Does anyone have anything bad to say about saltwater pools?????

Jump to latest Follow Reply
I stand by my estimate for chlorinating liquid, and mention that it's very approximate to help the OP decide. Consumption will vary widely. Speaking only of the swim season, one experienced person here sees consumption as low as 0.5 ppm per day with a covered pool which is lightly used. The typical range is around 2 to 3 ppm per day for a warm, sunny pool with family use, and some are higher.

I was using 15,000 gallons, 2.5 ppm per day, and 10% chlorinating liquid for my estimate of 1/3 gallon per day.

12.5% is another option, and based on your volume plan of 32,000 gallons and perhaps lower use of 2.0 ppm FC per day, that's around 1/2 gallon per day.

Rising pH is fairly easily managed. In addition to correct TA and use of borates, another key is to use a pH target at the upper end of the recommended range. For me, adding acid when the pH goes over 7.8 and correcting down to about 7.6 or 7.7 works best. When I started out, I was making the mistake of trying to keep my pH down around 7.5/7.6. The speed of pH rise slows at higher pH, so the amount of acid needed is reduced. If acid addition becomes a bother, pH management can be automated or semi-automated as well. In some cases, people are only able to test and correct pH once per week, and therefore need to go lower and will use more acid as a result.

I hope that's helpful. SWC or chlorinating liquid are both effective and economical choices. SWC simply reduces the amount of liquid to bring home and dose the pool.
 
jgriffith3337 said:
I have a neighbor (North Texas) who has had a SWG inground pool for 7-8 years. He is in the process of converting to chlorine. When I asked him why, he said the main reason is how corrosive the salt has been to his pool/stonework.
Click to expand...

I call BaloneySandwich on your neighbor... :D

My daughter has a pool that originally started out as a chlorine pool. It has flagstone coping. Long before we converted it to a Saltwater system the flagstone was flaking. You can look at two stones, side by side, so they get the same amount of sun, rain and pool water. One is perfect, the other is flaking. You can look at the "structure" of each stone and tell the difference. We converted to saltwater a little over two years ago. The bad stones are still bad and the good stones are still good. In my opinion, salt has nothing to do with it, it is all mother nature.

Jim R.
 
Just reporting what I was told. I can't imagine why he would lie.

My wife from the very beginning has wanted a salt water pool. All of the top 4 PBs I worked with told us they could sell us either system, but recommended chlorine. Maybe it is just a Texas thing.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
 
It sure seems to be. Something about the softer stone they use. But then again, all pools end up as salt pools after a few years, so it's probably just an easy way for them not to have to cover for bad materials.
 
jgriffith3337 said:
Just reporting what I was told. I can't imagine why he would lie.

My wife from the very beginning has wanted a salt water pool. All of the top 4 PBs I worked with told us they could sell us either system, but recommended chlorine. Maybe it is just a Texas thing.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No lie... I'm sure that is what he believes. I used to believe in Santa Claus, until the last year or two... :p

Once a myth gets started, it is pretty hard to correct.

Jim R.
 
He isn't lying, just misinformed. I have flagstone (unsealed) coping that is doing just fine. It pretty much looks the same as it did 5 summers ago when it was installed. I also have some flagstone on pathways that is flaking and peeling and never gets any saltwater on it at all. As mentioned, all pools have salt in them. All forms of chlorine add salt, tap water has salt in it and muriatic acid adds salt. Trichlor pucks add almost as much salt as it does chlorine. Most pools have 1000+ ppm of salt. Saltwater has 3500 ppm of salt and the ocean has 35,000 ppm of salt.
 
jgriffith3337 said:
Maybe it is just a Texas thing.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yup, it is for the most part. We had a thread about this a few months back. A Texas PB service manager basically confirmed that it has nothing to do with salt per-se but with sub-contractors (masons, plumbers, etc) who refuse to warranty their work when salt pools are involved. The proximate cause is that "salt pools" led to complacent pool owners who thought salt water pools = maintenance free pools. Because if that and poor customer training on how to deal with SWG problems, PBs and subs just got fed up with all the warranty calls. So, in an effort to limit these issues, a lot of Texas PBs push their customers away from salt.
 
I'm just an observer to the Texas-PB-anti-SWG movement (and very likely pockets elsewhere), but to help the OP... you can go either way - SWC or chlorinating liquid. It makes very little difference other than the time and effort to purchase and pour jugs of chlorinating liquid.

