When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Been wanting to make this thread for years. I'd like this to be the place to discuss all the ways you can use less energy thereby reducing your power bill or discussing trends or improvements in renewable energy technology. Water heaters, refrigerators, LEDs, spray foam insulation, double-paned windows, you name it let's talk about it.
I mentioned my friend in the Powerwall thread just got solar panels and a powerwall, well along with that comes a Tesla app that you can use to monitor your power usage in realtime and he discovered a massive power hog in his house.
I assumed this big spike was his AC but it wasn't, it was was his pool pump. Now that he has more info about his power usage he's looking to improvements in pool pumps to save money. There's variable-speed pumps that are a lot more efficient and can run at lower speeds and use less than 100 watts. He's probably spending $500 year powering his current pump, a variable speed pump could be much less.
Here's a good video showing the drastic power savings of using a variable speed pump compared with the normal single speed that's been around for decades.
So he could have found that out for a lot less. I'm not going to bother putting an energy monitor in my current house, but probably will opt for one in the house we plan to build this year.
Here's a probably incomplete list of things that I've done at my place to reduce my energy bill
water heater timer ($20)
tinted windows (free with rebate from energy company)
expanding foam around light fixtures in the attic, and wall power outlets and light switches to seal air gaps that allows conditioned air to escape or outside air to come in. ($20 maybe)
replace every light with LEDs even the kitchen light with LEDs that bypass the ballast (not sure probably over $100)
replace soffit vents that never worked because they were clogged with paint ($70)
roof is getting redone this month and a ridge cap will be added ($300)
AC duct leaks sealed (free with rebate from energy company)
added more blown-in insulation to the attic ($14 with rebate from energy company)
The water heater timer has been saving me $20/month for 5 years, and some of this stuff was paid for by the energy company after doing a free energy audit, if your energy company offers something similar you should take advantage of it.
Also the the expanding foam has another big benefit of stopping bugs from entering the house through the wall. I discovered while putting expanding foam around the outlets that there was a few spots that had a lot of signs that it was a roach hangout spot, dead roaches or old roach eggs sacks meant they like to come in and out of the house through the power outlets. In fact, years ago, I installed pre-cut foam inserts to go behind wall outlets and when I check on them a few years later a noticed that a couple of them had been chewed through whether by ants or roaches and they were then making it into the house. There's actually a pest repellent version of expanding foam, I didn't use it but it may be a good idea. I've hardly seen any insects in the house after putting the expanding foam around the house. If you ever have an exterminator come out they like to put roach killer around these outlets because they know that's how they get in. Don't pay an exterminator every couple months month just block their passage of getting in by putting foam around the wall outlet and the top and bottom holes of the box.
So he could have found that out for a lot less. I'm not going to bother putting an energy monitor in my current house, but probably will opt for one in the house we plan to build this year.
Sure there's ones that go in the circuit panel box, or you could use a kill a watt for 120v devices
That guy's test is really flawed. While your friend may see savings by putting his pump on a vfd, he could get the same savings by properly sizing the pump from the beginning. The only thing I can think of where the vfd would be nice in the pool scenario would be to compensate for the possibility of a dirty filter or clogged skimmers.
You size a pump for gpm and pressure drop. Imagine pressure drop as the restriction that every foot of pipe, fitting, and accessory is going to put on the system. Unless you see either of those two things changing as the pump is in use, then there is no benefit. You get your desired gpm, calculate your pd, and then select your pump. That's why I mentioned clogged skimmers above. A clogged skimmer would increase your pd. A vfd would be able to ramp up to overcome the change in pd in order to maintain your desired gpm. My personal feeling is that if your filter is dirty, or your skimmers are clogged, then you should clean them.
Besides that guy not having the 100ft of pipe, fittings, and accessories that you'd find on a typical pool system, he's using the vfd to sort of "dial in" the pump. That is lazy, IMO.
Pumps don’t need to run at full power all the time to keep your pool water clean. In fact, when you’re filtering your water, your pump can run at a much lower speed than when it’s doing more demanding jobs, such as running a water feature.
That link says basically the same thing as that video. I think the improvements are that vsp’s are a different more efficient design than single speed, and that you can run them at lower speeds but a longer time period and it still works out to be a lot less.
https://www.swimuniversity.com/varia...ed-pool-pumps/Pumps don’t need to run at full power all the time to keep your pool water clean. In fact, when you’re filtering your water, your pump can run at a much lower speed than when it’s doing more demanding jobs, such as running a water feature.
the water feature is a good example of something you may want to be able to have a pump that is variable speed. I didn't think of that.
