Outlier

How much does it cost to charge an iPhone 5? A thought-provokingly modest $0.41/year

The highly anticipated iPhone 5 is finally in millions of people’s hands.  Within three days of its September 21st launch, Apple had sold a record-breaking five million units. And within a year, analysts project that sales of the iPhone 5 will reach 170 million.

The popularity of the new device got us thinking: how much juice does it take each year to charge a next-generation smartphone? And how does the energy consumption of smartphones compare to that of other consumer electronics?

To find out, we got our hands on a new iPhone 5 and also a Samsung Galaxy S III – currently the hottest Android handset – then headed into the Opower Lab for some testing.

Here’s what we found, and our assessment of what it suggests about the energy impact of our increasingly on-the-go digital lifestyles…

Charging the iPhone 5 costs $0.41 per year

Using a Watts Up Pro Electricity Consumption Meter, we measured how much electricity it took to charge each phone from 0% to 100% full. Taking those results and modeling them across a year (see Methodology), we found that on an individual basis, the latest smartphones use a trivial amount of electricity.

Yes, the Galaxy costs 12 cents more to charge than the iPhone 5, primarily because of the Galaxy’s larger battery. The paramount point here though is not the difference between the two phones, but rather their striking similarity: the energy consumption of a modern smartphone is minuscule.

The aggregate impact: considering the ever-expanding universe of smartphones

While the annual electricity requirements of charging a smartphone are negligible, let’s not forget about the power of multiplication. If we consider the astronomical quantity of smartphones being used around the world today and in the coming years, their collective electricity consumption takes on a more intimidating profile. Global smartphone shipments (which includes people upgrading to newer phones) will reach 567 million units this year alone. And by 2016, 1 billion people worldwide will own smartphones.  (There are currently 106 million smartphone users in the US.)

Even if we consider just the 170 million iPhone 5’s that are projected to be sold globally in the next year, their aggregate electricity requirements are nothing to sneeze at.  The collective annual electricity consumption of the iPhone 5’s sold within 12 months will be equivalent to the annual electricity usage of 54,000 US households (roughly equivalent to the size of Cedar Rapids – the second largest city in Iowa). That’s just for one smartphone model over one year.

And the energy requirements of operating smartphones go far beyond charging the battery. In particular, smartphones are driving a huge boom in internet traffic: in 2011, monthly internet traffic stemming from the average smartphone tripled relative to 2010 levels (150 megabytes compared to 55 megabytes), and the current level is projected to grow 17-fold by 2016. Processing all of this data traffic potentially carries a heavy energy price tag of its own, in the form of data centers.

These massive supercomputing facilities, which reportedly number more than 3 million worldwide and account for up to 1.5% of global electricity use , house the data-processing infrastructure that enables our Bing searches, YouTube views, Facebook pokes, and everything else internet-related that we do on our computers, tablets, and phones.  An analysis in last Sunday’s New York Times, which highlighted the wasteful energy practices of these digital warehouses, has reignited a vigorous debate about the environmental costs of our pervasive reliance on internet-connected devices. To the extent that smartphones are putting greater demands on the data volumes and power consumption of data centers, the global energy implications of smartphones may well surpass analogies to Iowa.

So, faced with the growing scale of smartphone use (i.e. soon-to-be 1 billion smartphone users, putting pressure on millions of data centers worldwide), how should we ultimately view the global energy implications of these pocket-sized marvels? To get to some conclusions, let’s examine how the energy profile of smartphones stacks up against other media-connected devices in our lives.

Smartphones are displacing our use of clunkier, energy-intensive devices 

When viewed in isolation, a massive increase in smartphone usage appears to drive higher overall energy consumption. But, the story is more complex than that: in fact, an increase in smartphone usage is likely to cause lower overall energy consumption…

When we evaluate the proliferation of smartphones within the broader ecosystem of media- and internet-connected devices, two key facts emerge:

Fact #1: People are using smartphones to do things that they have historically done on computers, televisions, and gaming consoles.

