need help deciding on t5 vs metal halide

[AAA88]

so i have a 80g 48''tall 18''wide 24''high. i have a 12''canopy. i want to be able to keep pretty much whatever i want coral wise i will have clams, some sps and mostly lps, softy and polyps(zoos, ect). im trying to find out the best lighting with lowest energy consumption.

I was originally going to go with a 2-250w hqi and 2 54wt-5 retrofit for hellolights, but after considering the cost of electricity I am kind of rethinking that route.

Another option I was thinking was the t5 route was thinking either 4 or 6-54w with icecap ballast. Does it overdrive the bulbs automatically? Also with 6 54w overdriven bulbs would it be better to just go with metal halide for energy consumption wise?

What option do you think would be best for coral growth and energy efficiency? if metal halides are really the way to go i dont mind just going that route but just looking to save some money on the electric bill.

please let me know i need to order my lights

thanks

[swpassion]

T5's are more efficient energy wise and with individual reflectors pretty much anything can be kept coral wise. Just like MH though, it pays to get good brands not less expensive versins. Even overdriven, T5's should not draw as much as 250 watt MH.

[troyman]

there is no light like metal halide you can have anything in your tank it gives natural light best spectrum why worry about a few dollers of electric

[pwoller]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14531630#post14531630 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by troyman
there is no light like metal halide you can have anything in your tank it gives natural light best spectrum why worry about a few dollers of electric

Yet

[sjm817]

2 x 250 MH & 2 x 54W T5:
I'll make the assumption that each 250 MH draws 300W. Some are more like 350W

2 x 300W + 2 x 54W = 708W

6 x overdriven 48" T5s (80w) ea
6 x 80W = 480W

6 x normally driven T5s
6 x 54W = 324W

Normally driven T5s are a lot brighter than you would think. A good setup with quality bulbs and reflectors and cooling would work fine over a 24" tall tank

[Rouselb]

My blue wave magnetic ballast draws 330W to supply a 250W bulb. My CV dimmable ballast run between 170-270W for the same bulb (they are adjustable). Scott is correct that the T5 overdriven consume less power then a 250W MH setup. Ive had both T5 and MH on my 190, and i personally like the MH setup better. T5 bulbs are cheaper out the door, but if you overdrive them they will have a shorter life then MH bulbs (roughly 6 months). I use a PAR meter to know when i need to change my MH bulbs, but most bulbs are rated for 3000 hrs (roughly 12 months) after that they are running at 75% of the initial PAR. The best thing about T5 is that you can adjust the color of your tank with no problem, the bulb selection for color is endless. Where as, MH, well not so easy, most others use T5 or VHO to supplement the MH setup to get the color they really want. I used to also do that, however, i now just run MH, its a compromise on PAR values and coloration.

[NeveSSL]

If you are looking for the most energy efficient, there's no question of what lighting to use. T5's are going to come out ahead hands down. And with the way things are going, energy efficiency may mean more than ever sooner than later unfortunately.

Brandon

[8BALL_99]

Its really not that cut and dry. T5s aren't any cheaper in most cases. As tanks get bigger they start to cost more even. On a 120 they will probably cost about the same.. To keep Anything you would need atleast 6 bulbs maybe 8 if you dont' go with overdriven bulbs. If you use Electronic ballasts a 250 watt ballast runs at 250 watts. Not 300.
So you have either 6x54=324 or 8x54=432 or 6x80=480 For T5s
Or 2x250 Mh=500 or if you don't go with electronics 2x300=600
Mh bulbs run around 70 bucks. T5s run around 23.00 For mh 2x70=140 vs 6x23=140 8x23=184
IMO you can't really compare 6x54 watts of T5s to 2x250Mh cause the fact is you will have less light and par in most cases. So to be fair you really have to compare 2x250 Mh to atleast 8x54 T5s if you do that you save no money.. Sure you will save a few watts with T5s. But you will also probably have to pay more for your bulbs. Not to mention you will have 16 endcaps to maintain and 8 different reflectors. Vs Two sockets and two reflectors.

Everyone claims T5s don't put out as much heat thats just not true. The put out just as much heat watt for watt as mh. Where T5s help on some tanks is more of the heat goes to the room vs the tank. How much this matters really depends on the tank.

