Actual Energy Consumption

[Spa User Guy]

Does anyone have any real data (other than just opinion) that compares the energy efficiency of the better Full foam insulated Hot Tubs (Hot Springs, Marquis, D1) versus the better thermopane Hot Tubs (Arctic, Coleman, Clearwater)? I am interested in something factual which bases the energy efficiency differences in like models (size/gallons) of each type. I am trying to narrow my search down, but energy consumption in my area is of real concern. I am planning on purchasing a new tub from of the one of the manufacturers listed above, but need a better feel for what real energy costs might be. I realize comfort and feel are the most important but energy usage will also factor into my decision.

[Hot Tub Guru]

Here are some e-mails from my customers reguarding there Arctic Spa. I have a faxed copy of an energy bill, it states 25.5 KW used in December of 2004 vs. 25.3 KW used in December 2005. He has an Arctic Fox 257 gallon tub. Actual names have been removed.

First letter: Avalanche 490 Gallon tub

After one year with our Arctic Spa.

We have found that the cost of keeping our spa running year round is

around $15.00 per month. We keep the water at 102 during the winter

and 95 during the summer.

This cost includes electric, water, and chemicals.

Keeping the spa water in balance has been very easy. We check the balance

twice a week. It has taken very little in the way of chemicals to maintain

good balance.

We have purchased all of our chemicals from you. We have been very happy

with the Arctic Pure line to keep our water balanced and trouble free.

As for our experience with the Arctic Spa, we would recommend it to

anyone who is looking to purchase a spa.

Regards

And another e-mail: Frontier 400 Gallon

I am writing to let you know just how much we have and are enjoying our Arctic Spa, and how great the staff at the Novi store has been to work with.

We use our spa at least 3 times a week, and have friends and family that come to visit us just so they can use the spa. There's nothing like climbing into the spa after a long day, and we have found you'll never have a better nights sleep then after taking a late night trip to a spa.

We were a little concerned about how much it would cost us to operate a spa, but when we purchased our Arctic Spa we were told it would be $10 to $15 a month. Now that we have about a year of ownership under our belts, I can say that it has been approximately $10 a month to operate the spa.

I would also like to tell you how wonderful the staff at the Novi store has been to work with. We had a problem with the heater the day the spa was delivered, and it was replaced within hours. We just recently had a problem with one of the jets in our spa, I took it in and was given a new one without any problem or hassle.

Getting our chemical supplies has been extremely easy as well. All I have to do is pick up the phone, tell you what I need, and it is shipped out and delivered right to my door.

We have recommended Arctic Spa to a number of our friends and family, and will continue to spread the word about how great owning an Arctic Spa has been.

Sincerely,

Hope that helps. You can read more letters on arcticspas.com

Michael

[drumstick]

as i stated on another reply, i haved owened a coleman 472 and the kwh useage avg was 30 kwh per day the whole last week of feb. this tub was only 1 .5 years old. the very next week with virtuly the same weather the marquis is running 10 kwh per day. i continue to record kwh used on a daily log. you decide.

[windsurfdog]

When it comes to energy usage, a major point that is often neglected is the amount of use the tub gets. It's pretty obvious that a heavily used spa will consume much more energy than a seldom used spa. I mention this to temper the claims of those posters who report extremely low energy usage.

Also consider the climate in which the tub resides when reviewing others posts about their energy usage.

If you figure a buck a day, that's roughly $30.00/month....$360.00/year. I would venture to say that any well designed spa, whether FF or TP, would be +- 50% of this figure--"well designed spa" is a key point and that's where you have to make the choice. I would say there are at least 20-30 manufacturers that build well designed spas....both FF and TP. So the range of cost/year using this analogy is a low of $180.00/year and a high of $540.00/year. After considering how much money is being spent on your spa.....$6000 to $12000....even the high end....$45.00/month....really isn't overwhelming.

Buy from a reputable manufacturer and let therapy and dealer relationship be your driving factors.

Just trying to offer some perspective.......

[sharkman009]

Does anyone have any real data (other than just opinion) that compares the energy efficiency of the better Full foam insulated Hot Tubs (Hot Springs, Marquis, D1) versus the better thermopane Hot Tubs (Arctic, Coleman, Clearwater)? I am interested in something factual which bases the energy efficiency differences in like models (size/gallons) of each type. I am trying to narrow my search down, but energy consumption in my area is of real concern. I am planning on purchasing a new tub from of the one of the manufacturers listed above, but need a better feel for what real energy costs might be. I realize comfort and feel are the most important but energy usage will also factor into my decision.

When you collect information from the different manufacturers that you are looking at ask for any information pertaining to energy usage. I know that a couple of the manufacturers that you have mentioned have paid independent companies to test their spas for operating costs. I know that Hot Springs has a energy calculator on their web site that can give you a pretty good idea for the different area that you are in.

