Abstract Objectives This study aims to evaluate the actual energy consumption of two generations of 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners, quantify the benefits in terms of primary energy savings resulting from technological replacement, and compare field estimates of primary energy consumption with those reported in environmental product declarations (EPDs). Materials and methods Two 1.5-T MRI scanner models, the old model version and its new model replacement, were monitored using a power quality analyzer connected to the electrical cabinet. Electrical power consumption data were collected over 2-week periods, both before and after the scanner replacement. Primary energy consumption was projected over 10 years, and the resulting values were compared with those reported in the EPDs for the two scanners. Results Over 10 years, cumulative energy consumption is estimated to be 1,010.4 MWh for the new unit versus 1,206.7 MWh for the old unit, corresponding to a 16.3% reduction. Considering the range of European primary energy factors (PEFs), energy savings varied from 235.6 to 687.1 MWh. Comparison with EPDs revealed significant discrepancies (± 40%) depending on the national PEF used, demonstrating that EPDs can both overestimate and underestimate actual energy consumption. Conclusion Replacement of an old MRI model resulted in measurable energy savings, particularly in non-productive phases. However, EPDs do not always reflect clinical operation or the impact of national energy mixes. While energy efficiency is central to sustainable radiology, it should not be the sole driver for equipment replacement, which must remain primarily guided by clinical and diagnostic criteria. Relevance statement For a radiology department focused on more sustainable practices, it is essential to have accurate data on the environmental performance of medical imaging equipment, which should not be based solely on EPDs, but on real data based on usage patterns and national energy mixes. Key Points Replacing the old MRI scanner reduced energy consumption by 16.3%, mainly due to lower use in non-productive modes. Over a 10-year operational period, the primary energy consumption savings varied from 235.6 to 687.1 MWh. A discrepancy emerged between EPD-reported and real-world measurements, highlighting the importance of on-site validation for sustainability assessments. Graphical Abstract
Roletto et al. (2026) studied this question.