Is it really about "Saving" water and reducing waste? Water changes are bad? a Retort

VaughnH

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Jan 24, 2005
3,011
95
48
86
Sacramento, CA
Philosophos;37024 said:
This hobby is probably worse than heroin for grabbing at your pockets. Looks like I've got a DIY T-8 lighting system to keep in mind on the list of purchases. I'm glad to hear the T-8's are still viable compared to the T-5's, though.

-Philosophos

Just save a few $$$ for the LED light of your dreams!:rolleyes:
 

Philosophos

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,346
0
36
Ya, LED would be nice... that or 4 metal halides for the same cost ;)

Seems like the price for replacing the bulbs is just crossing over to make it more worth while than any other system. Might save some money on electricity, too.

-Philosophos
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
771
113
Maybe in 5-10 years LED. LCD's will be reasonable, but they sure are not now. DIy perhaps, but then it's DIY.....

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

Philosophos

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,346
0
36
The Galileo I-30 is running 148 watts, which is more PAR delivered to the plant than the same in metal halide from what I'm gathering. It costs $900. Replacing 150w HQI costs $60 a year, comparable fixtures can cost $300 in the blink of an eye. LED's are supposed to last 10 years or more before being replaced. Looks like they're breaking even or better to me, over the long run.

-Philosophos
 

VaughnH

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Jan 24, 2005
3,011
95
48
86
Sacramento, CA
Much of the advantage of LED lights is the even spread of light all over the tank. That makes manufacturing LED lights difficult, unless they are built for one specific tank only, and that makes them expensive. I think the AH Supply technique is the one for LED manufacturers to emulate. Just sell modules, say 9 LEDs on a 6" x 6" grid, complete with the constant current driver and DC power supply. Then we could install the appropriate number of modules in our fixtures to match the shape of our tank. I have thought of making kits like that, but I'm not really interested in setting up such a business. I do think that can be done and would not be grossly expensive.

Part of the economic justification for spending money on this would be power savings. I'm still pretty sure there is at least a 25% electric power savings to be gained.
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
771
113
Philosophos;37082 said:
The Galileo I-30 is running 148 watts, which is more PAR delivered to the plant than the same in metal halide from what I'm gathering. It costs $900. Replacing 150w HQI costs $60 a year, comparable fixtures can cost $300 in the blink of an eye. LED's are supposed to last 10 years or more before being replaced. Looks like they're breaking even or better to me, over the long run.

-Philosophos

Perhaps, but you need the 900$ to start with:)
Not many are going to pony up that type of $, no matter what the long term cost are.

An HQI I have for 125$ with an E ballast, 50$ more a year, looks more like 15 years for the return.............but the bulbs will fry, so another 30$ ea say 3-4x over the same time frame.

So it's still a longer term issue and smaller cost vs larger initial cost.

They still will come down in price, PC lights and other lights, like T12's, T8's, HQI, Mongul MH's, T5's, have all dropped a lot(90% in some case) vs when they first entered the market.

When they cost 300-400$, then they will have the market.


Regards,
Tom Barr
 

Philosophos

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,346
0
36
Vaughn, I like the idea of modules. It seems some are kind of being sold this way already, when I look around some obscure chinese import sites. I've always wanted to see track lighting LED's on ball joints; it would allow for light angled in to the perfect places.

True enough Tom, it's a toy for the rich right now. I'd be one of those waiting for $400 or less, or better yet DIY. I'm close to butchering a string of christmas lights if the prices don't drop faster.

-Philosophos
 

quatermass

Prolific Poster
Oct 4, 2005
60
1
6
Livingston, Scotland
So why not go for a Walstad type tank and forget water changes for 3-6 months of the year and save on fertilisers and CO2 in the first year?

If you want to remove Nitrate instead of doing a water change, just add a little sugar?

:)
 

morphriz

Junior Poster
Apr 14, 2006
18
0
1
45
Karlstad, Sweden
Tom Barr;36841 said:
Yep good points.

Here's the real deal if going green is the issue: population control.
This means women's rights and control over their social, culture and economic desinty.

Ah, the standard western bailout. If population control is the answer. Al Quaeda did more for the environment on 9/11 than any condom campaign in africa ever have.

