LED Lighting. The next big thing?

[D.Blaine]

Your water tempature is still rising at the surface, thus causing more evaporation...so even if you don't NEED a chiller, you should be able to find a benefit from LED thru less H20 evaporation into your home...which causes your AC to run more and your home to get mold infestation...

As a liquid evaporates the surface of the water that stays behind cools down. Evaporative cooling occurs because the hottest molecules, those with the greatest kinetic energy are most likely to leave as a gas. Evapoative cooling is our friend as reefkeepers and is a natural way to cool down our tanks IMO.

Evaporative Cooling = Good

[Pez Vela]

I agree that evaporation is good, but it is the amount of evaporation that will decrease witht he reduced heat of the LED lights. During the summer, it seems like my RO unit is replensishing fresh water all of the time (5-6G/day), and that is combined with the chiller operating. The evaporation will still occur, but @ a lower rate with T5's and most definitely LED's.

The hardest thing for me when it comes to buying one of these new units is that I cannot go see one in person. I can only read their literature and hear testimpny from those who have seen one on. "Seeing is Believing". Just last night I was @ the LFS and saw an 8-lamp T5 fixture over one of the store's display tanks and I was impressed. It did not look any dimmer than my twin 250W MH w/(2) T5 actinics. I was reading the thread about the ATI T5 fixture and was ready to make the switch to T5's, when someone had to go and post this thread! Now I am really confused. For me personally I have to consider my electrical consumption as much as I wish I could just set up an array of MH's with a big fat chiller. That is not in the cards for me where I live. (Northern California). Our KWH go from .11/kwh @ baseline use to .37/kwh when you go over baseline and it does not take long to go over baseline with the everyday normal functions of a house.

LED's have a lot to offer now and most definitely in the future, but I also want to know how much the arrays cost to replace? I read that when one LED goes out on an array, the whole circuit cuts out. So you will probably have to buy the LED's in packs of 25 or something just to have spares around. I emailed PFO and asked them how much replacements are and have not heard back yet. One other issue I was curious about was the fact that when the unit overheats, it shuts down automatically and the controller informs you ve the overheating problem. Does this mean that this fixture installed in a closed "fish room" might cut out? And if so, am I going to have to place additional fans on the fixture to keep it cool? Will that negate the energy savings? I need more info.

Looks good even with all of these Q's.

[mikeshook]

Hey D.Blaine "Evaporative Cooling = Good" I can't agree more, but if your tank is NOT heating excessively...then Evaporative Cooling=NOT Needed. The negative effects of Evaporative Cooling=Moisture in the Air (A/C has to remove that) and Less Top-Off Refilling....Make Sense?

[RichConley]

Originally posted by starmanres
Let's do the economics...

LED System 48" - $2,500

Expected Lamp Life - 10 years

Per month cost - $20.83 + Electricity

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MH/VHO/T-5 Cost - ~$700 (10 year comparison $5.83 per month)

Expected Lamp Life - 1 Year

Additional Cost of $250 per year in Bulb Replacement (10 year comparison $20.83 per month)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

40% Electricity Savings LED over MH/VHO/T-5

Current Wattage Example:
2- 250w MH+2- 110w VHO's+2- 55w T-5's = 830w Per Hour or ~6,000 watts per day

6,000 watts x 365 days = 2,190,000 watts per year or 2,190 Killowatt Hours

2,190 Killowatts x .10 per KWH = $219.00 per year in Lighting Costs / 40% savings - $87.60 per year savings in electricity.

$87.60 x 10 years (~life of LED bulbs) = $876.00

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion:

Over a 10 year period, MH/VHO/T-5 lights will cost [Fixture, bulbs, Electricity] $5,389.20 or $44.91 per month.

Over a 10 year period LED lights will cost [Fixture, Bulbs, Electricity] $3,375.60 or $28.13 per month.

Purchasing an LED fixture over a MH/VHO/T-5 one will be a cost savings of $2,013.60 over 10 years or $16.78 per month.

Plus no ordering bulbs from LFS or online, dramatically less heat for your chiller to offset, less radiation to bleach corals, less noise from canopy fans... - lighting timers, moonlights and dimmers are built into the unit...

