Hot Tub Forum
Original => Hot Tub Forum => Topic started by: Water Boy on March 05, 2009, 03:07:39 pm
-
I went and checked it today, and noticed there have been some new spas added to the list since the last time I checked it, including Arctic Spas(Blue Falls Manufacturing.)
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/database/excel_based_files/Pool_Products/
There are some very interesting numbers on the R values for the spas and for the cover R values. According to their tests, they are saying that the Artesian and Coast spas have the best R values, where as D1 has one of the lowest.
I know this test is not scientific by any means, especially since someone here once posted that the tests are self reported, but I find it interesting to say the least to see where the TP spas stack up against the FF spas for R value. At the same time, there have been posters on here before that think that this list is the end all be all of energy efficient spas. ::)
I tried to figure out where I could find how they determined a spas R value, but I couldn’t find that. I also noticed some spas have stars by them, but again, I couldn’t find what that detailed.
-
Those are self reported numbers and those R values are from who knows where.
Check out how D1 has spa R values of 6 for all their spas (not counting swim spas), Master has 12.8, Clearwater has 20 and Artesian has 22. Those R values are all over the board yet they all report similar standby watts. What does that tell you?
-
Those are self reported numbers and those R values are from who knows where.
Check out how D1 has spa R values of 6 for all their spas (not counting swim spas), Master has 12.8, Clearwater has 20 and Artesian has 22. Those R values are all over the board yet they all report similar standby watts. What does that tell you?
Exactly,
This proves what many have said all along, the CEC admission standards are a joke.
-
Until they come up with verifiable standards and require third party testing, the CEC certification is useless.
-
Until they come up with verifiable standards and require third party testing, the CEC certification is useless.
I agree.
-
Until they come up with verifiable standards and require third party testing, the CEC certification is useless.
I know of at least one company that had third party testing done a few years back! ;)
The problem is everyone that didnt sell that brand automatically discredited as BS. So I guess some people wont believe anything, even when it is in writing from a third party! ::)
I agree that the CEC is pretty much a joke, especially seeing some of the R values of certain spas. But, I do know for a fact that there are salespeople of the world selling spas based off of this report. There was a dealer on here a while back that said he would show customers this report and if the spa they were looking at wasn’t on there, it was the end all be all. Now, most of the spas out there today are on that list, but there are still several that aren’t. It really kind of defeats the purpose of having this list when manufactures can self report there data. They make it sound so strict that spas and appliances have to meet these standards, but yet they are self reported from the manufactures. Why don’t they just add every spa to the list and call it good!
-
Exactly,
This proves what many have said all along, the CEC admission standards are a joke.
It’s not the standards that are a joke but the manner in which the data is captured, by the spa company itself.
It's sad that a few of the companies on that report whose spas regularly get complaints for energy efficiency will use that report to their benefit. I've even seen it touted by someone on this site as verification of a certain brand that I wonder about. I'm still hopeful that eventually this may become the start of something that will be require verification and may even be tightened. We shall see.
-
It’s not the standards that are a joke but the manner in which the data is captured, by the spa company itself.
It's sad that a few of the companies on that report whose spas regularly get complaints for energy efficiency will use that report to their benefit. I've even seen it touted by someone on this site as verification of a certain brand that I wonder about. I'm still hopeful that eventually this may become the start of something that will be require verification and may even be tightened. We shall see.
The key to my statement is "admission". They let these companies self report, I have no problem with the bar they have set, I have a problem with how the spas are tested.
-
Until they come up with verifiable standards and require third party testing, the CEC certification is useless.
There was a third party test done in Aug 08, at the University of Polytechnics California. Only 27 manufacturers showed up and this is why: I couldnt post the entire file so if you want it I will email it to you
Table 1: Summary of (nontemperaturenormalized)
test results
Spa
Tested Volume (gal) Stand[ch8208]by Power (Watts) % above or below
Measured Allowable
A 185 141 162 -13%
B 264 163 206 [ch8208]21%
C 398 197 271 [ch8208]27%
D 282 320 215 49%
E 440 338 289 17%
F 200 218 171 28%
G 300 192 224 [ch8208]14%
H 150 190 141 34%
I 370 249 258 [ch8208]3%
J 334 479 241 99%
K 142 81 136 [ch8208]40%
L 220 95 182 [ch8208]48%
M 300 119 224 [ch8208]47%
N 235 277 190 46%
O 345 330 246 34%
P 247 238 197 21%
Q 439 437 289 51%
R 296 411 222 85%
S 293 318 220 44%
T 150 140 141 0%
U 470 304 302 1%
V 350 136 248 [ch8208]45%
W 382 226 263 [ch8208]14%
X 422 313 281 11%
Y 200 270 171 58%
Z 260 223 204 9%
AA 219 251 181 38%
-
As you can see only 9 spas actually passed CEC standards and 3 of them K, L, and M are Softtubs with no heater. Now maybe you can see why so few people know about this "third party" test.
