LED vs MH for Reef
- Thread starter seth the wine guy
- Start date
Yes that was with 3w LED's and yes that was factoring in the cost of bulbs. My bulb cost is $216 a year for halides and $72 for the T5's and even factoring in all that its still around 7-8 years for payback.
When you compare LED's to 150w and 250w halides its a bit different then overdriven 400w'ers. In order to recreate the amount of PAR and penitration they produce you need almost twice the average number of LED's. This throws the cost WAY off.
EDIT: found my calcs
My electrical rate is actually $.04/kwhr on peak its $.12 and durring the summer I adjust my lights to not run on peak hours.
Halides 400w x3 for 6 hours a day = 7.2kw/day
T5's 39w x 4 for 12 hours a day = 1.9kw/day
Total 9.1kw/day = $10.92 a month = $131.04 per year
Bulbs = 3x70 + 4x20 = $290 a year
Total light costs = $421.04 per year
LED's - In order ot get anywhere near the same lighting as the halides I would need about 320 of them for my 72x36 foot print.
So 320 x 3w for 12 hours a day = $11.52 a month = $138.24 per year
So all I would be saving is the costs of bulbs($290 a year) the cost of the LED's ALONE is over $2500 let alone the heat sinks, power supplies and all the reast. So just the LED's would take 8.6 years to recoup the costs.
seth the wine guy
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,356
- Reaction score
- 30
I see this fixture only uses 1w diodes. That would really make me wonder what type of depth penetration it would get. I see some manufactures are going up to 30w+ to compensate.
If you calculate in the "new" cost of a 3x400w MH and 4x54 T5 setup, along with the new cost of a 1/2 HP chiller than you probably need with the MH/T5, but might not need with the LEDs, then the payback period would substantially decrease. If you compare used cost, or if you already have that setup, then the payback probably isn't there, and you can't figure used LED vs used MH yet.
I agree that the payoff is probably better for a 3x250W MH system than a 3x400W system because MH/T5 does not scale linearly with the wattage, where as LEDs pretty much do.
Comparing "new" costs, by my calculations, LEDs make sense for my new 125 gallon, with the payoff somewhere around 4-5 years. In general, for smaller tanks, they probably make more sense, as the cost of a chiller becomes more relevant (the $500 for a new 1/10 HP chiller will buy plenty of DIY LED power for a 75 gallon).
I think in a couple years, the balance will tip strongly to LEDs. Right now you can put together a very nice 100-300W DIY LED fixture for around $4/watt. I expect competition to drive the cost of the manufactured units down to roughly on par with the DIY cost, and I expect the cost of the LEDs themselves to continue to fall. If we see costs in the $2/watt range, we'll see LEDs take a huge portion of the market. I wonder if anyone will be running MH or T5 in 5 years. Plus, you get the advantage of control over individual LEDs-- dusk/dawn, moonlight cycles, etc. that you just can't get with any other technology.
I agree that the payoff is probably better for a 3x250W MH system than a 3x400W system because MH/T5 does not scale linearly with the wattage, where as LEDs pretty much do.
Comparing "new" costs, by my calculations, LEDs make sense for my new 125 gallon, with the payoff somewhere around 4-5 years. In general, for smaller tanks, they probably make more sense, as the cost of a chiller becomes more relevant (the $500 for a new 1/10 HP chiller will buy plenty of DIY LED power for a 75 gallon).
I think in a couple years, the balance will tip strongly to LEDs. Right now you can put together a very nice 100-300W DIY LED fixture for around $4/watt. I expect competition to drive the cost of the manufactured units down to roughly on par with the DIY cost, and I expect the cost of the LEDs themselves to continue to fall. If we see costs in the $2/watt range, we'll see LEDs take a huge portion of the market. I wonder if anyone will be running MH or T5 in 5 years. Plus, you get the advantage of control over individual LEDs-- dusk/dawn, moonlight cycles, etc. that you just can't get with any other technology.
there is a big difference with choosing what youre going to buy new, and replacing what you already have. That said, my entire light setup cost me only $700, so even then that only takes about 2 years off the payback period. Plus I dont need a chiller so thats not an issue.
All Im trying to say is do the math, and remember most of the time people dont factor in that they need more LED's then whats usually used. Now in 2-5 years im sure the prices will fall to the point where it would even be a good idea for me to switch but thats not now, not for me at least.
All Im trying to say is do the math, and remember most of the time people dont factor in that they need more LED's then whats usually used. Now in 2-5 years im sure the prices will fall to the point where it would even be a good idea for me to switch but thats not now, not for me at least.
Absolutely, I agree. I think right now LEDs probably not cost effective for a lot of people, by your calcs you are in that group. For now, you do have to do the math. For me, they were on the cusp, but I fudged and compared against "new" cost on a MH/T5 setup, which I probably would have bought used, and that's DIY LEDs too. Most manufactured units are more like $7/watt, and probably not cost effective, unless you are going LED in a nano to get around getting buying a chiller or something like that. That said, people (me included) might like LEDs for other reasons, like the control you can get, or not having the hassle of changing bulbs, or just to have the new cool thing, and that's worth something. If saving money were everything, then we wouldn't be trying to keep coral reefs in our houses in the first place...
Similar threads
