which light use less energy?
- Thread starter richiero
- Start date
Wattage is energy. A 96W flourescent uses 16 more watts than 2X40W (80W) flourescents (the numbers wont always be exact, but close). However the CF light will generate a little bit more light per watt than the standards will.
tanker
Josh Holloway--Be mine!!!
??? Watts are watts. Not trying to be a jerk...But its like asking which holds more water....A 10oz cup that is full or a 20oz cup that is half full??
I am sure there are many who dont know what watt really means. No biggie. Same thing goes for volts. Someone asked a few days ago if they were suppose to buy the light rated 110V or 220V. To some its a no-brainer, others have no idea. Atleast they should learn from asking. Also remember that many members here arent even old enough to drive yet.
Yes, a watt is a watt, but not everyone knows the dealings of many aspects of fishkeeping. PC are more effecient than standard T5 like fluroscent tubes (like those found in the All Glass standard fixtures). 96W is 16W greater than 80W, and thus use more energy. I would keep the PC imo, but that is me.
How much money will you save by switching? Well in general, we will assume $0.10 per Kilowatt hour, on for 12 hours a day. So, 12Hours*96Watts/1000=1.152KilowattHours a day. 1.152*365Days=420.48Kwh. 420.48*$0.10=$42.048. For the 80W lights, the cost is $35.04, thus only saving $7.008.
Other factors that might be off the table to include are lumens (generally how much light is put off) and color (how yellow or white the light is).
Also, with the two lights, are you running two seperate ballasts (ie two fixtures)? It would be more simple to keep the one 96W fixture.
Yes, if your fixture is rated at 96W, you can put a 36W in there (however, it will most likely be shorter)
HTH
Aries
How much money will you save by switching? Well in general, we will assume $0.10 per Kilowatt hour, on for 12 hours a day. So, 12Hours*96Watts/1000=1.152KilowattHours a day. 1.152*365Days=420.48Kwh. 420.48*$0.10=$42.048. For the 80W lights, the cost is $35.04, thus only saving $7.008.
Other factors that might be off the table to include are lumens (generally how much light is put off) and color (how yellow or white the light is).
Also, with the two lights, are you running two seperate ballasts (ie two fixtures)? It would be more simple to keep the one 96W fixture.
Yes, if your fixture is rated at 96W, you can put a 36W in there (however, it will most likely be shorter)
HTH
Aries
That's not really true. I don't fully understand it myself (I'm not so technically inclined), but I think what loaches r cool is getting at is that the CF bulbs put out more lumens that a NO bulb of the same wattage, and the HO T5's put out even more lumens than the CF's. Loaches, feel free to enlighten me if I am wrong but that is how it was explained to me.
Watts is only an indication of how much power the bulb will take from the electricity supply and has nothing to do with the amount of light given off. Light output is measured in lumens. Most CF bulbs have another rating marked on them - for example 11W / 60W - which basically means it will put out as much light as a standard 60W incandescent light bulb, but only use 11W of power to do so.
I believe the second value is the best to work from when calculating your watts-per-gallon.
For example my 30G uses 3 x 15W/75W CF's - thats 225W / 30 = 7.5 WPG
I'm still only using 45W of electricity
Right? Wrong?
I believe the second value is the best to work from when calculating your watts-per-gallon.
For example my 30G uses 3 x 15W/75W CF's - thats 225W / 30 = 7.5 WPG
I'm still only using 45W of electricity
Right? Wrong?
That's not really true. I don't fully understand it myself (I'm not so technically inclined), but I think what loaches r cool is getting at is that the CF bulbs put out more lumens that a NO bulb of the same wattage, and the HO T5's put out even more lumens than the CF's. Loaches, feel free to enlighten me if I am wrong but that is how it was explained to me.
Well, I mentioned both ways. Wattage is a direct measure of energy. Thus more wattage is more energy, which is what the OP question was. I just took it one step further and mentioned that CF is more effecient than standard fluorescent. So when comparing the lights, if a specific amount of light is a goal (like when keeping plants) a more efficient light like CF or T5 could potentially save you some energy because they would require less wattage than T12 would for example, or another way to look at it is for the same amount of energy a CF or T5 will produce more light than a T12.
That 'second number' is found on the screw-in compacts since they are marketed to replace incandescent light. I dont know anyone that uses incandescent light for any kind of reference so the second number is useless and misleading to some here. WPG is based off standard flouro so its the 'first number' used. And the spiral ones are less effecient than straight ones since they cant use an optimum reflector and have a lot of re-strike. But they are still handy to use if you already have a screw-in fixture.
FWIW a 96W CF with an optimal reflector will put out a lot more light than two 40W T12(?) with poor reflectors would, probably almost double, assuming similar color bulbs.