Forum

Does Eco-Flow make economic sense

Posted by Clint Combs on December 16, 2009 at 9:12am in Energy Efficiency
A couple of weeks ago Rex Richard started a discussion that asked "What are the most innovative progressive manufacturers?" An interesting tangent grew out of that question and it seems to merit its own place.The tangent started when Wes Burdine wrote:I want to nominate Emotron's PSP20 and another product from them which they launched at the Vegas show called the Eco-Flow.The PSP20 has been my VGB secondary layer of protection solution of choice since I began VGB work. During my research, I was looking for a reliable, simple, cost effective solution for my clients (in that order by the way.), and the PSP20 won hands down. Many of you here a familiar with the PSP20, but if not, here's the link for it: http://www.usa-emotron.com/psp20poolprotection.aspx TheEco-Flow is the first and only stand alone variable speed controller designed for pool pumps. It allows customers to keep their existing pump and motor, even if it is single phase. To me, this is brilliant. Replacing a customer's pump and motor, while it is still working well is a hard sell. With the Eco-Flow, they can keep what they have and simply add this variable speed controller to reduce power consumption, while maintaining their turnover rate.Here's the link to Eco-Flow: http://www.H2FLOW.NET. I encourage you to take a look. Not only is this a opportunity for us to increase our cash flow; it's an opportunity to assist our clients to go greenTo Wes' comments I replied:I too am interested in the Eco-Flow, but I think the jury is still out. First, it is going to have to be priced much less than a two speed motor. While it works with an existing motor, it will only be used until that existing motor goes out. At that point , Emotron recomends upgrade the motor to three phase and installing yet another new three phase Eco-Flow. Unless this is priced around $100 (or 50% or a two-speed motor), it doesn't seem to make economic sense to me.As for the Eco-Flow being innovative, I believe that this is just adapted from the HVAC field. The innovation is marketing it to the pool industry.Wes replied:I believe the jury is prepared to offer a verdict. 2-Speed vs Variable speed is like a pond vs gunite pool. They are just not the same.I don't understand would it have to be priced at much less than a 2-speed motor? If you’re installing a two speed motor, you also need to provide a mechanically interlocked two-speed contactor and a controller, both inside an appropriately rated (NEMA 3R) enclosure. Secondly, a 2-speed motor will not provide anything close to the energy savings of a VFD, you don’t have the ability to lower the speed below 50%. BTW, California’s Title 20 (which is largely being adopted by other States), will cease rebates for 2-speed motor solutions effective 1/1/2010 – this explains how that State views energy savings from both options.Regarding replacing the motor, Emotron only recommends going to a 3-phase motor if the existing single phase motor is a non PSC (Permanent Split Capacitor) type at the initial install. If in later years, the motor goes bad, simply replace it with another PSC. Most motors being supplied today are PSC and are more reliable.The economic sense of going to variable speed has been well documented and proven by Pentair, Hayward and now Jandy. The argument is extremely strong in the sunbelt areas where pumps are run for more months of the year and where energy costs tend to be higher, but much weaker in the north.I also think you will find that single phase VFD’s used in HVAC have been MUCH smaller than that to be offered with the Eco-Flow.

You need to be a member of Pool Genius Network™ to add comments!

Join Pool Genius Network™

Tags: affinity, efficiency, energy, green, innovation, law
Email me when people reply –
Follow

Replies

  • David Penton December 19, 2009 at 9:18pm
    Yes... that particular client more than paid for the pump upgrade in the first year. We are seing about an 18 - 24 month Return on investment out here on average. Most clients save $80 - $100 so that is how we come up with the average of 18 - 24 months.

    This is all based on electric rates, which are extremely high out here as well. So it may take longer to recover in a part of the country that has very inexpensive electricity, and a less than 12 month season.

    Wes Burdine said:
    WOW David! Thanks for the info. That is "money in my pocket savings", exactly what I was looking for.

    I noticed you are located in CA. Do these customers run year-round, so 12 x $300 = 3,600?
  • Wes Burdine December 18, 2009 at 4:53pm
    WOW David! Thanks for the info. That is "money in my pocket savings", exactly what I was looking for.

