Somebody tell me what this means?

[Chris_H]

http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2003rulemaking/documents/case_studies/CASE_Portable_Spa.pdf#search=%22ANSI%2FNSPI%206-1999%20%22

[drewstar]

Read the very last page.  It's a report suggesting Ansi sett he amount of electricty that spa can consume (which I am sure you knew).   Did this go through?

Has anyone calcualted spas engery consumption based on thier fourmula? And if so, would this cause and design changes?

 Personaly, I'm against this. I'm all for the most efficent tubs and conserving electrical usage, but modiify a national standard to include power consumption seems a bit far. No?  

OR did I miss something?

[DPS]

When it goes into effect many brands will have to make major changes.  I have heard that the list of spa brands that would be able to pass is extremely short.

[East_TX_Spa]

I liked the spa picture.  It was the only part I understood.  Would've been better with hydrotherapy technicians frolicking about, though.

Terminator

[Bill_Stevenson]

Thanks for sharing this report.  I find it fascinating and informative.  I just read through it quickly and once, so these are just some initial thoughts.  I will read it again later and perhaps have more/different comments after a careful read and analysis.  First of all, the gist of it is that the average spa is consuming 2,500 kwh of electricity per year.  The author defines the average spa as being up to 380 gallons, assumes the average water temperature to be 102 degrees F, to have certain insulation ratings, and so on.  So your results probably would vary, but it does provide an interesting baseline.  For example, with the current fuel surcharge here in Florida, we are paying ~ $0.136 per kwh and that would equate to about $340 per year to run this hypothetical average tub, or about $28.00 per month.  Not a bad estimate all things considered.

Next, the report did a nice job of analyzing all of the various components that make up a portable spa in terms of their usage of electricity.  We all know about the heater, but I did not know that modern heaters are 96-98% efficient.  Or that the heater accounts for about half the total electrical load.  Pumps come next of course, but the author goes into detail about the spa controls and how there is a significant potential for energy improvement in the controls.  Specifically, big savings could be realized with programable set-back type controls.  Another thing that I found fascinating is the amount of energy that is lost due to insulation.  In all of the nauseaous debate here and elsewhere about the relative merits of the different approaches to insulating spas, nowhere can I recollect reading anyone expressing an appreciation for the fact that most of the heat loss in a spa is through the cover.  The author not only makes the case, but points out quite correctly that the cover is the most likely major component to be replaced in a spa and that if a cheap, thin, poorly sealing cover is selected, the energy usage can go up dramatically.  

Looking at the growth in spa sales, numbers I had not seen before, an estimate of the total electrical demand on the grid was made.  Looking at each component in a spa: heater, motors, covers, insulation, and so forth, the author provided an estimate of cost for the improvement and net savings.  In every case, it looks like there is an opportunity to improve efficiency that has a net cost savings.

Since these benefits would only be possible if investments are made to improve each affected component, and given that spa manufacturers would only make the necessary investments if they could recover them through sales of more energy efficient designs, it seems likely that such improvements would only be possible if they are mandated by government.   (Since, this comment might create misunderstanding, let me express my thought on this differently.  It would be difficult to sell a spa that had more efficient components at the necessary premium if otherwise comparable compeititive products looked and worked similarly, but cost hundreds less.)

I think we, as spa interested people, both inside and outside the industry, should back this effort because the spa of the future would be a better more efficient product after these changes were made.

Regards,

Bill

[hottubdan]

The California Energy Commission has a preliminary set of standards, which are being modified.  I have heard their goal is to make it illegal to sell the least effiecient spas in California.  Currnently they have a list of spas that manufacturers have self reported meet the preliminary standard.  

There is no auditing.  There is no enforcement.  Given that it is voluntary and self reported, I do not believe the list has much validity.  I respect the goals of the CEC.  I am concerned about costly regulations, given they will drive costs up which will be passed onto dealers and consumers.

Dan

[D.P. Roberts]

Another thing that I found fascinating is the amount of energy that is lost due to insulation.  In all of the nauseaous debate here and elsewhere about the relative merits of the different approaches to insulating spas, nowhere can I recollect reading anyone expressing an appreciation for the fact that most of the heat loss in a spa is through the cover.  The author not only makes the case, but points out quite correctly that the cover is the most likely major component to be replaced in a spa and that if a cheap, thin, poorly sealing cover is selected, the energy usage can go up dramatically

I've tried to point that out several times (in my three posts here). What gets me wondering is that a spa that doesn't quite meet the standards- but has a great cover- would be far more energy efficient than a spa that meets the standard but has an old, poorly sealed, waterlogged cover. It seems like they would be better off enforcing strict standards in the manufacturing and sale of covers, rather than tubs.

[Gomboman]

Wow, thanks for posting this article. I love this kind of stuff. I'll probably read this one word for word tonight in the bathroom.

I sure wish someone would publish a report like this on Spa Ozonators.

[Tman122]

http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2003rulemaking/documents/case_studies/CASE_Portable_Spa.pdf#search=%22ANSI%2FNSPI%206-1999%20%22

The amount of power and hydrotherypy in a spa just went down for those of you who like big HP

[ndabunka]

Looks like you dug up a report thats a little over 2 years old.  Why are people on here thinking that Spa's will change now (2 years later)?

[Kyle]

Because it takes a very long time to implement laws/codes.  This is coming for sure!  The "quality" manufacturers will not see much of a cost increase.  I agree with Bill S.  This will be great for our industry.  It will favor the guys wearing the white hats.  Forcing the others to implement "REAL" practical features that don't tend to sell under showroom lights.  I'm usually not for govt. regulations but this will benefit consumers in the long run.

Hypocrit