[imback31]

Let me start by saying I like Artic Spas, I think they are a good product and almost bought one. Why didn't I? Because I couldn't understand why the salesperson needed to sell me on the tub based only on the energy savings, which he greatly exaggerated on. I had done lots of research on tubs going into the show room and knew at most a tub could save 30% yearly vs the other top tubs. Most well made tubs use about $30 a month, so I could save on the best tub in the world maybe $10 a month, or $120 a year, or $1200 in 10 years. Not that great vs the $10,000 price tag and the fact that Thermal Lock systems are not proven and enhance the chance of leaks due to the pipe movement. Every time I talked about filter, or jets the salesperson turned the conversation to cost to run. Now I see the guy above finding the need to do the same. All tub owners know it costs at least $5-$10 a month in chemicals to run a tub, and if you use it lots it costs more based on what you bring into the tub, so the person who spends $15 a month on chemicals and energy in the winter at 102 must not enter the tub at all!

In the world of things, 10k for your tub, 8k for your deck, 2k for the furniture, 1k for that new bbq, $25 a day in beer when you have friends over, don’t be scared by the whole energy argument at all, wet test your tub, research the builder, make sure a tech is within your area and enjoy your purchase.

[sharkman009]

Let me start by saying I like Artic Spas, I think they are a good product and almost bought one. Why didn't I? Because I couldn't understand why the salesperson needed to sell me on the tub based only on the energy savings, which he greatly exaggerated on. I had done lots of research on tubs going into the show room and knew at most a tub could save 30% yearly vs the other top tubs. Most well made tubs use about $30 a month, so I could save on the best tub in the world maybe $10 a month, or $120 a year, or $1200 in 10 years. Not that great vs the $10,000 price tag and the fact that Thermal Lock systems are not proven and enhance the chance of leaks due to the pipe movement. Every time I talked about filter, or jets the salesperson turned the conversation to cost to run. Now I see the guy above finding the need to do the same. All tub owners know it costs at least $5-$10 a month in chemicals to run a tub, and if you use it lots it costs more based on what you bring into the tub, so the person who spends $15 a month on chemicals and energy in the winter at 102 must not enter the tub at all!

In the world of things, 10k for your tub, 8k for your deck, 2k for the furniture, 1k for that new bbq, $25 a day in beer when you have friends over, don’t be scared by the whole energy argument at all, wet test your tub, research the builder, make sure a tech is within your area and enjoy your purchase.

The things you are saying are true but the problem you have is not all spas are built the same and there are huge differences in operating costs on different brands of spas. I have customers that purchased spas that cost them $70 a month to operate with regular usage. The other things you mention are important factors as well but you cant leave operating costs out of the equation. Unfortunately most customers dont know what to look for when they purchase a spa. Thats wht it is so important for a customer to do their homework and learn as much as you can. My opinion

[windsurfdog]

Let me start by saying I like Artic Spas, I think they are a good product and almost bought one.....and the fact that Thermal Lock systems are not proven and enhance the chance of leaks due to the pipe movement.

There are many implementations of TP with varying degrees of differences. Are you alleging that all TP systems enhance the chance of leaks due to pipe movement or are your comments directed solely at Arctic's implementation?

[Brulan1]

There are many implementations of TP with varying degrees of differences. Are you alleging that all TP systems enhance the chance of leaks due to pipe movement or are your comments directed solely at Arctic's implementation?

Do you think that not allowing enough room for movement of the pipes, because of all the foam, could cause them to become brittle near the nipple of the jet inlet "or" that they will wiggle loose allowing too much room? Do you think having less foam gives more accessability if that was the case? I think there are different arguments on both sides of which both are very good. What do you think it comes down too for your situation? Are you on a budget or can you spend freely? Just use your own rationale and instinct and you will make the right decision I think.

[imback31]

Do you think that not allowing enough room for movement of the pipes, because of all the foam, could cause them to become brittle near the nipple of the jet inlet "or" that they will wiggle loose allowing too much room? Do you think having less foam gives more accessability if that was the case? I think there are different arguments on both sides of which both are very good. What do you think it comes down too for your situation? Are you on a budget or can you spend freely? Just use your own rationale and instinct and you will make the right decision I think.

No I don't think you should allow for any movement in heavly wieghed down pipes with large amounts of water pressure going through. Anytime you allow movement you allow for the jionts to losen, if that happens the likelyhood of a leak increases greatly. Yes less foam will allow you to fix these leaks when they happen easier, I'd rather prevent the leak.

Very easy to see this, go see one of these spas and ask them to turn on and off the pumps a few times with the access door open, watch how much movement there is, when these pipes are supported there is none.

[spatech (the unreal one)]

Do you think that not allowing enough room for movement of the pipes, because of all the foam, could cause them to become brittle near the nipple of the jet inlet "or" that they will wiggle loose allowing too much room?