-
There was a third party test done in Aug 08, at the University of Polytechnics California. Only 27 manufacturers showed up and this is why: I couldnt post the entire file so if you want it I will email it to you
Table 1: Summary of (nontemperaturenormalized)
test results
Spa
Tested Volume (gal) Stand[ch8208]by Power (Watts) % above or below
Measured Allowable
A 185 141 162 -13%
B 264 163 206 [ch8208]21%
C 398 197 271 [ch8208]27%
D 282 320 215 49%
E 440 338 289 17%
F 200 218 171 28%
G 300 192 224 [ch8208]14%
H 150 190 141 34%
I 370 249 258 [ch8208]3%
J 334 479 241 99%
K 142 81 136 [ch8208]40%
L 220 95 182 [ch8208]48%
M 300 119 224 [ch8208]47%
N 235 277 190 46%
O 345 330 246 34%
P 247 238 197 21%
Q 439 437 289 51%
R 296 411 222 85%
S 293 318 220 44%
T 150 140 141 0%
U 470 304 302 1%
V 350 136 248 [ch8208]45%
W 382 226 263 [ch8208]14%
X 422 313 281 11%
Y 200 270 171 58%
Z 260 223 204 9%
AA 219 251 181 38%
Eco,
Could you please email that to me. Please check your PM's. Thanks!
-
As you can see only 9 spas actually passed CEC standards and 3 of them K, L, and M are Softtubs with no heater. Now maybe you can see why so few people know about this "third party" test.
I believe what you are saying is that this was a third party test to set a baseline so manufacturers could see where they were. They then had to go get their product up to the standards but what I know is the final numbers were self reported, not through this third party.
From those numbers I see letters D, J, N, Q, R, S, Y ... all failed miserably yet I'll bet some of those made it on the passing list. Sure they could have made changes but until that final list is third party tested what does this initial third party test really show other than many had a LOT of work to do and while I'm sure some changes were made ...
-
This Cal-Poly test was done after most of the self reported results.
-
This Cal-Poly test was done after most of the self reported results.
So if this test was done AFTER the self reported CEC numbers it shows those self reported numbers were fudged a bit some. Big shocker.
-
I guess natural gas is the future of heating hot tubs. A lot of tubs did pass because the APSP has negotiated with PG+E for a decrease of 10-20% in the amount of energy tubs get charged during the test (http://www.apsp.org/188/index.aspx).
-
More info on the clarification here:
http://apsp.org/APSPWeeklye-ad/Sept10-08/PacificGasElectric.html
Given this, I would venture to say that the CalPoly results from last year are moot in terms of them indicating pass/fail for CEC because the parameters have changed to a constant of 37F for the accepted average difference btwn water temp and the ambient outside temp over a 72 hour period from the manner in which they were measured before.
-
A lot of tubs did pass because the APSP has negotiated with PG+E for a decrease of 10-20% in the amount of energy tubs get charged during the test
The normalization is a 60degree controled temp chamber. And yes they did negotiate a differance which made it so spas: E, H, I, P, X and Z all pushed them to over the line to passing. But 55% still failed and isnt that what matters the most?
-
I guess natural gas is the future of heating hot tubs.
Seriously?
I have often wondered why 220V is standard (for those who want hot water AND jets at the same time). Most houses have easy 110 access in the back yard, and many of them have gas spigots for a grill. A simple electric connection sounds easy, but as we all know wiring a new 220V line to the back yard is often prohibitively expensive, especially with the price of copper these days. If a tub could function with 110V and a natural gas line, I think many more people would open up to the idea.
-
Seriously?
I have often wondered why 220V is standard (for those who want hot water AND jets at the same time). Most houses have easy 110 access in the back yard, and many of them have gas spigots for a grill. A simple electric connection sounds easy, but as we all know wiring a new 220V line to the back yard is often prohibitively expensive, especially with the price of copper these days. If a tub could function with 110V and a natural gas line, I think many more people would open up to the idea.
