{"id":3842,"date":"2021-06-26T15:45:48","date_gmt":"2021-06-26T13:45:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cre.science\/?p=3842"},"modified":"2021-08-06T12:08:44","modified_gmt":"2021-08-06T10:08:44","slug":"replace-ndl-with-led","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cre.science\/en\/ndl-durch-led-ersetzen\/","title":{"rendered":"Replace NDL with LED - Economical plant lighting"},"content":{"rendered":"

At Crescience, we have been working with LEDs for plant lighting since 2016. Even then it was clear that the sodium vapour lamp (HPS) would be replaced by LEDs - only how and when was still unclear. The light-emitting diode in horticulture was still in its infancy. In the meantime, LEDs have matured and surpass the sodium vapour lamp in all scenarios.<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

HPS versus LED in practice<\/h2>\n

The values on the data sheets speak for themselves. Modern LEDs can boast module efficiencies beyond 3 \u00b5mol\/J, whereas the Sodium vapour lamp<\/a> is specified as 1.6 \u00b5mol\/J. A good LED can thus emit almost twice the amount of photons in the PAR range<\/a> emit, or save just under half of the energy.<\/p>\n

However, these measured values disregard losses in the ballasts, as well as optical losses due to reflectors or lenses and the absorption of the walls. Mapping the PAR values on a simulated cultivation area provides information on how the systems perform in practice. We collected comparative values with our automated test stand:<\/p>\n

\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tOur LEDs in the PAR test
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n

How to replace HPS with LED <\/h3>\n

\t\thttps:\/\/cre.science\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/20210713_100626.mp4<\/p>\n

The Philips SON-T PIA Plus 600W in PAR test<\/strong><\/p>\n

For the tests, we used a brand new Philips SON-T Pia Plus 600W lamp on a GIB digital ballast. The Adjust-A-Wings Avenger Medium was used as reflector in the middle position. When measured at a distance of 40 cm, the area could be illuminated best and most efficiently without causing too strong hotspots. The old technique produces a respectable photon flux, but requires a lot of electricity.\u00a0<\/p>\n

HPS PAR Test<\/h2>\n

30 cm distance, \"Super Spreader<\/h4>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"NDL
The Super Spreader can mitigate the direct heat under the bulb, but it creates extreme hotspots. We measured 642 W power consumption at the socket.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

usable PAR \u2205: 615 \u00b5mol\/m\u00b2
PPFD\/W: 1.38 \u00b5mol\/m\u00b2\/J
<\/strong><\/p>\n

40 cm spacing, \"Super Lumen 660W\"<\/h4>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"
At a distance of 40 cm, we did without the spreader. The measurement in Super Lumen mode (660 W) produced an energy consumption of just under 700 W at the wall socket.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Usable PAR \u2205: 696 \u00b5mol\/m\u00b2
PPFD\/W: 1.43 \u00b5mol\/m\u00b2\/J
<\/strong><\/p>\n

Budget LED PAR Test<\/h2>\n

For comparison, we measure an inexpensive LED system with our \"The Frugal Four\" reference setup. Those who want to replace their HPS with LED will usually be looking for a very economical system. Our budget setup consists of four FLUXshield Silver, powered by an HLG-480H-C2100B. <\/p>\n

If two of our \"The Wingman Mk II\" kits are used, approximately the same values can be expected.<\/p>\n

The LED boards can be arranged as needed to optimise the illumination of the planted areas. For our test, the FLUXshields are mounted in the far corners to fully utilise the effective growing area.<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Replace\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

30 cm distance
\nThe Frugal Four \/ 2x The Wingman <\/a><\/h4>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Frugal
The four FLUXshield Silver units with the Mean Well driver consumed 449 watts and heated up to 51\u00b0C...<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Usable PAR \u2205: 710 \u00b5mol\/m\u00b2
PPFD\/W: 2.28 \u00b5mol\/m\u00b2\/J
<\/strong><\/p>\n

40 cm distance
\nThe Frugal Four \/ 2x The Wingman <\/a><\/h4>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"
...while the ambient temperature was 31\u00b0 C. The lowest PPFD value at 40 cm was still 62% of the measured maximum. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Usable PAR \u2205: 667 \u00b5mol\/m\u00b2
PPFD\/W: 2.14 \u00b5mol\/m\u00b2\/J
<\/strong><\/p>\n

High End LED PAR Test<\/h2>\n

To test the limits of what is possible, we carried out another measurement with \"The Generous Four\" reference design. For extreme efficiency, we use an HLG-480H-C2100B driver, but for CO2 supplementation or larger areas, the kit can also be equipped with a 600W driver. The PAR values can also be achieved with 2x \"The Wingcommander\". <\/p>\n

The large-area distribution of the LEDs enables operation extremely close to the plants, which further improves the photon yield. As the FLUXshield Gold also contains far-red LEDs whose radiation is not detected in the PAR range, the efficiency of this system is even higher. <\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"The\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

15 cm distance
\nThe Generous Four<\/h4>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"The
Actually designed for significantly higher outputs, the four FLUXshield Gold units only get 38\u00b0C warm at an ambient temperature of 30\u00b0C. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Usable PAR \u2205: 820 \u00b5mol\/m\u00b2
PPFD\/W: 2.68 \u00b5mol\/m\u00b2\/J
<\/strong><\/p>\n

30 cm distance
\nThe Generous Four<\/h4>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Generous
At the wall socket, this setup only consumed 440 W. Nevertheless, significantly more usable PAR is produced than with an NDL that consumes 700 W. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Usable PAR \u2205: 743 \u00b5mol\/m\u00b2
PPFD\/W: 2.43 \u00b5mol\/m\u00b2\/J
<\/strong><\/p>\n

\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tMore PAR tests
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n

Recalculated: Which grow light is more economical?<\/h2>\n

A sodium vapour lamp like the one we tested costs about 290 \u20ac to purchase, with the costs being broken down as follows (as of July 2021):<\/p>\n