    I noticed you are located in CA. Do these customers run year-round, so 12 x $300 = 3,600?
  • David Penton December 17, 2009 at 9:00pm
    I have a client that switched from a 3 hp pump to an Intelliflo when the pump first came out. His electric bill was around $1,200 a month at the time. The pump was running 11 hrs ( 50,000 gallon pool) and we installed the Intelliflo and ran it 23 hrs a day at 35gpm. His electric bill droped over $300 a month. I followed up with him about a year later, and he was still experiencing similar savings. We have done about 40 - 50 retrofits and EVERY one has seen pretty dramatic drops in their electrical bills. The average savings we are seeing is about $80 - $100 per month. The least that anyone has reported was $45... His bill dropped from $90 to $45. I have had NO complaints from clients regarding dissapointment with the actual savings they have seen.

    Wes Burdine said:
    Paul,

    Well put regarding the discussion referring to 2 speed vs variable. I too see the significant difference in energy savings. This is what the variable solution is all about.

    I would appreciate anyone's input regarding "real life" energy savings where a client has changed from single or 2 speed to a variable speed.

    My whole point in the initial posting was to promote a cost efficient solution with state of the art pool application technology.

    Somehow it has moved to 2 speed vs variable speed.
  • Paul Anthony Hackett December 17, 2009 at 3:59pm
    Clint,

    Great that you were an early adopter, sorry if I misread where you were coming from.

    Regarding the motor efficiency argument, we have done realistic calculations that show that the difference between a 90% efficient motor (only the Intelliflo can claim this super high efficiency due to its permanent magnet rotor), and a very worst case single phase motor at 65% efficiency, means that at $0.25 per kWh, it would equate to $40 per year. Clint, I would be happy to share more info with you privately.

    I think you would agree with the phylosophy of 'run it slower, run it longer'. In your web site, you indicate that a person shouldn't expect that running the pump for twice as long as at full speed gets you back to where you started (I agree).
    So, if you had a 20,000 gallon pool and wanted to turn it over once per day, you really only need, out of an 80 gpm full speed pump, 11 hours at 23 gpm (15,180 gal) and one hour at 80 gpm (4800 gal). If we used a VFD, we could achieve 23 gpm at approx 30% of the full speed. The Affinity laws indicate that our energy (at the low speed) would be 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 = 0.027 or 2.7%.
    So, using the same numbers in your message (2 HP at $0.36 per kWh), our new energy scenario cost would be for a full 12 month period:

    (2 x 0.746 x 0.027 x 0.36 x 11 x 365) + (2 x 0.746 x 0.36 x 1 x 365) = $254 per year

    versus single speed (running for 6 hours):

    (2 x 0.746 x 0.36 x 6 x 365) = $1,176

    versus 2 speed and where a 50% speed was run for 11 hours and full speed for 1 hour (using the suggested numbers from your web site):

    (2 x 0.746 x 0.125 x 0.36 x 11 x 365) + (2 x 0.746 x 0.36 x 1 x 365) = $465

    So, no doubt, both options offer significant savings over single speed (we can at least agree on that point).

    I think we could also probably agree that homeowners would expect to own their pools for several years (so let's say 7). The VFD savings over the 2 speed are therefore 7 x $211 = $1,477. OK, now we get to your argument about installed cost. I think we could also agree that a $2,000 solution is a tough sell versus 2 speed. However, the Eco-Flow will be nothing close to this number and while I'm not willing to publically broadcast its price (for obvious reasons), I can tell you that it may well surprise you if we ever get to agree that it's worth looking at. I welcome competing against a 2-speed solution at the numbers you suggested - even if it means adding a 3 phase motor.

    Clint, you mention that you have installed other VFD solutions, how did you ever justify them to the homeowner, versus 2 speed if they were $2,000? You must be a heck of a sales guy!



    Clint Combs said:
    Paul,
    It seems from your response that you misunderstand where I am coming from. I am one of those early adopters that you wrote about. I have been selling variable speed and two-speed pumps for years. I understand the affinity law from both a theoretical perspective and a practical perspective and am not challenging it. I also understand that all motors are not the same efficiency. You seem reluctant (for marketing reasons?) to admit that this makes a significant difference.

    Allow me to try to clarify my economic question. If I can replace a single speed motor with a two-speed motor and compatible two-speed timer for around $1100 retail, and if this will cut my customer's electric bill from $1200 a year to $450. In five years with the two-speed (including installion price) my customer will spend a total of $3350 as compared to spending $6000 if they did nothing. Details of my cost calculations are on my website.

