electrical savings from MH to LED
- Thread starter an411
- Start date
TheFishMan65
New member
Look for garge thread. He is the only one I recall, but I have read several comment where people have seen a difference. I just did an analysis else where and came up with a $60 saving per year for 72 watts of LEDs and a 250 MH at $0.12 per KW.
moondoggy4
Team RC
If you are in a cold state then your heater will be on more, so you will lose some of your savings. Here in Ca elec is about 25 to 35 cents a Kilowatt so LED's look promising also a hot state here.
James77
Team RC
How much of a difference you will see will greatly vary on LEDs used, current setup, and if you run a chiller or heater frequently. For myself, I would not do it agian for the savings, which worked out to be minimal at best. It is less than $10 a month more to run halides, even less when you factor in how much more I had 500 watts of heater running because of less imparted heat from the LEDs as moondoggy pointed out above.
My rates are around .12 per Kwh, and heat is rarely a problem save for july and august.
My rates are around .12 per Kwh, and heat is rarely a problem save for july and august.
TheFishMan65
New member
You also loose bulb replacement cost 
James77
Team RC
Meh, it's about $100 per year for average halides. I use LED actinics, so it's kind of the best o both worlds for me. I get to save some electric and bulb costs of fluorescents and sill have the brightness and look of halides. There are far more areas of my life to save a lot more money than in a hobby I enjoy doing strictly for fun.
I think LEDs can be great for anyone with ridiculous electric rates in hot states, which adds to the electric problem with chiller. But for the majority of people out there, it takes some pretty rosy cost planning to have LEDs save money. With a new fixture bought today, I may break even in 4-5 years if I'm lucky. But that would be assuming no upgrades to newer LEDs or zero problems out of warranty with PS or the LEDs themselves.
I think LEDs can be great for anyone with ridiculous electric rates in hot states, which adds to the electric problem with chiller. But for the majority of people out there, it takes some pretty rosy cost planning to have LEDs save money. With a new fixture bought today, I may break even in 4-5 years if I'm lucky. But that would be assuming no upgrades to newer LEDs or zero problems out of warranty with PS or the LEDs themselves.
Not to be a buzz kill, but you can change MH or T5 from a 6k to a 20k as well, and far easier. LED's will continue to grow and that is a good thing, but they are not nor will they ever be for everyone and every circumstance. T5's were going to save the world as well, but they didn't. By the time LED's are used in general terms, something else like plasma will be the next big thing. Ultimately all of this is good news, options are a good thing, for all of us.
Zalman
New member
The savings come in just a few years I think. For my 180 gal I looked into a MH and T5 fixture and an LED fixture.
MH/T5 = $1000 roughly 3 MH bulbs 4 T5s if I remember correctly.
LED = $2300
Assuming you change all the bulbs out every year on the MH/T5 fixture. I think it was like $350 -$450. Dont quote me on this because i didnt put much research into the bulbs.
That alone will take 3 years to pay off the price difference. Then factor in the electrical savings, 350ish watts for LEDs vs 900ish for the MH/T5. I don't know the electrical savings but 550 watts for 10 hours a day must amount to something?
Now I don't have central air in my house but the tank peaked at about 82 degrees on the hottest of days. So a chiller would be mandatory on my system if I used MH - not all cases are the same, some people might run a central air at fill blast. So there are more cost savings with that. I need 1 more heater in my tank in the winter - but then again using 2 300 watt heaters for a 350 gal system isn't too bad for 4 or 5 months.
Will the savings be the same for everyone? Probably not, but for some I think the savings are more than worth it, especially if you are starting a new system. I think that is one thing that does not get mentioned as much. Most people I think already have the MH fixture and when it comes time to upgrade they are comparing a new fixture vs replacing bulbs in a fixture they already own and in a case like that it may not be worth doing?
Just my rambling thoughts while coasting through the end of my work day.
MH/T5 = $1000 roughly 3 MH bulbs 4 T5s if I remember correctly.
LED = $2300
Assuming you change all the bulbs out every year on the MH/T5 fixture. I think it was like $350 -$450. Dont quote me on this because i didnt put much research into the bulbs.
That alone will take 3 years to pay off the price difference. Then factor in the electrical savings, 350ish watts for LEDs vs 900ish for the MH/T5. I don't know the electrical savings but 550 watts for 10 hours a day must amount to something?
Now I don't have central air in my house but the tank peaked at about 82 degrees on the hottest of days. So a chiller would be mandatory on my system if I used MH - not all cases are the same, some people might run a central air at fill blast. So there are more cost savings with that. I need 1 more heater in my tank in the winter - but then again using 2 300 watt heaters for a 350 gal system isn't too bad for 4 or 5 months.
