Hot Tub Forum
Original => Hot Tub Forum => Topic started by: D.P. Roberts on September 11, 2007, 10:44:43 pm
-
There's some info being posted on one of the other forums about the California Title 20 energy standards for hot tubs. While it sounds like the standards might be in the process of being loosened, it sounds like some brands and manufacturers have some tubs that meet the standard (147 brands from 11 manufacturers to be precise). Does anyone know which makes & models currently meet the standard?
-
These are the brands listed:
Artesian
Bullfrog
Cal Spa
clearwater
D1
Hydropool
Master
soft tub
Thermal
Hot spring
Tiger River
It is a self reporting process. Others may qualify but don't choose to.
You can download the complete list @ http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/appliance/excel_based_files/pool_products/
-
I think the reason you do not see more makers on the list is nothing is final and much of the process and standards are still up in the air, Do not be surprised to if the whole program is scraped or put on hold.
-
I don't believe these energy standards will go away; they will probably become more of the norm in the future..., that being said. There are some huge discrepancies in the data. This exact concept has been hashed out here before.
-
I don't believe these energy standards will go away; they will probably become more of the norm in the future..., that being said. There are some huge discrepancies in the data. This exact concept has been hashed out here before.
My reason for my statement is that I have spoken to several makers and have asked about this and it appears that at this time there is no conclusive standard and that there is still much research to be be done before a uniform standard will be in place and that it appears to be a long way down the road.
-
I would agree that the standards need to change. For example, there's a bias against smaller spas (if two models have the same circ pump, the larger one is considered to be more efficient since it uses less energy per gallon). The extensive testing looks really expensive too.
However, the table sure shows us some interesting data. For example, look at the R values for the spas listed. Hot Spring (R-25) and Artesian (R-30) top the list, no surprise there. But Bullfrog Spas have an R value of 6.5? And Dimension One has an R-value of 6? That's lower than Thermospas!
-
However, the table sure shows us some interesting data. For example, look at the R values for the spas listed. Hot Spring (R-25) and Artesian (R-30) top the list, no surprise there. But Bullfrog Spas have an R value of 6.5? And Dimension One has an R-value of 6? That's lower than Thermospas!
My guess on this would be Hot Spring and Artesian are quoting the insulating method while Bullfrog and D1 are using the actual tub measurement
-
D.P.
you are right about the smaller tubs and this is why there is still much work to be done before it becomes law, I also do not think any of the ratings are being done by a non-competing third party, I think the manufactures simply summit their ratings at this time and this is not to knock any maker it is just that right now it appears that makers are rating spas based on what they feel the interpretation of the standards are. I do not think any spas out there will be a 30 and than a 6 when tested in the same manner.
-
D.P.
you are right about the smaller tubs and this is why there is still much work to be done before it becomes law, I also do not think any of the ratings are being done by a non-competing third party, I think the manufactures simply summit their ratings at this time and this is not to knock any maker it is just that right now it appears that makers are rating spas based on what they feel the interpretation of the standards are. I do not think any spas out there will be a 30 and than a 6 when tested in the same manner.
I was under the impression that the manufacturers were having to send in the individual tubs to be tested before they each pass. We'll definitely be hearing more on this.
I think this might be kind of like the "no smoking inside public places" ban where it started in California a decade ago or so and slowly moves east and north!!
-
Unfortunately no maker sends their spas in (I believe that will be a cold day in hell when all manufactures would do something like that). The test are done at the manufacturers, where there are to many uncontrolled variables.... :P
-
To me that is the major problem, self reporting.
:-/
-
Unfortunately no maker sends their spas in [glow](I believe that will be a cold day in hell when all manufactures would do something like that). [/glow]The test are done at the manufacturers, where there are to many uncontrolled variables.... :P
They would do that if California said "Do this or don't sell in our state"!!!
-
They would do that if California said "Do this or don't sell in our state"!!!
Very TRUE!! :)
-
To me that is the major problem, self reporting.
