Debate: Is Solaris LED Lighting worth it?

[Carlo]

This is a topic for debate. If you don't like debates or long messages/thread please skip this thread. Please be respectful in your comments and try and stick to facts.

I have been studying different types of lighting and the one I want to "pick on" which seems more of a gimmick then anything else is the Solaris LED lighting system.

Taken from G Series (250W 20k Equivalent) Detail Specificationshttp://www.solarisled.com/Specifications/GSeriesSpecifications/tabid/75/Default.aspx
Each 12” section of hood has 25-Luxeon 3 Watt LEDs for a total of 75Watts per foot.

Taken from H4 Series (400W 20k Equivalent) Detail Specificationshttp://www.solarisled.com/Specifications/H4Specifications/tabid/73/Default.aspx
Each 12” section of hood has 25-Luxeon 4 Watt LEDs for a total of 100Watts per foot.

Now going to the LED Manufactures website and looking at the spec sheet http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/DS45.PDF you see the 3 watt LED produce 60 lumens, at 700mA for the white LED (less for some others). That is roughly 20 lumens per watt.
The "Features" List on the first page notes: More energy efficient than incandescent and most halogen lamps.

Now for comparison incandescent bulbs ranges are 15 lumens per watt, PCs=40, VHOs=50, MH 100+.

From an energy standpoint the LED arrays are simply not efficient and most of the wattage they use are waisted as HEAT. Next to incandescent and "most" halogen bulbs they waist more wattage then any other type of bulbs to heat!

You might think this is false or interesting as everyone thinks of the use of LEDs as a way to save on heat and the use of a chiller. Think about it. If you replace your 250 watt halides with 75 watt halides you'll have a lot less heat then also but still have much more light available.

How can PFO/Solaris claim the G3 is a replacement for a 250 watt halide and the H model as a replacement for a 400watt halide? I can't figure it. No way shape of form can I figure out how either 75 or 100 watts of light can compare to 250 or 400 especially when LEDs are only 10% efficient and halides are roughly 50% efficient. It just doesn't make any scientific sense to me. (Marketing sense YES, scientific NO). Halides are one of the most efficient forms of light and LEDs are one of the worst! How can 10% of 100 watts be comparable to 50% of 400 watts? Honestly in good faith I couldn't recommend the new H model as a replacement for a 75-150 watt halide let alone a 400 watt halide.

Based on energy efficiency I'd think they are more comparable to PCs then anything else at this point.

I didn't touch on wavelengths, beem directional output or other measurements of usable light (yet) but would love to get some feedback on this. I just wanted to open the can of worms first.

I've always thought people get caught up in more watts is good mentality when in fact many people are now finding lower wattages not only save money and heat but also grow corals just as good or in some cases better. I think a lot of peoples tanks could completely remove halides and replace them with 6500K PCs in the range of 65 to 100 watts and run a lot cooler with just as good results. So from that standpoint I think the "Solaris Marketing Machine" is good because sometimes less is more.

Carlo

 

[ken6217]

I don't know the answer to this. I posted the other day asking if anyone had switched from MH. I was curious on the effect on the corals going from MH to Solaris, not someone starting from scratch with Solaris. I would love to hear that Solaris is just as good, plus the added bonus of no chiller needed and lower electric bills, but I think this is just a dream. I think if Solaris is next best thing to sliced bread, there would be a lot of manufacturers duplicating the product as we speak and doing it for less to boot.
Ken

 

[Carlo]

There is at least one other company making LED aquarium lighting. http://aquaillumination.com/.

This light fixture uses the Seoul Semiconductor LEDS at 100 lumens per watt which is much closer to Halides and far better then the Solaris IMHO. This fixture IS as efficient as MH lights. It is the point where LEDs become worth investing in. This fixture pretty much makes the Solaris the "stone-age version" pretty quickly. This would be the LED fixture of choice in my opinion at this time.

I agree these things could be made a lot cheaper. The solaris is using LEDs that are about 3 generations behind what is current. Seoul Semi P4s run about $6 each, and produce 3 times the light per watt as luxeon 3s.