Will the savings be the same for everyone? Probably not, but for some I think the savings are more than worth it, especially if you are starting a new system. I think that is one thing that does not get mentioned as much. Most people I think already have the MH fixture and when it comes time to upgrade they are comparing a new fixture vs replacing bulbs in a fixture they already own and in a case like that it may not be worth doing?
Just my rambling thoughts while coasting through the end of my work day.
The flip side is that people with tanks that require chillers might use them much less too which only adds to the electrical savings and if you end up not needing a chiller at all you save on the price of the chiller as well.
TheFishMan65
New member
Here is a copy of a local analysis I did for someone doing lights for a new build. Just for some nubmers:
[EDIT]
I forgot to mention that I had earlier estimated around $1300 for a DIY fixture.
[EDIT]
I forgot to mention that I had earlier estimated around $1300 for a DIY fixture.
Fishman...how do you get 12 MH bulbs in 2 years? Changing bulbs every 6 months is for those who massively overdrive them but most people do not overdrive them. I change mine out every 14-16 months and with my LumenArc I use one 250 watt bulb to cover a 40x40" tank. With LED I would need more than one fixture to cover what I do now. By the time I reached the break even point the LED fixture would be obsolete. Don't get me wrong, I think they are great but they do not fit for every tank.
TheFishMan65
New member
I earlier had suggested 36 LEDs per section 4 section or 144 LEDs. I have seen countless places that 24 LEDs is the same as a 250 MH (may actually be less now). So 144 / 24 = 6 MH. I never had MH so I kind of guessed at the routine. I thought they were replaced yearly so 6 in year 1 and 6 in year 2.
Now maybe I should run the comparison against 4 MH and still the same number of LEDs and see what the break even point is, but I tried to use the same amount of light.
Now maybe I should run the comparison against 4 MH and still the same number of LEDs and see what the break even point is, but I tried to use the same amount of light.
A tank with 6 MH bulbs over it would be a very large tank if you accept that each bulb will cover a 2x2' area. So a 6' long x4' deep by say 24" high tank will need more than 144 LED's to cover it the same...would it not? And the penetration of PAR would also be lower with the LED's depending on the reflector, bulb and ballast combination. This may and probably would require more LED's to get the same penetration and look, maybe it won't but I think it will. Again, I am all for LED technology, but it is not an apples to apples comparison, even though I wish it were.
meshwheel
New member
This reminds me so much of "Going Solar" It will take years and years to get your money back "IF EVER".
Then YOU BECOME YOUR OWN SEMI- POWER PLANT OWNER. WHEN THE PANELS FAIL OR BATTERIES, GUESS WHO'S STUCK WITH THE BILL!!!!!LOL!!!
And remember LED"s I feel are not as reliable as a basic metal halide set up. And they do lose intensity, up to 3% per year.
Also, many LED's have arsenic in them as well as other dangerous sunstances. So do not let anyone tell you that metal halide bulb is "BAD" for the environment!!! LED's have their downfalls too.
My 250 watt 14K Hamilton metal halide with Lumenbrite reflector and ICe Cap electronic ballast is still bad ***!!!!
It's VERY modular and easy to fix if need be. My bulb is 18 inches above the water and has the glass lens on it! Very little heat and a PAR of almost 600 for some of my SPS corals. And only one 65.00 bulb to replace once a year!
LED's work, but at a higher initial cost. I am still on the fence with making a switch!
Then YOU BECOME YOUR OWN SEMI- POWER PLANT OWNER. WHEN THE PANELS FAIL OR BATTERIES, GUESS WHO'S STUCK WITH THE BILL!!!!!LOL!!!
And remember LED"s I feel are not as reliable as a basic metal halide set up. And they do lose intensity, up to 3% per year.
Also, many LED's have arsenic in them as well as other dangerous sunstances. So do not let anyone tell you that metal halide bulb is "BAD" for the environment!!! LED's have their downfalls too.
My 250 watt 14K Hamilton metal halide with Lumenbrite reflector and ICe Cap electronic ballast is still bad ***!!!!
It's VERY modular and easy to fix if need be. My bulb is 18 inches above the water and has the glass lens on it! Very little heat and a PAR of almost 600 for some of my SPS corals. And only one 65.00 bulb to replace once a year!
LED's work, but at a higher initial cost. I am still on the fence with making a switch!
