Minimalistic multichip DIY LED build
- Thread starter maglofster
- Start date
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Sorry to be so forward, but we need to keep the facts straight. There is no way that replacing 500W worth of MH with 200W worth of LED is going to save you $100 a month. For that matter taking the 500W of halide down and replacing them with natural sunlight can't save $100 a month.
Lets do some basic math:
500W of MH, lets say 550W with ballasts, running 10 hours per day is 5.5 kWh per day.
5.5 kWh per day times 30 days is 165 kWh per month.
I am not sure where you live, but lets shoot rather high and assume you live in the peoples republic of california and pay $0.20 per kWh.
A the higher than average rate of $0.20 your lights would cost $33 per month to run, but wait....
Lets assume you pay some the crazy tiered rate and your average cost per kWh is $0.50 per kWh. Your lights would still only contribute (worst case) $82 to your bill, but much less due to the tiered average. (Note, that if you are paying that tier, then you have a $1500 electric bill to begin with).
So you say that the "heat" from the halides forced you to run the AC or the chiller.... Chillers and AC units (any phase change cooling device) moves MANY (10:1 or more) watts of heat per watt consumed. BUT, even assuming that they were 1:1 or worse than 1:1, there is no way that simply shutting down 500W of halides is going to save $100 a month.
Lastly, lets not forget that you did not remove 500W of lights from your system. You replaced 500W of MH with 200W or more of LEDs.
So you are now at 200W for 10 hours per day, or 2kWh. That is 60kWh per month or $30 at the crazy worst case rate of $0.50. So $82 (lets call it $100 with the chiller) - $30 = $70 per month savings, but again we both know that you don't pay $0.50 per kWh.
The bottom line:
A real world average person with avarage electricity rates moving an average tank from 500W of halide to LED will need 250W to 300W (minimum) of LED to sustain their corals. At a HIGH average rate of $0.20 for 10 hours a day the ELECTRICAL SAVINGS (including chiller) will be at best $20 per month, while significant, that is a far cry from $100.
I am not trying to single you out, but rather simply trying to ensure that the benefits of the Halides do not become mythical
TropTrea
New member
Lets take the worst case sererio from some of these earlier posters and see what would save $100 a month in the lighting bill.
Someone quoted an unbelievable rate of 38 cents per KWH. So they would need to reduce theur usage by 263 Killowatt hours over the month or 263,158 watts hours over the 30 days. That means 8,772 Watt hours reduced per day. If they had a constant usage for 24 hours it would mean 365 Watts less every hour.
But if were refing strictly to savings from lights then we have to consider that the average person only uses the lights 12 hours per day so we need to doublew this to 730 watts less per hour.
Now we also have someone claiming they are saving $225 per month so for him we would look at reducing the lights by 1,625 Watts. Unfortunatly for that person the savings also includes moving from a 420 gallon tank to smaller tank. Therefore you have less expense running pumps and other items. So lets say he had circulation pumps running 12,000 gallons per hour he would use up to 4 Tunze 6125 for a total of 88 Watts, you also run a proten skimmer running a 750 gph pump using 40 watts plus a Dart retun pump using 165 watts. Since these would be constant running 24/7 we can say they are totaly using under 300 watts an hour or 216 KW hours per month. That still leaves us with 376 KWH we need to save from lighting to save $225.00. That 367 KWH breaks down to 1,000 Watts of lighting. So it is possible that at that 38 cents per KWH the 420 gallon tank could cost $225 per month to operate.
But in reality very few of us pay 38 cents per KWH today. Then also consider we are talking a savings by going to either different lighting alone or moving to a smaller tank so we will have to calculate the difference rather than total cost.
Yes you save money by going to LED's especialy over MH's. But lets not rediculious on the amount of savinges there is.
Someone quoted an unbelievable rate of 38 cents per KWH. So they would need to reduce theur usage by 263 Killowatt hours over the month or 263,158 watts hours over the 30 days. That means 8,772 Watt hours reduced per day. If they had a constant usage for 24 hours it would mean 365 Watts less every hour.
But if were refing strictly to savings from lights then we have to consider that the average person only uses the lights 12 hours per day so we need to doublew this to 730 watts less per hour.
Now we also have someone claiming they are saving $225 per month so for him we would look at reducing the lights by 1,625 Watts. Unfortunatly for that person the savings also includes moving from a 420 gallon tank to smaller tank. Therefore you have less expense running pumps and other items. So lets say he had circulation pumps running 12,000 gallons per hour he would use up to 4 Tunze 6125 for a total of 88 Watts, you also run a proten skimmer running a 750 gph pump using 40 watts plus a Dart retun pump using 165 watts. Since these would be constant running 24/7 we can say they are totaly using under 300 watts an hour or 216 KW hours per month. That still leaves us with 376 KWH we need to save from lighting to save $225.00. That 367 KWH breaks down to 1,000 Watts of lighting. So it is possible that at that 38 cents per KWH the 420 gallon tank could cost $225 per month to operate.
But in reality very few of us pay 38 cents per KWH today. Then also consider we are talking a savings by going to either different lighting alone or moving to a smaller tank so we will have to calculate the difference rather than total cost.