To achieve the same exact results as the solaris, you could put together a 72" fixture using 25 P4s (same light as the 75 L3s) for $150 for the LEDs, and less than $100 for the controller circuits and drivers.

If you want a fixture that produces 3 times the light of the solaris, you're looking at about $500 in cost, for 75 P4s. As you can see there is a lot of "mark up" on these things!

In a couple of years I'd expect the price for 48" LED light strips to be in the $700 range and comparable to Halides. It will only take a company like Jebo/Odysea to break the market open with a low cost version and prices will plummet across the board.

Carlo

 

[jazzsam]

I think it depends on what you value: I value ease of use and low energy costs the most so for me it is worth it.

 

[Carlo]

I was wondering if you would show up Jazz

Granted they are easy to use but they are actually one of the worst types of bulbs for energy usage. Only incandescent and halogen types are worse then LEDs from an energy standpoint.

For the same wattage (IE 75w or 100w per 12") every type of known light used on a tank (T12,T8,PC,VHO,T5,T6,MH, etc) is more efficient (more light per watt) then the Solaris. 75 watts = 75 watts of electrical usage regardless of how it is used.

Carlo

 

[mladencovic]

I was wandering, when you are comparing the amounts of the lights that they produce, how was the amount of produced light for MH measured. Is it for a single ended or double endded? The reason I am asking this is that LEDs produce relatively narrow beam, therefore almost all of their light is reaching the iluminated object. With MH, even with a good reflectors, you would lose a lot of light to the sides, that is, maybe 30-50 % of produced light might not reach the tank.

So, I believe that it is very easy to settle this question:

1) Using photometer, measure the strength of light produced by both of those fixtures in the same setup.
2) Measure the exact amount of power used by those fixtures. Their rating might not be exactly what they use.

8)

 

[Carlo]

I wasn't "measuring" at all but just using common sense, some math & the manufactures specs to arrive at the amount of light.

I'm mentioned a couple different things during the thread that could be interpreted as "amount of light" so:

1) Manufactures quoted lumen output. It's very easy to arrive at a lumen per watt value
2) Manufactures energy efficiency for the bulb itself. It's another way of saying how much of the input watts gets turned into usuable light. If the manufacture tells you it's bulb is 10% energy efficient then it's going to be very close to also saying 90% heat loss.

No doubt things can get far more complex based on reflector, the exact band(s) of light in Kelvin produced by the bulb etc.

I didn't even feel it was needed to get to this level because when all things are said and done the Solaris light strips according to the manufacture are built using arrays of 75 watt (G3)/100 watt (H4) per 12" segment.

The 75 watts of light (G3) per 12" using 10% efficient lights (LEDs) can't put out or come close to a 250 watt halide that is roughly 50% efficient even without a reflector.

I agree "real world" versus "math on paper" is going to be different, but how much?

Carlo

 

[Edwardw771]

has Sanjay done testing on these?

 

[ken6217]

I think it depends on what you value: I value ease of use and low energy costs the most so for me it is worth it.

Hi Sam,
If it was as simple as that, there would be no debate. What I want to know is how LED lighting compares to MH.
Ken

By the way, still got that damn maroon clown.

 

[DaveK]

My tank on LED lighting is that while it can be excellent lighting, we are still seeing the first generation of aquarium lighting. As such, it's very expensive, and we can expect massive improvements in a few years.

As matters stand today, the break even point in cost between MH and LED lighting is about 6 years, if you compare LED and 250w MH, but there are other factors, like you might need a chiller with MH, and no one has done any tests to see if LED lighting would be improved by the use of actinic lighting, as is often done with MH.

You also need to consider that it's easy to repair MH lighting using off the shelf components that are available at low cost from many sources. The Solaris system depends on the manufacturer maintaining a stock of parts, and keeping the price reasonable.

Unless you have a lot of extra money to spend, and want the envy and bragging rights to all your reef friends, today now, go with a conventional MH system. This could completely change in a year or two, as more vendors bring products to market, and we see second and third generations of LED lighting systems.