:-/
I have to disagree with the idea of sending spas in for testing. Think about the logistics and cost of shipping spas to a central (or even regional) test center. There are some 140 manufacturers in NA. Let's say a conservative average of 10 different models per maker, about 1400 different models. Allow 24 hours to drain an old one, move in a new one, fill it, and bring it up to temperature (assuming that all the units can come up to temperature within that time). A minimum of 72 hours to test (the Alberta Research Council tests ranged from 60 to 120 hours). That's 5600 days or over 15 years. Well, test them 15 at a time and you could do it in one year, 180 at a time and you could theoretically get it done in a month. Add up the cost of the facilities, staff, administration-- heck, we could all build our spas with no insulation at all and still save the country money over such a system. ;D And who would bear the cost of providing and transporting the units? The manufacturer. This might prove an excessive burden for smaller outfits.
Note: edited to conform to the 72 hour test period required by Title 20! - Tom
The test are done at the manufacturers, where there are to- many uncontrolled variables....
It's quite feasible (though expensive for smaller outfits) to make a controlled environmental chamber capable of handling a few units at a time. Obviously, there would have to be standards which those chambers would have to meet. I think this would easily overcome the above objection.
Another suggested idea: test inspectors. The manufacturer does the testing; regional inspectors go around periodically and inspect the test facility, review the test procedures, and perhaps validate the most recent results. With 140 sites, a team of inspectors could do annual inspections. Foolproof? Hardly. But perhaps more feasible than central testing. Along with this might go penalties for misrepresentation in reported data.
One last thought on the importance of volume. Which is most energy efficient in standby mode, a spa that uses 484 Watts per hour or one which uses 409 W/h? Obviously, given no other information, the second one. End of story, some might say.
But suppose the first spa is 1500L and the second is 1200L. You might reconsider your conclusion, as the first one takes roughly 320 Watts/h to maintain the temperature of a cubic meter of water while the second one needs 340 Watts/h to do exactly the same job. On these (hypothetical) figures, the first spa is more energy efficient.
-
I have to disagree with the idea of sending spas in for testing. Think about the logistics and cost of shipping spas to a central (or even regional) test center. There are some 140 manufacturers in NA. Let's say a conservative average of 10 different models per maker, about 1400 different models. Allow 24 hours to drain an old one, move in a new one, fill it, and bring it up to temperature (assuming that all the units can come up to temperature within that time). A minimum of 48 hours to test (the Alberta Research Council tests ranged from 60 to 120 hours). That's 5200 days or 11.5 years. Well, test them 12 at a time and you could do it in one year, 144 at a time and you could theoretically get it done in a month. Add up the cost of the facilities, staff, administration-- heck, we could all build our spas with no insulation at all and still save the country money over such a system. ;D And who would bear the cost of providing and transporting the units? The manufacturer. This might prove an excessive burden for smaller outfits.
It's quite feasible (though expensive for smaller outfits) to make a controlled environmental chamber capable of handling a few units at a time. Obviously, there would have to be standards which those chambers would have to meet. I think this would easily overcome the above objection.
Another suggested idea: test inspectors. The manufacturer does the testing; regional inspectors go around periodically and inspect the test facility, review the test procedures, and perhaps validate the most recent results. With 140 sites, a team of inspectors could do annual inspections. Foolproof? Hardly. But perhaps more feasible than central testing. Along with this might go penalties for misrepresentation in reported data.
One last thought on the importance of volume. Which is most energy efficient in standby mode, a spa that uses 484 Watts per hour or one which uses 409 W/h? Obviously, given no other information, the second one. End of story, some might say.
But suppose the first spa is 1500L and the second is 1200L. You might reconsider your conclusion, as the first one takes roughly 320 Watts/h to maintain the temperature of a cubic meter of water while the second one needs 340 Watts/h to do exactly the same job. On these (hypothetical) figures, the first spa is more energy efficient.
Tom,
I value your perspective and opinions.
Trust and verify is the key here.
Currently, as I understand it, there is no verification process.
Your proposal of inspectors makes sense.
-
I think the article mentioned that a third party would do the testing, unless the company involved was ISO 9001 certified, in which case they could test themselves.