Are you being serious?? Do you realize how much that would cost to run the spa in a cold climate in the winter. Natural Gas is WAY more expensive than the cost of electricity. If you ran a spa in the winter with natural gas, and even used it moderately, I would guess your gas bills would be approaching upwards of a 1000 per month, and maybe even more than that in a poorly insulated spa. We have customers who heat their pool in the early spring and early fall with Natural gas heaters, and it is not cheap by any means. I had a customer tell me his natural gas bill in JULY, from heating the pool for early morning swims was $1300. :o
Plus, there are many more parts and upkeep on a Natural Gas heater vs an electric heater, which can make it a pain in the butt. If a customer doenst take care of their water chemistry, it will eat out a heat exchanger in months.
I know that spas are better insulated than swimming pools, but an electric heater is the only way to go imo, other than maybe that wood burning spa that Zep linked us to the other day! I personally dont think we will see portable spas uses gas heaters any time soon.
-
Since I manufacture and sell traditional wooden hot tubs...and offer them with either electric or gas heaters;
That $1300 to heat the pool with natural gas, it would have been TWO TO THREE times MORE had they heated it with electricity.
-
Since I manufacture and sell traditional wooden hot tubs...and offer them with either electric or gas heaters;
That $1300 to heat the pool with natural gas, it would have been TWO TO THREE times MORE had they heated it with electricity.
I don’t know about two to three times more, that seems like a stretch, but I am sure you would know better than I would.
I do know that I have customers with in-ground spas that have natural gas heaters to heat their spa, and they winterize them during the winter because they say they cant afford the cost of the natural gas in the winter. It is very expensive in our area. If Natural gas was more efficient, why aren't more spas using that??
-
And if they were to heat their inground spa with electricity it would be even more $
Look at one of your power bills and tell me what you pay for gas, and electricity. It's a pretty easy calculation to determine the costs for equal power in gas vs. electricity.
Many years ago there was a portable spa with a gas heater. They used a Rinnai heater, which was designed as an instantaneous gas water heater. . It was a cool set up. The heater was under the skirt and vented through the side. I believe the AGA changed some regulations and the setup was no longer legal as the venting was then too close to the users of the spa.
Why no gas in a portable spas? There's a number of reasons.
1. the initial cost of a gas heated spa would be quite a bit more. I doubt any manufacturer pays more than about $50 for the electric heaters they use, and a gas heater is going to be 10 times that.
2. Installation...You'll still need to run electric to the spa, and NOW you'd have the added cost of running a gas line as well.
3. NO WAY would a gas heated spa be any where near as "plug and play" as a gas heated spa.
4. With the current requirements for using a gas heater, the gas heater would need to be remote from the spa, making installation and set-up even more expensive and involved.
I've done a number of conversions, converting a portable electric spa to gas, in the past. The spas generally will heat up 6 times faster, at almost half the cost. The conversion though, is almost never cost effective. It can easily be $1500 + for the conversion, and even with the heating cost being 1/2, it's a LONG time to payback (say $20 a month, $250 a year...6+ years to payback....assuming you have no problems or repair costs to the gas heater over that time).
-
One very important thing that always seems to get overlooked in these discussions of Gas Heat vs. Electric Heat is the simple fact that you can't heat a tub with gas. The only way to do that would be to put a burner under the tub, or set up some sort of thermal-siphon arrangement.
If you have a gas-fired heater, you have to have an electric pump running to move the heated water to and from the tub or pool. That pump has to move more water than most small circ pumps can manage, so you are talking about a good amount of electricity to 'heat your tub with gas.' Gas heat? No - gas/electric heat.
Yes, in large-volume tubs like a wood tub or a swim-spa you need the high-capacity of a large gas heater to move the temperature in a timely fashion. And a larger gas heater will allow the pump to run a shorter amount of time each day or each time you heat the tub, saving money on the electric bill (the gas will cost the same), but if you are trying to save money, better design is the way to go. Better insulation, more efficient use of horsepower in the jet pumps, small circ pump, better cover, etc.
One more thing - most houses do NOT have a dedicated 20 amp outlet on the patio. They usually have a 15 amp outlet, on a shared circuit, and most tract homes share that circuit with a bathroom or two - so the 1500 watt blow-dryer comes on and trips the breaker when the hot tub is running. The size of a jet pump which can run on a 15 amp circuit is not going to do much. It is better by far to run in a dedicated circuit of some type, and if you have a large tub with more than one jet pump, 220 is the way to go.