If you use Trouble Free Pool Care (TFPC), as described here at TFP, you'll have well-balanced water which will help you get the longest life from your pool finish, tiles, grout, coping and deck.

If you have a pool service or rely on pool store testing and recommendations, it's very likely you'll have periods of time with pH too high or low, excessive regular shocking at low pH, calcium out of line, or other factors that make the water more damaging (and possibly uncomfortable) than it should be, which can lead to shorter service life.

JoyfullNoise described the whole situation really well above.
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
Dougk30 said:
We are just starting into our pool build and we found a new pool builder. The new pool builder is much more knowledgeable, he is the pool builder the owner of the company him and his son do all of the service. I much prefer talking to someone who knows what they are talking about, over a shiny shoe salesman who just hires out the construction work and doesn't know a darn thing about it. The only problem is the new pool builder doesn't sell salt water systems and tells me I will have problems with SWG and it will end up costing me more in the long run. So I thought I would bring to the true experts here on TFP. Does anyone have anything bad to say about salt water pool? I have had numerous different pool houses tell me numerous different things that are bad, but nobody that owns a salt water pool has anything bad to say. Below is some of the things I have been told.
Salt water is to corrosive on everything
My opinion is Baloney Sandwich
The entail cost out way the saving
From what I have seen the entail costs are not the great
 It is not the much less maintenance
The people I talk to disagree
New PB says the SWG will plug up after a 5-10 years and cause major issues.
????????
New PB says a chlorinator works just as well
??????
New PB says chlorine is the same maintence and SWG does not make pool water any more stable. He says with large swim parties water will turn green
???????
New PB says SWG is a fad the will fade with time has told me that it has come and gone many of time throughout the years.


Whats everybody else thoughts I only want to have to do this once its going to be a lot of money don't want to waste any of it.
Click to expand...
They are basically a huge waste of money IMHO.

The generator (that will have to be replaced on a regular basis) converts the salt in the pool to chlorine, so you actually still have a chlorine pool!

Chlorine maintaince may be a bit less costly on a day to day basis, but the upfront costs, and maintenance cost will eat that savings alive.

Also, you will use a lot more acid, so that will eat your (supposed) savings as well!

If you want to spend more, for a bit less day to day maintenance, then by all means go with salt.

If you want a more economical system, then go with traditional chlorine.

Either way, you still have a chlorine based pool. [emoji6]

Short simple article for ya:

How Does a Swimming Pool Salt Chlorine Generator Work? - AutoPilot Blog
 
When considering the economic benefits of SWG's, let's deal with facts and not opinions. Read this thread for an analysis done by Chem Geek - Economics of Saltwater Chlorine Generators

The post is about 18 months old, so the values Richard uses for pricing may be a bit high as there are lower cost systems available than the two he choses to use in the analysis, but that only makes the economics for salt better, not worse. The conclusion is, if you look across the chart, that the dollars-per-pound of chlorine generated are lower for SWG's (~$2 to $3 per pound) versus chlorinating liquids (~$4 per pound). The economics only get better even when factoring in replacement cell costs. Richard assumes a cell life that is stated by the manufacturers and there are many members of this forum that have gotten in excess of 7 years out of a cell. One member got 10 years out of his first Hayward T-15 cell and is currently on his second T-15 cell. Obviously "your mileage may vary" if you are not properly caring for your water and your cell is exposed to water chemistry that is out of balance. But, most cells nowadays are quite robust and, with automatic periodic current reversal, have reduced the wear & tear associated with calcium scaling.

Increased acid use does not drastically affect the calculations. Everyone has a different opinion of what "a lot" of acid use is but I have had an SWG for over 4 years now and I use about 8 to 10 gallons of muriatic acid per year at a cost of $4.75 per gallon. Assuming I spend $50 per year on acid, that's a little over $4 per month or the cost of a gallon of bleach and so that has little affect on the net savings. I also did an experiment earlier in the year where I tracked my acid usage while the pool was covered versus uncovered. When the pool is covered, my acid demand basically drops to near zero levels. In both cases the SWG was running. So, in the end, the acid usage in my pool is driven more from aeration and CO2 off-gassing than from the SWG cell running. Again, everyone's water is a little different, but chances are your typical acid demand will only be marginally increased by using an SWG.