IMO for that tank they will cost you about the same for equal amounts of light.. With T5s you will lose shimmer. With Mh you will be a little less flexible on adjusting color.

[NeveSSL]

You're assuming there are no supplemental bulbs, which is usually not the case (but not always :) ).

As far as bulb replacement costs, you're forgetting that T5 bulbs last longer. That's a major factor.

Where do you get that T5s put out the same amount of heat?

Brandon

[sjm817]

T5s do put out as much heat watt for watt as MH. So does VHO and CF. The whole point is T5s give you more light/watt used. The OP stated he was going to use 2 x 250 MH and 2 x 54 T5.

A good quality 324W T5 setup will do a good job on a 80 - 90G 24" tank. No way to get that much light from anything else for that power use.

[NeveSSL]

Good point, Scott.

Brandon

[8BALL_99]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14532557#post14532557 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sjm817


A good quality 324W T5 setup will do a good job on a 80 - 90G 24" tank. No way to get that much light from anything else for that power use.

Your right.. I was talking about a 120. lol Some how some way I missed the 80 gallon part, my fault. Sure on a tank that narrow T5s would be cheaper. If he goes with Icecap reflectors he won't be able to fit more then 6..

BTW I didn't add the 2 T5s with the MH because if you go with 10k MH and some Blue plus T5s then You would need even more T5s to compare them to. IE if 8 T5s are the same as 2 Mh then 2 Mh with 2 T5s would be 10 T5s, Make since?

[NeveSSL]

Maybe, but I was thinking more practically. If you have 8 bulbs over a 120, you've already got the color you want (or can get it) without any supplementation. With MH you'll probably want more.

You do make a great point about how wide the tank is having a great effect on how much T5s cost because it will be the more you use.

I can say that in my own experience T5s have been AWESOME. I have 4 T5HOs over a 24" tank and I'm keeping croceas on the sand without any problem. :)

Brandon

[James77]

I've run both, and I am currently switching back to halides. The look and shimmer of halides is unmatched bt T5s. I had originally gone T5 last year for energy savings, but its only costing less than 10 bucks a month(65 kWh) to run MH and actinics than the 8x54 Powermodule-and that is with HQI ballasts.

Heat problems from MH are alleviated with properly vented canopies and lights. T5's seem cooler because cooling is required fro optimal output- the PM cools the ballasts and bulbs, and blows the hot air away from the tank. Do something similar with Halides, and the heat will not be so unmanageable.

You can grow anything with either, but alot of people report more pastel colors from the T5s- not all, but it is a common complaint.

Point source shimmer is the biggest difference between the 2, and is subjective. I grew tired of the flatter look of T5s, especially after seeing other display tanks at stores and other reefers houses. Lack of shimmer is a big enough complaint that fixture companies are trying to replicate it using LED supplementation.

You are not going to see a huge electrical difference between halides and T5s- as I said above, my T5 savings amounted to about $10 less per month over my current setup( 2x250w HQI Radiums w/ 190 watts VHO- compared to 8x54 ATI Powermodule). It would be about $5/month if I were to use electronic ballasts.

[ksc]

Don't forget to add in the additional 2-300 watts the heater will use if using t-5s. My MH tanks heater never turns on while the lights are on whereas the t-5 tank's heater is almost always on. I have to run 2 12w fans about 3 months a year just to be safe on the mh setup opposed to the same fans running year round on the t-5 setup. Did I mention I get about 2-3 times more par with the mh setup? T-5s are NOT more efficient, they just require less power for far less light. For that tank a pair of 175's will still out perform t-5;s, probably using less electricity too...

[orangekush4]

If some one gave me a ATI T5 set up for free I would not use it for the fact that I will not have shimmer.

[ernordstrom]

I was at the same crossroads as he is and decided to go T-5 IMO I get great growth of coral and the coloration of the corals is very nice as well. I decided to go T-5 because I live in FL and I didn't want to deal with the heat issue. I also had a shorter canopy. If I had had the bigger canopy I would have gone with a couple of 20k 175 bulbs over the tank and not supplement the actinics.
I now have 4 fan blown t-5HO overdriven on a IC660 ballast and couldn't be happier as for the claims that the bulbs only last for 6 months...Well that is hogwash. I change mine at abou the 13-14 month mark. I have no appreciable side affects from doing so.