8-)
-
Very good points brought up by both of you. Here is why they will never use gas heaters on portable spas:
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv120/happymadison/minimax_plus_diagram.jpg)
Heaters are a pain in the butt to work on. Way to many parts that can and will go bad that you will need to replace. On a electric heater on a spa, you are pretty much looking at this:
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv120/happymadison/4-FLO-TI.jpg)
and this:
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv120/happymadison/3906.jpg)
Much much easier! ;)
-
I've done a number of conversions, converting a portable electric spa to gas, in the past. The spas generally will heat up 6 times faster, at almost half the cost. The conversion though, is almost never cost effective. It can easily be $1500 + for the conversion, and even with the heating cost being 1/2, it's a LONG time to payback (say $20 a month, $250 a year...6+ years to payback....assuming you have no problems or repair costs to the gas heater over that time).
So based on what everyone's saying, it sounds like it's a function of a spa's size - you have to heat a really large body of water to get enough cost savings to payback the extra expense of gas. Which is why hot tubs are all electric, but everyone I know who has a heated pool uses gas. Makes sense.
I also just did a little math (which I'm not very good at, so please correct me if I'm wrong) to figure out how much hot tubs cost to run based on Eco_Spas's table. It looks like the larger energy users were using 250W in standby mode. If I did the math right, that's 6 KWH per day, or about 2200 KWH per year.
On the negative side, that's about the equivalent of 4 side-by-side refrigerators (at about 700 KWH per year). That sounds like a lot.
On the positive side, I'm only paying 10 cents per KWH on my electric bill, so that's only $220 per year, or $18 per month. So, that's less than a dollar a day, which is the figure thrown out by most spa salespeople. Secondly, I'm sitting in a room with two 250W lamps, so it's costing me less to run my hot tub than it is to brighten just this one room.
-
First, I was kinda kidding about the gas thing. I am surprised at the pushback on gas though (not really, considering most of this industry basically builds the same thing and puts a different brand name on it).
Gas isn't just more efficient per dollar cost to operate, it's much more efficient. Talk to any water heater manufacturer. Also, I'm talking about a a tankless water heater setup on the spa with a thermostat setup. Logic would have to be worked out, but I wouldn't say it can't be done.
For people that have gas in their house, it wouldn't be terribly expensive. Spa owners already pay $500-$1000 to an electrician to run the 220 line in addition to pouring the pad. Nobody said owning a spa was going to be super cheap and done well.
Considering the current energy usage of spas and the steps that the people's republic state of California is taking to villify them, I would think all options would be on the table. I mean, the one thing a spa needs to be is hot. We can return to the days of 15 jet tubs with 1/2 hp pumps, but the water needs to get to 100 degrees.
-
Heaters are a pain in the butt to work on. Way to many parts that can and will go bad that you will need to replace. On a electric heater on a spa, you are pretty much looking at this:
Don't forget the profits to be made replacing a $400- $800 printed circuit board that goes along with those electric heaters ;D
Your electric heater pictures are a bit short ;) If you really look at everything involved with them, housing, gaskets, limit switches, thermostat etc. there's not much fewer parts than a gas heater. Having spent some 15+ years servicing and repairing them, I can tell you, they're NO more difficult to diagnose and repair than a portable spa electric heating system...Actually, things tend to be more accessible on the gas heaters, and typically they can be worked on while standing upright, as opposed to up side down, backwards, under a deck, slid inside a mouse poop infected spa cabinet, with spiders dangling over your head ;D ;D ;D
-
Don't forget the profits to be made replacing a $400- $800 printed circuit board that goes along with those electric heaters ;D
Your electric heater pictures are a bit short ;) If you really look at everything involved with them, housing, gaskets, limit switches, thermostat etc. there's not much fewer parts than a gas heater. Having spent some 15+ years servicing and repairing them, I can tell you, they're NO more difficult to diagnose and repair than a portable spa electric heating system...Actually, things tend to be more accessible on the gas heaters, and typically they can be worked on while standing upright, as opposed to up side down, backwards, under a deck, slid inside a mouse poop infected spa cabinet, with spiders dangling over your head ;D ;D ;D
Come on Doc, now you are just being silly. I knew you were going to say that I didn’t include enough parts on the electric heaters. Sorry I didn’t include the gaskets. ::)
Anyone that tries to tell me that a gas heater is easier to work on than an electric heater is just kidding themselves. I said it before and I will say it again, gas heaters are a pain in the butt to work on. There are many more parts to go wrong on them then a electric heater. Don’t kid yourself! ::) ;D ;D ;D
-
They're only a pain if one lacks the experience. As with most things, if you're not familiar with them, they're complicated. Once you actually learn them, and become experienced with them, they're quite easy.
