SaneLawsMake4SaneSociety
Well-Known Member
Hi,
The reason I want to do this is that I think there MUST be a "sweet spot" where the long term cost vs benefits of using LEDs and CFLs instead of HID/HPS, etc
I'm not sure if I am clear enough there, so as an example:
When a person figures in all the costs of a grow, some being easy to put a dollar value on, and some no.
For example, easy to figure = the electricity cost of an HPS is actually a lot higher than one might initially realize, because, for example, it causes you to have to add ventilation, due to the heat. A small fan, for instance, uses 100W easily, so one would need to tack that on to the cost of running an HPS...
Not so easy to put a dollar amount on, but still important to many = the concern over an unnatural jump in your electric bill arousing suspicion, the concern over the noise of fans running causing issues, the complexity and all the infrastructure it entails of getting heat out of the house completely when needed (as vs just out of the grow box/room)...these factors are harder to put a dollar amount on, but can be a deal breaker to some, myself included.
With the above in mind, more data (and specifically more up to date data) on using LEDs for at least some of the lighting during grow cycles may help us find out more precisely where it makes sense for a given person to use LEDs to replace at least some of their other lighting.
As an example (yes another one, can you tell I am all caffeinated?)
we may find out something like the following hypothetical:
LED brand and color X along with CFL color Y are all you need for vegging and you don't loose significant enough yield to warrant spending $Z more on electricity for fans and HIDs, (if that overall efficiency is important to you)
Also, (still in hypothetical mode here), it turns out that for flowering, the combo of LED brand and color A with output of B # of lumens, along with CFL color temp C and D lumens, when combined with a much smaller HPS (of blah diddy blah watts, etc) gives close enough yield to just going with a much bigger HPS, with significantly reduced need for ventilation and significantly reduced electricity bills, etc, to make it worth it for some.
My reasoning on why this is worth looking into is this: The Law of Conservation of Energy being in effect means that if you have a device that is making heat as a by product of making the thing you want it to make, you are using some of your energy (Electricity, in our case) JUST to make that heat...so, the (sometimes massive) difference in heat output of LEDs over every other type of light means that LEDs are absolutely, positively, more efficient at producing light by far. Now, the tricky part is figuring out if that difference in general efficiency can adequately make up for any differences in the abilities of LEDs to provide the specific types of light a girl named Mary Jane needs. I think real world experience here is probably worth a lot more than charts and specs alone.
anybody have any thoughts on this?
(PS - I dont want this to turn into a crusade for or against anything, other than a more efficient set of methods...I know there may be people who are "fans" of one technology over another, like there are PC or Mac people who refuse to consider the relative merits of anything other than the platform they decided they like best....lets not get into it that way, it helps no one.)
I would also like to thank Newmans Own coffee for this rambling, long ass post.
The reason I want to do this is that I think there MUST be a "sweet spot" where the long term cost vs benefits of using LEDs and CFLs instead of HID/HPS, etc
I'm not sure if I am clear enough there, so as an example:
When a person figures in all the costs of a grow, some being easy to put a dollar value on, and some no.
For example, easy to figure = the electricity cost of an HPS is actually a lot higher than one might initially realize, because, for example, it causes you to have to add ventilation, due to the heat. A small fan, for instance, uses 100W easily, so one would need to tack that on to the cost of running an HPS...
Not so easy to put a dollar amount on, but still important to many = the concern over an unnatural jump in your electric bill arousing suspicion, the concern over the noise of fans running causing issues, the complexity and all the infrastructure it entails of getting heat out of the house completely when needed (as vs just out of the grow box/room)...these factors are harder to put a dollar amount on, but can be a deal breaker to some, myself included.
With the above in mind, more data (and specifically more up to date data) on using LEDs for at least some of the lighting during grow cycles may help us find out more precisely where it makes sense for a given person to use LEDs to replace at least some of their other lighting.
As an example (yes another one, can you tell I am all caffeinated?)
we may find out something like the following hypothetical:
LED brand and color X along with CFL color Y are all you need for vegging and you don't loose significant enough yield to warrant spending $Z more on electricity for fans and HIDs, (if that overall efficiency is important to you)
Also, (still in hypothetical mode here), it turns out that for flowering, the combo of LED brand and color A with output of B # of lumens, along with CFL color temp C and D lumens, when combined with a much smaller HPS (of blah diddy blah watts, etc) gives close enough yield to just going with a much bigger HPS, with significantly reduced need for ventilation and significantly reduced electricity bills, etc, to make it worth it for some.
My reasoning on why this is worth looking into is this: The Law of Conservation of Energy being in effect means that if you have a device that is making heat as a by product of making the thing you want it to make, you are using some of your energy (Electricity, in our case) JUST to make that heat...so, the (sometimes massive) difference in heat output of LEDs over every other type of light means that LEDs are absolutely, positively, more efficient at producing light by far. Now, the tricky part is figuring out if that difference in general efficiency can adequately make up for any differences in the abilities of LEDs to provide the specific types of light a girl named Mary Jane needs. I think real world experience here is probably worth a lot more than charts and specs alone.
anybody have any thoughts on this?
(PS - I dont want this to turn into a crusade for or against anything, other than a more efficient set of methods...I know there may be people who are "fans" of one technology over another, like there are PC or Mac people who refuse to consider the relative merits of anything other than the platform they decided they like best....lets not get into it that way, it helps no one.)
I would also like to thank Newmans Own coffee for this rambling, long ass post.
