Lighting are LED's efficient?

[lykaboss]

I am not trying to discredit the use of leds or there place in growing, far from it! OR argue that HID is a better lighting system then leds. I am trying to start a intelligent discussion on the effectiveness, cost, and efficiency of leds. In the current market place.

So i wanted to try and start a discussion about this. A bit about me first, yes i have grown with LED's they do work.I had some of the first black stars and buddy they do put off heat a fair amount. I ran six 240's in a 4 x 8 tent and temps got into high 80's low 90s. I have since switched to Air cooled Hoods with 600 watt hps bulbs temps in tent stay at 75f.

I have seen this time and time again that LEDS save money.... Ok how exactly? Lets look at this. (iam not an expert so forgive any minor mistakes)

Facts as i know them to be

• A Watt equals a watt no matter what!
• 300 watt leds DOES NOT equal a 600 watt HPS light.
• a 600 watt led is equal to a 600 watt HPS! So no power savings there.
• WATTS EQUAL WEIGHT!

Cooling.
Ok here is my take on cooling, just my experience the larger LEDS put off serious heat, maybe they gotten better now not sure. So running say 2000 watts in LEDS you are going to need extra cooling for sure. Some of the newer LEDS may have better heat management now but i would assume the heat is pretty much blasted out of the sides of the light and not pushed downwards toward the plants.

So where is the savings on cooling?

The only place i can see as being viable use for leds when you factor in cost is smaller grows 4 x 4 and under
Above statement may or may not be true its just my point of view as of right now ^^^^^

In summary:
If leds are efficient.... how are they efficient? The initial cost of any quality larger led is very high, any possible savings is being ate up by the initial cost of the light. Life span on most leds make claims of 10 years... do you think you will be still using the same LED light in 10 years time? surely something better has come out by then. Also if a watt equals a watt where is the savings on power draw?

The reason i am posing this discussion now, is to Gage community input, which may decide a near future purchase of Four solar storms 880's and i am weighing out all the pro's and con's

 

[Gloomshade]

I dont think a watt equals a watt at all when comparing HID and LED.

A watt is a derived unit of power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_pressure_sodium#High_pressure_sodium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_emitting_diode

The method each of these technologies use to convert power into light is so different...There is no way you could say a 600w HPS = a 600w LED.

 

[az2000]

• 300 watt leds DOES NOT equal a 600 watt HPS light.
• a 600 watt led is equal to a 600 watt HPS! So no power savings there.

I don't know if that's true. See this video where they conclude a smaller UFO produced better results than a more powerful (wattage) HPS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh9oGroryoc

At one point the argument was that LEDs allowed us to focus energy into specific bands the plant uses most, not wasting energy on green (for example). But, now there's a growing trend toward full-spectrum white LED light. That seems to eliminate some of the efficiency attributed to LEDs.

But, even a full spectrum white LED like Area 51's new XGS model (which draws 195 watts) is producing great results that people would normally see with a 400w HID. There still seems to be some efficiency converting energy to light compared to traditional lighting. Less heat, lower electricity bill.

I don't know much more about it than that. Look forward to reading more knowledgeable responses.

 

[kyliekay]

Here is the things i find with LED V HPS. I have a 600w hps and a 1200w led, actual draw 600w, so basically the same power usage. Actual electricity use is the same, so no price difference there. The led cost me $600 delivered, the hps $280 delivered. They were bought 3weeks apart. The hps produces its heat EVERYWHERE. I could of course reduce this with a cool hood $150, a fan and some ducting $150 approx. So the actual price of a cool hps is $580. It also now becomes more expensive to run because you need to power the fan too. Now for the led cooling, because the led fans push ALL the heat up and straight out, 90% of that heat is removed with the carbon filter and inline fan already in place. This would be there anyway so no extra expense. The hps also needs a replacement globe every year $55. Over the life of led, 10 years this adds another $495 for 9 replacements, as one came with the light.

Differences apart from cost directly, although most make a difference in yield. The hps produces a light which is much harsher than the led, the plants i grow look much better and more lush under led. They both produce very similar growth rates during veg, but the led lights seem to grow flowers faster and bigger. Even when the hps has a cool hood the plants look much better close to the light of a led, hps is a harsh light not just because of the heat. Now for where hps wins hands down, area coverage, it would cover twice as much area, so you can grow twice as many plants. Sounds like it would produce twice as much, but it won't. The led produces denser, fatter buds( in my limited experience about 50%) and because it can grow closer to the light, taller plants. So I estimate the return under hps to be about only30% greater yield. Hps is both easier and more difficult to hang than led(bear with me), the led is heavier because everything needs to be hung, the ballast of hps is seperate. As long as you have room hps wins, but having the ballast in your room adds even more heat to the room. The led only has one cord to power, where the hps has one to the ballast and then one from there to the hood. You also need another hanging spot for the fan, and another power cord.

When i buy another light, what will I buy, led every single day of the week. If you work out the difference in price between the two hps costs at least 4 times as much. Over 10 years with the globe replacement, cost for cool hood, fan and ducting, as well as the extra costs for running the fan for the hood and the fact not everyone has room for an extra fan, means this keeps charging you at a higher rate. The 30% advantage hps has in yield is also diminished further by the natural degredation over the life of the globe. The plants look better under led, much better. The other thing I like about the led is its much easier to deal with in regards to power outs or being able to turn led on and off without damaging the globes. If you have a power outage and it comes back on quickly this can be detrimental, particularly to the hps globe. Just my two cents.

 

[TaNg]

I've been averaging 600g every 12 weeks from 240w of LED.

