Metal Halide vs. T5 Reef Lighting

[AquaDen]

Metal Halide vs. T5 lighting...... I have read many different opinions about the two different lights. Please add your opinion and or facts! I am getting ready to set up another reef and I am considering T5 lighting for the first time. After looking at the facts and it seems as if T5 has just as good output as Metal Halide and cheaper to purchase and operate. I have seen MANY blogs and pictures where people are growing quality Acro under T5!? Any input?

[TexasTodd]

If you use enough, I don't think you'll have any problem growing anything.

Todd

[caferacermike]

I'd like to hear from some local guys as well. You all know I bought Jose's 400g tank. Lighting will b e my single largest limiting factor to that tank. How much is really enough? I have 10wpg on my 75g tank and I really like the growth. Of course I can't afford 4,000w of lighting on a tank. I've been thinking about getting 3 250w DE HQI in Lumenarc reflectors on Ice cap ballasts with about 300w T5 or VHO for actinics. I was only planning on placing my SPS about a foot from the water line to maximize their lighting. But after reading many reports I'm hearing that 1,000w of T5 would kill any sort of MH set up. I have no idea if that's true or not. The tank is 36" deep.

[Ross]

I'd go with the mh, they are much more intense.

[AquaDen]

As you can see in the chart below...... Maybe T5 bulbs are the way to go? Not only are they cheaper but run MUCH cooler!


Type Watts Lumens Lumens per Watt Life Hours Kilowatt Hours per year** Bulb Replacement Cost

T5 HO 216 20,000 92.6 20,000 946 $10-$15 per bulb
4-54W Bulbs

Metal Halide 400 32,000 80 20,000 1,980 $45-60 per bulb


*5- 54W T5HO bulbs are equivalent to to one 400W HPS or MH bulb.
**Assumes bulbs are run 12 hours per day, 365 days per year.

[AquaDen]

The chart looked fine before I submitted it!!??

[urban79]

lol 75$ of t5s to one MH

[caferacermike]

But Urban it's not that simple. Many people are claiming that one 54w T5 is equal to one 175w MH bulb. That makes a real difference. I've heard that 10 54w T5 bulbs over a 84" x32" x 36" tank might be enough light. I'm not convinced as I am also a firm believer of MH lighting but some reads I've had have been very convincing. Also overdriving them to 80w is brighter than MH is what is claimed. The bulbs over driven last as long as MH that way. Otherwise they last longer than MH thus increasing the value.

3x $70 for bulbs= $210 and at most 1,200w

20x $10 for bulbs in bulk= $200 and possibly 1,600w

See the difference? Also they will run cooler therby decreasing your electric bill for chillers and AC.

[Ross]

One 54w T-5 is not nearly as intense as a 175w halide. Charts or none you can see the difference with your eye.

[AquaDen]

Brightness does not mean effectiveness! So I would have to say that the eye can not tell. Take my garage for instance, I have (4) 4' shop lights in my garage for working. They have 4 bulbs per each light and when I turn all of them on it is a little overwhelming. Take those same lights and put them over a reef tank and I would say that the reef would die. Of course MH is very bright but how effecive is MH compared to T5 when it comes to quality? We all know that it is much cheaper and MUCH cooler! But when it comes to Lumens (5) 4' T5 bulbs give out the same lumens as a 400W MH. Lumens are the key and test have proven that T5 are just as good and even better when it comes to the bank account.

Mike, it looks like you have done your research on T5 and seem to think the same thing that I do. I really like MH but are they going to be a thing of the past? Many say yes! Also, send me your email address so that I can send you the plans for a skimmer that we mentioned in another forum. If you do go with T5 let me know I can get them at a GREAT price!
Gary

[caferacermike]

My plans are centered around running 2 250w 14K DE in Lumnearcs for my "main" lighting and intensity, followed by about 10 4' 54w T5's. 8 of those will be full actinics and 2 would be 10K's or so. That way I can run those around 80w for 12 hours a day and only run the halides for 4 hours. The 2 daylight bulbs would be to help offset an over actinic feeling when the halides are not on. The plan is a total of 11,600w of lighting per day at a "true" cost of about $1.92 a day for my lighting in electric costs. Trying to keep the 400g to $100 a month in electric costs. Austin claims about $0.07 a kilo but that's straight up BS. You must add in any taxes, use taxes, deliver fees, line fees, over use surcharges etc... I'm seeing an average of $0.17 per kilo total no matter what season or over uses of the 500 kilos they alot each house for "regular" use charges.