For example, it usually take Microsoft about three generations of software to get a product to the point where it's reasonable to use.(smile)

It took a couple of generations of lighting and filtration systems to get the reef systems we set up today to work at the level they do.

 

[mladencovic]

For example, it usually take Microsoft about three generations of software to get a product to the point where it's reasonable to use.(smile)

Bad example What is then linux? ;D

 

[DaveK]

Bad example What is then linux? ;D

Way off topic...

Those early versions of Linux were not much either. It took quite some time to make it into what it is today.

When you get into systems, and this is all systems, not just computer systems, the first product released just barely works, the second one is much more feature rich and sort of works, and the third delivers on what was intended in the first and second. There are exceptions, but thy are uncommon.

This is why it's not usually a good idea to get the first generation or version of any product. Give the manufacturer a chance to work out the initial problems.

 

[MikeNapoli]

Don't forget that the LED's last a long time and MH bulbs have to be replaced every 700-1000 hours depending on who you ask.

Also measuring with a light meter would settle the debate .... wouldn't it? Not sure if it's that simple.

Let's make a list of comparing points and see what happens. For example: Price, Life span, PAR, yada, yada, yada.

t-5's vs MH's still hasn't been settled, or has it?, again I'm not sure. But maybe throw those into the mix.

 

[jazzsam]

I think it depends on what you value: I value ease of use and low energy costs the most so for me it is worth it.

Hi Sam,
If it was as simple as that, there would be no debate. What I want to know is how LED lighting compares to MH.
Ken

By the way, still got that damn maroon clown.

Now I have a clown that I want out! They are all evil!

I think it is a world of difference to compare the two lights. I really don't understand what you mean Carlo by saying it is bad on energy becuase my energy bills have not gone up one cent after adding these lights and I know it would skyrocket with the MH.

 

[DaveK]

... and I know it would skyrocket with the MH.

A lot of this depends on exactly what your MH configuration is and what you are comparing it to.

Most manufactured MH fixtures use coil and core ballasts to keep price down. These are a only about 65% efficient. In other words to light up that 250w MH bulb the ballast is going to draw about 385w.

A few fixtures and many DIY people will opt for the more expensive but more efficient electronic ballasts. They are about 90% efficient. So to light that same 250w MH bulb, an electronic ballast will draw only about 278w.

 

[Phyl]

Re: To MH or not to MH?

How about Solaris? I've heard they rival MH from people who've used both!

 

[Carlo]

I think it is a world of difference to compare the two lights. I really don't understand what you mean Carlo by saying it is bad on energy because my energy bills have not gone up one cent after adding these lights and I know it would skyrocket with the MH.

I wouldn't think your electric bills would go up. You probably replaced 250 watts of electric usage with an LED array that draws 75 watts in it's place. Way less electrical usage.

I'm not the one saying LEDs are energy "pigs". The LED manufacture has already supplied this information for us in their spec sheets. I was just the messenger. Take a look earlier in the thread where this was covered.

I do not disagree that if you replace halides with a Solaris light fixture your electrical usage would go down and so would heat transferred to the water. HOWEVER, I'm ALSO saying as an example you could replace your current halides with 65 watt PC "flood" bulbs and throw in a couple actenic lights for color and use the exact same watts as the Solaris. You would have more light making it into the tank since PCs are just about 2 times more efficient then LEDS and would generate less heat in the process. However, I would call this "new" light a 250 watt halide replacement like PFO/Solaris does.

I don't think many people would "buy into" this 250 halide replacement but somehow they do the Solaris???

Carlo

 

[Carlo]

Re: To MH or not to MH?

Because he's looking to "upgrade", not "downgrade"

 

[ken6217]

Re: To MH or not to MH?

How about Solaris? I've heard they rival MH from people who've used both!

What's your definition of rival? If it electricity and heat, that's one thing, if it is performance, I do not think that is the case.
Ken

 

[Phyl]

Re: To MH or not to MH?

Ham says that he had to turn down the output to the solaris so that he didn't burn his corals. I think Sam is having the same "issue". The corals seem to be getting "more than enough" light, according to them. I have MH and haven't played with the LEDs so I really can't speak from personal experience.