Are Salt Generators more economical than bleach over the lifetime of the pool?

[chem geek]

Carl,

You are right that the initial installation cost will not get recovered anytime soon. I separated out that cost from the ongoing cost of chlorine generation and cell replacement. I guess that makes my analysis useful for people buying a home that already has an SWG and figuring the ongoing costs, but isn't useful for a new purchase decision where the only reason to buy an SWG would be for convenience, not for economics.

Waterbear (Evan),

Yes, I screwed up. I used 1 ounce instead of 2 when I put the number in my spreadsheet. My bad. I will correct my original post above and yes, that would double the cost for chlorine, but the SWG generating amount would need to double as well so the payback from the allocated costs is faster. I'm glad more than one person looks at this! And yes, I didn't include the mostly one-time salt and the on-going acid costs (I don't know what those are so did not include those). Thanks for catching my mistake!

Richard

[CarlD]

It is interesting that the ones who say that they are not really needed or are too expensive are the ones who have never owned and lived with one! (wink, wink Carl!). I guarentee that when the day comes that they finally get one they will wonder how they did without one for all those years!

I guess it's like getting a camera in your cell phone. You don't need but you sure love having it!

[waterbear]

I guess it's like getting a camera in your cell phone. You don't need but you sure love having it!

Carl,
The important point of my post was that pools with SWGs seem to be more stable and have fewer problems in my experience. (And we have a large customer base with varied types of pool, filter, chlorinating combinations.) Pools with SWGs and cartridge filters seem to have the fewest problems (while pools with cartridge filters on trichlor seem to have the most! No surprise here!).

[CarlD]

Carl,
The important point of my post was that pools with SWGs seem to be more stable and have fewer problems in my experience. (And we have a large customer base with varied types of pool, filter, chlorinating combinations.) Pools with SWGs and cartridge filters seem to have the fewest problems (while pools with cartridge filters on trichlor seem to have the most! No surprise here!).

Evan,
I'm not surprised you have had fewer problems with SWG pools. But remember, people who have found their way to PoolForum learn how to avoid those problems through education. Since I began as a newbie here, I've had two water problems in 8 years, both quickly solved--and not repeated.

It's a toss-up--do you educate yourself or toss out $$$ to compensate? I agree: An SWG is about the best and smartest way to spend money compensating for lack of knowledge.

You know MY opinion on tri-chlor--it's best if used on new hard-surfaced pools while they cure. Otherwise it's usually wise to avoid using it.

If $$ is tight, education is the BEST way to compensate--that's generally speaking.

[cnk]

Well, thanks to this forum I have overcome the baquacil nightmare & now I am knowledgeable in the bbb method. I just thought that if it evens out close to the same cost over time why not take the easier road with the SWG.

[CarlD]

Well, thanks to this forum I have overcome the baquacil nightmare & now I am knowledgeable in the bbb method. I just thought that if it evens out close to the same cost over time why not take the easier road with the SWG.

If that's your only reason, well, it NEVER evens out. It takes 8 years (about) just to catch up with the initial layout, then the cost of the new cell means it ALWAYS costs 10% more.

After 8 years of BBB you won't think twice about what BBB takes to do.

[aquarium]

I haven't managed our pool for a full year yet so I don't have data for every month. Last summer our combined bleach and acid cost was about $25 per month. But since November it's dropped to about $5 a month. We've also cut our electric bill in half, partly by not running the A/C but also by cutting the pool pump runtime to just a few hours a week/month.

[mas985]

When I built my pool, I was going with a full equipment controller anyway and with the Aqualogic, to add a SWG only requires the cost of the cell which for me was about $400 so my payback was much shorter than what was described by some in this thread. But that is not the real reason I went with it. To go a week or even two without having to check the pool was a big plus for me.

[waterbear]

Evan,
I'm not surprised you have had fewer problems with SWG pools. But remember, people who have found their way to PoolForum learn how to avoid those problems through education. Since I began as a newbie here, I've had two water problems in 8 years, both quickly solved--and not repeated.

It's a toss-up--do you educate yourself or toss out $$$ to compensate? I agree: An SWG is about the best and smartest way to spend money compensating for lack of knowledge.
I have to disagree with this. Lack of knowledge and a SWG is a recipe for water disaster. The thing just won't work properly and when that happensmost people will, after a short time, get it right (or finally sit down and read the manual!). SWG's are pretty unforgiving in that area! A SWG does NOT replace the need to properly learn how to care for your pool. If anything, my customers with SWG's know more about pool care then the ones without because they have to learn about CYA, why TDS is a bogus measurement, proper calcium balance, etc. from the beginning or their salt system will just not work properly! Someone with a salt system could probably be switched to liquid chlorine and 'get it' much easier than someone who is used to putting trichlor in a feeder!
You know MY opinion on tri-chlor--it's best if used on new hard-surfaced pools while they cure. Otherwise it's usually wise to avoid using it.

If $$ is tight, education is the BEST way to compensate--that's generally speaking.

If money is tight then a pool ususally is NOT the best investment!

[waterbear]

Evan,
I'm not surprised you have had fewer problems with SWG pools. But remember, people who have found their way to PoolForum learn how to avoid those problems through education. Since I began as a newbie here, I've had two water problems in 8 years, both quickly solved--and not repeated.

It's a toss-up--do you educate yourself or toss out $$$ to compensate? I agree: An SWG is about the best and smartest way to spend money compensating for lack of knowledge.
I have to disagree with this. Lack of knowledge and a SWG is a recipe for water disaster. The thing just won't work properly and when that happens most people will, after a short time, get it right (or finally sit down and read the manual!). SWG's are pretty unforgiving in that area! A SWG does NOT replace the need to properly learn how to care for your pool. If anything, my customers with SWG's know more about pool care then the ones without because they have to learn about CYA, why TDS is a bogus measurement, proper calcium balance, etc. from the beginning or their salt system will just not work properly! Someone with a salt system could probably be switched to liquid chlorine and 'get it' much easier than someone who is used to putting trichlor in a feeder! It is a 'high tech' solution to chlorination and that alone, IMHO, makes the customer a bit more eager to learn about their pool. The ones that don't want to bother usually pay a service to do the work for them so we are not talking about them. (I'm going to stop now before I go into one of my rants about pool owner indifference and false economy. You know, the ones who try and save a few pennies and end up wasting dollors--like when they buy that gallon of cheap quat algaecide becasue it is only a few dollars but it actually cost more per ounce then the expensive one (polyquat) and then they need the defoamer and clarifier with it because of it's side effects! I see this all the time! Whoops, guess I DID rant!)
You know MY opinion on tri-chlor--it's best if used on new hard-surfaced pools while they cure. Otherwise it's usually wise to avoid using it.

If $$ is tight, education is the BEST way to compensate--that's generally speaking.

If money is tight then a pool ususally is NOT the best investment! When you consider that SWGs have been in use in Australia since the 60's and there they are more the norm rather than the exception it makes you wonder why they took so long to catch on here in the states. Carl, I wish someone would give you one so you could live with one then tell you you had to stop using it and go back to bleach. I think you would sing a very different tune!

Don't get me wrong. Liquid chlorine is, IMHO, one of the best ways to manually chloriinate a pool but the popularity of inline feeders and trichlor show that people want a way to automate this task. SWG's are the way to go if you look at the chlorination automation methods available, IMHO (at least for resisential use)! Much more dependable and much eaier than using liquid chlorine and a peristaltic pump! Far fewer problems than using an inline feeder with trichlor (especially with a cartridge filter).