Yes I've been very busy the last 3 weeks trying to "economize" the tanks usage.

The other plan I was kicking around centered on a 400w DE 20k in the center of the tank and 2 250w 14K DE all in Lumenarcs, possibly 3x 250w HQi as i've read a few places that 400w are not a good choice, with T5 or VHO in 4' lengths to supplement.

[LoneStar]

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=700454&perpage=25&pagen umber=1


If you haven't already seen Iwan's tank on Reef Central, check it out. He is running nothing but t5s. Its a good read, just a little bit long...The thread has been split so the link above is from the beggining.

[LoneStar]

http://www.hausriff.ch/media/DIR_127501/ganz.jpg

:shades

[AquaDen]

Lonestar, thanks for the picture I will be reading about it!! There is a great example of T5's will do the job. Mike, I dont know about you but I will be going with T5 after seeing true proof from a member of MAAST!

[thedude]

T5's may be a great alternative but when it's time to replace bubls, halides are far cheaper. With halide bulb prices around $60 now, replacing 3 400w Lumenarc reflected halide bulbs would cost only ~$180.

10 4' T5 bulbs would be far more expensive. Lighting we would all agree is one of the most important reeftank aspects so I would therefore replace my bulbs with something high quality. The T5 bubls used by zeovit guys, D&D, or giesseman all run about $30 a piece. Therefore when these bulbs need to be replaced, you're looking at something around $300.

Just my 2 cents.

PS:

We recently redid our friends 8'x4'x2' reef and replaced SEVEN halide fixtures with just (3) lumenarc 400's. The tank has never been happier.

[AquaDen]

Testing shows otherwise. Look at the picture that LoneStar provided with using T5. I once grew a GREAT reef with Power Compact lights and no one could believe it. I think that a lot of people that skimp on lighting do the same with the other equipment and care. Therefore, you will sometimes see reefs with cheap low level lighting and they wont tell you that it does not have a skimmer and they add faucet water and just because they dont have the money or dont want to invest the money into the reef. Therefore, I think people instantly blame the lights when they dont know the full spectrum of the aquarium. Again, of course these are not facts a but only my opinion.

The picture is of a 125 Gal. that I had and the lighting I had on it was (2) 72" 110 VHO Ice Cap. The lights were retro with no reflector. I purchased the rock completely dead and dry and I used a home made wet/dry and one 300 GPH overflow for filteration. This was the first tank that I ever had therefore I was a rookie. Now with several years of experience I can still say that I am proud of what I created. With very little knowledge and even less money at the time I grew a reef with low wattage and even less filteration. So, my outlook is that 90% of a reef is the care taken and a little knowledge and not so much of expensive equipment..

[thedude]

Ahh I'll agree with you Gary on most points but VHO bubls are WAY different than T5's. T5 technology is relatively new which is why I think you see such a disparity between bulb manufacturers. VHO bulbs have been around for as long as pretty much anything in this hobby and I think we've really come a long way in perfecting the spectrum they emit. T5 bulbs just haven't been utilized in the hobby long enough IMHO.

And the picture Lonestar posted isn't exactly a fair judge lol. Iwan's two tanks have been a mixture of art and some of the best maintenance regimes that have ever been documented.

[don-n-sa]

The T5 bubls used by zeovit guys, D&D, or giesseman all run about $30 a piece. Therefore when these bulbs need to be replaced, you're looking at something around $300.


Actually those bulbs are much cheaper than that...they run around $18 to $22 on reefgeek

http://www.reefgeek.com/products/category_indexes/16-30_lighting_bulbs_-_t5_fluorescent.html

The UV super actinic are outstanding

[thedude]

Thanks Don, great link.

