Cheapest lighting cost for SPS coral

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by imisky

you are going to get alot of opinions in this thread.

IMO if you can DIY your own LED lighting that would be the most cost effective in the long run if none of your LEDs burn out before there lifespan is up that is.

if thats not the case and your not very handy with electronics then look into MH as you only have 1 bulb to change every year or so compared to T5s which need to be changed out at 9month mark usually for the best PAR values.

Depending on the size of the T5 fixture and the amount of bulbs this is true. But what about running costs? Its going to cost alot less running say 6 T5's than it would 1 250W Metal Halide.

[fencer]

t5HO 6 x 54 = 324 watts is not > 250 watt MH in power consumption. Your choice of lights also depend on

1. how deep your tank is
2. how much your willing to spend
3. Cost of bulbe replacement...say every year
4. DIY you might save some money
5. Don't go cheap on SPS ....lighting is critical

[imisky]

Originally Posted by fencer

t5HO 6 x 54 = 324 watts is not > 250 watt MH in power consumption. Your choice of lights also depend on

1. how deep your tank is
2. how much your willing to spend
3. Cost of bulbe replacement...say every year
4. DIY you might save some money
5. Don't go cheap on SPS ....lighting is critical

i agree, we need to know a little bit more information about this tank, how long? how deep?

your #5 is a little misleading and is also what alot of people believe about SPS, its only a part of the contribution to great color/great growth in SPS. having a $1500+ lighting system and an unstable tank with swinging parameters your SPS will never do good.

also i think its wrong to compare 4ft T5HO bulbs to 250W, MH are supposed to only give a cast of roughly 2ft x 2ft and if you lift it a little bit it can light up a 3ft tank without issue. so the better comparison would be towards the 3ft T5 which is 39W

6x 39W = 234W which is still some saving the power when you put into consideration of your chiller kicking on less and etc the savings is quite a bit per year.

T5HO does save more money than compared to MH, if i was to use 250W it would be on something roughly 3ft per 250W well lets see:

250W bulb replacement lets go with phoenix (ive only ever run these) : $77 at OA before tax
6x T5HO 39W (3ft bulb): 6x $25-30 (using Gmans) = $125-180 before tax

[parkinsn]

Originally Posted by fencer

t5HO 6 x 54 = 324 watts is not > 250 watt MH in power consumption.

You also have to factor in that the ballast also draws watts on both MH and flourescent adding to your total wattage. So trying to compare the two stright across cant be done.

Also you would have to factor in that ballasts are not 100% efficiant.

[fkshiu]

Originally Posted by parkinsn

You also have to factor in that the ballast also draws watts on both MH and flourescent adding to your total wattage. So trying to compare the two stright across cant be done.

Also you would have to factor in that ballasts are not 100% efficiant.

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.

[sphelps]

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.

[imisky]

Originally Posted by sphelps

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

[sphelps]

Originally Posted by imisky

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.

[imisky]

Originally Posted by sphelps

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