Recent evidence of the smartphonification trend is abundant. A handful of examples:

  • In March 2012, US Facebook users spent more time accessing the site on their smartphone than their computer
  • Since 2011, viewing of premium video content has increased on tablets and smartphones, while markedly declining on PCs and Macs
  • The typical smartphone owner spends more than 2 hours per day using their phone, and they spend two-thirds of that time browsing the internet, social networking, playing games, listening to music, or watching shows and movies
  • In 2011, for the first time ever, manufacturers shipped more smartphones than  PCs

And the trend of substituting away from traditional media devices and into smartphones is taking hold across generations. Kids aren’t the only Americans choosing smartphones and tablets over TV. It’s also American moms: compared to their peers without smartphones, smartphone moms use their phones more than twice as much, while spending 26% less time in front of a TV and 24% less time browsing the web on a computer.

Fact #2: Smartphones and tablets use much less energy than the larger devices (e.g. PC’s) that they are displacing

When we compare the electricity consumption of smartphones to the power needs of larger devices we have historically used for connectivity and entertainment, a clear energy efficiency story begins to emerge: going mobile saves energy. And those savings are substantial. The chart below displays our own findings about the tiny energy consumption of next-generation phones, compared to the energy needs of more traditional devices—as calculated in an excellent recent analysis by the Electric Power Research Institute.

The energy-hogging consumer electronics, whose annual energy requirements dwarf comparable statistics for smartphones and tablets, have put enormous upward pressure on US home energy consumption in recent decades. During the last three decades, devices like large-screen TVs, game consoles, and desktop computers have made “Appliances and Electronics” the most formidable category of growth in home energy use since 1978 (nearly doubling between 1978 and 2005, from 1.77 quadrillion Btu to 3.25 quadrillion Btu). The following pie charts show how the combined energy usage across all US homes, broken down into usage categories, has evolved over the years.

With the exception of Appliances and Electronics, total energy usage in the other categories has either increased modestly or declined since 1978.  Note, for example, that the residential sector now uses much less energy for heating than in the past, thanks mainly to more efficient heating equipment and better housing construction.

So what explains the massive growth in the Appliances and Electronics category since 1978?

One hypothesis could be that appliances and electronics have become less efficient over time, but in fact the complete opposite is true.  Since 1978, the energy consumption of every major household appliance has dramatically decreased. A new refrigerator today uses 60% less energy, and a new clothes washer uses 70% less.

Instead, the reason for the explosion in Appliances and Electronics energy usage since 1978 is straightforward: a greater number of households now simply own more appliances and many more electronics. A handful of examples:

Given the growing number of devices we’re plugging in, it’s been estimated that consumer electronics alone (i.e. not including larger appliances) now account for more than 13% of US home electricity use. This means that the amount of electricity used each year by TVs, computers, game consoles, and related items in US homes is equivalent to 20% more than the entire annual electricity consumption of Ohio (the 4th highest consumption state in the country), or approximately 5% of total US electricity consumption — and three times the consumption of the domestic cloud-computing data centers that feed our devices with content.

In that context, smartphones’ ability to give users the portability and connectivity that they seek, but at a much lower energy cost than is associated with traditional devices, marks a clear and epochal change in the way we use energy.

Smartphones: smart for energy efficiency

When all’s said and done, smartphones prevail as an energy-efficiency winner when it comes to the way we send an email, watch a video, or share a family photo (sorry, digital photo frames). Put simply, a day spent web-surfing and facebooking on a smartphone or tablet is a much more energy-efficient day than doing the same on a traditional computer.

It’s again important to point out that the energy usage statistics we considered here solely represent in-home energy consumption (e.g. charging our phones and keeping our TVs plugged in). They don’t reflect the energy requirements of data centers, whose massive computer servers sustain our nonstop internet usage and smartphone activities.

Yet our increasing smartphone usage appears, at least to some degree, simply to be shifting the source of our data traffic, rather than creating more of it. We have gone from playing online games and watching internet-enabled content on TVs and computers, to doing the same activities on smartphones.  Given this trend, we don’t expect that data centers’ outsized energy consumption undermines smartphones’ status as an exemplar of energy frugality in the digital age.