I came up with those numbers off the top of my head and tried to remember what I paid for them when I replaced actinic haha

[AquaDen]

I agree with you as well. T5 lighting is new but seem to have a great start. The VHO has proven to be good lighting but many paople say that you need about 10 watts per gallon and the way to get it is MH. The tank that I pictures had 1.75 watts per gollon and reproduced like crazy. Many people talk down on PC and I grew a beautiful tank with PC. The main reason that I am leaning toward T5 is to try something new and because of the heat factor. I am fairly new to Texas and MY GOD is the electric high. I pay 300 a month for electric in a 2100 square foot house and that is NUTS!! I have a 75 gallon reef now and I am using (8) 65W PC and I want to keep the bills down that is my reason for trying the T5. My other hobby is much more expensive than the reef so I am trying to choose my battles!! I hope that it works out, time will tell. If I dont see results in about 3 months I will have them listed on here and purchase HQI and a chiller. My wife says that I am a cheap ***.... after reading what i just typed, I finally have one thing I can agree with her on!! (wont let her know that she is right though!)

[AquaDen]

Not sure how the smiley got there but it was suppose to be eight!

[caferacermike]

This is becoming a good thread.

John you said you installed 3x 400w Lumenarcs on that 8x4x2? You claim it is doing better than ever. Ok so my plan to save even more money was to run 3x 250w but place my corals at the top of the tank. My question to you is that there is no supplemental lighting? Only MH? So is that a 10-12 hour run? If so I don't think I can afford all that. I would like to hear more about the paln though as it might be good for my 84x32x36D.

One plan I've been kicking around.

All plans are based upon what I feel is a total energy per kilowatt hour charge based upon current Austin Energy prices. My belief is that it totals $0.17 per kilo for the entire electric kilo delivery. From their shop to my house and back to the Capitol coffers.

6x 54w over driven to 80w= 5760w per 12 hour day. + 3x250w 14Kde Lumenarcs at 6 hours=4500 for a total of 10,260 wpd
3x 400w for 12 hours a day= 14,400 wpd.

Saving 4,400 wpd of lighting energy, a daily savings of about $0.75 x30days= about $23 a month back in my pocket or diverted to pumps for flow or skimming.

My plan, $1.73 a day to run and about $53 a month usage.
3x400 = $2.50 a day to run or about $75 a month in usage.

Pros of my idea, my plan affords a natural dawn and dusk with midday extreme.
Pros of 3x400, that plan may include such an intense amount of light as to make coral growth and color a top priority.

My largest concern would be that the 3x400 would be an instant shock at both lights on and lights out.

I'm going to check the cost of bulbs as a comparison on Reef Geek, I have no idea what they are and will write down the prices unbiased. This will be on a 365 day replacement.

4x T5 54w actinic, UV lighting pure actinic = $21.95e x 4=$87.80
2x T5 54w day, GE 6,500 = $12.95e x2= $25.90
3x 250w de, Pheonix 14K = $69.95e x3= $209.85

Total- $323.55= YIKES!

3x 400w de, Hamilton DE 14K = $94.95e x3= $284.85 Still yikes but not as bad. Note: I had to use Hellolights for this as I did not see any DE 400w on ReefGeek unless I'm not noticing something.

OK so a quick glance says that 3x400w is cheaper for bulb replacement. It is. I can't argue that. But I can argue that through cheaper running costs I still save money.

My plan for electric costs at 12 months, $636
3x400 plan on electric at 12 months, $900

$900- $636= $264.
Difference in bulb costs, $323.55- $284.85=$38.70

$264.00 in savings
minus the $38.70 in added bulb costs,
---------------------------------------------
Totals to a yearly savings of 225.30. Or about 2/3rds my total light bulb costs yearly. Or 4 really nice acro colonies.

I'm not an accountant, nor do I own a shop. I'm not even necessarily good with numbers. I do in fact work a meanial construction job. But I'm settled in my mind that my math is working.

The REAL question for me is will I still have good coral growth and color? I sure hope so. I'm not set in stone yet either. I could go either way with my lighting but I'm pretty satisified with my results, mathematically, and from the growth records I've been reading about. I'll still need to factor in initial set up costs for ballasts and reflectors and all that stuff. It may indeed be cheaper to just set up 3x400w lumenarcs with 2x VHO 6' for dawn and dusk because it could take me years to recover my intial set up costs. And typical with anything in this trade, right about the time I might recover my set up costs, let's say 3 years, I'll probably be burning up ballasts and need new ones. That of course would not save me any money.

