That is correct. Only electronic ballasts actually pull what they say they pull. A "250W HQI" ballast (m80) can pull in excess of 350W. You'll get more light, but you'll also being using more juice. There is no free lunch.

Cheapest to me doesn't mean most efficient on power. Yes your power bill will be less each month but how much? If something has a higher up front cost you need to consider rate of return. You also need to include maintenance cost.

For example

Halides can be fairly cheap up front depending on how you do it, two ballasts, two reflectors, two bulbs. The maintenance is also reasonable since you only need to replace 2 bulbs.

T5s can cost more than halides up front, more ballasts, more reflectors, more hardware, and more bulbs. The maintenance can also cost more, their bulbs can last a little longer and are a little cheaper but you have way more to replace. I have also found that T5s sometimes burn out prematurely. They will be more efficient but exactly how much will you save and how long before it pays for the difference?

LEDs are expensive up front and it's still questionable if these are more efficient than other alternatives for SPS lighting. They apparently don't require much maintenance claiming no bulb changes for 10 years but has anyone even used these for 10 years yet? The maintenance cost could skyrocket if part of the fixture fails and with all the parts involved it's more likely than the other alternatives.

These are just examples of how this subject should be looked at. Each lighting alternative has a huge price range so it depends greatly on tank size, fixture design, K rating, brand, DIY capabilities and where you buy it.

Another alternative to consider are over driven NO fluorescent. The bulb cost is significantly lower than T5, the ballasts around the same or possibly less. This alternative could be done cheaper than any other and costs less to maintain. Not as efficient but not by much, considering the cheaper maintenance cost this could be the cheapest lighting source.

imo OD NO florescent will not do the job for SPS, i at least havent seen anyone who has kept SPS in the long term with OD florescent lighting. the bulb cost is significantly lower than T5 but you get less to chose from as well and not as well made reflectors for them than compared to the ones made for T5s unless you have a metal sheet bender which can replicate the degrees on the reflectors made for T5s. the only thing thats cheaper about this is the ballast price. With this setup it would be hard to keep SPS colorful as spectrum plays a big part in pigment development in SPS

You don't need a huge bulb selection to get colorful SPS. The main intensity could be produced from GE 6500K bulbs and supplemented with something else. Some colors would look better than others but that's typical no matter which way you go with the color spectrum. You don't need to spend a fortune to get good color but you have to admit that the cheapest light source won't produce the best coral color. 6 NO bulbs would cost you less than $20, 6 T5s would cost over $100.
I've heard of people keeping SPS under such lighting and it sounds completely reasonable. I've kept SPS under T5 without individual reflectors before so I don't think they would be an absolute necessity, a simple reflective housing could be sufficient.
You'll have a hard time finding pictures of any SPS tanks using "cheap" lighting, the fact is the lights aren't that expensive compared to everything else so most don't skimp the point they have the cheapest possible light.

i believe you just contradicted yourself in the first few sentences. you said that you dont need a huge selection for great color on bulbs but yet you later go on to say that the cheapest lights dont give the best colors...so does that equal to bad colors since your using cheap NO florescent? or do you mean for $20 you can get decent colors.

this hobby is constantly developing, lighting is one area that seems to get alot of focus on it. There is a reason why most SW reefers are using MH and T5s instead of T8/T12s they just arent very efficient, for actinic VHO is the best ive seen but for lighting a full blown SPS tank it just doesn't cut it and im sure you agree. you could argue that GE 6500k + supps could be good but would you yourself go that route with SPS the investment into lighting like that would just become a disaster in the end when the SPS turn brown.

comparing T5HO without reflector to T8/T12 NO ODed is just not a very good comparison. T5HO produces much more use-able light than the same length T8/T12.

this is by no means saying the information you provided is wrong, its just not very practical in use for SPS these days. MH and T5s are more effecient at the task then the T8/T12s

The onyl way to compare these lights is by par. You have have the same par value then look and see how much of each type of light your running. If it takes 12 T5HO's to get the same par as a 250W halide then so be it. Yes you could OD the bulbs but then they only last 6 or 8 months.

There are a couple guys in lethbridge keeping SPS under LED's with good results. Good enough that I would try them with a DIY set up. Here is what they were using these though http://cgi.ebay.com/LED-Aquarium-Lig...d=p3286.c0.m14

I don't believe I contradicted myself at all, I simply stated that you don't need 10 different types of bulbs to get color from your SPS. You can supplement standard 6500K with blue and red bulbs (available for plants) which will help with color pop. I then went on to say that you can get better color with other lighting but it costs more. The subject is cheap lighting, not what produces the best color and is most practical. Overdriving a T8 is suppose to produce similar par as a T5 from what I understand.

It's by no means the best lighting alternative, simply a possibility and something that could be done for cheap. That's it.

hahaha I love it!!!