Led's or stick with Halides

We have a 48 inch Giesemann fixture with 2x250 watt MH's and 4xT5's. Bulbs run us around $200 for the year. Over 5 years that's $1000. Not chump change. This is roughly 750 watts total (not all bulbs are running at the same time keep in mind). Mid day they're all running for about 6 hours. @ $.05 per kwH the 6 hours is roughly $.23 per day or $7 per month. We'll round it off to $10 per month since we run different times of day with only T5's.
total cost of ownership over 5 years (bulbs\electric) = $1600


To upgrade to LED's it would cost Around $1500. It's been a while but I THINK the panels we were looking at would have totaled around 500 watts. Not a huge difference in electrical usage that would be considered a large savings. running this for 8 hours a day would cost $.20 per day. Or $6 per month. Since we'll be changing the spectrum during the evening and morning hours let's round off like we did with the halides and add $2, say $8 per month. So thats a $2 per month difference in electric or $24 per year difference.
total cost of ownership over 5 years = $120
total cost of ownership over 5 years plus the initial start up costs = $1620

So you can see, if we started with LED's from day one, we'd be in the clear and ownership costs would be real low. However, we have a real nice Halide fixture already. Dropping $1500 on a new one is something we certainly can't do at this point in time.

You're system is much smaller and more likely less to maintain, but even if the LED is just as good as Halide, why upgrade if it's not much better? I would say you should get the calculator and start doing some math, because the idea behind moving to LED is not that it's better per say, but because it's cheaper in the long run. I think with your setup, you'll be surprised with the total cost of ownership difference. I think the LED's are rated to last for 7 years? So you'll probably be buying new again anyway when the time comes. Halide you'll be able to switch blubs so do a ten year TCO and you'll see the cost savings move to the fixture with replacable bulbs.

 

Thanks guys, i have had some great feedback and much to think about, i have always had halides and i do love them, led's not only reduces costs but also requires less space, lighter and easier to move around, can be dimmed and offer great colour & shimmer + run cooler also so its not just about saving costs.
Halide bulb replacement every 12 months at least £30, that's £210, in 7 years unit is £129.00, the unit i bought 6 months ago was 2nd hand, now i have the funds for a new unit halides or leds thats the decision i need to make, but it seems leds are the way to go given the poll results.

 

Maybe calcium reactor will be my next thing, if i move to sps in the future, thanks for the info

 

WOW. in NJ you get $.05/KWh electricity? holy smoke that cheap. in rural Tennessee our s is $.09/KWh and I thought that was the cheapest in the country. I ran a 3x250 halide system. 750 watts total. using a Cost calculator ( Kilowatt Hours Calculator - wikiHow) running 8 hours daily for me it cost $197 annually. swapping over to 126x 3 watt LED for the same 8 hour period at 100% would equate to 378 watts, totaling $99 annually. so I only bring back $100 annually. BUT, now my 1/4 HP chiller unit runs a total of 60 minutes daily vs what used to be 8 hours of use. It is 757 watts ( 1/4 HP Current USA Prime Chiller with Dual Stage Thermostat - AquaCave.com ) thats $99 if it only needs to run 1/2 the year. With teh LED, it is $12.40.

SO, with MH, I was at $300 electric cost annually. with LED I am at $112. $188 total savings. 3 of the Reef Radiance or ever grow fixtures at $$150-$200 each are paid off in 3 years.

OH yea, I sold my 3x 250 MH setup for $300.

EDit... I forgot my heating situation. Because I have my sump in the garage, I have not noticed much change in my heater running situation.

 

Just a couple issues with your math, first off your aren;t including "delivery charges" from energy. I also wonder how the heck you are getting the energy so cheaply and how your halides don;t use more than they do! You Sir must have a special trick! This comparison was between Halides and LEDS you are using 2/3 of your bulbs in T-5 (which is much more energy effecient than halides). This kind of makes your argument both interesting and less relevant. Also, those LEDs would not have to be run anywhere near 100 percent to deliver plenty of usable light to your corals. I am currently only at 45 percent on my whites.... I am assuming you have a 90 or 125 gallon tank? IF true, then 1500 dollars would certainly get you the very most top of the line fixture. In fact, you could spend half that and still get the performance you currently have (generally speaking). So I believe your stated cost of ownership for LEDS to be higher than it should be.

Good point on cost to make the switch being much more of a wash. Of course, some people arguing the merit of Halides made the switch BACK to Halides so the cost would be exponitially higher there.

The science behind LEDs is they deliver more energy with less energy. Indicidual results in non-controlled environments certainly could differ. I thinnk FOD mentioned his power bill only went up a couple cents when he switched to HAlides from LEDs- intriguing but there are so many variables it is hard to be certain why that would be.

FOD- did this stay steady?

 

Good point on re-couping cost with the sale of halides.

 

You guys are correct, I messed up calculating the energy consumption. With that said, it simply means that the cost to operate both fixtures would go up, again making it a wash.
This is a tank in my office so I don't get to see the electric bills (don't know the true cost). It's an open topped zero edge, which doesn't require a chiller since the water cools very quickly. so I don't need to worry about added energy consumption in that regard.
It's a 4' x 4' tank which is why we'd need so many light panels to cover the entire tank. From what I understand, LED doesn't spread as much as T5 or MH. It's more focused.

 

That actually depends on the optics you choose. IIRC, Vinny ordered his Taotronics modules without optics. Either way, he's getting full coverage with only one unit over his 90g.

 

I don't know the first thing about a rimless 4x 4 tank except I am seriously jealous. That is my dream reef tank right there. Although, I don't need but 24 or so for my 55 and the spread covers much more than the tank. So I think 48 leds would easily cover it. If the depth isn't more than 22 inchs i don;t even think optics are needed on quality leds (I don;t have them and still run my leds at half and grow everything from SPS in a LPS dominated tank)

 

it's funny you mention that because the light topic is so broad that it's hard to determine what's correct. me personally I do the same with my LEDs and my tall tank. no lens and I have mixed with mostly sps and they are growing fairly quick on cheap china LEDs. my opinion with LEDs is that the particular wavelength of light that's within that usable PAR for photosynthesis is more important than the intensity of light. Intensity is also a factor of course but only if that wavelength is usable. If it's "useless" light then it can be as strong as you want and no effect. So quantity isn't always everything.