The problem is over consumtion, not consumption itself. US, Japan, EU in that order are the problem. Double the amount of chinese and they still wouldnt even rival the 3 said in terms of net pollution.

As my earlier 9/11 comment proably pissed more than a few people off. Remeber what you really are saying with respect to the rest of the world, i.e. they have no right to live so you can consume. I find it distastefull that intellectuals "do the math" with such erroneus assumptions.

I do however agree about detail zealotism. Aquariums will never even approach the environmental impact that cars, electricity and food amount to. Most of such ideas are "sifting out mosquitoes and swallowing the camels". One meal at McD can net you as much as 20kg of CO2. You can run a 150 MH 8hrs/day for 15 days on coal power before you land 20kg of CO2. I most western world contries the average person will save more CO2 if they stop eating meat than if they give up driving.

But then again, we westerners can just "disagree" with the problem. That works too.
cheers,
Mattias
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
771
113
quatermass;37133 said:
So why not go for a Walstad type tank and forget water changes for 3-6 months of the year and save on fertilisers and CO2 in the first year?

If you want to remove Nitrate instead of doing a water change, just add a little sugar?

:)

I've already made this argument, long ago.
Some are unwilling to give up CO2.

If you are really concerned, there's no better type of method than non CO2.

It's not Diana's method, she wrote a book about her specific method to do it, but that's not her method really, it's several folks and a large group at that.
I can do a water column method without using soil at all, but that's not really my method either. Just a modification of the location of the nutrients and the type.

Still, it is really good on water use, electric and labor.

The cry babies about water changes and EI still will not acknowledge the method there(never did when ever I brought it up to make the point), and still stuck to their high CO2 levels.

Still, CO2 and low light, sediment based ferts works very well and can reduce water changes, but the % $ and environmental impact is still pretty low with CO2 used that way, but you can go whole hog, and non CO2 things.

So you can go non CO2 or CO2 trade off a little, depends on the goal(CO2 or not).
Non CO2 is the most sustainable method.

Not doing water changes is not ANYONE'S METHOD. Nor is not adding CO2.


Regards,
Tom Barr
 

shoggoth43

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Jan 15, 2009
1,092
11
38
Depends on who you look to for numbers. I've seen numbers that said China blew by the US on pollution output a couple of years back. If so, then given the rate they've been going, it's quite likely they are on par with the US, Japan, and the EU combined. You might even be able to throw in most of Africa ( excluding the middle east ) just for giggles and see if they're at that level now, six weeks from now, or 6 years from now. Given their appalling lack of environmental standards this will rapidly lead to several issues, not the least of which is what happens in thirty years when you have a sizable populace afflicted with cancer and other environmentally caused diseases? This also ignores India and their neighbors as they begin to ramp up their standard of living.

So which numbers are accurate? Does it really matter if China/India only consume vs. overconsume when you start to have 25-30% of the world population deciding they actually want sterilized drinking water, air conditioning, refrigeration, and electric lighting like that other 5-10% in other parts of the world? This is a situation where the newer technology for them is probably better for all of us as it's more efficient vs. the older stuff being dumped on the developing world.

You also don't need to disagree with the issue. Simply make it illegal and it's all good. :mad: Massachusetts did that with health care. It's illegal not to have it. It doesn't have to be affordable in any way, but it's just illegal to go without. And yes, EVERYTHING is a "pre-existing condition" so whatever health insurance you may have doesn't have to cover it either....

-
S

morphriz;37144 said:
....

The problem is over consumtion, not consumption itself. US, Japan, EU in that order are the problem. Double the amount of chinese and they still wouldnt even rival the 3 said in terms of net pollution.

....

But then again, we westerners can just "disagree" with the problem. That works too.
cheers,
Mattias
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
771
113
No doubt, Consumption is part of it, but the real issue is going to be overpopulation.

For us and for our lifestyle, attitudes about the use of high light, given a trade off.........would need to change in the hobby.

Then using minimal energy for heaters/filtration etc.

There are many in such non western regions that keep aquariums also, still, the impact from planted aquarist on water is very very small. Energy, processed chemical products have a larger impact.

Attitudes need to change there as much as they do in the West.
I've lived in non Western regions growing up, most of my friends are ex Peace Core, including the significant other who spent 2 years in Malawi. We are well ware of the stark differences and realities between this luxury we live in here vs some regions of the world.