Or do I get up early in the mornings and just worry myself for no reason?

[caferacermike]

Oh and Brian once said in another forum, "If you have $10,000 worth of corals in a giant tank who cares about the added costs of halide lighting?". Answer. I do. I don't have gobs of money to throw around. I wish I was a Doctor or an engineer. Heck I wish I made one quarter of what a few of our larger reef friends do. But alas I work from a budget and I have to spend hours researching exactly as I have done to see what I can afford and plan out my YEAR accordingly. It sucks having to do that, but it would suck even more not to live my dream and have a beautiful reef tank.

[urban79]

ya but other thing with MH you get that water movement in the water waves. Which I think make it look better.Make it look more like a reef of the sea. I see with vho and t5s you really dont get that as much.

[thedude]

Mike,

The tank in particular that I was talking about is 8x4x2. It is lit by (3) 400w SE Lumenarc 12k's and (2) 72" VHO actinics. The tank is predominately SPS and the growth and color is great. Halides are run for 8 hours, VHO's for 12.

Would this tank still look amazing without actinics? Absolutely, though I might make a move to 14k bulbs. 250w bulbs might be pushing it but hey, these lumenarc reflectors have impressed me before.

I'd also be wary of the 400w DE bulbs as they too are very new technology. Out of the 8 or so bulbs I've personally dealt with, they were all a slightly different color (these are hamiltons btw) and half of them burn out after around 2 months. We had no problem getting replacements but you have to wait so I'd stick with good old mogul style. Also, you could go with 12k's or even 10k Reeflux bulbs if you drove them with an electronic ballast. It would cause the bulb to not overdrive and produce a bluer light.

[thedude]

Here are some recent shots that show the lighting cage:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=952730

[caferacermike]

Thanks for that link. I recognized the tank from a few other forums. When you said you think I would be pushing it was that considering if I had enough rock work to elevate the corals to within 12" like I had indicated? I do like the minimal amount of live rock that tank has. I might have to rethink my 400w approach. I'm wondering if 2 400w SE in Lumenarcs would be sufficient with a little help from T5 and/or VHO suppl. This is such a difficult question for me as my 75g has 10wpg inlcuding 500w of that MH. I love the results but know I can't afford 10wpg on a 400g.

This is so much fun. I was going to wait until mid next year to begin planning my lighting but why not now?

[AquaDen]

This thread turned out to be more successful than I had planned. It seems as if many people have put in tons of great information! Keep it coming!

[alton]

696 watts tell the story. $270 worth of lamps plus you can bet those are German made lamps not the chinese made stuff we get here for $15 a lamp, (Unless I missed something). It really depends on how deep your tank is? I love the color of my 200 with 2 - 250w 10K Reeflex, 2 URI 50/50 T5HO, 2 - True Actinic T5HO and 160w VHO. It really depends on your like and color. Find something you like and mimic it. Oh and by the way 696 watts of light is still 696 watts of heat. On the De lamps I could not get them to last past 8 months before losing 50% of light. I have switched all my tanks to SE.

[caferacermike]

696 watts of heat. Not true. Bulb effiecency is measured in how much light is produced per watt, not by how much heat. Incandescent bulbs are garbage because they use almost 60% of the energy as heat instead of producing light. There is a difference between effiecency and heat.

[AquaDen]

696 watts of light does not mean 696 watts of heat!! If you put your hand under a 696 watt MH and then put your hand under 696 watts of T5 there would be a HUGE difference in heat, HUGE!! One may be more efficent than the other but the heat comparison would be extreme!

[reefguy210]

now you guys got me wanting to upgrade my light. i have a 30 with 130watts of pc that ive been meaning to upgrade. i saw one guy on here (sorry i didnt contact you sooner, ive been real busy with work) what had a clip on metal halide light for 100$. 175watts i think would be about right for my tank, since i have nothing but soft corals, rock and an anemone.

keep the information coming, this was a good read for me so far!

[alton]

250W MH lamp is around 8" in length, a 54w T5HO is 46.5 and therefore spreads the heat and the light out in a greater range. To compare heat from a Mh to a T5HO you would have to stack a lot of T5HO's to get 250w in 8" inches? I love lighting arguements, it has been a while. All we have to do now is add salt to the mix. The only arguement, is a Compact fluorescent really a U Bent T5HO?