Moreover, smartphones’ energy-saving impact goes beyond just displacing the usage and data traffic of clunkier devices. Their super-efficient computing architecture is also helping to make data centers themselves more energy-lean.  Highlighting the spillover benefits of mobile technology, the MIT Technology Review reports that low-power microchips — which were originally developed for smartphones — are now being installed in data centers to enable significant efficiency improvements in those facilities.

So to all of you who have read this post from a smartphone, be proud…

You are at the forefront of an energy-efficiency revolution.

Special thanks to Ashley Sudney, Efrat Levush, David Moore, Andrew Sharp, Rob Bailer, and Jay Cox-Chapman.

Follow @OpowerOutlier on Twitter

Methodology: Smartphone power requirements were ascertained via a Watts Up Pro Electricity Consumption Meter. This analysis adopts a simplifying assumption that the average smartphone user will charge their device once per day, in the off position, from 0% to 100%.

Galaxy SIII: consumed 12.3 watt-hours to charge, taking 2 hours and 26 minutes.  Maximum wattage was 6.6 watts, with an average of approximately 5.0 W.  Multiplying 0.0123 kWh/day by 365 days = 4.49 kWh per year. At the average US residential rate of $0.118/kWh, the annual charging cost is projected to be $0.53/year.

iPhone 5: consumed 9.5 watt-hours to charge, taking 1 hour and 50 minutes.  Maximum wattage was 6.3 watts, with an average of approximately 5.0 W.  Multiplying 0.0095 kWh/day by 365 days = 3.47 kWh per year. Annual charging cost is projected to be $0.41/year.

170 million iPhone 5′s forecast to be sold in 12 months, times 3.47 kWh/year per phone, equals 589.9 million kWh. Iowa’s average annual home electricity usage in 2010 was 10,596 kWh.  The 2010 Census indicates the count of households in Cedar Rapids to be 53,376 households.

Xbox 360 figures based on inputs from Hittinger, Mullins, and Azevedo (2012): 25.5 million Xbox 360 consoles sold through 2010, collectively consuming 8,700 gigawatt-hours of electricity.

Total US retail electricity sales in 2010 was ~3.75 billion MWh. Residential sector accounts for a 37% share, and 13.2% of that is consumer electronics. Consumer electronics usage thus represent ~5% of total US retail electricity sales, 183 million kWh, or ~20% more than the 154 million MWh of annual retail electricity sales in Ohio.

Only the consumer-use phase of a smartphone’s product lifecycle was considered in this analysis. With respect to the energy profile of other aspects of the smartphone lifecycle (e.g. raw-material extraction, component manufacturing, and disposal), see Li et al. (2010) and Andrae and Andersen (2010).

Data Privacy: All data analyzed here are completely anonymous and treated in strict adherence to Opower’s Data Principles.

Author’s note: The analysis and commentary presented above solely reflect the views of the author(s) and do not reflect the views of Opower’s utility partners.

  • Tyler Bronder

    Energy used in charging seems like only half the story; what about the “vampire” energy that the two chargers pull down when not connected to the device? Is there a measurable difference between them?

    • Anonymous

      Hey Tyler- Good question. You’ll be relieved to find out that the latest iPhone and Droid chargers are actually not vampires. We tested each with our Watts Up Pro consumption meter. When the chargers are plugged in, but no phone is connected to them, they draw virtually zero standby power (i.e. between 0 and 0.1 watts). Kudos to their designers. Hopefully the most severe vampire devices–like set-tops boxes and DVRs–will follow suit in the coming years.