In the end, SWG's provide both convenience and cost savings over traditional manual chlorination if you go with an oversized cell that TFP recommends (at least 2X the pool volume). Even if you follow the industry recommended sizing, then an SWG is about even with the cost of liquid chlorination.
 
Rivermobster,

In your other post today you say... "I fight it (algae) with my pool regularly. I think it's due to the pine tree in my back yard.

I just did a complete water change, and the stupid algee is back again!

I just hit my pool with Yellow Treat, and it seems to be gone for now.

I have no doubt it will be back...

So... while I appreciate your input, I think I'll stick with my SWCG and stay away from using expensive "magic" products.

Thanks,

Jim R.
 
JoyfulNoise said:
When considering the economic benefits of SWG's, let's deal with facts and not opinions. Read this thread for an analysis done by Chem Geek - Economics of Saltwater Chlorine Generators

The post is about 18 months old, so the values Richard uses for pricing may be a bit high as there are lower cost systems available than the two he choses to use in the analysis, but that only makes the economics for salt better, not worse. The conclusion is, if you look across the chart, that the dollars-per-pound of chlorine generated are lower for SWG's (~$2 to $3 per pound) versus chlorinating liquids (~$4 per pound). The economics only get better even when factoring in replacement cell costs. Richard assumes a cell life that is stated by the manufacturers and there are many members of this forum that have gotten in excess of 7 years out of a cell. One member got 10 years out of his first Hayward T-15 cell and is currently on his second T-15 cell. Obviously "your mileage may vary" if you are not properly caring for your water and your cell is exposed to water chemistry that is out of balance. But, most cells nowadays are quite robust and, with automatic periodic current reversal, have reduced the wear & tear associated with calcium scaling.

Increased acid use does not drastically affect the calculations. Everyone has a different opinion of what "a lot" of acid use is but I have had an SWG for over 4 years now and I use about 8 to 10 gallons of muriatic acid per year at a cost of $4.75 per gallon. Assuming I spend $50 per year on acid, that's a little over $4 per month or the cost of a gallon of bleach and so that has little affect on the net savings. I also did an experiment earlier in the year where I tracked my acid usage while the pool was covered versus uncovered. When the pool is covered, my acid demand basically drops to near zero levels. In both cases the SWG was running. So, in the end, the acid usage in my pool is driven more from aeration and CO2 off-gassing than from the SWG cell running. Again, everyone's water is a little different, but chances are your typical acid demand will only be marginally increased by using an SWG.

In the end, SWG's provide both convenience and cost savings over traditional manual chlorination if you go with an oversized cell that TFP recommends (at least 2X the pool volume). Even if you follow the industry recommended sizing, then an SWG is about even with the cost of liquid chlorination.
Click to expand...

chem geek said:
The bottom line is that one doesn't normally purchase an SWCG to save money. One purchases one for the convenience of automated dosing and not having to buy/carry chlorine. My main point for doing the chart was to show that one should most definitely buy a larger unit even if significantly oversized.
Click to expand...

Good read. I couldn't agree more. ?
 
JoyfulNoise said:
When considering the economic benefits of SWG's, let's deal with facts and not opinions. Read this thread for an analysis done by Chem Geek - Economics of Saltwater Chlorine Generators
Click to expand...

Interesting article. I'm most surprised that the IC60 fared so well, especially since Pentair seems normally a bit more expensive, apples to apples compared to Jandy and Hayward. And the prices have come down since so an even better deal.
 
xyz said:
Interesting article. I'm most surprised that the IC60 fared so well, especially since Pentair seems normally a bit more expensive, apples to apples compared to Jandy and Hayward. And the prices have come down since so an even better deal.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's definitely the most expensive to replace. BUT it generates more chlorine than the T-15 or Jandy 1400 cells, so you save in that sense.

My next cell will be an IC-60.
 
Philo said:
Electrical Costs!
Running the SWG in the summer can be expensive.
13amps x 110volts = 1430watts x 20hrs/per day = 28 kilowatts x $.25 = $7.00 /day = $210.00 / month.
Click to expand...

Your power draw is waaaay off. Most residential cells don't draw more than 200W.
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread Status
Hello , This thread has been inactive for over 60 days. New postings here are unlikely to be seen or responded to by other members. For better visibility, consider Starting A New Thread.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply