Conversion to salt water chlorination: pro and con

[PoolDoc]

1. I've never seen ANY evidence that saltwater systems damage liners. That sounds totally bogus to me.

2. Using salt water does result in corrosion problems, ESPECIALLY on existing pools.

3. There's a fair amount of evidence that using salt water can damage decks and stone work in dry climates, where splash out evaporates and is not rinsed away by regular rain.

4. We've ALWAYS noted that using salt water does NOT save money, when all the costs are counted.

5. I'm finding that SWCG's generally do not last as long as claimed.

BUT . . .

1. SWCGs are a wonderful relief for people often away from their pool. They are probably the most reliable (but not perfectly reliable!) method of chlorinating a pool consistently during a 10 day vacation or business trip.

2. They benefit people who struggle with consistent pool care, and there's nothing wrong with paying $2,000 for a system that makes your pool more 'forgiving' of negligence, if you've got the money.

3. Many of the 'problems' with salt systems seem to result from people thinking that they have purchased a fully chemically automated pool, rather than just a method of chlorination. That's not a defect in the SWCG systems, though it is certainly a defect in the way they are marketed.

[chem geek]

The issues with SWCGs are real, but some can be mitigated. One can use harder (less absorbent) stone or seal softer stone on a regular basis. One can use a zinc sacrificial anode buried in moist soil and attached to the pool's bonding wire to reduce the rate of metal corrosion. One can use a titanium or cupro-nickel gas heat exchanger instead of copper.

[JimK]

1. I've never seen ANY evidence that saltwater systems damage liners. That sounds totally bogus to me.

2. Using salt water does result in corrosion problems, ESPECIALLY on existing pools.

3. There's a fair amount of evidence that using salt water can damage decks and stone work in dry climates, where splash out evaporates and is not rinsed away by regular rain.

4. We've ALWAYS noted that using salt water does NOT save money, when all the costs are counted.

5. I'm finding that SWCG's generally do not last as long as claimed.

BUT . . .

1. SWCGs are a wonderful relief for people often away from their pool. They are probably the most reliable (but not perfectly reliable!) method of chlorinating a pool consistently during a 10 day vacation or business trip.

2. They benefit people who struggle with consistent pool care, and there's nothing wrong with paying $2,000 for a system that makes your pool more 'forgiving' of negligence, if you've got the money.

3. Many of the 'problems' with salt systems seem to result from people thinking that they have purchased a fully chemically automated pool, rather than just a method of chlorination. That's not a defect in the SWCG systems, though it is certainly a defect in the way they are marketed.

Could you clarify what you mean by "ESPECIALLY on existing pools."?

To the OP, my pool was installed in early 2004, including a SWCG. The primary benefit has been convenience. This was especially apparent a few weeks ago when my pump failed and I had to manually chlorinate for a week. I really missed the SWCG during that week! I've not had any issues with the liner (still has the original) or corrosion. I also like the feel of the salt water, although you could add salt without having a SWCG. The salt cell has been replaced once and a circuit board had to be replaced in the control unit (it was still under warranty at the time).

If manually chlorinating isn't an issue for you, then save your money and forget the SWCG. Like has been said, a SWCG will not save money (but the BBB method of pool care will ).