Energy Efficient Equipment

[Nikkoli110]

Hello, so as I posted previously, I'm in the very begining stages of dreaming of a new tank. Could even be a year before I get started. One big thing for me is going to be cost. I'm planning on buying mostly used equipment to save some money. The other thing is I'm taking the good advice and going very slowly so I hopefully don't make (too many) mistakes I would like to make my tank as energy efficient as possbile, probably going to go with T-5's for lighting, hopefully to save energy and to keep the tank cooler and reduce or elminate the need for fans/chillers. I'm also trying to decide on a size. The perfect length for the wall it's going to be in is 4'. I was at first thinking a 75 or a 90, but now leaning towards a 120. Any recomendations on what to start looking at to be energy efficient? I've got a somewhat ok from the hubby, but I need to keep the monthly electric bill down as much as possible. Thanks! I know its a while away, but if some good deals come up I just might have to jump on them if I have the cash

 

[this is me]

Depending on how big your tank is, the return pump and powerheads are running 24/7. It is pretty important to select an energy efficiency pumps to reduce cost and heat.

 

[JohnK]

Sounds like you've been doing your homework

The big effiency items these days are skimmers, lights, and water circulation.

Lights - you got it, T-5's with high quality individual reflectors.

Skimmers - look for newer designs with low wattage/high air draw pumps. The newest thing is the cone skimmers. Not cheap up front, but very efficient and effective. Look for the thread talking about them in advanced topics.

Water circulation - low wattage, in tank propeller pumps. Much more efficient than heavy duty external pumps. Also look into pumps on timers so that, for example, you save electricty by having reduced flow at night.


As for tank selection, 120s are nice tanks. That's what I have . Otherwise, surface area is more important than height. I'd get a 75 over a 90. The extra front to back depth of a 120 is really nice IMO, gives you a lot more options for aquascaping and IMO makes for a much more natural, more 3-D look to the tank.

 

[JayM]

What are you planning to keep? Pretty much any decent T5 fixture will let you keep softies, and LPS.

Circulation in the tank can be via the efficient tunze or vortech pumps, and even if you run a sump and return, you can go with an eheim return pump (efficient) and a needle wheel skimmer. You should be able to keep your non-light (and heater) draw under 200 watts. and another 200 watts for lighting t5x4.

Things which will hammer you on power are MH bulb fixtures, especially with magnetic ballasts, mag pumps, and big external pumps or beckett skimmers.

Good luck, and welcome back!

EDIT:

Curse you for your typing speed JohnK

 

[afboundguy]

Some of the new Octopus Extreme skimmers have really efficient pumps. I have a 160 and for $20-$30 more you could get the 200 which would be perfect for a 120 and it only draws 30 watts. Also Koralia pumps are very efficient and are much cheaper than tunze and especially vortech pumps.

 

[Nikkoli110]

Thanks, I was looking at the Eheim pumps, they look great for what I'm looking for. Also like the Koralia power heads for circulation in the tank. I had an ASM G1-x on my last tank, I was very happy with that and I think the Sedra used 35 watts if I remember?

I'm still not totally sold on T5's, I know they'll save money but I'm just wondering if I'll like them or not. Had MH's on my old 55, it was just gorgeous. Still not sure if I want to do a 75, 90 or 120. I was thinking the 90, but then like getting more water volume with the 120.

Could anyone tell me whats the lowest wattage I could get away with for MH's to keep some SPS up high? In either a 90/120 or the 75? Maybe one will sway me to go one way or another.

 

[Joel A]

well if you only wanted to keep them up high you could "get away with" 150's, or 175's... but better suited for either tank would be 250 watt MH bulbs.

You can also keep SPS (especially if you only want to do it up high in the tank) with any decent t5 fixture... i personally went from MH to t5, and i like it A LOT more... you've just got to weigh the pros and cons of each different style lights, and figure out what works best for you.

 

[Nikkoli110]

Thanks for the quick answer Joel. I did find a thread on here (I think) with the pros & cons on T5s vs MHs. I do lke the T5s and have seen some great tanks set up with them. Now if I do go MH, the ballasts add more watts right? I still get a little confused about the MH lighting. So its not just the bulbs wattage to add?

 

[JohnK]

With MH, the watts is for the whole set up. Ie, a 250W lamp and ballast all together should use about 250W.

Of course it's never quite as simple as it sounds with this stuff... Actual wattage for different ballasts, and ballast/bulb combos do vary somewhat. For ex, a 250W set up with electronic ballast should run right around 250W, but the same set up with a "250W HQI" magnetic ballast could easily run around 325W.

That said, If your considering a MH set up, just go by the number it's rated at, and preferably go with a modern electronic ballast, then this is all moot

 

[Joel A]

depends on the metal halide ballast itself... but generally speaking i think a 400 watt MH bulb will run you more or less 400 watts of electricity .