    Compare this to an IntelliFlow installed with an IntelliCom2 on a Jandy RS system for about $2000 retail and an annual energy usage of about $320. In five years the total cost is going to be $3600 versus $6000 if they did nothing.

    Now, let us assume I used an Eco-Flow on an old pump that has maybe 50% of its motor life left. In five years time, I will likely have to replace this motor, so to figure my total five year cost I have to add the cost of the Eco-Flow with installation, the cost of a "two event timer" (per your data sheet), a prorated cost of a replacement motor and installation that went out say 2.5 years after I installed the Eco-Flow. If the Eco-Flow gives me a similar return as either the two-speed or the IntelliFlow -- since both follow the same affinity law and receive the same benefit from them, then in order for the Eco-Flow solution to deliver the an equivalent ROI, the Eco-Flow with installation would have to be priced at about 1/2 the price of the two-speed motor. If I can buy a two speed motor for $250 and it takes me 1.5 hours to install the Eco-Flow (your datasheet estimates 1-2 hours) and I charge $95 per hour for the installation, then that means that the the Eco-Flow would have to be priced at $250 - $95x1.5 = $107.50.

    I suspect that the Eco-Flow is a lot more than $100. If it is, then it doesn't seem give an acceptable ROI.

    For purposes of my calculation, I am assuming that my customer started with a single speed 2hp pump running 6 hours a day and paying for electricity that costs 36 cents per kwh. I know this is high for a base, but here in So.Cal., Running a pool will kick up your energy usage over that base price to a tier 3 or 4. Cutting down usage also means not getting into these high tier pricing. I estimate my cost for variable speed / two speed filtration so that I still achieve the same turnover as before, but have a much longer run time.
  • Clint Combs December 17, 2009 at 2:12pm
    Paul,
    It seems from your response that you misunderstand where I am coming from. I am one of those early adopters that you wrote about. I have been selling variable speed and two-speed pumps for years. I understand the affinity law from both a theoretical perspective and a practical perspective and am not challenging it. I also understand that all motors are not the same efficiency. You seem reluctant (for marketing reasons?) to admit that this makes a significant difference.

    Allow me to try to clarify my economic question. If I can replace a single speed motor with a two-speed motor and compatible two-speed timer for around $1100 retail, and if this will cut my customer's electric bill from $1200 a year to $450. In five years with the two-speed (including installion price) my customer will spend a total of $3350 as compared to spending $6000 if they did nothing. Details of my cost calculations are on my website.

    Compare this to an IntelliFlow installed with an IntelliCom2 on a Jandy RS system for about $2000 retail and an annual energy usage of about $320. In five years the total cost is going to be $3600 versus $6000 if they did nothing.

    Now, let us assume I used an Eco-Flow on an old pump that has maybe 50% of its motor life left. In five years time, I will likely have to replace this motor, so to figure my total five year cost I have to add the cost of the Eco-Flow with installation, the cost of a "two event timer" (per your data sheet), a prorated cost of a replacement motor and installation that went out say 2.5 years after I installed the Eco-Flow. If the Eco-Flow gives me a similar return as either the two-speed or the IntelliFlow -- since both follow the same affinity law and receive the same benefit from them, then in order for the Eco-Flow solution to deliver the an equivalent ROI, the Eco-Flow with installation would have to be priced at about 1/2 the price of the two-speed motor. If I can buy a two speed motor for $250 and it takes me 1.5 hours to install the Eco-Flow (your datasheet estimates 1-2 hours) and I charge $95 per hour for the installation, then that means that the the Eco-Flow would have to be priced at $250 - $95x1.5 = $107.50.

    I suspect that the Eco-Flow is a lot more than $100. If it is, then it doesn't seem give an acceptable ROI.

