Flowki
Well-Known Member
A lot of this isn't true.Hate to tell you but unless you live in an area that has high electric costs you won't get your return on investment for several years. At 9 cents per kwh it would take me over 10 years to see a return. And LEDs don't make better buds, if anything they are slightly less potent due to the lack of UV light.
That depends how much you pay for the cob/led set-up. A lot of people build for very cheap or buy fairly priced part/pre built systems, others will pay well over the worth for ''branded'' shit. You could make the argument that high end DE hps + top hoods/bulbs are not worth the investment. The same you could about cmh, it's a good tech but the more fancy expensive versions are not worth the price tag for the gain.
With cob/led some off sets are there. The savings on bulbs add up, the saving on extraction adds up, particularly if you lived in a warmer environment. Extraction/ac used under less load will also last longer. Bulbs degrade more sharply over time, led/cob don't so yields will hold more consistent. Some people can use less W to get the same weight so that saving adds up. I'm not saying it will 100% make led/cob cheaper in the long run but it will certainly offset the initial investment. Getting the led/cobs for the right price will not take 10 years to level out.. you've used the worse possible case to make a point but it's objectively wrong and misleading.
You say leds don't make better buds and point toward uv. I've read up a bit on that and none of the techs have any substantial amounts of uv. That's why people add some uv specific bulbs, even with hps. But even then, a lot of debate was had on it's actual effect. It was making tops of buds mature much faster than lower buds so then people were having to harvest in two stages, that takes more time and then less annual crops. Will the potency increase? maybe, is it worth less crops>yield? that's extremely subjective depending on the figures.
A lot of people grow with no little to no UV, allot of people are still smoking and getting high AF. Not saying ignore the venture of increasing potency.. but that the context you use it in is again objectively wrong and misleading. As far as I've read anyway.