How much more energy efficient are LED's compared to halides or t-5???

reeferaddict420 · Jan 23, 2014

So I know the industry these days are really into LED fixtures compared to Halides or t-5's of the past. With that said, Ive been reefing for 6 years and have always had MH or t-5 and never used led exept for moonlighting. I know one of the selling points on LED is that it saves energy, but how much? The more I look into LED, the more I question how much more efficient exactly. For example over my 48" tank I currently have a 36" mh/t5 combo fixture. The mh is 150w and the the t5 is 4x39w. That is a total of 306w. To be fair this light is undersized for my 150g tall and hence why I'm looking to upgrade. Now I'm looking at for example a Reef Breeders Photon48 which is 47" long and would be perfect sized for my tank. This fixture has 102, 3w LED's for a total of 306w if driven at 100%. Now I wouldnt do that because it would fry my corals, but where is this huge energy savings everyone is talking about? Bulb replacement? I get that.. But I always thought the energy difference would be huge! Can somebody clear this up for me please?

DSP · Jan 23, 2014

It's not huge that's for sure I didn't notice any savings as far as my electric bill goes, And I don't mind paying 50 bucks each year for a bulb so I'm very happy I switched back to halide, I wouldn't look into leds just to save a lot of money,that's my opinion and experience

ontop27 · Jan 23, 2014

Does it say anywhere that the leds are being run at 3 watts at 100%? I thought most most manufactures max them out at less

TJ's Reef · Jan 23, 2014

Well, I went from around 500 total watts on my 75g to just 120 watts usage (288w max running 42% +-) over my 60x24x20 125g DIY fixture. Plus no longer running a Chiller. I have a full blown SPS dominated Mixed Reef with Clams. Why I keep telling people they need to turn down their LED's.

Cheers, Todd

onetire · Jan 24, 2014

I have a 55g that I ran 220w t5s for around 5yrs and recently built diy led running around the same wattage and my electric bill dropped around 40 a mouth -huge for me!!!

Ron Reefman · Jan 25, 2014

I had 4 tanks, 180, 70,55 and 24 gallons. Three were MH and t5 and the 55 was only t5 and the total wattage was in excess of 1800 watts. I had them all of 2011 $ 2012. Very late in Dec 2012 I switched to all leds. The 180 got 2 IT2080's, the 70 got an IT2040 and the other 3 got D120's. The total wattage is 960 watts, but they max at about 50% power, so only 480 watts really being used. They ran all of 2013 except the D120's got changed out for OceanRevive Arctic S026's which are almost the exact same led (better looking, run cooler, better color layout).

So I saved energy with the lights, my 2 chillers run about 20% as much as they use to run and my house A/C runs less. My 2013 total electric bill was over $400 less than 2011 or 2012. I had 6 250w MH bulbs which I replace half every 12 months (3 bulbs x $60 = $180). And I had 10 t5 bulbs which I replace every 12 months (10 bulbs x $20 = $200). So that's $380 in bulb savings and I replace on a conservative schedule. $400+ in electricity savings and $380 in bulb savings = $780 savings in 2013. I got a good deal on my led fixtures in a big group buy and all 7 of them only cost me $1400. so I have less than a 2 year payback and I had 5 fixtures I sold after 6 months (just wanted to be sure I liked the leds before I sold them) for $600.

Now I have 4 tanks, 2 chillers and live in SW Florida where we run the A/C 6 months solid (every day), so my savings may be a bit better than most. And I got a deal on fixtures that is still better than most could do today. But a 2 year payback on just savings is incredible. And almost a 1 year if you take the sale of the old fixtures into account (I don't BTW).

There are reasons for running MH or t5 or leds. They all work and they all have advantages and disadvantages. I freely admit my leds have a few issues I'm not thrilled with. But I wouldn't go back to MH if you gave me the fixtures for free! Just the energy and bulb costs are too much.

cultivatedcoral · Jan 25, 2014

I run 14 x 39w T-5 fixture which is 546 watts. I just purchased 3 Hydra 52's to replace the fixture. The Hydra states they are 135w x3 = 405w at 100%. I don't think I will be running the Hydra's anywhere near 100% (they are coming next week). I assume I will be using about 2/3's less wattage for about 8 hours per day. I would think that could add up to some noticeable savings on the electric bill but I will have to see once they are hooked up. I have never run a chiller.

The other real savings will be not spending $350 a year on new T-5 bulbs.

reeferaddict420 · Jan 30, 2014

Thanks for the info guys..

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

dhnguyen · Jan 30, 2014

Not much IMO/IME.
I had to add more heaters to my tank to keep it above 72F when I switched from MH to LED

The savings if any for me would be in the cost of bulb replacements. I've only been running LED for 4 months so the longevity is yet to be proven.

lumbeejerk · Jan 30, 2014

I had two aisols and switched back to t5 light bill never changed few bucks diff.

salmonshutters · Jan 30, 2014

Really if your in this hobby to save money..... you are in wrong hobby haha

lumbeejerk · Jan 30, 2014

salmonshutters said:
Really if your in this hobby to save money..... you are in wrong hobby haha

Lol so true

reeferaddict420 · Jan 30, 2014

salmonshutters said:
Really if your in this hobby to save money..... you are in wrong hobby haha

Trust me, I blow as much cash as the next guy.. Just trying to rationalize why the masses gave up Mh/t5 and why I should or shouldnt

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

salmonshutters · Jan 30, 2014

go with what ever you like best, I personally like t-5s but everyone can have their own opinion.

reeferaddict420 · Jan 30, 2014

I've always loved Mh.. And the combo fixture that I have gives great growth/color.. Its just like the industry gave up on them like a bad habit it seems

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

EW_Fish · Jan 30, 2014

They gave up because leds are the future and they are rapidly changing so they have to put their money into leds to keep up with the pace. Sounds stupid yes but just look back when they first came out and now look at them. There isn't any upgrades in t5s and MH so why would they keep wasting their money.

Yes I love t5s and MH & Not trying to mean anything buy this. Its just my .02

joekool · Jan 30, 2014

I would say long term cost is significant. With bulb replacement and running less wattage. Less heat transfer to tank. Easier to control tank temp swing. Less or no chiller usage.

Definitely a money saver.

Check out TJs reef he uses LEDs and his tank is amazing.
Check out reef radiance 155e lights. Very cost effective and it's ridicules to pay for those big brand name fixtures.

reeferaddict420 · Jan 30, 2014

Never have had to run a chiller. Maybe one day I'll make the move but my fixture is doing me great and I trust it.. Thanks for all the input out there.. Btw its a marineland pro 36" 150w Mh/ 4 bulb t5..

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

vetteguy53081 · Jan 30, 2014

I use LED for effectiveness and Impact, not so much for cost savings. They have 50K hours of use and to me that is a savings already VS bulb replacement costs

cbrmonkey · Jan 30, 2014

I have two dm155es not even running at half power and compared to my 4x54 t5ho I'm saving ~$10-15 a month on my electric. I mainly got th because I got sick of the temp swings and having to run my houses temperature around the tank.