First what units to use. Lumens are often mentioned. they measure total light output. That is across the entire spectrum and not caring how the light is focussed. so if we *roughly* want to compare lumens quoted from HID lights and from LEDs we need two fudge factors to make things fair.
Firstly HID lights waste energy lighting parts of the spectrum that plants just don't use. for example green light, plants reflect that away which is why they look green. LEDs can be chosen to only emit energy in parts of the spectrum plants do use. Looking at a graphs of wavelength vs effectiveness for photosynthesis and also vs relative light output I'm going to say that HID lights waste half their energy in the wrong wavelengths. so we can double LED's quoted lumen's in order to make a fairer comparison.
Secondly HID lights are hot, so have to be far away from the plants. Light intensity falls of quickly as you move away from a light source, although this can be mitigated with reflectors and reflective sheeting. LEDs radiate negligible heat so you can put them close up so all the light goes on the plants. Having multiple LED light sources also means you can arrange things to waste less light. Again I'm going to say half the light is wasted with HID lights scattering light about. So we can double the lumen quote of LED's again to make a fairer comparison.
This means we have a final fudge factor of 4. That is we can multiply the Lumens emitted by an LED by 4 to give us a new unit of Lumens adjusted for wavelength and source distance. I know it looks like I've just made up the numbers and I have to some degree. What I care about is that the numbers are the right order of magnitude. I'm not aware anything else that greatly affects the comparison of LEDs and HID lights. So although my assumptions are probably wrong they won't be *very* wrong. I'm confident the correct multiplier to compare LEDs quoted lumens with HID lights is around 4 not 40, 10 or even 1.5.
Right so now I have decided on a fudge factor of 4 lets put it to some use. The very latest Luxeon Rebel LEDs have a quoted output of 110 lumens (impressive!). However for the coloured ones we are interested in it's 85 for red and 48 for blue. Lets smooth the maths again and say about 60 lumens per LED and with our fudge factor of 4 that is equivalent to 240 lumens adjusted... Lets compare this with a 400w HPS light of around 50000 lumens. 50000 \ 240 =
The high power LEDs are about £2.50 each but you also need heatsinks, PSU's and other bits and pieces so call it a fiver.
£5 x 200 LEDs = £1000 for LEDs vs roughly £100 for a 400 watt HPS complete setup. so money wise LEDs are *about* 10 times as expensive as HID lights, at least for initial outlay. The High power LEDs need about 1 watt each. so with 200 of them they are only *about* twice as efficient as an HPS light as far as power consumption goes.
Conclusion: LEDs are currently 10 times the price but only twice as efficient as HPS lights (this is for an optimum setup using the *very* latest LEDs, all of the commercial LED kit I looked at came of *much* worse). Also they are still not well understood for growing and can be very difficult to set up. Only a madman would do it. Fortunately there are plenty of madman around as we need research because they will be the future. especially for stealthy small grows.
P.S. if you think this is wrong show me why, that will make me happy