    For purposes of my calculation, I am assuming that my customer started with a single speed 2hp pump running 6 hours a day and paying for electricity that costs 36 cents per kwh. I know this is high for a base, but here in So.Cal., Running a pool will kick up your energy usage over that base price to a tier 3 or 4. Cutting down usage also means not getting into these high tier pricing. I estimate my cost for variable speed / two speed filtration so that I still achieve the same turnover as before, but have a much longer run time.
  • Paul Anthony Hackett December 17, 2009 at 12:44pm
    Clint,

    While I agree that the answers to your questions would be valuable to us all, I think the real world practicality of any company (even one as large as Pentair), in conducting the necessary tests would be tough. With every test result there would be another scenario thrown up, i.e., how do the results look with 3" pipe versus 2" pipe, how with 15 x 90 degree elbows versus 10, a Hayward pump versus a Pentair. Again, without wishing to repeat myself, we're missing the point here, the energy savings have little to do with one motor versus another, premium efficiency versus standard efficiency, Hayward pump versus Pentair. The argument for variable speed vs fixed or 2 speed is clear and only bought into question when the solution costs the homeowner more money than makes sense in terms of an ROI. I will give you an example, if the homeowner is in northern MI and he runs his pump for just 4 months of the year and his utility costs him $0.10 per kWh, then not even a 2 speed solution would give him an acceptable ROI. On the other hand, the S.CA customer paying $0.32 per kWh and running 10 months per year has an overwhelming ROI argument. I don't know where your company operates from but maybe this is what is influencing your reluctance towards variable speed.

    At the end of the day Clint, although Emotron was the founding father of VFD's almost 35 years ago, we didn't invent the
    Affinity laws - those are scientific facts that relate to centrifugal loads and no manufacturer or customer can deny or influence their reality.

    I was interested to see Rex's comments regarding Ray Cronise and Steve Barnes, both of whom I hold in the highest regard. Ray is one of the most brilliant scientists in the world when it comes to hydaulics and he told me some time ago about the incredible savings they had seen when testing the Inteliflo - while still getting an excellent turnover rate of the pool. We have now seen this ourselves and can attest that it far exceeds anything that can be realized with a 2 speed solution.

    Clint, there will be early adopters and those who come along later, at the end of the day, the pool industry will catch up with what industrial pump users have been experiencing for many years - process control and huge energy savings. You will not find many 2 speed pumps being used in industry today and almost zero anywhere in Europe (who were on the green bus long before we were).

    Clint Combs said:
    Paul,
    I believe that you can answer a few questions to clear up our discussion. Would you please compare for us:

    1.) the energy consumed by a single phase PSC motor running at 50% using the Eco-Flow to:
    2.) the energy used by a standard two-speed running on low (induction motor on low)?
    3.) the energy used by the New E-Plus Centurion (with Energy Efficient capacitor-run low speed)?
    4.) the energy used by an IntelliFlow VS3050 operating so as to give the same flow?
    5.) the energy used by a three phase motor running at 50% using the Eco-Flow 1:3?
  • Clint Combs December 17, 2009 at 10:11am
    Paul,
    I believe that you can answer a few questions to clear up our discussion. Would you please compare for us:

    1.) the energy consumed by a single phase PSC motor running at 50% using the Eco-Flow to:
    2.) the energy used by a standard two-speed running on low (induction motor on low)?
    3.) the energy used by the New E-Plus Centurion (with Energy Efficient capacitor-run low speed)?
    4.) the energy used by an IntelliFlow VS3050 operating so as to give the same flow?
    5.) the energy used by a three phase motor running at 50% using the Eco-Flow 1:3?
  • Wes Burdine December 17, 2009 at 9:41am
    Paul,

    Well put regarding the discussion referring to 2 speed vs variable. I too see the significant difference in energy savings. This is what the variable solution is all about.

    I would appreciate anyone's input regarding "real life" energy savings where a client has changed from single or 2 speed to a variable speed.

    My whole point in the initial posting was to promote a cost efficient solution with state of the art pool application technology.

    Somehow it has moved to 2 speed vs variable speed.
  • Paul Anthony Hackett December 17, 2009 at 8:41am
    Clint,

    I don't understand why you see the Eco-Flow 1:1 as a 'temporary' solution. Even if the pump / motor should fail down the road, there's no reason why a new single phase replacement motor / pump combo couldn't be used. Nowhere in our pre-launch data sheet do we say or suggest that when this event occurs, you should change to a 3 phase motor and therefore change the Eco-Flow to 1:3. Indeed, the only recomendation we make in this regard is that if, at the initial install, the motor is not a PSC type, the motor should be replaced with a 3 phase version. As in my earlier posting, this is suggested for ecconomical reasons in terms of the Eco-Flow cost rather than motor efficiency differences. If our data sheet is misleading, we need to change it.

