Hi, this is my opinion and based on my observations, so it may not be an universal truth for every tank out there. But in mY opinion, the whole argument that LED's are a more cost efective option in the long run is not accurate. The problem with LEDs is that manufacturer's grossly overestimate the actual coverage of their fixtures, leading you to believe that too can get away with just two for the typical 4 foot tank. This is simply not true and if you follow this recommendation you end up with massive shadowing and uneven coverage that leads to coral colonies dying from the bottom up. I am not saying LED's can't grow corals. Of course they can. You just need to have more fixtures. MUCH more, than the manufacturer recommendation.
So in my case I have a 80 inch long tank. To provide adequate coverage using a popular fixture such as the RADION I would need at least 5 fixtures (I would actually say 6 but do not want to stretch it) to provide adequate coverage of even light and minimize hotspots. This would compare with a single 72inch Giesemann Spectra (3x250w MH and 4x80w T5)or two ATI sun powers 8x39w (because of the length of my tank 2 ATIs would provide better coverage than one single 8x80)
The tables below highlight the average running cost per year of each unit and how long (in years) would it take to recover the initial investment in the LED fixtures. Under these assumptions as you can see it would take 8,2 years of savings to recover the initial investment of the Radions vs the Spectra, and almost 14 years of bulb replacements in the case of the ATI ;Woot.
I can already hear some saying "oh, but you should also factor in the cost of a Chiller"... should I? I mean, won't 950w of LED produce as much heat as 1070w of MH+T5?... I am honestly not an expert so although my guess is that it should, I have nonetheless run the calculations adding the chiller cost to the Giesemann Spectra.
In this scenario it would still take me 6 years to recover my initial LED investment vs the Spectra, and 10y vs the dual ATI T5 fixtures. I am not adding the electricity cost of the chiller because on the other hand I would also need to add the cost of the heater to the LED options.
So, at least to my tank, LED is not a cost saving option, quite the opposite.
In all fairness, puck style fixtures like the Radions will never be good value for money if your objective is to provide a even blanket of light vs a high PAR hotspot. There are other alternatives out there wide large arrays of LEDs such as the Philips CoralCare or the Orpheck Atlantik fixtures. Either of these would be much more cost effective given I would need much less units to provide coverage for my tank. At €2.850 4 Philips Coral Care units would be significantly less expensive upfront, and recovery much faster.
Happy to be called out if the calculations are not right (quite possible as my 4th kid was born just 3 weeks ago ;Singing) but the whole "efficiency" argument for led's simply does not add up.
So in my case I have a 80 inch long tank. To provide adequate coverage using a popular fixture such as the RADION I would need at least 5 fixtures (I would actually say 6 but do not want to stretch it) to provide adequate coverage of even light and minimize hotspots. This would compare with a single 72inch Giesemann Spectra (3x250w MH and 4x80w T5)or two ATI sun powers 8x39w (because of the length of my tank 2 ATIs would provide better coverage than one single 8x80)
The tables below highlight the average running cost per year of each unit and how long (in years) would it take to recover the initial investment in the LED fixtures. Under these assumptions as you can see it would take 8,2 years of savings to recover the initial investment of the Radions vs the Spectra, and almost 14 years of bulb replacements in the case of the ATI ;Woot.
I can already hear some saying "oh, but you should also factor in the cost of a Chiller"... should I? I mean, won't 950w of LED produce as much heat as 1070w of MH+T5?... I am honestly not an expert so although my guess is that it should, I have nonetheless run the calculations adding the chiller cost to the Giesemann Spectra.
In this scenario it would still take me 6 years to recover my initial LED investment vs the Spectra, and 10y vs the dual ATI T5 fixtures. I am not adding the electricity cost of the chiller because on the other hand I would also need to add the cost of the heater to the LED options.
So, at least to my tank, LED is not a cost saving option, quite the opposite.
In all fairness, puck style fixtures like the Radions will never be good value for money if your objective is to provide a even blanket of light vs a high PAR hotspot. There are other alternatives out there wide large arrays of LEDs such as the Philips CoralCare or the Orpheck Atlantik fixtures. Either of these would be much more cost effective given I would need much less units to provide coverage for my tank. At €2.850 4 Philips Coral Care units would be significantly less expensive upfront, and recovery much faster.
Happy to be called out if the calculations are not right (quite possible as my 4th kid was born just 3 weeks ago ;Singing) but the whole "efficiency" argument for led's simply does not add up.