You really need to retire that one. That is soooo far from having any believability to it that you'll look foolish to anyone with any amount of common sense.

[imback31]

I have a degree in physics and I can’t even understand what the theory is! Is he saying not allowing them to move would allow them to move too much and loosen? Or is he saying things have to move or they become brittle? (we're not talking taffy here) If he is saying the second first I don't understand how this material can become britlle by not moving enough, how would you store such a product? Second even if it were possible to become brittle by not moveing, who cares, it's not moving so nothing can crack it!

[windsurfdog]

There are many implementations of TP with varying degrees of differences. Are you alleging that all TP systems enhance the chance of leaks due to pipe movement or are your comments directed solely at Arctic's implementation?

I have a degree in physics and I can’t even understand what the theory is! Is he saying not allowing them to move would allow them to move too much and loosen? Or is he saying things have to move or they become brittle? (we're not talking taffy here) If he is saying the second first I don't understand how this material can become britlle by not moving enough, how would you store such a product? Second even if it were possible to become brittle by not moveing, who cares, it's not moving so nothing can crack it!

imback, I agree with t.u.o.--forget the brittle stuff. Please address my question above.

[Roger]

imback, I agree with t.u.o.--forget the brittle stuff. Please address my question above.

I don't have a degree in physics. Or anything for that matter, well maybe a few licenses but no degree's! One of them is in Plumbing and one thing I can tell you with 100 percent certainty is that well supported plumbing will not get brittle because it can't move. That has to be one way out there sales pitch coming from someone. And it stands true for all plumbing not just that inside a hot tub. Now on the other hand unsupported plumbing will get brittle, but brittle is a bad word for, working itself loose so it leaks.

As far as energy consuption is concerned. Se the Full Foam thread. A well made tub will cost x-amount to operate. no matter what the insulation skeem. And I would say 30 bucks a month is pretty average. But can be improved on with a thicker cover, floating blanket, reduced use, wind blockage, proper filtration programming and a few other things.

[spatech (the unreal one)]

A well made tub will cost x-amount to operate. no matter what the insulation skeem. And I would say 30 bucks a month is pretty average. But can be improved on with a thicker cover, floating blanket, reduced use, wind blockage, proper filtration programming and a few other things.

I hate to simplify things to much but to me there are 3 types of spa out there relative to insulation and as long as you get #1 or #2 you should be fine:

1) A full foam spa which definteily insulates very well IMO,

2) A properly designed/built thermopane. I will certainly agree that if properly insulate the sides and eliminate air transfer to the outside that this method works well.

3) A poorly designed/built thermopane. This is the spa to avoid. Many of us have seen these type spas where there are gaps allowing air transfer and they use some thin ineffective barrier on the side walls that is supposed to elminate the heat transfer but looks better suited to wrap a baked potato in. This is one thing I would worry about if i was getting some of the mass merchant bargain spas out there.

Some have mentioned how Arctic does thermopane method well and that certainly may be the case but too many spas are sold on the principle of themopane rather than on the fact that the specific spa thermopane design and implimentation is done well.

[poollady]

I hate to simplify things to much but to me there are 3 types of spa out there relative to insulation and as long as you get #1 or #2 you should be fine:

1) A full foam spa which definteily insulates very well IMO,

2) A properly designed/built thermopane. I will certainly agree that if properly insulate the sides and eliminate air transfer to the outside that this method works well.

3) A poorly designed/built thermopane. This is the spa to avoid. Many of us have seen these type spas where there are gaps allowing air transfer and they use some thin ineffective barrier on the side walls that is supposed to elminate the heat transfer but looks better suited to wrap a baked potato in. This is one thing I would worry about if i was getting some of the mass merchant bargain spas out there.

Some have mentioned how Arctic does thermopane method well and that certainly may be the case but too many spas are sold on the principle of themopane rather than on the fact that the specific spa thermopane design and implimentation is done well.

This debate could go on forever, but the original question was "is there any hard data full foam vs. thermopane". Well PDC did an independent test comparing full foam to their "Temperlok" system. The test was conducted over a 6-month period (June to December) and the results are that there is almost NO difference at all between full foam and temperlok (actually the Temperlok came out slightly ahead), excep that with the Temperlok, it's MUCH easier to service, is lighter weight for installation and moving. The best part for us and the customer is that to service the spa, all we do is simply remove the side cabinet, pull down the thermal blanket to do any necessary repairs. For more info visit PDC's websitet PDC.com

[spatech (the unreal one)]

This debate could go on forever, but the original question was "is there any hard data full foam vs. thermopane". Well PDC did an independent test comparing full foam to their "Temperlok" system. The test was conducted over a 6-month period (June to December) and the results are that there is almost NO difference at all between full foam and temperlok (actually the Temperlok came out slightly ahead), excep that with the Temperlok, it's MUCH easier to service, is lighter weight for installation and moving. The best part for us and the customer is that to service the spa, all we do is simply remove the side cabinet, pull down the thermal blanket to do any necessary repairs. For more info visit PDC's websitet PDC.com

PDCs test results are exactly as you'd expect their test results to be. Same as with Arctic's test, Hot Springs tests and any of the other test results used to sell spas. Good Marketing tools is what they are IMO. If you claim thermopane is beter for service someone else claims full foam is better for supporting plumbing and avoiding the leak you're so easily fixing in the thermopane spa.

