MH cost

[CoralKing]

I'm thinking of replacing 440 watts of vho's with 350 watts of MH. I hear MH cost more to run - does anyone know about how much more per month it costs as compared to the vho's? Is it a notable increase? (I live in NJ)

Thanks

[Yinger]

A watt is a watt... it'll be cheaper to run the halides since its 90 watts less. Unless you get an HQI ballast which overdrives your bulbs... they it'll eat up a little more electricity.

[RichConley]

Yinger is 100% correct.

Dont worry about it though, lights generally dont cost much to run anyways. Pumps are what cost money.

440w@8hr/day=3.52kwh/day*.17kwy=$0.59/day. or $18 a month. The MHs will probably save you $3 a month, so dont change lights for energy reasons.

[bcolvin]

Hey,
Everything in this hobby is expensive. $5 - $10 a month for nice looking lighting is really a drop in the bucket in comparison to my addiction of eco tech pumps, frags and everything else. It will be worth it, you will be happy with the hallide upgrade.

Bennett

[MrZ]

I was curious myself so I popped over to icecap's website.

Their specs state that a Model 660 ballast will drive 440 watts of VHO's and draws 4.4 amps.

Two 175 watt MH ballasts will put out 350 watts of power and max out at a combined 3.3 amps draw.

If their specs are believeable you would use less electricity with the two 175w ballasts than using a Icecap model 660 with 4 110 watt bulbs.

Not a fair comparison though because you are giving up 90 watts of lamp power. Incidently a pair of 250 watt ballasts look like they would top out at 4.7 amp draw.

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7731485#post7731485 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MrZ


Not a fair comparison though because you are giving up 90 watts of lamp power. Incidently a pair of 250 watt ballasts look like they would top out at 4.7 amp draw.

You're giving up wattage going to 2x175, but actually gaining light. VHOs are about as innefficient as you can get.

[Yinger]

MH produce more par therefore is more intense than VHOs.

[MrZ]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7731494#post7731494 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
You're giving up wattage going to 2x175, but actually gaining light. VHOs are about as innefficient as you can get.

You are absolutely correct. When I said fair comparison I meant that it would take less electricity to light 90 less watts in any technology. MH will kick the pants off of VHO or PC in measurable light output any day of the week watt for watt.

I did find it relatively interesting that the current draw on a MH ballast versus a VHO ballast was so similar.

Also the only specs on that particular manufacturers website for the MH ballasts was max amp draw. Without actually putting an amp meter on the power plug of the ballast it doesn't mean much. For instance it might take much more amperage to start the bulb than to actually run it.