James77
Team RC
Sort of quoting you
.... 3 Phoenix bulbs and 4 ATI T5s can be had easily for about $230. Prices can vary obviously, but halide bulbs are not all that expensive.It would be about $20/month for me at .12/kwh. The T5s do not help much, IMO flourescents are about half the problem with expenses, as those can be costly to replace. I use LED actinics, and get savings and halides at the same time.
But that heater would be on alot less in the winter if halides were adding heat. Might be too much for you in the summer, although 82 degrees is not hot at all for a reef tank or corals.
In the winter, I have 500 watts of heat running half the time. When the halides are on, they pretty much never run, and they would run that time with LEDs. So if 8 hours LEDs running means my heater will be on 4 hours( 8 hours of light) then LEDs would cost me about 7 bucks a month over halides. It would be close to a wash electric wise.
In the summer my tank regularly hits 85-87 degrees in July and August. It is harmless temps if your tank is used to swings in temp, which is exactly what happens in the wild.
SAvings will work for some, other not :cheers:
But everyone should look at exactly how it will effect them and if it is even worth doing. I did not get into this hobby to save $10-20 a month.
TheFishMan65
New member
sirreal,
My whole assumption was based on 24 LEDs = 250 watts MH. I can probably go find reference to that. Assuming you used 36 LEDs = 250 MH then I expect that you would still break even by 3 years.
Now I went form FOWLR to LEDS and coral (so not a lot of experience). I can say on a 75 with 48 of the older XR-E I continually bleach corals running about 50% power to the lights. Could be water quality, but it sure seems like I have plenty of light.
My whole assumption was based on 24 LEDs = 250 watts MH. I can probably go find reference to that. Assuming you used 36 LEDs = 250 MH then I expect that you would still break even by 3 years.
Now I went form FOWLR to LEDS and coral (so not a lot of experience). I can say on a 75 with 48 of the older XR-E I continually bleach corals running about 50% power to the lights. Could be water quality, but it sure seems like I have plenty of light.
Bleaching can occur for numerous reasons, many have assumed that it is because LED's are so powerful, and they are, up close, but distance from the corals lessens that power (as it does with all light) and they do not spread, so we use optics to broaden out the light and in doing so we get the even color at the expense of penetration of that powerful light. LED's work great for some setups, this is a fact, but they are not always a direct replacement. My tank is a perfect example, to cover what I do now, with one halide, I would need multiple LED fixtures.
I have a friend here that had one of the old LED arrays on his tank, a 150 gallon tall tank, and he grew SPS just fine for years, and they were some of the most colorful and healthy SPS around. I loved to buy frags from him, but they always suffered in my tank for a while. I would have to start them in a very low light area and slowly move them to their final place in my tank. At the time I was using a single 150 watt Radium on a m81 ballast, so I wasn't exactly blasting corals with light. I could bleach the SPS I bought from him with ease. In his tank the SPS had become adjusted to his low light situation.
I have seen very few people who have large tanks switch to LED's and I hope that changes soon. Fishman, I am not picking on you, but you cannot make broad based assumptions like 24 LED's equal 250 watts of halides, in some cases it may but that does not mean it does in all cases. Please understand, I wish that were the case, I would enjoy trying LED's on my tank, but given the weird dimensions it is not going to happen for a while. The technology is growing on a daily basis but as of today it is not a direct replacement for our other lighting sources.
I hope you can see what I am trying to say. I know the technology will grow corals but it still has some growing to do before we can throw away our "old" technology.
I have a friend here that had one of the old LED arrays on his tank, a 150 gallon tall tank, and he grew SPS just fine for years, and they were some of the most colorful and healthy SPS around. I loved to buy frags from him, but they always suffered in my tank for a while. I would have to start them in a very low light area and slowly move them to their final place in my tank. At the time I was using a single 150 watt Radium on a m81 ballast, so I wasn't exactly blasting corals with light. I could bleach the SPS I bought from him with ease. In his tank the SPS had become adjusted to his low light situation.
I have seen very few people who have large tanks switch to LED's and I hope that changes soon. Fishman, I am not picking on you, but you cannot make broad based assumptions like 24 LED's equal 250 watts of halides, in some cases it may but that does not mean it does in all cases. Please understand, I wish that were the case, I would enjoy trying LED's on my tank, but given the weird dimensions it is not going to happen for a while. The technology is growing on a daily basis but as of today it is not a direct replacement for our other lighting sources.
I hope you can see what I am trying to say. I know the technology will grow corals but it still has some growing to do before we can throw away our "old" technology.
Similar threads
