Solaris Led lighting systems

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8821285#post8821285 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Amphibious
cagntlemn,

The energy savings is my favorite part. Here's a quote from my post on page 18 of this thread.
And, from the previous page, my most recent energy bill report. As you can see, the energy savings is considerable.

I am not sure how the energy savings can be substantiated at this point. Though the numbers are real, the evidence is anecdotal... a kill-a-watt on the PFO unit and one on the old MH unit would provide some evidence. The heat issue and energy savings due to chiller usage or lack of need is harder to figure out.

I am not questioning IF your bill dropped. I am questioning why and how much was due to JUST the change in lighting. Our electric bill averages $175 but fluctuates between $145 and $225 from month to month. $1000+ a year in energy savings due to changing lights is somewhat questionable.

 

[BeanAnimal]

According to your communities website your rate schedule shows that you pay less than $0.09 per kWh. http://www.fpua.com/rates/electric_rates.pdf

To save $86 you would need to cut your usage by about 967kWh.
You appeared to be running (3) 175 MH with (4) 39W actinics. That is about 680W but lets just bump it up to 800W to account for the ballasts and fans and then add some more for good measure. You say you replaced it with a 250W 72" unit.

So lets say you replace a unit that draws 800W with unit that draws 250W. That is a net savings of 550W every hour or a kWH every 1.8 hours. You never mentioned the photoperiod, but lets be liberal and say 10 hours. At 10 hours a day you would save 5.5kWh a day, for a total of 166kWh a month. That sure is nowhere near close to the 967kWh you need to save to arrive at $86. You still have 801 kWh in savings that are NOT accounted for!!!!

The next question is "HEAT" and the difference in the fixtures. You mention heat in the room and heat in the tank. For your savings to "add up" to what you listed, every joule of energy consumed by the MH lamp would have to be absorbed into the tank as heat and carried away by a chiller or AC with an efficiency of less than 65%. In other words your "savings" just do not add up at $83 dollars and certainly make less sense at $113.

I am not calling you a liar, I am just pointing out that the saving CAN NOT just be from changing fixtures. The difference in energy usage between the two units is just not there.

Before you defend the numbers, lets look at it another way.

The PFO uses 250W
The MH uses 800W
The MH fixture cost you $.72 every 10 hours our $21.60 a month to run. We could assume a HORRIBLE 50% efficiency in cooling the tank and room. In other words for every 800W you pump in, it takes 1200W to pump it back out when using the MH fixture. That would raise the total energy cost to 2kW an hour or 20kWh a day, or 600kWh a month. At your published rates that is $54 month. There is not $86 in energy usage to save EVEN IF YOU UNPLUGGED THE MH FIXTURE AND NEVER PLUGGED THE PFO IN!!! Please read that again. At your published rates and a chiller that is only 50% efficient, you could not even save $86 if you shut the lights and chiller off permanantly and never added the PFO!

But you DID plug in the PFO. SO lets go out on a limb here and say that you chiller all of a sudden becomes more efficient and you get 100% efficiency out of it. That means that for every watt into the room the chiller uses a watt to take it out (not on this planet, but I am trying to help your numbers). So every hour you use 500W of electricity (250W consumed by the PFO and 250W to take it out of the room), that is 5kWh a day or 150kWh a month. That would be $13.50 in electricity to run the PFO setup with a 100% efficient chiller!

SO $54-$13.50 = $40.50 with the numbers heavily skewed to benefit the PFO. In reality the best you could save would be about $20 a month.

Sorry to make this so long... but your energy savings being attributed to the switch in lighting is just not possible. Even at double ethe energy billing rate, your saving would not go over $40 and again in reality would be less than that.

Notice I am not disputing that these things use less power... that is easily provable by putting a meter on them. But it is also easy to prove that your numbers make no sense using the same tool.

Bean

 

[hahnmeister]

There is also the savings from less heat... less chiller use, less A/C use, etc. But I do find it hard to believe $1000 a year.

 

[BeanAnimal]

hahn, I addressed that issue and even did so in a skewed manner to help the PFO unit.


The numbers [energy savings as posted by Amphibious] are simply not possible.

Just so it is clear:

I assumed 800W for the old unit (it was closer to 700 in reality)
I assumed 250W for the PFO unit (at Amphibious' word) it is listed by PFO as 450W!!!
I assumed 10 hours per day for photoperiod.
I used $0.09 per kWh (it is actually less where he lives)

The MH units costs $21.60 a month to run.