Yes you save money by going to LED's especialy over MH's. But lets not rediculious on the amount of savinges there is.
megadeth72
New member
it was a significant savings for me too, the effect is multiplied as the room is not as hot so my ac does not work as hard either
wish I had these when I had a 240g sps tank with 1600w of light
wish I had these when I had a 240g sps tank with 1600w of light
Want to buy the Cliff Note version (http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh....php?t=2222702) or summery 
Good article but lengthy. Any updated version dedicated to just LED's and general practice. Seems most of the DIY already know about dimming and a few of the other suggestions. I think spectrum is another story though and what ratio.
Good article but lengthy. Any updated version dedicated to just LED's and general practice. Seems most of the DIY already know about dimming and a few of the other suggestions. I think spectrum is another story though and what ratio.
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
Sorry to be so forward, but we need to keep the facts straight. There is no way that replacing 500W worth of MH with 200W worth of LED is going to save you $100 a month. For that matter taking the 500W of halide down and replacing them with natural sunlight can't save $100 a month.
Lets do some basic math:
500W of MH, lets say 550W with ballasts, running 10 hours per day is 5.5 kWh per day.
5.5 kWh per day times 30 days is 165 kWh per month.
I am not sure where you live, but lets shoot rather high and assume you live in the peoples republic of california and pay $0.20 per kWh.
A the higher than average rate of $0.20 your lights would cost $33 per month to run, but wait....
Lets assume you pay some the crazy tiered rate and your average cost per kWh is $0.50 per kWh. Your lights would still only contribute (worst case) $82 to your bill, but much less due to the tiered average. (Note, that if you are paying that tier, then you have a $1500 electric bill to begin with).
So you say that the "heat" from the halides forced you to run the AC or the chiller.... Chillers and AC units (any phase change cooling device) moves MANY (10:1 or more) watts of heat per watt consumed. BUT, even assuming that they were 1:1 or worse than 1:1, there is no way that simply shutting down 500W of halides is going to save $100 a month.
Lastly, lets not forget that you did not remove 500W of lights from your system. You replaced 500W of MH with 200W or more of LEDs.
So you are now at 200W for 10 hours per day, or 2kWh. That is 60kWh per month or $30 at the crazy worst case rate of $0.50. So $82 (lets call it $100 with the chiller) - $30 = $70 per month savings, but again we both know that you don't pay $0.50 per kWh.
The bottom line:
A real world average person with avarage electricity rates moving an average tank from 500W of halide to LED will need 250W to 300W (minimum) of LED to sustain their corals. At a HIGH average rate of $0.20 for 10 hours a day the ELECTRICAL SAVINGS (including chiller) will be at best $20 per month, while significant, that is a far cry from $100.
I am not trying to single you out, but rather simply trying to ensure that the benefits of the Halides do not become mythical
I removed 3 x 1200w MH & T5 fixtures from my shop and replaced them with 12 x 100w LEDs. I'm paying $0.11/kwh (with all extraneous service charges included) and my photo period is 8 hours per day. I reduced my consumption by 2400w total and the real world savings was about $70.
The temperature difference is a wash because now I am using heaters to heat the water 9 months of the year and I only use air conditioning at night for two months out of the year. I open the doors during the day and get a good cross breeze. Coral vat temps run at 72˚f this time of year. They go up to 78˚f in the summer. The ambient room temp is 76-80˚f seasonally. Evaporative cooling is a major contributor.
I get less evaporation and subsequently less top off water needed, but this isn't a significant operational cost.
We have 1200 gallons in our shop and the total electricity bill is just over $200 per month. We use high efficiency 6 pole DC pumps and exclusively LED lighting. The biggest energy hog is the fan for the furnace that runs constantly.
Granted, energy costs are lower in Canada, but not everyone in the US is paying West Coast rates.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
$70 sounds about right for dropping 2400W at your rate. Imagine the savings for a guy paying the crazy west coast prices!
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
I should move to LA just to save more money
The DC pumps and eductors really help too. I have eductors on all of the fish tanks as well. They give a nice surface agitation and ripple effect with the LED tube lights that you don't usually see with a fish system.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Looking forward to getting my mitts on the new wavelines... I just replaced a failed snapper with a dart and the difference is amazing, albiet at a higher cost per hour. I am hoping the new waveline will be in the dart ballpark wrt to flow. Less noise and variable speed... Get the halides out of there once I finish the pendants and I bet I save $20 a month I am all for eductors, but could not stomach the look in my small tank.
I am all for eductors, but could not stomach the look in my small tank.
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
Looking forward to getting my mitts on the new wavelines... I just replaced a failed snapper with a dart and the difference is amazing, albiet at a higher cost per hour. I am hoping the new waveline will be in the dart ballpark wrt to flow. Less noise and variable speed... Get the halides out of there once I finish the pendants and I bet I save $20 a month
I see a lot of people on the forums focusing on the monthly electrical savings with switching to LED. It's really the replacement bulb cost, or lack there of, that makes the operational cost lower than MH & T5.