T-5 and MH both have comparable PAR values and when overdriven and with good reflectors T-5's can grow anything.

If you want the shimmer lines (which I sometime crave) go with Metal Halides. If that doesn't matter for you then go T-5's.

Here are a couple of pics of my tank in support of T-5's. All coral growth happened within the last year (except for small frags).

Enjoy the pics...

My lights
http://i551.photobucket.com/albums/ii452/8251reefer/DSC05646.jpg

Tank
http://i551.photobucket.com/albums/ii452/8251reefer/DSC05543.jpg

Frag from Halide lit tank
http://i551.photobucket.com/albums/ii452/8251reefer/DSC05432.jpg

in my tank 1 month
http://i551.photobucket.com/albums/ii452/8251reefer/DSC05618.jpg

Frag from Halide tank
http://i551.photobucket.com/albums/ii452/8251reefer/DSC05434.jpg

in my tank 1 month
http://i551.photobucket.com/albums/ii452/8251reefer/DSC05616.jpg

Tri-color Acro
http://i551.photobucket.com/albums/ii452/8251reefer/DSC05598.jpg

Blue Millepora
http://i551.photobucket.com/albums/ii452/8251reefer/DSC05558.jpg

[sjm817]

This thread has morphed into more than just a power/efficiency discussion. Some random thoughts...

If you like/want shimmer, go with halides. IMO, I think Halides have a better look than T5s (and I run T5s). Not so much the shimmer, its the light and dark areas, shadows. T5 has a very "lit all over" uniform look

Heating cooling. If your tank runs cold, yes you may need to run the heaters more with T5s compared to halides and negate any energy savings.

If your tank runs hot, high wattage lighting is worse. You heat the water, remove the heat with a chiller or fans which dumps it back into the room, which has to again be removed with room AC.

It is easier to tune your color preference with T5s since you have more bulbs and can mix and match pretty easily.

[AAA88]

so what do you think i will save in electricity with 6 t5( thinking of overdriving 4) vs 2-250 mh w 2 54w t5. is it really worth it? i have to pay extra for the electric bill to my roommate for my tank. i dont want to pay too much

[sjm817]

I would run 6 normally driven. Skip the over driving.

You would need to know your electricity rates in KWH and do the math.

[Rouselb]

If you read through all of the posted info, you can see that there are several considerations.
1. Overdriving T5, Standard T5, HQI MH, Electronic ballast MH
2. Combination of lighting based on your personal perception of the tank (MH plus T5, T5 bulb colors)
3. Length of time lights will be on
4. Heating and cooling of the water based on location and room
5. Bulb Life
We are listing all the facts. you need to decide which will work best for your setup.

[8BALL_99]

Why would you run T5s and Mh over a 80 gallon? Thats a small tank no reason to use both 2x250 MH and T5s. If you want MH just stick a couple of 14k or 20ks and be done with it. Like others said you really dont have to use 250s. 175 watters would be enough for most things. I would buy the 250s just cause you will probably get a bigger tank sooner or later and you can recycle your lighting that way..

[Rouselb]

Like others said you really dont have to use 250s. 175 watters would be enough for most things

250W is needed to obtain decent PAR numbers at a depth of 24". It has nothing to do with the width of the tank.

[swpassion]

I might be wrong, but I thought the the higher the k rating (more blue than white) the deeper the light penetrates. So that being said, would'nt 14k or 20k rated bulbs in 175 watt be sufficient vs. 10k? That would also eliminate the need to add actinics.

[macreefster]

i have a 70g ( 36"x24"x20"depth) and i run both....but not at the same time. i cut my photoperiod on my two 250w HQI's down to 6 hours so i added 4 t5 HO actinics to run two hours before and after the halides to extend my viewing time of the tank. i sort of like the pre/post halide actinic look, its very tranquil and i love the shimmering, natural daylight effect of the halides. this might be a comprimise that would work well for his 80g.