This is the same concept of the dirty filter or clogged skimmer... things are changing... there is no reason to change the output of the pump unless you are changing things... opening/closing valves, increasing the pd, etc.
This is very simple, if you think the pump is over-sized, try to figure out the size yourself. There are plenty of instructions online to calculate the PD, and you can probably get the required GPM of the filter right off the side of the filter, with that info you can select a pump. If the pump is sized correctly, pull off the nameplate data (V, Ph, HZ, RPM, HP, Amps) and see if you can find a better one.
The ability to change the output of the pump does not make the pump more efficient... that is a separate issue.
the water feature is a good example of something you may want to be able to have a pump that is variable speed. I didn't think of that.
This is the same concept of the dirty filter or clogged skimmer... things are changing... there is no reason to change the output of the pump unless you are changing things... opening/closing valves, increasing the pd, etc.
This is very simple, if you think the pump is over-sized, try to figure out the size yourself. There are plenty of instructions online to calculate the PD, and you can probably get the required GPM of the filter right off the side of the filter, with that info you can select a pump. If the pump is sized correctly, pull off the nameplate data (V, Ph, HZ, RPM, HP, Amps) and see if you can find a better one.
The ability to change the output of the pump does not make the pump more efficient... that is a separate issue.
The variable speed pumps are more efficient because they use a different motor design.
And the point that certain operations required for any pool (cleaning, adding chemicals) require a higher gpm than just filtering make a single speed pump a really inefficient option. If you did what you said and sized the pump for filtering, you wouldn't have enough of a pump to clean your pool. With the single speed pump, you have to size for the 1% use instead of having a pump that runs efficiently for all uses.
The variable speed pumps are more efficient because they use a different motor design.
And the point that certain operations required for any pool (cleaning, adding chemicals) require a higher gpm than just filtering make a single speed pump a really inefficient option. If you did what you said and sized the pump for filtering, you wouldn't have enough of a pump to clean your pool. With the single speed pump, you have to size for the 1% use instead of having a pump that runs efficiently for all uses.
no, man. The fact that the pump is variable speed has nothing to do with the efficiency of the motor. He can go out, like I said, with the nameplate data on his motor, and see if he can get a motor with the same data at a lower amperage. That will tell him.
I'm not a pool man, by any means, but the rest of what you're saying sounds like garbage. What you do is size your GPM of the pool by how much water is in it... so you get a certain amt of changes per hour (or however they figure it) so that your chemicals are evenly dispersed, etc. That info will then tell you what size filter you need to install. If what you're saying is you can then take the filter that was selected using the gpm above and run it at a gpm less that what is on the nameplate.. I say that's bs, but if you can... why not just run the pump for less hours during the day? GPM is GPM. If I filter the pool at 100 gpm for an hour, that's 6000 gallons filtered. If I slow down the pump and filter at 50 gpm for 2hrs, that's 6000 gallons filtered. Same work.
PD, GPM, select the size of your pump, then your motor. There is no magic happening here. The pump has to stay on the curve.
As I said, the only thing you could use the VFD for is to dial the pump in. Which is fine. I would probably like that on my own pool... But you will not see the savings that are claimed if the pump/motor are selected correctly from day one.
A dirty air filter impedes the flow of air to your system and makes it work harder to keep you comfortable meaning higher bill which OP wanted to discuss
A clean filter reduces your energy costs and prevents undue wear on your system so I don't have to buy a new A/C sooner
A clean air filter keeps dust from entering your system. An accumulation of grime on your system’s components can lead to inefficiency and premature failure so see 2
A dirty air filter enlarges your carbon footprint by requiring your system to use more energy to compensate for reduced airflow and using less energy.
changing the filter will not make your AC more efficient
Originally Posted by thoiboi
What is your professional opinion of reusable filters Brian? Worth it or no?
You sure you want that
No in all seriousness I was saying it should be worth it as long as the filter performs similarly as a throw away and obviously the cost savings over time will benefit a reusable. I just wanted to make sure that particular brand of filter was good (doesn't block too much air, fitment issues, etc). As I stated you're going to save money with a clean filter vs dirty one. But at Brian flashing his a/c badge
I don't think the answer is all that out there. There are some like-minded people that have the same sentiment about car air filters so that's why I'm asking. It's possible that something that sounds so trivial CAN have no relevance on efficiency
I don't think the answer is all that out there. There are some like-minded people that have the same sentiment about car air filters so that's why I'm asking. It's possible that something that sounds so trivial CAN have no relevance on efficiency
I edited my post to clarify in case there was more confusion. I mean K&N filters seem to be help in pretty high regards and a lot of people use them. I think most people keep crappy car air filters because they don't know it exists or their mechanic changes it for them. IMO it's more niche. However more people care and know about their home a/c filter.