The average person will save $25 a month on electricity if they have a 6' tank. It will take 3-6 years to pay off the expense of upgrading to LED, depending on how many corners they cut in making a finished light fixture. If they can resist the temptation of constant upgrade and buying test equipment they will seldom use, the lights could last up to 10 years, providing they didn't make too many shortcuts.
The true savings comes when you don't have to buy $350 worth of MH & T5 bulbs annually. That would put most people at a two year pay back. After that, it's all money in the bank
Efficiency is more of a hobby than a practical reality. People pull into my parking lot with SUVs and European sports cars that get 10-20 MPG, and change powerheads to drop 10-20w. They will spend $500 to save $2/mo., but they won't buy a car that costs $40,000.00 less that saves $300/mo. on gas. That's without repair bills and depreciation factored in
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
I have spent maybe $1500 on LEDs for most of my home. I only save maybe $30 a month.... the benefit? Wait for it...
Add in another $2000 for efficient equipment upgrades in the aqaurium room....
So maybe $4500 total and I save maybe $60 a month on electricity... but wait for it...
I would have gladly paid twice that to save $60 a month....
Because the warden smiles when she see the $148 electric bill, she frowned (and thus was mean and grumpy) when the electric bill was $200+
Cost of upgrades: $4500
Savings per month: $60
Payoff years: NEVER
Ugrumpy warden when electric bill comes: Priceless
Add in another $2000 for efficient equipment upgrades in the aqaurium room....
So maybe $4500 total and I save maybe $60 a month on electricity... but wait for it...
I would have gladly paid twice that to save $60 a month....
Because the warden smiles when she see the $148 electric bill, she frowned (and thus was mean and grumpy) when the electric bill was $200+
Cost of upgrades: $4500
Savings per month: $60
Payoff years: NEVER
Ugrumpy warden when electric bill comes: Priceless
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
kupadupapupa
New member
Just like with solar power, it usually doesn't pay off but at least that's money you're not giving to the power companies. That in itself is worth it imo.
TropTrea
New member
Okay lets calculate this backwards.
$225.00 divided by 36 cents per KWH = 625 Killowatt Hours
Divide 625 KWH into 30 days = 20.83 Killowats per day
if your running your lights 12 hours per day that means your using 1,73 Killowats per hour.
That is the same as having 1,730 Watts of light.
Now your saying this is a savings amount so it means your running 1,730 watts per hour less than you were before.
Lassef
Member
On the contrary, it was the post that was closest to the subject in this thread for a very long period, therefore I repost your link http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/10/aafeature
Sincerely Lasse
TropTrea
New member
I always had susspicions on the so called UV (380 to 410nm) chips out there. Last night I saw an interesting article on how a new breaktrough came through on UV lighting. Acording to the articlle right now it takes 10 times the cost to create a chip that emits light at 410 nm compared to 440nm. With the new breakthrough we should be able to start seeing the major Chip manifactures (Cree and Phillips) introducing UV chips at the same pricing as there standard colors within a year.
Suposedly the issue in the past was with bonding the material layers to each other in a way that they stay bounded together. The bonding would deterioate fast enough that they could not maintain there normal life expectancy or they would have had to use a much more expensive aproach making these chips only available at lower wattages at extremly higher prices.
This makes me truly wonder about the so called 3 watt UV Chips that are marketed by no-name companies for comparable prices to the mainline chips that do not come in UV versions.
Suposedly the issue in the past was with bonding the material layers to each other in a way that they stay bounded together. The bonding would deterioate fast enough that they could not maintain there normal life expectancy or they would have had to use a much more expensive aproach making these chips only available at lower wattages at extremly higher prices.
This makes me truly wonder about the so called 3 watt UV Chips that are marketed by no-name companies for comparable prices to the mainline chips that do not come in UV versions.
kupadupapupa
New member
Question for all you wiring experts. I have 4 40watt multi chips right now running at 700ma on individual drivers (2 dimmable, 2 non dimmable) and I would like to put them all on the same ballast. The reason being is that I would like to be able to dim them together for best color control.
Because of how they are now wired I'm pretty sure wiring parallel is my only option and the easiest. Will leds only draw as much power as they require and no more? I saw a meanwell 185w 4.4 amp ballast on rapid led and it's the only ballast that I could find close to the 160 watts that my leds would need. The leds that I have can run at a max of 1amp but I run them at 700ma right now because I don't need that much power.
Right now my only 2 dimmable drivers are 40 watt inventronics drivers. Would it be better to just by 2 more of those and wire all the potentiometers together, if that's even possible? Or just go with one bigger driver? Thanks
Because of how they are now wired I'm pretty sure wiring parallel is my only option and the easiest. Will leds only draw as much power as they require and no more? I saw a meanwell 185w 4.4 amp ballast on rapid led and it's the only ballast that I could find close to the 160 watts that my leds would need. The leds that I have can run at a max of 1amp but I run them at 700ma right now because I don't need that much power.
Right now my only 2 dimmable drivers are 40 watt inventronics drivers. Would it be better to just by 2 more of those and wire all the potentiometers together, if that's even possible? Or just go with one bigger driver? Thanks
Last edited:
