seandanekind
Active member
The use of one circuit because of lower amp draw per ballast is absloutely correct, but that's not really accurate about the cost. You need to calculate the watts to get the cost...
A 240v system is supposed to be slightly more efficient, but more on the order of 5 or 10% as opposed to double.
Since your power is billed by watts, you have to calculate those:
2.00A * 240v = 480W
4.00A * 120v = 480W
Figure a slightly better efficency (assuming 10%) for the 240v ballast or motor or whatever and you might be here:
1.8A * 240v = 432W
So for lighting, that's on 12 hours a day at 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour, your bill would be about $158 per year on the 110v ballast, and $142 per year on the 120v ballast. Saves you about $16.
Granted, that's just a hypothetical example and reality may vary... but I think that's pretty close.
A 240v system is supposed to be slightly more efficient, but more on the order of 5 or 10% as opposed to double.
Since your power is billed by watts, you have to calculate those:
2.00A * 240v = 480W
4.00A * 120v = 480W
Figure a slightly better efficency (assuming 10%) for the 240v ballast or motor or whatever and you might be here:
1.8A * 240v = 432W
So for lighting, that's on 12 hours a day at 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour, your bill would be about $158 per year on the 110v ballast, and $142 per year on the 120v ballast. Saves you about $16.
Granted, that's just a hypothetical example and reality may vary... but I think that's pretty close.