-
I'm going to sorta side with Doc. A milivolt gas heater is very very simple to diagnos and repair. Sometimes a fault on the circuit board or sensor of an electric heated spa can elude me. Now there are some complicated gas heaters on the market today but they just add the same components that an electric heater has so the same faults elude me and require more diagnosis. But there are also gas heaters still available that have a simple gas valve and thermo coupler system that only have 2 or 3 parts that ever go wrong. And there is no power supplys to most gas heaters except for ignition systems. Gas systems are far more effiecient than electric ones but they are also way more expensive and the ROI is terrible.
-
Gas systems are far more efficient than electric ones
Hello Roger! As usual, I agreed with what you said. Except that one part in the last line. A gas heater has a flue, and a lot of the heat goes right out of the appliance there. In older systems, about half of the heat they create goes away. Newer systems put far more of the heat into the water, but no gas heater yet created can match the efficiency of a simple electric heater. In the electric, a tiny tiny fraction of the heat escaped into the motor compartment, but even that can stand a chance of getting into the water depending upon the design of the tub. That's very close to 100% efficient.
The price per therm for gas is generally lower than for electricity, and that gets confused with 'efficiency' all the time. Efficiency is the amount of power or the amount of gas put INTO an appliance that actually does the job at hand, which in this case is heat the water. If you could get all that heat that goes up the flue into the water, AND recapture all that heat that goes into the cold metal or plastic box that encloses the heater when it first fires up, AND recapture all that heat that goes away from the pipes which conduct the water out of the insulated environment of the spa cabinet and back again, THEN we could talk about efficiency.
8-)
-
It’s not the standards that are a joke but the manner in which the data is captured, by the spa company itself.
Permit me a small objection.
Arctic has a two-room hyperbaric chamber that is probably as good as that at any university, along with all proper test equipment (and it's bloody expensive!). The implication that Arctic would in any way misrepresent our data is unwarranted; and the further implication that we would even need to misrepresent data is laughable.
So there. >:(
Tom (who is no longer an official Arctic Spas spokesperson but still can't resist throwing in his two cents worth.)
And FWIW, I also agree with the need for more independent third-party testing, on a spot-check basis, such as that conducted by Consumers Union when they nailed LG http://energy-conservation.suite101.com/article.cfm/energy_star_ratings for being way over its Energy Star rating.
-
The implication that Arctic would in any way misrepresent our data is unwarranted; and the further implication that we would even need to misrepresent data is laughable.
I'm not sure how you perceived that to be a statement about Arctic; there was NO implication (direct or indirect) that Arctic or any other spa company specifically has done this, only that ANY of them COULD have based on the manner of reporting at this time.
-
Permit me a small objection.
The implication that Arctic would in any way misrepresent our data is unwarranted; and the further implication that we would even need to misrepresent data is laughable.
I dont think anyone actually said Arctic misrepresented their test results. But I was surprised when I didnt Arctics name on the list of spas tested at CalPoly, seeing as it was the "third party" test to show which spa was the most energy efficient. ;)
-
I dont think anyone actually said Arctic misrepresented their test results. But I was surprised when I didnt Arctics name on the list of spas tested at CalPoly, seeing as it was the "third party" test to show which spa was the most energy efficient. ;)
I thought the names of the companies werent released on that cal poly test.
-
I thought the names of the companies werent released on that cal poly test.
I was wondering the same thing - I only saw spas A-Z. Thanks for e-mailing me the report, though - it's interesting reading even if the names aren't on it.
-
I'm not sure how you perceived that to be a statement about Arctic; there was NO implication (direct or indirect) that Arctic or any other spa company specifically has done this, only that ANY of them COULD have based on the manner of reporting at this time.
Hello, everybody. I manage to drop in and lurk every two weeks or so, but yesterday I couldn't resist making a comment, that's all.
I didn't perceive that to be about Arctic particularly; I just wanted to make the point proactively, lest someone should erroneously misconceive that we might even consider doing that sort of thing. :o
I am subscribed to this thread because energy regulation is of great significance to the industry. Three years ago, Arctic started the process of having the Canadian government develop energy guidelines for hot tubs for our domestic EnerGuide and Energy Star programs. IMO those programs face the same shortcomings of the CEC and other state standards - long implementation times, self-reported compliance, little direct oversight. Still, it is a move in the right direction and of benefit to the consumer.
-
I thought the names of the companies werent released on that cal poly test.
You are correct, the names werent released. The CEC doesnt even know which manufacturer coresponds with each letter. So no, that is why I didnt include the names.