[toomuchtodo]

Genuine question: What's the concern? An iPhone doesn't charge as fast or as much as it could? It is an opt in feature that can be trivially turned off. No one is buying into the Apple ecosystem or an iPhone because of clean charging. Perfect is the enemy of good enough, and the whole "Apple doesn't really care about the environment, these are just platitudes" is a tired argument not worth having.

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.

[forward1]

The concern is diverting or otherwise mitigating attention to climate change on impressive-sounding, but ultimately meaningless distractions, all the while flamboyantly bragging about it and bolstering one's self image.

[_aavaa_]

I do not see demand side management as a meaningless distraction.

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.

[forward1]

You say it's not a meaningless distraction, but fail to make a reasonable argument for how it "saves" the environment, or whatever. 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.

[_aavaa_]

Everyone's heard about the "duck curve". Part of that shape is due to demand. The demand associated with people leaving for work and coming back home. [0]

> 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.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve

[dragonwriter]

> Running laundry or charging an AV at a different time of day doesn't materially impact energy usage and emissions,

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.

[kortilla]

The concern is that it’s a bullshit distraction that doesn’t do anything. It’s like farting into a hurricane to reduce how far it goes inland.

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”.