A dirty air filter impedes the flow of air to your system and makes it work harder to keep you comfortable meaning higher bill which OP wanted to discuss
A clean filter reduces your energy costs and prevents undue wear on your system so I don't have to buy a new A/C sooner
A clean air filter keeps dust from entering your system. An accumulation of grime on your system’s components can lead to inefficiency and premature failure so see 2
A dirty air filter enlarges your carbon footprint by requiring your system to use more energy to compensate for reduced airflow and using less energy.
Stop being the thread police dude.
In the interest of not joining the police force, you are right but also wrong in some areas.
- A dirty filter will impede flow but will not make the system work "harder". What it will do is make the system work longer to move the same volume of air. This changes the duty cycle of the fan motor but, unless you have a variable speed fan (unlikely) it won't change the current going to the fan motor.
- Will it reduce cost? Maybe. Will it be a ton? Probably not. I don't think that home filters air filters get clogged as fast as people think.
- So will a dirty filter. The pore size of the filter doesn't change. An accumulation of grime can actually increase the filter's effectiveness.
- Meh. Again, the fan is a single speed unit so it's either on or off. Doesn't use more or less energy depending on the filter's flow rate.
Originally Posted by thoiboi
I don't think the answer is all that out there. There are some like-minded people that have the same sentiment about car air filters so that's why I'm asking. It's possible that something that sounds so trivial CAN have no relevance on efficiency
Car is different than a fan in that it's a piston mechanism so it forcefully sucks air in (called a positive displacement mechanism). Also the car has a lot more sensing on how to optimize air mass, fuel volume, and valve timing and such.
This is a reusable filter vs throw away filters. I'm not sure why that doesn't register.
I wanted to help you out... so I needed to know why you were looking at it.
The only benefit I can see is to save a few bucks over having to replace your regular filters.
I question their stated MERV of 11, but if it is what they say, fine... there's just no info on it available.
No in all seriousness I was saying it should be worth it as long as the filter performs similarly as a throw away and obviously the cost savings over time will benefit a reusable.
They don't post any performance data, so there's no way to know.
- A dirty filter will impede flow but will not make the system work "harder". What it will do is make the system work longer to move the same volume of air. .
If you think about it, you will be moving less air, but the air will be at a lower temperature, so it kind of washes out. The main concern with not getting enough air across the coil is freeze up.
My friend's pool motor went out recently so he replaced it with a variable speed motor, and he's getting the same results as were shown in the video above that brian says is fake news. He's got a significant power savings now when running the motor in low power mode. It's around 200-250 watts, when he needs to vacuum he puts it in high power mode and it still uses less than the old single speed motor, but most of the time it's around 225 watts. I got the Tesla power graphs to prove it, plus I've seent it myself.
For seven years, a handful of homebuilders offered solar as an optional item to buyers willing to pay extra to go green.
Now, California is on the verge of making solar standard on virtually every new home built in the Golden State.
The California Energy Commission is scheduled to vote Wednesday, May 9, on new energy standards mandating most new homes have solar panels starting in 2020.
If approved as expected, solar installations on new homes will skyrocket.
Just 15 percent to 20 percent of new single-family homes built include solar, according to Bob Raymer, technical director for the California Building Industry Association.
“California is about to take a quantum leap in energy standards,” Raymer said. “No other state in the nation mandates solar, and we are about to take that leap.”
The proposed new rules would deviate slightly from another much-heralded objective: Requiring all new homes be “net-zero,” meaning they would produce enough solar power to offset all electricity and natural gas consumed over the course of a year.
New thinking has made that goal obsolete, state officials say. True “zero-net-energy” homes still rely on the electric power grid at night, they explained, a time when more generating plants come online using fossil fuels to generate power.
“Zero net energy isn’t enough,” said Andrew McAllister, one of five state energy commissioners voting on the new homebuilding standards. “If we pursue (zero net energy) as a comprehensive policy, we’d be making investments that would be somewhat out of touch with our long-term goals.”
While environmentalists and homebuilders praised the new standards, the proposed rules have some detractors who still support net-zero goals.
