<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12569846#post12569846 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wmilas
I just took out the spreadsheet and did the math. If we take the reeflo out of the picture and compare the skimming power of the Volcano 1875 to the ETSS, you get the model 2000 XR. The ETSS is slightly taller, but less of a footprint. If you factor in energy cost at 13.5 cents per KwH it takes the volcano about 7.8 years to pay for itself. If you use 17 cents per KwH it takes about6.2 years. This does not factor in the time value of the money on the difference in the cost so the actual yearly will be a little longer.
Frankly, I'm surprised. This is a pretty good argument to use the ETSS skimmer as its smaller in footprint, initially cheaper, and the time to repay itself is so far out that the residual values of both skimmers at that time will probably both be close to each other. I know downdraft skimmers are old school but we are comparing equally sized skimmers here throughput wise so I'm not sure if one can argue that the Volcano skims better. Yes its more efficient but again, the time it takes to pay for itself is pretty far out there.
Any comments?