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.
|