“We’re happy they’re making good progress,” said Kelly Knutsen, technology advancement director for the California Solar and Storage Association, a solar-industry group. “We wish they would go further. There’s always compromises.”
All-electric homes
In addition to widespread adoption of solar power, the new provisions include a push to increase battery storage and increase reliance on electricity over natural gas. Among the highlights:
The new solar mandate would apply to all houses, condos and apartment buildings up to three stories tall that obtain building permits after Jan. 1, 2020.
Exceptions or alternatives will be allowed when homes are shaded by trees or buildings or when the home’s roofs are too small to accommodate solar panels.
Solar arrays can be smaller because homes won’t have to achieve true net-zero status.
Builders installing batteries like the Tesla Powerwall would get “compliance credits,” allowing them to further reduce the size of the solar system.
Provisions will encourage more electric use or even all-electric homes to reduce natural gas consumption. State officials say improved technology is making electric water heaters increasingly cost-effective.
The mandate dates back to 2007 when the state energy commission adopted the goal of making homebuilding so efficient “newly constructed buildings can be net zero energy by 2020 for residences and by 2030 for commercial buildings.”
Builders would prefer the state move slower in imposing the solar mandate, but most nonetheless should be prepared by mid-2020, said the Building Industry Association’s Raymer.
Meritage Homes currently installs solar on about 10 percent of its homes, and about 1 percent of them are net zero, a company official said. A KB Home official said his firm has built more than 6,000 solar homes in the past seven years, mostly in California. That’s 12 percent of the 49,600 homes KB Home sold in that period.
The new energy standards add about $25,000 to $30,000 to the construction costs compared with homes built to the 2006 code, said C.R. Herro, Meritage’s vice president of environmental affairs. Solar accounts for about $14,000 to $16,000 of that cost, with increased insulation and more efficient windows, appliances, lighting and heating accounting for another $10,000 to $15,000.
But that $25,000 to $30,000 will result in $50,000 to $60,000 in the owner’s reduced operating costs over the 25-year life of the home’s solar system, Herro said.
Bill Watt, a homebuilder and design consultant, said those added costs – on top of other building mandates like fire sprinklers – are pushing home prices further out of reach for many buyers.
“We’re not building enough housing already,” said Watt, former president of the Orange County Building Industry Association. “Why not just pause for a little while, focus on the affordability and housing issues, then circle back?”
Environmentalists, however, praised the new standards.
“The technology is developing so fast, we think the timeline was a bit slow,” said Kathryn Phillips, director of Sierra Club California.
Pierre Delforge, energy efficiency program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the proposed update “another important step toward the environmentally-friendly, healthy and affordable home of the future.”
Why not zero?
While net-zero remains an admirable goal, getting there is not yet cost-effective, state officials and experts said. And it fails to address the state’s ultimate goal of curbing global warming.
Because electric utilities now rely on renewable energy for much of their power, daytime energy already is quite clean, said McAllister, the lead state commissioner on energy efficiency.
At night when there’s no solar power, people come home, turn on the lights, the TV and possibly the air conditioning and start pulling power from the grid, he said. Some gas-powered generating plants then are fired up to help meet that additional load, boosting carbon emissions.
“That additional (home-generated) solar kilowatt-hour isn’t worth very much because it’s displacing what is already clean energy,” McAllister said. “That net-zero home is not a net-carbon-zero home.”
I'd be down for that. I really don't want to go through the hassle of installing a solar system on my house, after the fact, and pay cash upfront. If I had the option to add it in during my home build and lump it into the mortgage, I'd have done that instead. The price isn't crazy. But this is something I'd consider as just being part of the house build.and have thrown it in.
My friend's pool motor went out recently so he replaced it with a variable speed motor, and he's getting the same results as were shown in the video above that brian says is fake news. He's got a significant power savings now when running the motor in low power mode. It's around 200-250 watts, when he needs to vacuum he puts it in high power mode and it still uses less than the old single speed motor, but most of the time it's around 225 watts. I got the Tesla power graphs to prove it, plus I've seent it myself.
he slowed his pump down and he's saving energy? Imagine that!
Bro, for being an AC guy, I figured you'd know about the pump affinity law, this is why they're so much better as demonstrated in the first video I posted, the power savings isn't linear when you drop the pump speed.
