with its new iPad and what's the new breakeven point between books and ebooks on the iPad.

Every day we'll look into another part of the carbon footprint of the new iPad. Yesterday we talked about production. Today we're looking at energy efficiency.

Energy efficiency:

Here is the information on the energy efficiency of the new iPad (source: Apple's report):

iPad uses power-efficient components and software that intelligently manage power consumption. In addition, the iPad 10W USB Power Adapter outperforms the stringent requirements of the ENERGY STAR specification for external power supplies. The following table details the power consumed by iPad in different use modes.

Mode	100V	115V	230V
Sleep	0.65w	0.65w	0.70w
idle - display on	5.26w	5.26w	5.46w
power adapter, no load	0.07w	0.07w	0.09w
power adapter efficiency	80.90%	80.80%	79.90%

And here is the information on the energy efficiency of the iPad 2 (source: Apple's report - revised version):

iPad 2 uses power-efficient components and software that intelligently manage power consumption. In addition, the iPad 10W USB Power Adapter outperforms the stringent requirements of the ENERGY STAR specification for external power supplies. The following table details the power consumed by iPad 2 in different use modes.

Mode	100V	115V	230V
Sleep	0.46w	0.41w	0.45w
idle - display on	3.10w	3.08w	3.16w
power adapter, no load	0.07w	0.07w	0.09w
power adapter efficiency	80.90%	80.80%	79.90%

Here's a comparison of the data presented in these tables, showing the change in %:

Mode	100V	115V	230V
Sleep	41%	59%	56%
idle - display on	70%	71%	73%
power adapter, no load	0%	0%	0%
power adapter efficiency	0%	0%	0%

Here's our take: When it comes to energy efficiency it looks like the iPad hasn't made any progress. It either moves backwards, using more power (sleep and idle mode) or shows no change at all (power adapter - no load, power adapter efficiency).

Is it really important? The answer is yes! Customer use is about 25 percent of the carbon footprint of the iPad, so better energy efficiency generates substantial improvements in the carbon footprint, which unfortunately is not the case here.

Bottom line: Apple has failed to make any improvements whatsoever in the energy efficiency of the new iPad. If anything, it only made it less efficient.

Next part on our series: Packaging.

More resources on how green is the iPad can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ipad.asp

More resources on the ebooks vs. physical books environmental debate can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ebooks.asp.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!

Comparing between the iPad and the iPad 2 from a green perspective

Last week the environmental report of the iPad 2, where we learned that its carbon footprint is 105 kg CO2e, a reduction of 19.2% comparing to the footprint of the first model.

On Tuesday we started to look into the new report and showed what it means in terms of breakeven point with paper books. Today, in the second part of our analysis, we try to find out what the real "green" differences between the two models of the iPad are.

We'll look at each of the components of the life cycle analysis that Apple did to determine the carbon footprint of the iPad and the iPad 2 - production, transport, customer use and recycling. We'll also look into other specifications that Apple emphasizes on its report.

Production:
Carbon footprint of the iPad - 75.4 kg CO2e
Carbon footprint of the iPad 2 - 63 kg CO2e
Change: -16.4%

The iPad 2 is thinner and lighter than the original iPad. In terms of materials Apple mentions that "iPad 2 is even more material efficient than the original iPad, consuming up to 18 percent less material. The chart below details the materials used for iPad 2."

Here you can see the materials used for the iPad 2 (source: Apple's report):

And here are the materials used for the first iPad (source: Apple's report)

Here's a comparison of the data presented in these graphs (weight, in grams):

	iPad	iPad 2	Change
Display	155	140	-9.7%
Plastic	55	17	-69.1%
Other metals	40	25	-37.5%
Circuit boards	45	38	-15.6%
Glass	155	105	-32.3%
Battery	155	130	-16.1%
Aluminum	125	135	8.0%

It's interesting to see that the biggest changes are with the plastic and other metals and also that unlike the other components, the usage of aluminum actually increased in the iPad 2 in 8%. I believe that the efficient use of materials is the main reason for the reduction in the production's footprint. I also believe that this is also a place where Apple actaully saved money while reducing its product's carbon footprint.

Transport:
Carbon footprint of the iPad - 14.3 kg CO2e
Carbon footprint of the iPad 2 - 10.5 kg CO2e
Change: -26.6%

There's no explanation in the report where this reduction is coming from. One option this reduction is due to further efficiency in packaging - iPad 2 retail packaging consumes 51 percent
less material, which allows "up to 38 percent more units to be transported in an airline shipping container compared with the original iPad".

Apple also mentions that"the packaging for iPad 2 is highly recyclable. It uses corrugated cardboard made from a minimum of 28 percent post-consumer recycled content, and molded fiber made entirely from recycled content."

On the report of the first iPad, Apple wrote: "The packaging for iPad is almost entirely recyclable and uses corrugate cardboard made from a minimum of 33 percent post-consumer recycled content. In addition, its packaging is extremely material efficient, allowing more units to be transported in a single shipping container. "

As you can see, the percentage of post-consumer recycled content in the corrugated cardboard actually dropped from 33 to 28, although with the iPad 2, Apple mentions that the molded fiber made entirely from recycled content whereas in the first report it doesn't mention this fiber at all.

Alternatively, maybe Apple started using hybrid trucks?