[caferacermike]

Ah but we are talking about efficiency. It has been stated openly in many good reports that less wattage from T5 is comparable to high wattage MH. It has been shown that T5 have a great PAR that reaches at least 36". So the point is that you do not need as many T5 watts as MH watts because of efficienct running higher par bulbs. More for less. However this is only what I've read in several publications. That is why I'm asking LOCAL guys for input as to how they feel about it. You seem to be a die hard MH guy, in fact so am I. If I had no problems believing that T5 is the the greatest reef invention ever, I wouldn't be asking.

I must agree that I used to have my doubts about PC vs T5. I also was in the same boat as the PC is a better buy than T5 and is nothign more than a T5 bent over. In fact Sylvania lists PC bulbs as T5 on their regular industry packaging. Kinda blew me away. But from what I've read you have the option for a better reflector with T5.

[alton]

The efficiency comes from the fact that T5HO Ballast are around 99% efficient and at this time the best MH ballast is 90%. I have used CF's for ever and great luck with them, untill I had to replace them then my pocket book went broke. I think where people get in trouble is buying cheap lamps(Mostly PC). I myself like the new T5HO URI 50/50 lamps Made in America, something we don't see anymore.

[Brett Wilson]

My largest concern would be that the 3x400 would be an instant shock at both lights on and lights out.
You wouldn't have to turn all three on at once.

[LoneStar]

My largest concern would be that the 3x400 would be an instant shock at both lights on and lights out.
You wouldn't have to turn all three on at once.

Yes you can stagger them. Like how the sun moves through the sky.

Personally I am going to run 1 400w DE and 2 250w SE halides on a 75g. The 400w will be a 10k and the 250w will be 12 or 14k. The 400 will be placed in the center, and only run about 3 hours a day, matching peak sunlight. The outer lights will be run 8 to 9 hours. I am even contiplating on hooking up VHO's for the late evening, when all the halides are turned off. I hate to get home and within an hour the lights are off ;)

[AquaDen]

I have my lights come on at 4:00 in the afternoon. There is a little bit of light that enters the room where my tank is. In my opinion this would be about the amount of light that the moon gives off. This allows enough light for the coral to feed very well. Its amazing how there tenticles expand when just very little lights hits them. By the time 4:00 comes around they have adapted to that light then the actincs come on for an hour, then all of the lights. At midnight the lights turn out except for the actinics and then at 1 am the acinics turn off. This might not be the absolute greatest schedule for the tank but then again I get to enjoy the reef the entire time that I am home in the evening. Also, during summer months the lights are on during the coolest time of day and not during the hottest time of day. Just a suggestion that works well for me!

[Bill S]

I have T5s on my 55, and love them. SPS is doing well, even though I don't have "enough wattage", with just 215watts.

The MHs DO give a great shimmer - but at $100 a pop, bulbs ARE expensive once a year!

[Brett Wilson]

I have my lights come on at 4:00 in the afternoon...........and then at 1 am the acinics turn off.

Only a 9 hour photo period? (7 for the main lights)
That seems pretty short... Are there benefits to it other than electrical cost savings and heat avoidance?

[AquaDen]

The electrical cost is not an issue... Of course it is nice to save money. I have noticed over the years that if I left the lights on for 12 hours, it seemed as if some of the soft corals would start to drawl in? Being from Florida and always on the reefs..... The light really is not that bright except on the shallow reefs. During the tropical season (summer) the weather will not produce sun for days. I have been on the reef during the clowded days and the corals thrive just as well as they do during a mid day with the sun at 100%. I like to experiment with a reef to see exactly what works and what does not. So far, in my opinion the corals do just as well with 8 hours of light as they do with 12 hours? Maybe try adapting your reef to it? It may benifit your bank account and heat avoidance? With the hours that I run my lights I get the full benifit of having a reef, and that is enjoying it!

[Brett Wilson]

It would be neat to see some actual tests that compare photo periods. I bet someone has done them before...

[Ping]

The subject matter expert on aquarium lighting is Sajay Joshi: For cost effectiveness, usable light output, growth, - 250w 10k MH. Based on extensive scientific data.

http://www.reeflightinginfo.arvixe.com/