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

[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).

[aquarium]

... If anything, my customers with SWG's know more about pool care then the ones without because they have to learn about ... proper calcium balance, ...

How does proper calcium balance affect a SWG? I'm asking because we have very hard water here. If this is yet another water parameter I'd have to adjust, not good.

[waterbear]

too high a water hardness leads to more scaling of the cell and necessitates more freuqent cleaning

[mas985]

How does proper calcium balance affect a SWG? I'm asking because we have very hard water here. If this is yet another water parameter I'd have to adjust, not good.

We have pretty hard water where I live and by summers end, the CH is well over 400 ppm. I keep the alkalinity and PH at the lower end of their acceptable ranges and it seems to keep the scale down.

[CarlD]

Evan:

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

This statement contradicts so much of what we teach here. It is VERY possible to have a pool on a budget, and maintain it inexpensively. I can easily see why someone can happily have a pool, but cannot justify spending a grand on an SWG.

Our first pool was an inexpensive 15' EasySet on a homemade platform of rocks and sand. We used it HAPPILY for 3 years. The rules for maintaining the cheapest 8' donut pool are THE SAME as for the biggest, fanciest "infinite horizon" pool.

The ONLY item I would agree with you on is if you cannot afford a FAS/DPD service test kit then you cannot afford a pool.

I have REPEATEDLY said that I have NOTHING against SWGs, and HAVE toyed with installing one. But the little bit of time savings I will get is not enough for ME to justify it. I simply present the arguments that made MY decision.

I spend VERY little time actually maintaining my pool because I follow my own advice to stay ahead of my water. I usually spend 2 minutes a day or LESS on my pool. Occasionally I spend 5 minutes (very rarely). I spend 15 minutes once a week running the full set of FAS/DPD tests. I toss my robotic cleaner (Blue Diamond) in once a week to vacuum AND brush the pool. I RARELY put in even an hour per week on pool maintenance.

Yet my water is crystal clear, sanitary, sweet-smelling and soft on the skin all summer.

It is the result of knowledge learned here from others, experience of my own pool, and planning that takes place all year round. It is also always a continuous learning experience.

[CanuckPool]

Hey Carl, you have a robotic cleaner and still vacumn and brush, well its just like an SWG... it produces chlorine but we still have to balance our water just like everyone else. But doesnt having a robotic cleaner make your pool maintenece life much easier... or you could have saved the $1000 on the robot and just hand vacumned exclusively. Wouldn't you consider that a luxury?

[waterbear]

Good point, Canuck!

[tonyl]

Ditto Canuck....

The $1200 Blue Diamond is justified even though it only gets used ONCE A WEEK. Yet a $700 SWG isn't but would be used DAILY, eliminating the need to lug all those jugs of bleach & recycling the empties.

I guess it depends on what a person wants.

[CarlD]

Hey Carl, you have a robotic cleaner and still vacumn and brush, well its just like an SWG... it produces chlorine but we still have to balance our water just like everyone else. But doesnt having a robotic cleaner make your pool maintenece life much easier... or you could have saved the $1000 on the robot and just hand vacumned exclusively. Wouldn't you consider that a luxury?

I don't see the connection. I don't vacuum and brush--the robot does it. Vacuuming and brushing are at least an hour long job, every week, that is just plain hard work that, unless I want a work-out, I could do without (especially brushing). Besides, the robot not only does a better job, it acts like a super-filter, turning over the pool in 3-4 hours with DE level filtering.

The robot saves me lots of hard, sweaty work. An SWG would save me a few minutes of easy work a week.

THAT is the difference--saving me from a job I dislike versus saving me from a job I don't mind.

I KEEP saying this: There is nothing wrong with having an SWG if you want one. It's YOUR choice on what is a pain-in-the-neck job and what isn't. It's YOUR cost-benefit analysis.

And I can tell you: If I had to choose between a robotic cleaner and an SWG, then hands-down I'd take the cleaner.

[nater]

As a techno geek with both a robot and a SWC, I'd side with Carl (even though I don't really see an argument here) that the Robot saves MASSIVE amounts of time and labor vs. the pouring bleach/SWC debate.

Labor and time aside, my Dolphin polishes the water to a quality far beyond what my sand filter with DE does. Conversley, Cl is Cl is Cl, so bleach vs. SWC doesn't show a step change difference in sanitation effectivness (efficiency, yes).

As everyone has already stated, if it makes sense for you, go for it!