      • http://twitter.com/carbonexplorer Duncan Noble

        There are actually at least 3 charging states, not 2. Almost no one unplugs their phone as soon as it reaches 100%. You modeled “active” charging to get the phone to 100%, but ignored “maintenance” charging to keep it at 100%, as well as “vampire” charging with no phone attached. Good to hear the “vampire” load is low, although Apple says it is higher at 0.23W (http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/iPhone5_product_environmental_report_sept2012.pdf ). What is the maintenance energy consumption if you leave the phone plugged in overnight? The total could easily be twice what you calculated, but I don’t know what the charger draws after the phone has reached 100% but is still plugged in. Did you measure the total energy consumed by leaving the phones plugged in for 8 hours?

  • lekoos

    Not sure if this lengthy article mentions it or not: Any data about how much energy is saved by not using your traditional desktop computer as much since you are using a ‘smartphone’ which does a lot of things I used to do on my gigantic Apple Mac Pro cheese grater? (along with a 23″ Apple Cinema Display) Is that energy offset considered in this article? Thanks.

    • Anonymous

      Hey Lekoos- Yes indeed: the article explains that, given standard device usage levels over a year, a smartphone uses 1/100 the electricity that a desktop computer does (which doesn’t include the monitor). This suggests that our increasing shifting of computer-like activities to smartphones will result in substantial energy savings.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=627857845 Jur Ko

    The comparison of energy consumption between iPhone and Android devices must be majorly misleading. The basic assumption is 1 charge per day, which is not true for any of these. In fact, both iPhone and Android need more then 1 per day and we also all know how fast is the battery drains on Android devices. iOS6 has somehow made the battery lasting longer but again, I’m not sure if 1 per day would be enough for iPhone. 3G is impacting consumption really hard, I suspect LTE would be even hungrier. It really depends on many factors, the methodology used in article seems a bit simplistic.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=627857845 Jur Ko

    But fair to say even doubling the numbers won’t impact the main conclusions of the article: mobile computing is way cheaper in terms of energy consumtion, compared to desktop and home gaming..

  • p

    This is cool, I’d also like to see a study or graph that shows how much energy is used to produce these different devices.

  • http://www.androidnext.de/ Frank Ritter | androidnext.de

    “Multiplying 0.123 kWh/day by 365 days = 4.49 kWh per year.”
    There seems to be an error: 0.123 * 365 = 44.895

    • Anonymous

      Hi Frank-
      The calculation is 0.0123 kW/day * 365 = 4.4895 kWh, so we’re all good on the math. Thanks!

  • Mr Unknown

    How is the price per kWh so cheap?

  • Dan S

    How was the “nested circles” picture made? The areas of the circles should reflect the ratios, but by eye you can tell that they don’t.

    The area of the iphone5 circle is 5mm^2 on my screen, while the area of the plasmatv circle is 3117mm^2. (The diameters are 2.5mm vs 63mm.) Neither the area, diameter, or radius show the claimed 100x relation.

  • Lee

    Regardless of the amount of electricity, working on a high-powered desktop PC with dual 22″ monitors sure beats working on the tiny screen of an iPhone/Android device.

  • Emilio

    It doesn’t make much sense to use the charging price of smartphones and neglect the costs that they incur in the form of data centers in a comparison with things like TVs and photoframes that clearly aren’t accessing the internet and utilizing data centers.

    The per phone cost associated with data usage probably far outweighs the cost per daily charge per year. You might try to estimate this by looking at the growth in total national capacity of data centers, then remove the proportionate industry share in devices that utilize data centers that aren’t smartphones.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RQLOIADQIKNSW5U5HFAJ4QQ4VA Paul

    Wow… this is pathetic. The testing methodology is slanted toward smaller batteries.
    If I make a phone that has a teeny tiny battery, and it charges in 5 seconds, and cost $0.02 a year…. does that mean my phone will cost $0.02 a year to power? No, it means I’ll be charging it every 15 minutes.
    At least now I know that opower cannot be trusted to present valid conclusions.

  • Clay Thompson

    Huge swaths of land are being destroyed by radioactive wastes in third world countries to mine the rare earths needed to produce these devices. These are the ungreenist of consumer products.

  • Frédéric Bastiat

    You clearly haven’t thought this out.

