lbridges, my apologies for not addressing the point you raised, but I missed your post. You raise a good point. It wasn't my intention to imply this work was conclusive. Frankly I think it is far from perfect for a number of reasons and you have added another. Rather I posted it because it at least raises an interesting question, do we know if guidelines that are so widely accepted are correct? Even more important they suggest what sounds like a reasonable method for determining how long a filter needs to run (I think we already have an answer for the sanitizer). Test the return water. If it is as clean as the suction water, there is no reason to be running the filter. There might be a better or more complete method, but its a start. Pool owners spend a lot of time testing the water to make sure water parameters, including sanitization is where it should be and for good reason, the consequences of failing to do so are dramatic and potentially very costly. Yet we spend very little time thinking about filtering, or at least over filtering. Again with good reason, the consequences are less obvious and onerous (a high electric bill). But that doesn't mean its impossible, quite the reverse. Dismissing the study as imperfect misses the point. Calling a pool a luxury in order to justify poor design makes no sense. A more reasonable response should be to say, interesting data, we should try and learn more and see if it possible to rethink how we operate our pool equipment in a way that maintains water quality yet consumes less energy. It is a noble goal and one that appears likely to pay off. Two of the biggest advances towards this end would be ECM motor powered infinitely variable speed pumps, like the Intelliflo and venturi skimmers. Where previously pumps had to be sized for the maximum flow (like when the heater was going) flow rates can be set for whatever function is currently being called for. This is a massive change. As for venturi driven skimmers where previously it required pumping 40 gpm through the suction line, all the piping, filter, pump, heater with their respective losses (and energy consumption) to achieve 40 gpm through the basket, these skimmers require only 8 gpm to move the same 40 gpm of water. That is a big deal. Even without reduced turnover times just these two changes can make an enormous change in the energy use of a pool. The possibility of lower run times on top of these lower flow rates when running, merely add to the energy saving opportunity. This is not esoteric stuff. Pumps die and need to be swapped out and there have been numerous discussions on this forum asking what the expected energy savings are of replacing a single speed pump with an Intelliflo (or a two speed pump). The answer if you just swap out but program as before is not much. The real gain and its big, is to use the capability of your new pump to run at any speed to run at the right speed for each task and to only run as long as is necessary. Luckily this is easy to do. As best I can tell the resistance to do so is mostly due to a lack of understanding of how to calculate the proper flow and turnover rates. Not wanting to make a mistake that will come back to bite them and unwilling to admit they don't understand how to calculate the proper answer its easier to put out vague assertions about why its bad or will cause problems. I'm an engineer. I don't think its scary when you don't know something, its a challenge. Either you poke around until you find someone who does (hence my posts here) or if it turns out nobody knows you propose a method for figuring it out, put it out there and see if it appears sound (which was why I posted the article and keep trying to get a fruitful discussion going). As for me I'm in the final stages of installing a pool with venturi skimmers (long in use in commercial pools), carefully sized pumping, gentle curves and a low back pressure filter and MPV (off the shelf from Pentair, nothing special). The robot will be a pressure driven 380 but because the pump is variable speed I won't need a boost pump (saved $$ and much more efficient due to the Intelliflo's ECM motor). The whole system will run at 16 gpm when filtering, which given the head will result in power consumption of less than a quarter of a standard single speed pump. It pops up to 40 gpm when heat exchanger (I'm using hot water from the same heat pumps that heats and cools the house to heat the pool) comes on, but that is rarely going to be more than 3 hours a day. Even if I ran the system 24/7 my payback for the pump is no more than a year. If it turns out running less than that is possible all the better. So please excuse the long post but if anyone is interested in this kind of thing and wants to keep bouncing ideas back and forth I'd greatly appreciate it. Problem solving is a team sport.

Tamara....I know this thread is old, but your kitchen is simply stunning! Are your cabinets Chantilly Lace? I read you kitchen delays and had to smile. I've lost weight and sleep over my darn remodel. Who knew how stressful this would be? If you used Chantilly Lace did you paint your ceiling the same. I just ordered my paint yesterday and I'm freaking out that it might be too bright.....

A 20 to 30 year old kitchen probably has lots of areas of wear and appliances on their deathbed----original cabinets were falling apart when I bought the house in 1990 - and they were only 13 years old---I don't think anyone here would fault someone for changing out a 20 year old kitchen I agree, especially about appliances. And I think all these statements are true, but I've got to wonder why. I think it's become a cycle, I think it's planned, and I think that it is something that a lot of people buy into, and this cycle happens because it has to happen. Appliances don't last that long, and energy efficiency has gotten better. The reason that appliances are mostly available in standard sizes is because now it's expected that they will wear out faster than the kitchen does, and new ones will need to fit. But I am not sure why something like kitchen cabinets should fall apart in 13 years, I know they do in some cases, but why is that? I know in my current house the cabinets are about that old and to some extent they have been falling apart for several years, as are the appliances. And this kitchen was remodeled and the kitchen was virtually unused for several years. There was cardboard, styrofoam and plastic wrapped accessories in both the oven and the dishwasher and they were several years old when I bought the house. It still fell apart. Of course it is all really cheap and poorly done, too. (And I demolished a 2.5 year old bathroom that was put in to sell the house. It was falling apart too, but the point is that I talk about keeping things for decades and I tore out a two year old bathroom, one that is about 5 years old and the kitchen won't be ten before it goes. I'm guilty. But the replacements will be there when I die, if everything goes as planned). But I don't know why cabinetry of even medium quality should be falling apart at 20 years, unless it's engineered to do so, so people are forced to replace it. And now that people are putting in granite and man made quartz countertops, what's going to be the excuse for replacing that in 13-20 years? Granite sits outside for a hundred years and little happens to it. I think that the consumer has gotten used to the idea, and I know a number of people who only buy low-investment stuff, because strategically they already know they are going to get rid of it. I've seen people in this forum who are in the early stages of building this kitchen and they are already talking about what happens when they update it, remodel it or completely replace it next time. Heck I know people who buy new toaster ovens, microwaves and blenders and stuff when the one they have gets dirty.

Carolina Kitchen and Bath - the trash is not next to the range. There is a cabinet between the range and the window. The trash is under the sink. The distance between the wall and island is supposedly 30 inches. As there are other doorways in our home that are this wide (and some smaller) this seemed OK to us. I think the distance from the front of the range to the kitchen island was 36 inches, but I will check.