Unless I am in error somewhere in my math, I'm thinkin' this LED option has some benefits to be considered...

My .02

Robert

You're completely ignoring the FACT that current LED's are LESS efficient than MH and T5 bulbs, not more. The Solaris LEDs put out about 40 lumens per watt, the other sources between 70-120.


LEDs will be great in the future, when they start using the newer, more efficient ones that are up at 150 lumens per watt, but the ones now aren't even close.

[RichConley]

Originally posted by dwculp
You use a whole bunch of them!! In addition you have to look at the lumens per watt or actuall efficiency of the light source. LEDs are currently being produced that have a better lumens per watt ratio than MH. In other words that use more of the energy going in to them to produce actual light.

Not the ones that the Solaris is using. THeyre much lower than MH/T5.

[jag1979]

I need the evaporation to dose enough limewater to maintain my ph

[tibbs2]

Originally posted by mikeshook
It looks like LED lighting is pushing the envelope of affordability. PFO has brought a product to market, and the reviews seem very positive with the biggest advantages being very low heat emmission and low long-term costs (electrical and bulb replacements. Does anyone have any real experience with a LED lighting arrangement on their reef?

Sure do. I have LED moonlighting.

[starmanres]

Originally posted by RichConley
You're completely ignoring the FACT that current LED's are LESS efficient than MH and T5 bulbs, not more. The Solaris LEDs put out about 40 lumens per watt, the other sources between 70-120.


LEDs will be great in the future, when they start using the newer, more efficient ones that are up at 150 lumens per watt, but the ones now aren't even close.

Less efficient where?!?

Cost per fixture? Nope. When you take bulb replacement into consideration, it's cheaper.

Cost to run? Nope. Not even close.

Benefit to Aninals? Nope.

From the responses on this thread, PAR (Photosynthetically Active Radiation) is the key - not Lumens. As pointed out, you could line up multiple MH bulbs and increase the lumens off the scale without increasing the PAR.

Heat generation? No way.

Screw with factor? No again. You set it up and let it run for at least 60 months.

Replacement of bulbs? Undetermined. No one has been able to determine what the cost is here but the LED are about $4 each and each 12" section has 25 so about $100 per section or about what I pay for a 250w MH bulb. If no other equipment changes are needed then it is more efficent there as well.

From looking at the results, a 12" section of LED array is more efficient than a 250w MH in just about every area (life of bulb, electricity costs, PAR, etc.).

What other measurements would tip the scale in favor of MH, VHO, T-5's? Shimmer on the water?? I'm not sure that LED's wouldn't provide that as well.

Robert

[barbra]

Originally posted by RichConley
Not the ones that the Solaris is using. THeyre much lower than MH/T5.

I believe the Solaris fixture is using the Luxeon K2 from Phillips:
http://www.lumileds.com/products/lin...lineId=18#docs

All the technical documentation is present, and it looks as if it kicks butt over MH when used in an array like the Solaris fixture.

[Pez Vela]

here is the lumens per watt table from the solaris web site.... Looks like they produce more than all lighting except HID.....

http://www.solarisled.com/FAQTechnic...1/Default.aspx

[demeyer2]

Originally posted by starmanres
Less efficient where?!?

Cost per fixture? Nope. When you take bulb replacement into consideration, it's cheaper.

Cost to run? Nope. Not even close.

Benefit to Aninals? Nope.

From the responses on this thread, PAR (Photosynthetically Active Radiation) is the key - not Lumens. As pointed out, you could line up multiple MH bulbs and increase the lumens off the scale without increasing the PAR.

Heat generation? No way.

Screw with factor? No again. You set it up and let it run for at least 60 months.

Replacement of bulbs? Undetermined. No one has been able to determine what the cost is here but the LED are about $4 each and each 12" section has 25 so about $100 per section or about what I pay for a 250w MH bulb. If no other equipment changes are needed then it is more efficent there as well.

From looking at the results, a 12" section of LED array is more efficient than a 250w MH in just about every area (life of bulb, electricity costs, PAR, etc.).

What other measurements would tip the scale in favor of MH, VHO, T-5's? Shimmer on the water?? I'm not sure that LED's wouldn't provide that as well.