If we assume EVERY joule of energy from the MH unit is HEAT transferred into the tank and we assume his chiller is garbage and is only 50% efficient then we can say it takes 1.5 watts of chiller for every watt of light.

800W + 1200W = 2000W
2000W @ 10hr = 20kWh
20kWh = $1.80 per day
$1.80 per day @ 30 days = $54 a month
That is 600 kWh a month in lighting and cooling.

So WORST CASE the MH unit costs $54 a month to run including the chiller that runs 100% duty cycle at 50% efficiency to remove the heat.

SO the MOST that could be saved would be to turn off the MH unit AND chiller. You simply can not get $86 in savings by turning off something that only cost a maximum of $54 to run! To even try to postulate any differently is nonsense. But worse he claims to now be saving $113 a month due to the switchover!

I have not cherry picked numbers, I have shown WORST CASE and then some for good measure.

Real world? The unit costs more like $35 to run and cool!!

This is all without considering the cost to run the PFO unit and deal with it's associated heat load. Amphibious stated it was a 250W unit but the 72" unit is 450W. Anyway, it is pointless to talk about though because the savings have already been proven to be unrealistic by a large margin and unatainalbe even if the MH unit is shutdown and no other unit is put online to replace it!

As Amphibious quoted on another site [Atlanta Reef Clubs Forum] "Truth can't be hidden."

After reading his posts here and at other forums, it would not be hard to convince me that Amphibious is a shill for the PFO folks. He is quick to post numbers and anecdote that show the PFO unit to be far superior to anything on the market.

However, I will take this all at face value and chalk his enthusiasm up to a happy customer who is eager to show people what he beleives to be a great new concept and product! I will chalk the skewed energy numbers up to misunderstanding of electrical systems and the other "numbers" to skewed manufacturers claims being repated by a happy customer.

This is by no means an attack on Amphibious. I just keep seeing these insane numbers repeated and it is driving me nuts.

All of that and I would still like to get my hands on one of these

 

[skydancer]

Does anyone know if the power supplies that come with the solaris units are electronic or magnetic? If magnetic, do you know if and when they're coming out with electronic? Or can we use a third party electronic power supplies that would be considerably smaller? The equivalent electronic PS would probably be half of the 7X7X4 size that the current power supply is..

 

[jacmyoung]

Depends on where you live, in my area, the first 600KWH is billed at about $0.07/ea, but after that the rate goes to about $0.15/ea. Maybe he did not realize this himself?

 

[BeanAnimal]

It still does not matter... even at $.015 a kWh, the savings are impossible without even considering plugging the PFO unit in.

Also before I posted, I checked his local utility rates and posted a link.

Bean

 

[owsi]

They are electronic, but with out taking mine apart to check, the box is largely empty. I think this is a cooling efficiency factor, there is almost no heat felt at the fan exhaust. I would like to borrow a watt-meter locally to compare it to the 300watt of MH on a Mag ballast I was using. Aside from the heat difference, I think there may be a big consumption efficiency factor involved.

 

[BeanAnimal]

If it draws 300W from the wall, then it puts 300W of energy into the room. Now the MH may emit more of that energy as UV or infrared heat.... but make no mistake, in an insulated room 300W is 300W, LED or MH.

Bean

 

[ReefWraith]

I don't think you can make such simple computations regarding one's energy costs based simply upon the generation rate per kWh. In my area the delivery charges often meet or exceed the supplier (generation) charges. Therefore without having the full story I think it's premature to cast stones. Just my .02

 

[chriscolt]

I think you need to remember that comparing this system (Solaris) to a Metal Halide or fluorescent lighting system is like comparing a glass thermometer to a Neptune Aquasystems controller - forget everything you know about traditional lighting systems - the power supplies used for the Solaris are computer/industrial grade electronics DC power supplies that need to put out a steady voltage, current and a clean signal, they need to be durable, reliable and energy efficient otherwise the life of the electronics and the LEDs would be severely reduced - traditional lighting and ballasts "age" and current draw varies as the equipment ages, this does not happen with the Solaris - it will have a useful life of about 11 years (12 hours per day/ 50,000 hours) and maintain 70% of intensity and color for that period and then would need replacement - similar to a Plasma TV..

Also, depending on how you have the unit programmed, cloud cover, dawn to dusk effect, night, the system will not draw the full 700ma per LED and will not have all LEDS on at the same time throughout the 12 hour period so power consumption will vary throughout the day (Metal halide is either off or on, full power or no power).