    Here ya go. It’s better to spend $400 on a phone that has energy costs associated with its manufacture and recycling and/or disposal not to mention the attendant environmental impact than to get a refurbished “dumb” phone free?

    As Emilio points out, there are also the attendant infrastructure energy costs.

    Go read this:

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

  • zidane the legend

    This is why I really hate ignorance, or to put it in simple terms a level of stupidity that only a iphone users can live upto.

    1. Still use them: Smartphone usage has not stopped people from using all other electronics- TVs, Computer, Laptops, or Gaming devices. I have never met a person who said “oh i stopped using Xbox, or I dont do work with my laptop”. I can name 5 people who went and spend big bugs to buy toys- high graphics laptops by Apple and Sony to do what- video editing. Are they are not working for a director- no just some kids trying to upload youtube videos. So, smartphones are made as toys not as working devices. You need a laptop to write. I could not replace my MS OFFICE period. As to those who use these devices 90% of their work is play- status update, 10min games, one after the other. These are all wasteful activities taking up alots of data. WHICH COST ENERGY AND MONEY. Please understand the science before posting such articles.

    Smartphone Usage + Glitter toys = Huge amount of electricity usage

    2. Data hogger: Smartphone is by far the worst thing when it comes to usage of internet data. I have a Galaxy note 2 and I had to kill, disable and do all kinds to tricks to make sure stupid things like- Facebook and Zigna or whatever it is called to stop going online. And the fact that there is no reason what as I don’t play games or use the facbook app. So this stuff keeps on using large data and lower my batter.

    If you say “oh its an android, include yourself in the ignorance list as iphone with all the years of software development could not even add a simple tool to kill apps running in the background”.

    Unnecessary Appls running + Internet data hogging = Huge electricity usage

    3. World is mine: Almost every iphone app is based on advertisement and most of the developers make an app for Iphone then throw the same into Android. So from the user point of view- for lets say a work that takes 1kb you end up adding junk to make it 4-5kb. The worst part is the user did not even care for the advertisement. Its pure philosophy of Apple that is so much into the smartphone nowdays “the world is my playground, I don’t care if my toys harm the environment”.

    4. Made to break: A laptop is built to last. An iphone was built to break as they knew their lead user will go back to buy the same one. I have met people who are “BROKE” and they blame everything but themselves “Oh coffee is expensive, “. Hold on “who told you to buy 3 iphones in less than 3yrs and then when it broke say oh “I have apple care”. So now you spend $3-4,000 dollars not to forget the added junk to the environment cause lets face it these phones are not made with simple parts all complex junk that get into the main stream to pollute.

    But as usual now the game has changed as manufactures from Korea and Japan who are used to making products that last as their countries cannot afford the keep wasting attitude as Americans.

    5. Expect the worst: This is not going to change if developers and manufactures take responsibility. Oh but hold their responsibility is towards shareholders as usual- forget the quality if it breaks will they buy our product again. WHY “OFcourse, why do you think we put a glass and steel onto it” neither will last more than a year. “hahahaha”

  • http://www.mindinventory.com/iphone_development.php iPhone Development

    The lengthy expected iPhone 5 is lastly in a lot of individual’s arms,” David Atomic views for Outlier. “Within three times of its Sept Twenty-first release, the apple company organization company had marketed a record-breaking five thousand styles. And within a season, experts venture that revenue of the iPhone 5 will achieve 170 thousand.

  • Anonymous

    Uh, I suppose not, but then again, perhaps the SGS3 needs that “larger battery” to provide adequate working time? According to tests run at anandtech, it appears that the iPhone 5 with its smaller battery lasts longer than the SGS3. Perhaps, they should adjust the graphic to incorporate that, which would make the energy differential even greater.

    Congrats!

About Outlier

Outlier explores trends in how people are using energy at home. Pulling from an unprecedented (and still growing) amount of energy data—currently drawn from 50 million homes—Opower crunches energy-use information from more than 75 utility partners every day, and cross-references that with weather, household, and demographic information to produce compelling analyses in the Outlier series.