electricity bill question - HPS VS CFL VS LED

I know there's debates and even other stuff already been said, but i would just like a clear and simple answer to my question.

If i have a 400w hps (yes the ballast cost-to-run aswell) vs 2x 250w CFLs vs 415w (21 LED bulbs at 15w each).

Over the period of a quarter or a month or whatever, running them 24/7, what would cost less? (Taking into account that the CFL's are slightly higher in wattage)

Could someone give me an answer explaining how HPS costs more than CFL that costs more than LED.

I'm looking to experiement with all 3 light sources at once, going from HPS at the top, to CFLs for areas were HPS can't reach and LED lights for each fan leaf when it gets the right size.

The cost of a Watt from the electric company doesn't change. Add up the wattage, the wattage the lights use.

If your trying to debate if you should do HID, CFL, HID..that's another topic, unless your trying to figure out which one will cost you less... CFL.

If your going to run them all on 1 grow I'd go with a 1000 watt hps. Your savings will come from 1 ballast and 1 bulb to replace.

which ever uses the least ammount of Watts.

Maybe you should find out the lumen outputs of the bulbs and compare them instead?

SiriusGrower said:

which ever uses the least ammount of Watts.

Maybe you should find out the lumen outputs of the bulbs and compare them instead?

Click to expand...

Lumens from greater to lowest.

HPS > CFL > LED

LED emite hardly any lumens. but are designed for photosynthesis and are 100% par however they have the exact wavelength colour 440nm and 660nm i beleive were it's at it's peak for veg and flower.

CFL is sorta like the same but has a lumen output close to a HPS but only works in 3000k and 6000k (i believe), which is cool and blue light, but unlike a HPS doesn't emite any radiation.

HPS is the highest lumen output and also has a wide range of wavelengths.

I'm guessing CFL can't be brighter than a HPS so they are rendered useless side-by-side.

LEDs however have to be less than an inch from the plant's leaf, so i guess if workng with a HPS, instead of using a CFL which needs to be a bit further away thus wasting some light, i assume a LED would be more perfect for the job since they litteraly arent able to burn a plant due to their extremely low heat.

kilowatts cost the same, it total watts. Now some may be more efficient, brighter, cooler running, and so on, a watt cost they same where ever it ends up, light fan, tv, so on.

i have never heard of an LED emitting more than 4 watts per diode, that would be very expensive....

use a combination of lights and spectrums to suit your particular circumstances

If you are trying to keep the cost of your electric bill down, change all the regular lightbulbs in your house to 13 watt cfls. It compensated enough for my 400w hps, that I saw a drop in my bill.

grobofotwanky said:

If you are trying to keep the cost of your electric bill down, change all the regular lightbulbs in your house to 13 watt cfls. It compensated enough for my 400w hps, that I saw a drop in my bill.

Click to expand...

I need the LED lights the cop cars use. Those are really bright... If only i could get a hold of thoses..

nucleo said:

I'm guessing CFL can't be brighter than a HPS so they are rendered useless side-by-side.

LEDs however have to be less than an inch from the plant's leaf, so i guess if workng with a HPS, instead of using a CFL which needs to be a bit further away thus wasting some light, i assume a LED would be more perfect for the job since they litteraly arent able to burn a plant due to their extremely low heat.

Click to expand...

CFL are NOT useless when used in conjunction with HID.

LED can burn the plant if they are too close. You clearly know nothing of growing with LED and are not helping people make informed decisions. If my LED light is less than an inch from the plant it will burn. And yes the room temps are normal and I have fans blowing on tops.

I wouldn't recommend LED/CFL even though that is what I use. HID is less work for definite return. I use LED/CFL because of space limits and I have produced some very potent herb with them.

Nice try though.

Too answer the TS question...
400 watts of HPS costs the same as 400 watts of CFL/LED. Most likely the HPS will give you best results. CFL used properly will help. If the CFL's are far from the plant they will be a waste.

lol, there is ALOT of debate over whether or not LEDS are usefull at all.

https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/181066-led-grow-lights-separating-fact.html

"The testing done by NASA and a few universities clearly shows that 100 watts of LEDs in no ways compares to 400 watts of high pressure sodium. Not even close. "

"Why do I use LEDs? Well for starters I think they're great for cuttings and mother plants and I do recommend them for that. Also, they are invaluable for research into photomorphogenesis which is the study of how plants respond to light. Green light is particularity interesting due to green light's profound effect on auxin production (there is some research out of Japan showing that a little green light can help boost biomass in lettuce, also, some manufacturers are starting to use some white LEDs in their products which has a lot of green light in them ). Also, don't forget the coolness factor! Quite honestly though, at this point of technology, that's all that I can recommend them for".

wow! sounds interesting! keep it posted bro!

