加拿大NRCan电池充电器能效认证
类别:行业快讯 文章出处:沃特测试发布时间:2019-05-15 浏览人次:
加拿大将于6月13日强制执行电池充电器能效认证要求,在此之后进入加拿大的产品必须需要满足CSA C381.2-17要求,并且需要在NRCan网上登记注册。
法规定义
为轮椅,高尔夫球车,低速车辆或任何其他最终用途产品充电的设备;
a device that charges the battery of a wheelchair, golf cart, low-speed vehicle or any other end-use product;
不在范围内的电池充电器:
为轮椅,高尔夫球车,低速车辆以外车辆的充电器;
a device that charges the battery of a vehicle other than a wheelchair, golf cart or low-speed vehicle
为医疗设备电池充电的充电器;
a device that charges the battery of a medical device
除用于潮湿环境或其他电感性的无线电池充电器;
a wireless battery charger, other than a wireless battery charger that is inductive and designed for wet environments or
备用电池充电器。
a backup battery charger。
强制执行日期
2019年6月13日
Manufactured on or after June 13, 2019
测试标准
CSA C381.2-17或Appendix Y to Subpart B, Part 430 of Title 10
能效限值要求
Energy performance standard for battery chargers
Product class and description | Rated battery energy (Ebatt? ) | Special characteristic or batty voltage | Maximum UEC (kWh/yr)(as a function of E batt ? ) |
1-Low-energy | ≤5 Wh | inductive connection* | 3.04 |
2-Low-energy,low-voltage | <100 Wh | <4 V | 0.144*E batt ? 2.95 |
3-Low-energy,medium-voltage | <100 Wh | 4-10V | For E batt<10Wh,1.42kWh/yr E batt≥10Wh,0.0255* E batt+1.16 |
4-Low-energy,high-voltage | <100 Wh | >10V | 0.11*E batt+3.18 |
5-Medium-voltage ,low-voltage | 100-3000Wh | <20 V | 0.257*E batt+0.815 |
6-Medium-voltage ,high-voltage | 100-3000Wh | ≥20 V | 0.0778*E batt+2.4 |
7-High-energy | >3000Wh | 0.0502* E batt+4.53 |
E batt=rated battery energy
UEC=unit energy consumption
kWh/yr=kiowatt-hours per year
Wh=watt-hours
V=volts
*E batt used in this Table is the sample mean of the measured battery discharge energy.
*Inductive connection and designed for use in a wet environment (e.g.electric toothbroushes).
同类文章排行
- 「红曲」还能吃吗?两人疑因服用小林制药含红曲成分保健品死亡
- 灯光“陷阱”?买菜警惕生鲜灯
- 2021年10月中国输出欧盟消费品召回通报
- 祛痘产品抽检,「抗生素」「激素」违添成重灾区
- 国家药监局开展“线上净网线下清源”专项行动,这三大类化妆品将被重点清理!
- 来了!4月1日起化妆品注册备案信息服务平台正式上线
- 沙特自7月1日起新增部分管控产品
- “315”曝光瘦肉精羊流向多地,我们还能放心吃肉吗?
- 2021年1月欧盟化学有害物质违规通报情况
- 平衡车被爆增塑剂超标300倍,儿童面临的“邻苯”风险究竟有多严重?