Where t5's come in is let's say that you wanted to light your reef with 2x 250 watt MH bulbs, and a couple of 4' t5 actinics (54 watts). So that's a total of 608 watts of lighting... where as to do more of less the same thing, you could get a quality 6, 7, or 8 bulb t5 fixture which would be 324 watts, 378 watts, or 432 watts respectively... and the great thing about it is that i would put my 6 bulb ATI sunpower (high end t5 fixture) against any 2x 250 watt metal halide set-up out there and bet it would pretty much be a wash when it comes to light output.... but using a lot less electricity.

Another factor is that less wattage over your tank, equals less heat... which equals less cooling with ac/fans/chillers in the summer... so it helps you a bit there too

 

[Joel A]

With MH, the watts is for the whole set up. Ie, a 250W lamp and ballast all together should use about 250W.

Of course it's never quite as simple as it sounds with this stuff... Actual wattage for different ballasts, and ballast/bulb combos do vary somewhat. For ex, a 250W set up with electronic ballast should run right around 250W, but the same set up with a "250W HQI" magnetic ballast could easily run around 325W.

That said, If your considering a MH set up, just go by the number it's rated at, and preferably go with a modern electronic ballast, then this is all moot

gah he beat me too it .

 

[Nikkoli110]

Ah-ha. Thanks. Decisions, decisions. Guess I'll just have to decide on a setup & figure lighting out when I get to that road. Maybe if I can get everything else in my setup to run efficiently, I'll have to see if I can squeeze halides into the budget.

 

[Nikkoli110]

Joel, I gotta say that 324 number is looking mightly appealing. Do you have pictures of your setup with that fixture?

 

[Joel A]

yes, i do wait one minute for me

 

[Joel A]

pictures of the light are on the first page . Just be aware that this particular fixture will run you some cash upfront... but in the long run it will save you money over metal halides as i'm sure you know

http://bostonreefers.org/forums/showthread.php?t=79589

Again, for what it's worth, this fixture is currently running on my 75 gallon tank, and gives me MORE THAN ENOUGH light to keep SPS corals all the way down on the sand bed... on a 90 gallon tank you wouldn't get quite as much light to the bottom, but still plenty for LPS/Softies/Polyps ... in a 120, you may be better suited for a 7 or 8 bulb fixture..

I'm going to be upgrading to a 100 gallon tank (48x24x20) in which i will use this light exclusively, and the tank will be SPS dominated... so that gives you a bit of idea on the output that it gives me when you use the proper bulbs.

 

[marco67]

When you do the numbers lights are significantly and surprisingly insignificant, Run the numbers on your 24/7s (skimmer and return) those are what count

 

[brokereefer]

just to give you a lil idea just ogt my electric bill and comparing from not having a tank last year this time and having a tank this year

i have 6x39watt t5's
1 mp20
1 mp10

octo 200 with purple pinwheel skimmer

1 mag 5 return pump

1 mj400 modded

and 1 mini jet

and a ac3 controller

averaged about $26.00 a month more
skimmer24/7
lights 2x39w 10hours 4x39 7 hours
mp20, mp 10 75% power 24/7
mag5 24/7
minijet 24/7
modded maxi jet 24/7
hope this kinda helps i remember when i had 2x250 hqi metal halides it was about $19 more a month for about 9 hours of use each day

 

[Joel A]

When you do the numbers lights are significantly and surprisingly insignificant, Run the numbers on your 24/7s (skimmer and return) those are what count

well this is true if you match wattage... but if you have 324 watts of lighting running for 8 hours a day versus 500 watts of lighting running 8 hours a day, how is that insignificant?

I agree that return pumps, skimmer pumps, and system circulation pumps are more important... but lights still matter, no?

 

[KSC]

If you factor in the t-5's fans running 365 days a year as opposed to the few weeks fans are needed with a mh setup things get much closer. Then when you factor in the heater not coming on when the mh's are on 365 days a year, as opposed to the constant need for a heater about 8 months a year with t-5's, game over, mh wins. Also, certain mh bulbs hold their intensity much longer than t-5's, so the need to replace t-5's more often would negate any electricity savings. I say get what you like, the savings are negligible...

 

[JohnK]

well this is true if you match wattage... but if you have 324 watts of lighting running for 8 hours a day versus 500 watts of lighting running 8 hours a day, how is that insignificant?

I agree that return pumps, skimmer pumps, and system circulation pumps are more important... but lights still matter, no?

Marc would know, he's the only person I know who has melted a kilowatt meter (That and he has set up a lot of systems)


Seriously though, that difference is not insignificant, but Marc does have a good point that it's important to look at the stuff other than lights