For SPS the maximum tank depth and width is 18" for a single fixture - you can get 24 inches width (front to back) and 18" deep with 2 fixtures - unless you keep all your SPS at the top half of the tank. The new unit (due in April 2007) will accommodate a 24 inch wide and 24 inch deep tank (SPS) - with SPS at the very bottom of the tank (single unit).

Chris

 

[BeanAnimal]

Reefwraith... I posted a link to the published rates. Go read for yourself. Then add 100% for delivery charges, you still can't get $113 of saving by unplugging the MH setup even with the horribly skewed numbers that assume such an unrealistic heat load and removal.

Sorry, but it just does not add up.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8862123#post8862123 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by chriscolt
I think you need to remember that comparing this system (Solaris) to a Metal Halide or fluorescent lighting system is like comparing a glass thermometer to a Neptune Aquasystems controller - forget everything you know about traditional lighting systems

That is nonsense, both units consume a measureable amount of power from the wall. It does not matter what is inside the black box and there is certainly no magic here.

- the power supplies used for the Solaris are computer/industrial grade electronics DC power supplies that need to put out a steady voltage, current and a clean signal

Yes so do other power supplies for other equipment. What does this have to do with magically defying the law of conservation of energy!

traditional lighting and ballasts "age" and current draw varies as the equipment ages, this does not happen with the Solaris

This is turning into a straw arguement and has nothing to do with the fact that the savings can not be what they are claimed to be.

- it will have a useful life of about 11 years (12 hours per day/ 50,000 hours) and maintain 70% of intensity and color for that period and then would need replacement - similar to a Plasma TV..

Thanks but I am very well versed in LED technology, as well as other technologies like PLASMA and LCD power supplies and pixel life. None of this has anything to do with the claims of power savings.

Yes, the LED light fixture may have a well designed PSU that is a perfectly regulated current source and the most efficienct design on the planet. Yes it may not "age" like the caps on a magnetic supply. Yes the LEDs may not show color shift as fast as a MH lamp will. Yes the lifespan of an LED is far greater than that of a MH lamp... etc etc Not one thing you posted is anything more than a sales pitch that evades the facts. BOSE uses the same tactic to pawn pure garbage off as high end audiphile grade equipment with space age engineering. It amounts to nonsense.

THE PFO units are a step in the right direction, and judging by peoples feedback are working better than many expected. But on the same token, they are built using a very finite and easily understandable technology thats limits are very easy to see and illustrate. Again no magic here...

Also, depending on how you have the unit programmed, cloud cover, dawn to dusk effect, night, the system will not draw the full 700ma per LED and will not have all LEDS on at the same time throughout the 12 hour period so power consumption will vary throughout the day (Metal halide is either off or on, full power or no power).

Yes but anytime you reduce the power, you reduce the light output. You make it sound as if you can take 500W of MH replace it with 250W of LED and then reduce the power consumtption of the LED system another 50% with lighting schedules. Again nonsense, you are reducing the overall light to the corals. We could as easily reduce the photoperiod of the MH and/or reduce it's size and get the same effect and savings. Again, no magic here, just marketing spin.[quoteFor SPS the maximum tank depth and width is 18" for a single fixture - you can get 24 inches width (front to back) and 18" deep with 2 fixtures - unless you keep all your SPS at the top half of the tank. The new unit (due in April 2007) will accommodate a 24 inch wide and 24 inch deep tank (SPS) - with SPS at the very bottom of the tank (single unit).[/quote]Yes that will be a nice addition to the system but is just filler with regards to my post on energy consumption.

Pleae do not take this as an attack. I am merely trying to ensure that the "hype" does not not overshadow the reality here and $113 a month in savings is not the reality.

 

[gregr]

Please keep this thread a friendly exchange and discussion of pertinent information. Attacks are not helpful; you can discuss opposing points without attacking one another. Personal attacks will lead to a time-out.
I am not accusing anyone here. Just be aware that you can offer an opposing view without personally attacking someone.
Greg

 

[frazier]

as much as they cost it needs to make it own power!!!!hahaha

 

[jmchzn]

LOOK AT THE ANIMALS

LOOK AT THE ANIMALS

My 48' solaris is 4 months old and my lps,sps,LMNOP'S and clams (on the bottom 24") are all doing great with no heat,less algae and a lower electric bill. So all the bull ,hype and aremchair bio chemical engineers around here can calm down. So far the animals are telling the story about this old technology w/ a new application. Here is something to consider Pat at PFO is trying to lead the industry here. He sells both MH and LED and yes he is using the consumer as a beta group just like every high tech industry does with every new product release. So far he has shipped me a new light at his expense and has stood behind Solaris 100% and then some. He takes my calls personally and my tank looks freakin great so energy smenergy par shmare look at the animals!!!!!!period end of story!!! AND WHO SAYS CORALS NEED 10 MILLION WATTS OF POWER ANYWAY?