The Pump Affinity Law is a term used to express the relationship between motor speed, flow rates, and energy consumption. While some energy savings come directly from improved motor efficiency, the majority of energy savings gained by replacing a single-speed pump with a variable speed pump is due to the Pump Affinity Law. This law quantifies that power consumption drops at a nonlinear rate as you reduce pump speed and water flow. When you cut the motor speed in half, the flow rate is also reduced to half, but the power consumption of the pool pump is reduced to 1/8th of the original draw. The following chart demonstrates how the pump speed and flow rates directly impact power usage. Remember, most single-speed pumps have a standard 3,450 rpm speed that cannot be adjusted, even when a flow rate is much less than 66 gpm is required, as depicted in the example in Table 1.
2.4 Energy and Cost Savings Comparison The following example illustrates how replacing a single-speed pump with a variable speed pump can create significant energy savings.
The average residential swimming pool contains 25,000 gallons of water and has a suggested turnover rate of 24 hours. A single-speed pump drawing 2,000 watts, operating at 3,450 rpms and generating a flow rate of 66 gallons per minute can turn over the entire 25,000 gallons of water in roughly 6.3 hours.
(25,000 gallons / 66 gpm) /60 minutes = 6.3 hours
At this rate the single-speed pump would consume 12,600 watt hours or 12.6 kWh per day, to turn over the pool.
However, because of the Pump Affinity Law, slower flow rates create greater energy savings. In the field, a variable speed pump set at a flow rate of 22 gpm will draw 116 watts and turn the pool over in 19 hours but only consume 2.2 kWh of electricity.
(25,000 gallons / 22 gpm) /60 minutes = 19 hours
19 hours x 116 watts = 2,200 watt hours (2.2 kWh)
This is a savings of 10.4 kWh per day, or approximately 3,796 kWh per year. The average retail price of electricity to residential customers in California, where there are an estimated 1.1 million in ground pools, is 14.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. Following this example, the homeowner could realize a savings of $561 annually on their electric bill.
Bro, for being an AC guy, I figured you'd know about the pump affinity law, this is why they're so much better as demonstrated in the first video I posted, the power savings isn't linear when you drop the pump speed.
I don't think you get my point. Why couldn't your friend simply select a pump with those characteristics to save energy? What beyond that is the drive doing for him? The short answer is nothing.
no, man. The fact that the pump is variable speed has nothing to do with the efficiency of the motor. He can go out, like I said, with the nameplate data on his motor, and see if he can get a motor with the same data at a lower amperage. That will tell him.
I'm not a pool man, by any means, but the rest of what you're saying sounds like garbage. What you do is size your GPM of the pool by how much water is in it... so you get a certain amt of changes per hour (or however they figure it) so that your chemicals are evenly dispersed, etc. That info will then tell you what size filter you need to install. If what you're saying is you can then take the filter that was selected using the gpm above and run it at a gpm less that what is on the nameplate.. I say that's bs, but if you can... why not just run the pump for less hours during the day? GPM is GPM. If I filter the pool at 100 gpm for an hour, that's 6000 gallons filtered. If I slow down the pump and filter at 50 gpm for 2hrs, that's 6000 gallons filtered. Same work.
Is a very strange way of saying this.
Originally Posted by brian2
Nah... The point is you're adding complexity and cost to something needlessly.
And describing saving a substantial amount of electricity and therefore money as "needless" is stretching the boundaries of credibility.
I am going to apply Occam's Razor and go with the simplest explanation... you don't really know what you are talking about, HVAC card and all.
I don't think you get my point. Why couldn't your friend simply select a pump with those characteristics to save energy? What beyond that is the drive doing for him? The short answer is nothing.
Because he needs the higher power when vacuuming. When he's not doing that he runs it in low power. Are you suggesting that instead of getting a variable motor he get two motors, one to run when vacuuming and one the rest of the time?!
That makes no sense. So either you buy a single speed that has enough power for when you need to vacuum and is wasteful overkill the rest of the time, or you buy a motor that's only strong enough to circulate the water but just hope you never need to vacuum your pool.
Or wait, what if there was a motor that could run at different speeds, strong enough to vacuum when you need it, and low power and efficient the other 98% of the time.
Because he needs the higher power when vacuuming. When he's not doing that he runs it in low power.
This is the first time you're bringing up this need to have diversity. I'll buy this. If you remember this was the crux of our discussion a couple months ago.
Without the diversity, there is no point in doing this.
I would still argue (if the pump is sized properly) that I could achieve the same savings over gallons pumped in a single speed as you with your setup though...
02-18-2018, 04:21 PM
But 