Robert

I think you are taking people questioning LEDs as a personal attack which it isn't. Just remember that it's research that says LED has all those advantages but in fact no one has had a LED setup for 10 years. LEDs aren't proven...yet. Maybe they will be but until then they will be under scrutinization because we know that MH and T5 lighting has weathered years of use and still functions great.

[jag1979]

the par is significanly lower then most mh set ups. They compare the PAR w/ a weak 20k shielded bulb...nice comparison. It is also more expensive if you consider the time value of money 2000 today is worth a LOT less then spending that 2000 over the next 10 years.

I think if people want this for lps/sofites then go for it, but don't go for it to save money because you wont...not today.

[starmanres]

Originally posted by demeyer2
I think you are taking people questioning LEDs as a personal attack which it isn't. Just remember that it's research that says LED has all those advantages but in fact no one has had a LED setup for 10 years. LEDs aren't proven...yet. Maybe they will be but until then they will be under scrutinization because we know that MH and T5 lighting has weathered years of use and still functions great.

I take it as a flame... Which it is. All I have done is lay out the numbers and sit back and watch these guys shoot holes in it.

As per this hobby, when the first sumps came out - there were people trying to find some reason why you should never put a sump on their tanks - And they still try to justify it on RC every day.

Skimmers - same thing. Ozoners - shoot holes in it all the time.

I feel that several of us have laid out an extremely viable justification for considering LED when looking at lighting systems. That doesn't mean I've ordered one to be installed next week.

To poo poo LED systems with statements like "It's massively more expensive!" "I like the evaporation." "The annual bulb replacement reminds me to change the batteries in the smoke detectors..." perpetuates misinformation.

I have taken the time to address the questions, not because I have an LED fixture or sell them; I wanted to know the answers.

Some of the other superfluous posts just make me shake my head.

Robert

[dwculp]

I agree, I think LED illumination will be the next big thing in the hobby but good LED lights are a ways off at least 3-5 years. LED lighting is just now coming into the open in other, more conventional markets, it will be awhile before they are a viable option for most people in the near future.

I wont be buying one right now because I cant afford an LED system. If I could afford one, I wouldnt buy one right now either, I will let other, more daring souls do the adventure work.

[barbra]

Hey! This thread is all heat and no light!

[Craig Lambert]

Originally posted by starmanres
I take it as a flame... Which it is. All I have done is lay out the numbers and sit back and watch these guys shoot holes in it.

As per this hobby, when the first sumps came out - there were people trying to find some reason why you should never put a sump on their tanks - And they still try to justify it on RC every day.

Skimmers - same thing. Ozoners - shoot holes in it all the time.

I feel that several of us have laid out an extremely viable justification for considering LED when looking at lighting systems. That doesn't mean I've ordered one to be installed next week.

To poo poo LED systems with statements like "It's massively more expensive!" "I like the evaporation." "The annual bulb replacement reminds me to change the batteries in the smoke detectors..." perpetuates misinformation.

I have taken the time to address the questions, not because I have an LED fixture or sell them; I wanted to know the answers.

Some of the other superfluous posts just make me shake my head.

Robert

Agree. Some of these comments serve no purpose in this thread. There will always be those that poke holes in new technologies. Lets give the company a little credit for bringing a ground breaking product to market. We may all benefit in the future from their risktaking.

Kind of reminds me of Microsoft President Steve Vollmer telling his mother he was going to work in the computer field, to which she replied..."why would anyone ever want to buy a personal computer."

[Pez Vela]

Come on now guys and gals. It is exciting to see new technoligies whatever the concept. Whether we use them or not is a matter of personal decision. There is nothing wrong with continued use of tested and proven methods, but there is nothing wrong with trying new things either. This board is supposed to be about information sharing and gathering for improving our hobby. It is not about "my way is better". Let's get back to fiding out whether each of us wants to discover potential new lighting and filtering applications or stick with our current setups. That's all, plain and simple. I will be the first to apologize if any of my posts sounded one sided. I only want more information on everything in our hobby.