So I agree, this debate could go on forever and to answer the original question, there is no hard data that you can go to bed with. Take a look at the spas you're considering and look closely at how they are made (haev the sales person open them up if you desire)..

[craighaggart]

Getting back to actual energy usage, it sounds as though most people agree that a typical spa with typical use will probably cost somewhere around $30 per month to operate. Working backwards using $0.15 per kW hour for electricity as a back-of-the-envelope value, I come up with about 6.6 kWh per day.

Does that sound about right to most of you? I need it in energy units, not dollar units, because my wife and I don't buy electricity, we make it (rooftop PV panels). Right now, we produce a surplus of power. If we can realistically expect a spa to use 6 or 7 kWh per day, we're probably fine as is. But if it's more like 10 or 12 kWh/day, we'll need to add more panels or else we'll be back to sucking electrons out of the grid rather than shoving them in.

I suppose that I'll be able to post here in a year or so with very precise figures for energy usage of the spa we end up getting (Caldera Martinique, Artesian Ruby, Sundance Marin, or Marquis Quest) because our current loads are pretty well established and our new meter is a marvel of electronic intelligence. But until then, it's all guesswork unless someone has good data to share.

Craig Haggart

Sunnyvale, California

[spatech (the unreal one)]

I suppose that I'll be able to post here in a year or so with very precise figures for energy usage of the spa we end up getting (Caldera Martinique, Artesian Ruby, Sundance Marin, or Marquis Quest) because our current loads are pretty well established and our new meter is a marvel of electronic intelligence. But until then, it's all guesswork unless someone has good data to share.

Craig Haggart

Sunnyvale, California

Let us know what you find. All 4 of those spas should give similar results.

[sharkman009]

Getting back to actual energy usage, it sounds as though most people agree that a typical spa with typical use will probably cost somewhere around $30 per month to operate. Working backwards using $0.15 per kW hour for electricity as a back-of-the-envelope value, I come up with about 6.6 kWh per day.

Does that sound about right to most of you? I need it in energy units, not dollar units, because my wife and I don't buy electricity, we make it (rooftop PV panels). Right now, we produce a surplus of power. If we can realistically expect a spa to use 6 or 7 kWh per day, we're probably fine as is. But if it's more like 10 or 12 kWh/day, we'll need to add more panels or else we'll be back to sucking electrons out of the grid rather than shoving them in.

I suppose that I'll be able to post here in a year or so with very precise figures for energy usage of the spa we end up getting (Caldera Martinique, Artesian Ruby, Sundance Marin, or Marquis Quest) because our current loads are pretty well established and our new meter is a marvel of electronic intelligence. But until then, it's all guesswork unless someone has good data to share.

Craig Haggart

Sunnyvale, California

Its going to be tough to give you an exact amount because there are a lot of factors involved such as approximate annual ambient air temperature, how long the spa is left open when used etc. I think you will be ok if you get an energy effecient spa. The last study that I saw for Hotspring showed a medium sized spa in Casper Wyoming with an average temp of 45 degrees taking 220 kilpowatt hours per month to operate. I think most well insulated spas should be within dollars of eachother. Hope that helps.

[spatech (the unreal one)]

I think most well insulated spas should be within dollars of eachother.

That say it all but there needs to be a HUGE emphasis on the term "well insulated". It doesn't mean all spas will be the same, only those that are well insulated and that does not inculde everythign you see out there for sure.

[sharkman009]

That say it all but there needs to be a HUGE emphasis on the term "well insulated". It doesn't mean all spas will be the same, only those that are well insulated and that does not inculde everythign you see out there for sure.

For Sure.

[craighaggart]

Its going to be tough to give you an exact amount because there are a lot of factors involved such as approximate annual ambient air temperature, how long the spa is left open when used etc. ...

I totally understand. We are in the enviable position, at least, of living where winters are very mild.

We have never owned a spa before so we have no real idea how much actual use it will get, or how many jet pumps will be on for how long, etc. I'm sure that it's normal for a spa to get used a lot at first, and then less as the novelty wears off, making it even more difficult to come up with a typical power usage number. But I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask and to at least try to come up with a ballpark estimate.

We'll just have to get a spa and take it from there!

Craig Haggart

Sunnyvale, California