    Regarding the discussion on the 2-speed versus Eco-Flow install costs, as I said, both will need a controller but the Eco-Flow will not need the 2 speed contactor whereas the 2-speed has to have this in order to work. Again, this topic is missing the real point, a 2-speed arrangement will not give the homeowner anywhere near the energy savings of variable speed. So, even if a VFD solution is marginally more expensive than 2-speed, the ROI is significantly better.

    Clint, if I'm not explaining this topic clearly, I certainly apologize for that. I don't see this as a subject of promoting Eco-Flow over other Variable Speed solutions (this is not, and should not be a forum for that), it's more of a topic about variable speed over 2 speed. If the Intelliflo argument is winning over many new customers - I see an alternative lower cost solution as having at least an equal argument.

    Paul Anthony Hackett said:
    Clint, Wes, Thank you for the dialog on the Eco-Flow, it's always good to challenge new technologies - especially when they are radically different from what is currently available.
    I am the owner of Emotron Inc who is the parent company of H2Flow and I hope therefore qualified to add something to the discussion.
    The Eco-Flow product comes in two formats, single phase input / single phase output and single phase input / three phase output. The single in / single out product requires that the motor be a switchless type (generally referred to as a PSC). If the existing motor is this type, then the Eco-Flow 1:1 should be used (thru 1.0 HP). If the motor isn't a PSC, then we recommend that (because the motor now has to be changed anyway), you install a 3-phase motor and use the 1:3. There are two reasons for this, VFD pricing is all related to current, the higher the amps the more expensive the VFD. When switching over to a 3 phase motor, the current is considerably lower and the cost of the Eco-Flow comes down (far more than the cost of the motor). Although I acknowledge that the 3 phase motor is more efficient, it is actually this install cost that should be the driving factor in deciding whether to install a single phase PSC or a 3 phase motor. In terms of efficiency differences between the two, the energy savings from speed reduction greatly overshadow any marginal differences in motor efficiency. In other words, the Affinity laws tell us that a reduction in speed to say 40% of the full speed, will reduce the energy to just 6.4% of that at full speed, hence, the say 10% difference in motor efficiency is not a significant factor. Nice marketing if you are making claims of a motor having 90% efficiency but almost irrelavant when looking where the real energy savings are coming from.
    Finally Clint, I think you missed Wes's point about the cost comparison between variable speed and a 2-speed solution. You are correct when you say that both will need a controller, i.e., a timer with mutiple events; but whereas the 2-speed motor will require a mechanically interlocked motor starter (in effect a reversing motor starter), the VFD will not. Again however, we are missing the point, the real benefit of the VFD is that it gives you the flexibility to fine tune the pumps low speed and to gain the real benefits of the Affinity laws. This is why CA's Title is removing rebates for 2-speed solutions and placing a heavy emphasis on VFD's.

    Thanks again to both of you for the discussion, I hope (in a non confrontational way), I have expanded on some apparent weaknesses in our pre-launch literature - sorry for any confussion.

    Clint Combs said:
    To address some of Wes's latest points:

    Wes wrote, "If you’re installing a two speed motor," (Which I advocated as an alternative to the Eco-Flow), "you also need to provide a mechanically interlocked two-speed contactor and a controller, both inside an appropriately rated (NEMA 3R) enclosure."

    True enough Wes, but according to the "Pre-Launch Data Sheet for the Eco-Flow," it needs to be installed between a "two event timer" and the motor. So, in this regard, both a two-speed motor and the Eco-Flow share this cost.

    I also stated that using the Eco-Flow on a single speed pump was merely a temporary measure in that H2Flow (the mfg of Eco-Flow) recommends the use of a three phase motor and compatible three phase version of Eco-Flow. This will result in even greater efficiency. This tells me that if you are selling efficiency to your customer you should tell them that if they add an Eco-Flow on a single phase motor, they will never be able to get the highest efficiency that pumps like the IntelliFlow promise.
  • Wes Burdine December 17, 2009 at 6:53am
    Thanks for starting/moving this discussion Clint.

    I am by any means an expert on the Eco-Flow; I do however understand the Affinity laws. This is why I see a considerable benefit to the Eco-Flow. With the costs of Pentair's Intelliflow ranging from $1,200 - 1,700 (a quick Google search), this seems to be very cost effective for my customers.
This reply was deleted.

Pool/Spa Articles