[jnb]

I do, been running one since October in place of my 20k XM (SE 250 watt * 2) MH Aquactincs fixture - during that time my SPS (2 acros and red monti all 10 inches or less from water level) has grown happily enough.

btw - I can not imagine most people (most but the diehard sps'ers) would not be happy with the growth I experience under 20k XM 250 Watt SE

One more thing - if you are going to compare cost, you might consider the fact that you don't have to buy timers, etc to control the lights and I don't know what kind of value you should take in to consideration for the ability to dim and dawn to dusk the way this light does...

As far as energy goes, my savings being experienced is mostly due to the heat generated to the air because - especially when the chiller runs pumping more heat to the air and the fact my AC is very inefficient and ends up running too much even set at 80.

Originally posted by mikeshook
It looks like LED lighting is pushing the envelope of affordability. PFO has brought a product to market, and the reviews seem very positive with the biggest advantages being very low heat emmission and low long-term costs (electrical and bulb replacements. Does anyone have any real experience with a LED lighting arrangement on their reef?

[mikeshook]

jnb - Thanks for your real world input. That's what i was looking for...Conjecture/Hypothesizing is great and certainly enjoyable, but hoping for the early adopters to jump in. I'm positive that my next new tank "upgrade" scheduled for October will include a LED lighting solution....that is as long as the finanical industry continues to rock the numbers...

[reverendmaynard]

Originally posted by jag1979
i guess I just don't see how spending 3k on a light would save money, I have 3 mh's and 3 t5's total cost of about $1000 = savings of 2k plus more light output.

b/f you give me all these calculations telling me that I would save money over a 10 year period...has anyone ever heard of the time value of money?

Instead of continuously shouting out "the time value of money", why don't you supply the calculations that show that spending the money now, and saving all that money on extra bulbs and electricity for a savings of roughly $2000 over ten years is actually going to cost more?

[Racso]

This thread is a great example of what getting information online is usually bad. A lot of people have a "my way is the right way and the only way" mentality. When something challenges a person's idea of what is right, they see it as completely wrong. If everyone would look at things from a third party perspective, things would be a lot easier.

And lets face it, no one is happy with "I just spent tons of money on X, now Y is here!"

As per price vs product, how come everyone is upset about a better product being more expensive. PC is better than standard fluorescent, but cost more, no one complains about that. MH is better than PC, but also cost much more. No one complains about that. A Ferrari is better than a Civic, no one complains about that.

As for anything, weigh the pros and the cons, then decide which is better for you.

[jag1979]

ok...If you invested 2000 today it would be 5500 in ten years using 10% interest (which is a conservative figure...I gained about 15% on my investments last year). That is the time value of money. The 2000 is the savings from the upfront cost of mh's v. led's

now istead of that figure lets just say you use the interest each year (200) to cover replacements bulbs and a little bit of electricity. Even if you had to dip into the principal a little for electricity you will still have money left over at the end of ten years. Although the LED's should be replaced well b/f the ten years and that will cost money to replace those too.

I think people are misunderstanding my point. I want people to purchase these to save the rest of us money, b/c further R and D is needed to make these lights more efficient and affordable and I appreciate people contributing to that. However, it does not make sense to buy this light in order to save money. It also cannot compete w/ the performance of a t5 or mh...not yet anyway.

[gudgreef]

Great thread. However my wife just slapped me upside the head for considering $3K lights so I will give it a couple years

[jag1979]

lol...thats why you are NEVER supposed to disclose what we actually spend to spouses, just say it wasn't that much or I got a great deal or it wasn't too bad...

[Randall_James]

So why did you bother too buy Tunze units Jag?

You could have saved $250 Each by purchasing a mag1200 and a mod kit....

We are not looking at long term retirement investments, we are looking at the costs of running our tanks with 1 system vs another.

Time money equations are best suited to retirement planning, not equipment purchases.

Your time money calculation also left out a pretty big factor if you are going to continue to stand by it... your $5500 in 10 years will be worth about $2900 in today's dollars at 4% inflation. ($5500 in today's dollars will require a value of $8141 in ten years to have the same purchasing power at a conservative 4% inflation rate and goes up about $1000 per percentage point of inflation)

This type of purchase better exemplified using ROI and cost of ownership figures (sort of like how we buy equipment for a business)

You bought Tunze units because?

If I bought giesemann lights rather than LED (not much price difference I can assure you) I can assure you there is not much if any savings.