Quote:
Originally Posted by babygro Why? What does it matter what CFL's or fluoro's are used?
The comparator should be Yield in terms of Oz's (or grams) per square foot, per watt of lighting used and per cost of producing 1 Oz of bud in terms of electricity used.
As you can see the last two make it hard for the HID to be competitive, because once you start factoring in price per oz or per watt or sq foot the lower electricity and wattages of the fluoro's starts to redress the balance. |
When factoring small grows maybe, but say for instance you are growing 40 plants you are going to need a whole shed load of cfls as opposed to 2 hid systems. I'd bet that in order to get similar results you would have to use more watts of cfl lighting than you would hid.
Say for instance your growing 40 plants and using two 600w hps, how many watts of cfl lighting would it take to achieve equally satisfactory results?
It is an equally false assumption that people who use hid only use it because that is what they think they are supposed to use because someone told them.
I currently veg for 12 hours under a 250w 6400k cfl and then for the other 12 hours of the day they sit underneath a 400w mh in the flowering room. Then when they flower they sit underneath whats currently 2 600w hps. In veg at the moment I have 15 plants. In flower I have 30 plants. After tonight there will probably be 20 clones thrown into the equation.
How many watts of cfl power would i need if i were to do cfl alone.
I do agree with you though that in a small space with a limited number of plants, that you could be equally better off to go with cfl than you would hid if temps were not the issue, but small space growers are pushed away from hid with the heat issues unless they can counteract it.