 

[Muddy]

LEDs are more efficient in that they produce more light that is usable to the plants. Only 15% of the light produced by HPS is usable, compared to 95% for LEDs. The other 85% is lost as heat. Yes, LEDs do produce heat, but as already mentioned it is directed away from the plants. As a result you can set LEDs closer to the plants and run your grow at a higher temperature. With HPS it's been generally accepted that the ideal room temperature is in the 78 - 80 degree range. With LEDs you can run at 82 - 85 and as high as 90 in extreme situations. Transpiration rates under LEDs are higher due to the reduced heat at the plant level.

I've done cost comparisons between HPS and LEDs. While operating costs are the same when running the same wattage, there is a reduced cooling cost. The biggest savings is in replacement bulbs that would be required for HPS lights. Most HPS lights have about a 20,000 hour rated life. Their output starts to drop shortly after installation and slowly decreases until they reach about 80% of their useful life, after which it drops off very quickly. So they should be replaced after about 16k hours of use maximum with probably about 14k preferable. Assuming you are running a 20/4 schedule, that would be about 2 years of growing. LEDs are generally rated at a 5 year life. So over 5 years, HPS bulbs would need to be replaced 3 times. A good HPS bulb with an expanded blue spectrum like a Hortilux or Digilux, costs about $100. So when you factor that additional $300 into the over all cost, LEDs generally come out cheaper to run over that same 5 year period.

 

[namvet25]

Solor Storm 880's cost over 2,000 bucks each and you want four of them? That's over 8,000 bucks for four lights.That to me is crazy. Solor Storm lights are way out of line compared to most other lights cost. For the price of one SS880 you can buy four of the new GN lights coming out,or sixteen GN lights for the 8,000 bucks for four SS880's.

 

[Trapper]

Plus, I heard they overheat and turn off unless you have auxiliary fans pointed at them....

 

[pop22]

I am not trying to discredit the use of leds or there place in growing, far from it! OR argue that HID is a better lighting system then leds. I am trying to start a intelligent discussion on the effectiveness, cost, and efficiency of leds. In the current market place.

So i wanted to try and start a discussion about this. A bit about me first, yes i have grown with LED's they do work.I had some of the first black stars and buddy they do put off heat a fair amount. I ran six 240's in a 4 x 8 tent and temps got into high 80's low 90s. I have since switched to Air cooled Hoods with 600 watt hps bulbs temps in tent stay at 75f.

I have seen this time and time again that LEDS save money.... Ok how exactly? Lets look at this. (iam not an expert so forgive any minor mistakes)

Facts as i know them to be

• A Watt equals a watt no matter what!
• 300 watt leds DOES NOT equal a 600 watt HPS light.
• a 600 watt led is equal to a 600 watt HPS! So no power savings there.
• WATTS EQUAL WEIGHT!

Cooling.
Ok here is my take on cooling, just my experience the larger LEDS put off serious heat, maybe they gotten better now not sure. So running say 2000 watts in LEDS you are going to need extra cooling for sure. Some of the newer LEDS may have better heat management now but i would assume the heat is pretty much blasted out of the sides of the light and not pushed downwards toward the plants.

So where is the savings on cooling?

The only place i can see as being viable use for leds when you factor in cost is smaller grows 4 x 4 and under
Above statement may or may not be true its just my point of view as of right now ^^^^^

In summary:
If leds are efficient.... how are they efficient? The initial cost of any quality larger led is very high, any possible savings is being ate up by the initial cost of the light. Life span on most leds make claims of 10 years... do you think you will be still using the same LED light in 10 years time? surely something better has come out by then. Also if a watt equals a watt where is the savings on power draw?

The reason i am posing this discussion now, is to Gage community input, which may decide a near future purchase of Four solar storms 880's and i am weighing out all the pro's and con's

You fall to the same premise that everyone else does, IE Watts= Lumens or par. They don't. LEDs generate light in a manner similar to a laser, by the stimulated emission of radiation. conventional light, be it incandescent or HID, converts electric energy to thermal energy, the light output is secondary to the process. On a watt for watt basis, LEDs produce more light and less heat. I can assure you, my two
"300 watt" LED grow lights are giving me close to the PAR output of my 600 watt MH light, with about 35% savings in electric use, and a large reduction in waste heat.

The whole concept of rating any grow light in watts is completely flawed. I'd like to see them all rated by their actual PAR and LUMEN output, those 2 figures when combined, are a better to classify a lamps output. Its power consumption although still important to know for budgetary reasons, are truly useless as a guide to the quality and intensity of the light's output.

So if my 380 watts actual power usage gives me the light equivalent of a 600 watt MH/HPS and generates less heat, then the only factor beyond this that matters, is the quality of the light output, useable spectrum, etc. And this issue has been for the most part solved, there are some fine grows that show near to equal harvest volume, and equal or sometimes even better quality bud.

Considering these factors, a true 600 watt LED grow light, if properly designed should give a larger useable coverage area compared to a 600 watt HPS, thus needing fewer lights and saving money over time in lower energy costs from needing fewer lights

 

[lykaboss]

Some good info coming in to this thread, i didn't know that the solar storms have an issue with shutting off. I looked at the blu led lights, but i was kinda thinking the foot print is a bit weird. I don't understand the math on it. There are 2 rows of led pods, does it really cover a 4 x 4 space? The length does sure.. but the width? to me it would seem optimal to have a 3rd row in there, and if that is true you would need another light in the 4 x 4 area for optimal coverage. i don't see that being "smart" I could be wrong maybe it does an excellent job. I was looking more at uniformed light spread.

My next pick besides the solar storm would be the black dog leds