 

[owsi]

Same here, 23" lens to sand Acro's in sand bed doing great. Come summer here in Arizona this might be my first year running a heater in July. Pat always takes my call if he is there, great to talk to him, especially when you consider how busy he must be. I have a slight problem with my unit, as said before my replacement Fixture should be here Tuesday. No deposit, no hassle, he told how to fix it, sounded simple but I felt uncomfortable, so Pat said he'd send the unit out the next day. Now when it goes to watt in=watt out, yes true, but watt out is not necessarily same amount of radiated heat energy. E=MC2 allows for change of form. If I my HQI Mag ballast with 2X150wattDE's in a confined area and do the same with the PFO 60" and run for 12 hours, I feel the PFO is more efficient and gives off less heat. The lights both give off (by skin feel) about the same but the ballast gives off way more radiant heat the all 3 PFO power supplies. Not scientific, but my living room is staying cooler since switching. The most important point and the reason I purchased this unit is what can be done with the controls of this light. Today I brought up the whites after allowing an adjustment/acclimation time. When someone comes over I can adjust colors for show, when they leave, back to optimal growth lighting. I feel I made a good choice getting the Solaris for appearance, if it saves me money too, great. Our Power company is asking for a 26% rate increase in 08, so it just might save alot for us here.

 

[Amphibious]

Wow, I go away for a day and get torn to shreds.

Wow, I go away for a day and get torn to shreds.

BeanAnimal,

You are quite the statistician. You did all that research, made those long rants claiming I was in fact lying, oh wait you said I wasn't lying, a shill for PFO is what you said, isn't it? For clarification purposes I looked up "shill" in the dictionary, here's what you said about me and Pat at PFO, shill, "A secret accomplice to a swindler". So, you think I'm an accomplice. I can live with that but, far worse, you are calling Pat of PFO a swindler! Thanks BeanAnimal! A cheap shot like that tells us a lot about you.

By the way, you're not a very good detective. The energy company rates you quote are from the Fort Pierce Utility Company. A small utility company serving the city of Fort Pierce. For your information, I don't live in Fort Pierce. My address is for Postal delivery purposes only. I live in the country 10 miles from Ft. Pierce and Florida Power and Light is my utility provider. Since I have no choice over who provides power to my home I really don't care how much I pay per Kwatt. What I do care about is the savings over MH that the Solaris is responcible for whether it's direct or consequintial.

If you had read my posts a little closer you'd see, in a later post, I don't attribute the entire savings to the Solaris unit. Never mean't to imply that in the first place. Sorry if you or anyone else got that impression.

Just got my energy bill for the last thirty days. It dropped an additional $32. That's down $118 from the peak last August. How much the current drop is due to the Solaris lights is hard to say. It is cooler than in August but, if I were still running the MHs the fish room would be over heating causing the chiller to run constantly and the window AC unit to come on, too.

I'm not even going to validate the rest of your rant because it's not accurate. Anyone who would try to discredit a person over this must have some real, more important issues in their life they need to work on.

I pay my electric bill, I know what it is and how much it has dropped. I stated above the reasons and the Solaris is definitly the main reason I could turn off the window AC and the result my chiller seldom runs.

You've said so much BS that I'm not going to go any further with trying to keep up with the likes of you. I don't have to. People are smart enough to figure you out.

 

[Amphibious]

Greg,

I appreciate you stepping in here and issuing the warning. I felt justified in responding to what I felt was a personal attack despite what BeanAnimal claimed was not personal. I kept as low key as possible. The issue is done with as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks.

 

[pjf]

Rheostat or Pulses?

Rheostat or Pulses?

How is the LED light output varied by the controller?

If the controller simply uses a rheostat, there may be no savings at all from light attenuation. The power is diverted through a resistor that simply heats up.

If the controller sends pulses to the LED and varies the width of the pulses (similar to Sfiligoi's Advanced Control Lighting System), then there are electrical savings indeed!