Assuming that there is a standard, eventually, I wonder what the long-terms effects will be. For one thing, manufacturing costs will go up, which of course means higher prices for us. On the other hand, if there's a simple way of comparing the energy efficiency of different models, manufacturers will make them more energy efficient, which results in lower operational costs. Manufacturers might start having smaller lineups - fewer models means less testing. Less efficient spas will be dropped altogether. Smaller manufacturers will probably have a harder time of it, but those selling spas made in their garage will be entirely out of business. It will be interesting.
-
I think the article mentioned that a third party would do the testing, unless the company involved was ISO 9001 certified, in which case they could test themselves.
DP, could you cite the article, please? Since the Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency in presently working to develop energy standards for Canadian hot tubs, I'm interested. Thanks!
I'll add another note to the idea of third-party testing. A manufacturer might be able to send one representative product sample to an approved test facility. Since all of our Arctic spas are made in much the same manner, the results of that single test would be generalized to the entire product line. A second sample would cover our entire Coyote line. This is more reasonable than testing every model by every maker, though IMO many of the concerns expressed about self-reporting would apply to this method.
Even though there are concerns over self-reporting, sample testing, and wholesale testing, I think that any of those methods represents an improvement over a totally unregulated system and provides potential benefit to the consumer (and to the environment as less efficient models drop out).
-
I think this thread points to just how many things are up in the air regarding the whole process and that is why I still believe that it is still a long way away from becoming standard. California did this with pools and multi speed pumps for energy savings and I am sure they thought at the time to pull spas along without realizing that pools and their large body of water were actually easier to regulate particularly since they were only dealing with pump efficiency and not insulation, heating and filtering in the same way a spa works. I also do not think at the time they had an idea about how many makers they were.
-
Texas seems to be moving towards regulation...
Edited: Hmm, that's not the Texas one... can't find it now. But this article (below) says 1 week to test a unit (don't know why, CEC says 72 hours and surely setup/takedown time shouldn't take 5 days?
http://www.poolspanews.com/2007/091/091title20.html
Canada is looking at the issue (and the results will apply to any hot tub imported into Canada). I think we are at least a year away from even having an agreed testing standard, and though we seem to be ahead of many states, we will no doubt coordinate with what's going on down there.
-
Just to add to my earlier post, what the CEC did with pool motors was to mandate that starting next year all new pools and refurbished pools must have a multi speed pump on them but the heaters are not regulated and again I think the spas got thrown into the mix as at the time it might have seem to be a logical and easy add on.
-
DP, could you cite the article, please? Since the Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency in presently working to develop energy standards for Canadian hot tubs, I'm interested. Thanks!
Here you go: http://www.poolspanews.com/2007/091/091title20.html
Tom - the Canadian system is mentioned in the article as well - if Canada has its own system, and it differs from California's system, that's a problem. Plus, lots of states are adopting the California standards, in whole or part, which means 50 different standards here. It could be a mess. I agree, though, that a basic standard is needed - as the article says, a hot tub immediately becomes the biggest energy hog in the house.
-
I was just looking at D1's web site and noticed that they have energy usage guide for each of their tubs - based on "California Energy Commission Protocol". It shows the testing parameters, and monthly cost estimates at various electric rates.
-
Here you go: http://www.poolspanews.com/2007/091/091title20.html
Tom - the Canadian system is mentioned in the article as well - if Canada has its own system, and it differs from California's system, that's a problem. Plus, lots of states are adopting the California standards, in whole or part, which means 50 different standards here. It could be a mess. I agree, though, that a basic standard is needed - as the article says, a hot tub immediately becomes the biggest energy hog in the house.
Thank you. That's the same article I cited, with a shorter URL.
Canada doesn't have its own regulations just yet. According to Renata Mortazavi, quoted in the article, the next step is a task force to determine appropriate testing standards and procedures. This group will consist of members from government, science, industry, manufacturers, consumers groups, and other interested parties. One difference between our proposed standards is at the OEE is suggesting an ambient test temperature more appropriate to our climate.
This is the first time I've been involved in the regulatory process and it's quite interesting.
-
Sounds very resonable...Query, who pay's for the regional inspectors?