Apple By Sal Cangeloso Jan. 3, 2014 5:52 pm
The new Mac Pro will be known mainly for its compact size, its cylindrical appearance, its silent operation, and its $3000 price tag, but it’s notable for other reasons as well. The latest that Apple is touting have to do with the workstation’s environmental friendliness. Unlike the previous Mac Pro, which was expensive (in terms of carbon) to ship and produce, the 2013 Mac Pro has made steps in the right direction and has significantly trimmed down the machine’s environmental impact.
First of all, the new Mac Pro has the necessary stamps of approval: it’s EPEAT Gold certified and Energy Star 6.0 compliant, but those are more or less necessary when you’re talking about workstation-class system like this one. Also, neither marks any change as the previous Pro was rated for EPEAT Gold and Energy Star (though that it was version 5.2 at the time).
As Apple has made clear in its latest environmental impact report, the 2013 Mac Pro will be responsible for*940 kg CO2e (greenhouse emissions) over its lifecycle. The previous model was responsible for nearly double that at*1790 kg CO2e. Apple’s breakdown shows a dramatic change in the cause for those carbon emissions — where production once accounted for 44% of greenhouse gases and customer use was 52%, with the 2013 model production is 63% and use is down to just 33%. This is likely accounted for by the fact that the new machine uses just a single processor and a chip runs much more efficiently than the previous model.
Apple actually broken down that operational efficiency for us. Here are the 115V numbers for both machines’ power consumption:
Those are major gains compared to the previous machine, especially the idle number. Apple didn’t reveal the wattage for when the machine was under load, but presumably the gains in efficiency are in line with these. This is likely a rather high number and not something that fits in as well in a report like this, but full load is a harder number to determine so perhaps it’s understandable that Apple didn’t include it, even if it would be helpful.
As for packaging — a major source of waste — the 2013 Pro uses 1275 grams of materials where the 2012 Mac Pro used 3750 grams. That’s one third as much paper and plastic being thrown out on the day you buy the machine, thanks largely to the smaller size of the new workstation.
As previously the Mac Pro is RoHS compliant, meaning it contains nothing really nasty, like lead, mercury, cadmium, or brominated flame retardants (BFRs). We do know that the system contains a bit of gold, but that doesn’t make it into sustainability reports like this one, despite the impact of gold mining on the environment. Apple also doesn’t note rare earth materials, as the report focuses more on resulting greenhouse gas production, and less over overall impact to the planet. Up to 95% of each machine can be recycled in most areas where Apple products are sold.
You can read more about the 2013 Mac Pro and 2012 Mac Pro in their respective reports (PDF warning).
More...
First of all, the new Mac Pro has the necessary stamps of approval: it’s EPEAT Gold certified and Energy Star 6.0 compliant, but those are more or less necessary when you’re talking about workstation-class system like this one. Also, neither marks any change as the previous Pro was rated for EPEAT Gold and Energy Star (though that it was version 5.2 at the time).
As Apple has made clear in its latest environmental impact report, the 2013 Mac Pro will be responsible for*940 kg CO2e (greenhouse emissions) over its lifecycle. The previous model was responsible for nearly double that at*1790 kg CO2e. Apple’s breakdown shows a dramatic change in the cause for those carbon emissions — where production once accounted for 44% of greenhouse gases and customer use was 52%, with the 2013 model production is 63% and use is down to just 33%. This is likely accounted for by the fact that the new machine uses just a single processor and a chip runs much more efficiently than the previous model.
Apple actually broken down that operational efficiency for us. Here are the 115V numbers for both machines’ power consumption:
- Off: 0.26W (2013) vs. 0.63W (2012)
- Sleep: 2.83W vs. 7.51W
- Idle: 43W vs. 138W
- Power supply efficiency: 90% vs 85%
Those are major gains compared to the previous machine, especially the idle number. Apple didn’t reveal the wattage for when the machine was under load, but presumably the gains in efficiency are in line with these. This is likely a rather high number and not something that fits in as well in a report like this, but full load is a harder number to determine so perhaps it’s understandable that Apple didn’t include it, even if it would be helpful.As for packaging — a major source of waste — the 2013 Pro uses 1275 grams of materials where the 2012 Mac Pro used 3750 grams. That’s one third as much paper and plastic being thrown out on the day you buy the machine, thanks largely to the smaller size of the new workstation.
As previously the Mac Pro is RoHS compliant, meaning it contains nothing really nasty, like lead, mercury, cadmium, or brominated flame retardants (BFRs). We do know that the system contains a bit of gold, but that doesn’t make it into sustainability reports like this one, despite the impact of gold mining on the environment. Apple also doesn’t note rare earth materials, as the report focuses more on resulting greenhouse gas production, and less over overall impact to the planet. Up to 95% of each machine can be recycled in most areas where Apple products are sold.
You can read more about the 2013 Mac Pro and 2012 Mac Pro in their respective reports (PDF warning).
More...