Customer use
Carbon footprint of the iPad - 39 kg CO2e
Carbon footprint of the iPad 2 - 30.45 kg CO2e
Change: -21.9%

Apple is presenting in the reports information on the energy efficiency usage, which should be the most relevant component to this part:

Energy efficiency in the iPad 2:
iPad 2 uses power-efficient components and software that intelligently manages
power consumption. In addition, the iPad 10W USB Power Adapter outperforms the
stringent requirements of the ENERGY STAR specification for external power supplies.
The following table details the power consumed by iPad 2 in different use modes.

Power Consumption for iPad 2 (Wi-Fi + 3G)
Mode 100V 115V 230V
Sleep 0.46W 0.41W 0.45W
Idle—Display on 3.10W 3.08W 3.16W
Power adapter, no-load 0.07W 0.07W 0.09W
Power adapter efficiency 80.9% 80.8% 79.9%

Energy efficiency in the first iPad:
iPad uses power-efficient components and software that intelligently manages power consumption. In addition, the iPad 10W USB Power Adapter outperforms the stringent requirements of the ENERGY STAR specification for external power supplies. The following table details the power consumed by iPad in different use modes.

Power Consumption for iPad (Wi-Fi + 3G)
Mode 100V 115V 230V
Sleep 0.42W 0.43W 0.41W
Idle—Display on 2.97W 2.96W 3.04W
Power adapter, no-load 0.07W 0.07W 0.09W
Power adapter efficiency 80.9% 80.8% 79.9%

I have to admit that I am not sure yet how this data, showing relatively modest power consumption reductions is translated into a 22% reduction in the carbon footprint of customer use. Did I miss something here?

Recycling:
Carbon footprint of the iPad - 1.3 kg CO2e
Carbon footprint of the iPad 2 - 1.05 kg CO2e
Change: -19.2%

In both cases Apple offers the same description:
Through ultra-efficient design and use of highly recyclable materials, Apple has minimized material waste at the product’s end of life. In addition, Apple offers and participates in various product take-back and recycling programs in 95 percent of the regions where Apple products are sold. All products are processed in the country or region in which they are collected. For more information on how to take advantage of these programs, visit www.apple.com/environment/recycling/.

Strangely, if you go to this webpage, you will find that Apple has no mention of the iPad there, but only computers, displays, iPods and mobile phones. Even if we assume that the iPad has similar recycle offering as the iPod (and I have to say I'm not so sure about it), it's still far from being convenient or attractive - you can either send your old device by mail or bring it to one of Apple's stores and get 10% discount when purchasing a new one. So the bottom line is that Apple, even though it minimize the material waste by using materials more efficiently still doesn't make a real effort to make sure the first model or the second model of the iPad won't end their life eventually in the landfill.

Apple's commitment to the environment:
There's an introduction to the report where Apple is emphasizing its commitment imporving the environmental performance of its products. This part (see below) hasn't changed and the text in the iPad 2 report is identical to the text in the iPad report.

Apple believes that improving the environmental performance of our business starts with our products. The careful environmental management of our products throughout their life cycles includes controlling the quantity and type of materials used in their manufacture, improving their energy efficiency, and designing them for better recyclability.

Restricted substances:
Comparing between the two reports, we find this part identical. In both cases Apple mentions that "
Apple has long taken a leadership role in restricting harmful substances from itsproducts and packaging. As part of this strategy, all Apple products comply with the strict European Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, also known as the RoHS Directive. Examples of materials restricted by RoHS include lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and PBB and PBDE brominated flame retardants (BFRs)."

According to the reports, both the iPad and the iPad 2 go even further than the requirements of the RoHS Directive by incorporating the following more aggressive restrictions:
• Mercury-free LED-backlit display
• Arsenic-free display glass
• Brominated flame retardant (BFR)−free
• Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)−free

General green specs:
Apple is providing a summary of the "green" specs in each report under "Environmental Status report". This report is identical for both models and include the following:

• Arsenic-free display glass
• Brominated flame retardant-free
• Mercury-free LED backlit display
• PVC-free
• Recyclable aluminum and glass enclosure
• Power adapter outperforms strictest global energy efficiency standards

And finally, here's a summary of the changes in the carbon footprint of each component:

	iPad	iPad 2	Change
Production	75.4	63	-16.4%
Transport	14.3	10.5	-26.6%
Customer use	39	30.45	-21.9%
Recycling	1.3	1.05	-19.2%
Carbon footprint:	130	105	-19.2%

More resources on how green is the iPad can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ipad.asp

More resources on the ebooks vs. physical books environmental debate can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ebooks.asp.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!

Green Options - Book Review: True Green Home by Kim McKay and Jenny Bonnin

As part of Eco-Libris' ongoing content partnership with Green Options Media, we feature a post that was originally published by Justin Van Kleeck on March 9 on Sustainablog. Today's post is a review of a new green book that will help making your home a green home.

Living a low-impact, eco-friendly life often boils down to simplicity and sheer common sense. Just follow the old proverb “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,” and you will be a long way towards minimizing your impact on the environment.

But sometimes consuming less and acting with a green heart still leaves much in the “gray area” of wastefulness and pollution. To help make your life at home as green as can be, Kim McKay and Jenny Bonnin compile 100 great eco-tips in True Green Home. Part of the National Geographic True Green series, True Green Home serves as an accessible introduction to the countless areas of your home that can be either eco-friends or eco-foes.

It is also a great “cheat sheet,” as the authors call it, by combining comprehensiveness with brevity and generality.1 That is, you get a lot of quick glimpses into where your home (or apartment) might be wasting resources and some basic steps you can take to reduce your environmental footprint. (Nearly every page has more space devoted to a photo than words.)