I want to add that there are people who use HPS and get .5 gram a watt. There are people who use CFL who get more than .5 gram a watt.

Also some people use HPS and get 2 grams a watt, while others with CFL get .25 a watt. It varies a lot and these new lights can supplement a traditional HPS nicely.

nucleo said:

LED emite hardly any lumens. but are designed for photosynthesis and are 100% par however they have the exact wavelength colour 440nm and 660nm i beleive were it's at it's peak for veg and flower.

Click to expand...

Thats about right for chlorophyll absorbtion peaks, but plants have other pigments that collect light energy more efficiently at different wavelengths, such as chlorophyll-b and carotenoids.

CFL is sorta like the same but has a lumen output close to a HPS but only works in 3000k and 6000k (i believe), which is cool and blue light, but unlike a HPS doesn't emite any radiation.

Click to expand...

CFL can be narrow spectrum like an LED, or broad spectrum like sunlight. It depends on the phosphors used in the lamp. The k reading is what colour it appears to the human eye when all the wavelengths are blended together.

HPS is the highest lumen output and also has a wide range of wavelengths.

Click to expand...

HPS put out most of their light in the red wavelengths(the sodium at work), but yes they do cover a wide spectrum, and are the most efficent form of lighting, putting out more light energy per watt. Metal Halide are also quite efficient, and similarly cover a broad spectrum, but output most light in the blue wavelengths(which is where the carotenoids have peak absorbtion levels)

I'm guessing CFL can't be brighter than a HPS so they are rendered useless side-by-side.

Click to expand...

Watt for watt with a new HPS lamp, the HPS is brighter.

LEDs however have to be less than an inch from the plant's leaf, so i guess if workng with a HPS, instead of using a CFL which needs to be a bit further away thus wasting some light, i assume a LED would be more perfect for the job since they litteraly arent able to burn a plant due to their extremely low heat.

Click to expand...

I wouldnt recommend LEDS. They have terrible efficiency and woefull coverage. Not to mention the high cost and hassle of setup. Watt for wat they will put out more heat than CFLs or HIDs. While they wont burn your plants, they will raise the grow room temp faster.

Only use I think can of for LED growing is a laboratory enviroment, for experimenting with plant behaviour at very narrow spectra.

I don't always have a full flower room so, I use cfls in separate reflectors and hanging for sidelights. At times I'm only using about 160w and can also shut down 1 exhaust fan. With a full room, 660w + another 125cfm. The versatility of the setup is nice.

The same could be done with hps, but would be more cost prohibitive because of multiple ballasts.

jeebuscheebus said:

There are people who use CFL who get more than .5 gram a watt.

Click to expand...

can you link a grow where someone is getting .5g/watt with cfl's? otherwise i call BS.

nucleo said:

Lumens from greater to lowest.

HPS > CFL > LED

LED emite hardly any lumens. but are designed for photosynthesis and are 100% par however they have the exact wavelength colour 440nm and 660nm i beleive were it's at it's peak for veg and flower.

CFL is sorta like the same but has a lumen output close to a HPS but only works in 3000k and 6000k (i believe), which is cool and blue light, but unlike a HPS doesn't emite any radiation.

HPS is the highest lumen output and also has a wide range of wavelengths.

I'm guessing CFL can't be brighter than a HPS so they are rendered useless side-by-side.

LEDs however have to be less than an inch from the plant's leaf, so i guess if workng with a HPS, instead of using a CFL which needs to be a bit further away thus wasting some light, i assume a LED would be more perfect for the job since they litteraly arent able to burn a plant due to their extremely low heat.

Click to expand...

^^this guy has no idea what hes talking about^^

Radiation?!? WTF?

SlikWiLL13 said:

can you link a grow where someone is getting .5g/watt with cfl's? otherwise i call BS.

Click to expand...

I believe there is a book, by a member of this site, where he claims .76g/watt. Its not unheard of. Im sure others can give u actual links to it and other grows, or u could always read up b4 calling BS

^^this guy has no idea what hes talking about^^

Radiation?!? WTF?

Click to expand...

He must be thinking about ultraviolet light, which can be harmfull. However, HPS emit very little UV due to their output being at the other end of the visible spectrum. Metal Halide on the other hand have a built in UV shield, being at the blue end of the scale.

Sorry i was refering to the term when the light is close enough to the plant to bleach the leaves and not burn them