actually it should be more like $.11/kwh, I forgot about the tons of taxes
on power

"Christopher" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
You are right $11/month isn't that bad, but when you consider the cost to
heat the tank and the cost to run the filters it gets a bit more
expensive.
I estimate that my setup draw roughly 150W constant or 3.6kwh (32.4 cents
a
day @ $.09/kwh or $10.04 a month) I guess its not that much really, but
it
does seem like a lot to light one little area.

"Jeffrey Girard" wrote in message
om...
Well, consider that a 175W bulb still consumes 175 watts regardless of
the
type of bulb. The ballast adds a bit more. Of course, this is all
predicated on the assumption that your 175W light puts out the same
quantity
and quality of light that mine does. A 175W incandescent bulb is very
different from a 175W MH bulb (or a fluorescent).

My ballast plus lamp are rated at 1.8 amps. At 110V nominal, that
works
out to be about 200 watts. I run my lamp 12 hours a day, so that's 2.4
kilowatt-hours. I haven't looked at my electric bill lately, but if you
figure $.15/kwh (a highish estimate, but realistic), that's $0.36 per
day,
or $10.80 per month. Now unless you are dirt poor or are a starving
grad
student, I don't think $11/month is a big deal.

As for heat, MH bulbs *seem* hotter because they are concentrated point
sources. The equivalent wattage fluorescent bulbs put out more heat,
but
because they have so much surface area, they seem cooler when you put
your
hand near them (you're only sampling a small bit of the radiated heat
output
because your hand is small compared to the gross bulb area). And some
fluorescent ballasts aren't that efficient either. They can put out
lots
of
heat too.

Jeff


"Christopher" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
Actually I was more interested in the power bill costs than the
initial
setup costs, I really have no way to change the lighting of my tank,
and
in
all honesty no desire to do so.