Handing out condoms ain't going to do anything.
That's a joke.

There was a great idea recently with using reflective mylar solar cooking sheets, saves wood, the women spend less time cutting wood and gathering it(same in the flood plain of the Ganges where Tigers roam and eat a few folks every year). Cheap, effective, = more power and time to the women.

Attitudes and culture changes are required. These can change rapidly.
Same goes for consumption.

Given that ADA built it's entire premise on nature, using high light and lots of water changes and CO2 use, it's hardly the model for sustainable aquarium approaches, but many aquarist rave about it and want that. Same for the reef hobby.

Where does an aquarist draw that line for keeping aquariums and also using less? Should there be a minimum size or a maximum size allowable or should that be determined by the economics of the person? Rich can afford more?

Becomes a more philosophical question. However, in terms of waste, consumption, less light is the best single factor to focus on, then followed by CO2 and water changes.

Good by to many species if you take that trade off.
But you still have many left to chose from and different trade offs(CO2 competition becomes much strong between plant species)

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

Philosophos

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,346
0
36
Hm, I suppose this is why serious planted tank forums don't touch philosophy or religion most of the time. A neocon, social darwinist and greenpeace member would all have different takes on the ethics of planted tanks. Some of them might be very good at keeping them, despite having very different ideas about the ethics of it. I'm sure nobody would agree between these groups, and it would probably cause derision rather than productive concepts.

Not that I'm trying to play peacemaker here... I just find it interesting how the hobby functions as a whole.

-Philosophos
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
771
113
My point is really about the Clowns that brings this crap up.

It's a trade off and one you make personally.
That's not for me to decide for anyone, they must make the right decision for them, not for me.

I just just a little ticked off when some Clown claims that excess water change is bad, while keeping 4-5w/gal of lighting. The impact of a 10 Gal vs 50 Gallon is also part of that, do you need a 50 Gal? No.

So if I can afford 1600 Gallon tank, and it's a drop in the bucket on my wallet, less so that the 10-50 Gal example for someone with less $, does that mean the same rules do not apply also?
If you are into the green thing and saving electric, water etc, then why do they cut hairs about it and poo poo a method that clearly has a much less impact than another that supposes higher light is needed?
It's very convenient to whine about a method using water changes and then use high light and claim to be "green", "ecological sound", "natural", "balanced" and a bunch of other horse manure buzz marketing words often used to sell crap to the public. Then not focus on the other stuff that is really counter to the entire set of logic they are using to sell it in the first place.

You cannot win that argument using that logic. You do the very thing you claim to be trying to argue against.
If sustainable approaches are the goal, then there's a method for that, but many still want to use CO2, still, there's a good sustainable approach there, not as good as non CO2, but much better than the higher light, test kit method for sure.
Every little bit helps right? That's the favorite catch phrase.
If you want to use less, do fewer water changes etc, have less impact, then reduce the light watt first. This makes all the downstream components much easier to reach that goal.

If you want to accept some use, , consumption etc, who doesn't "here" really? Then we have to presuppose to have an aquarium, plants, a light etc, perhaps living in some places, no light is required, tank etc, because you have a stream out where you live full of plants etc(Florida etc). Most do not. then the question becomes, how can we do this with plants with the least impact?

Now you have a non CO2 method.

Any more amplification to growth rates adds to the waste and after all, every little bit helps right?
Water is pretty far down on that list, CO2 and light are at the top.

Light is not reusable either in aquariums, water most definitely is.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

Philosophos

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,346
0
36
So where are the people making these claims? I haven't seen it as a common criticism on the forums I frequent, and the local scene for me has basically no knowledge of planted tanks.

-Philosophos
 

shoggoth43

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Jan 15, 2009
1,092
11
38
Amusingly enough I see it on the reef sites. The salt is too $$$ and the RO units required to have consistent water parameters are too $$$ and waste tons of water, etc. The ecological cost of the metal halide lighting and chillers and wavemakers are conveniently ignored, let alone the energy required to manufacture the salt or ship it. The cost of flying a tiny fish halfway around the world are ignored. But that waste water from the RO or the water from the tank, environmental Chernobyl for some people.

At first I thought some of that was kind of tongue in cheek. Ha ha, we'll talk about water waste but ignore the sheer amount of electrical waste needed to sustain my 120 gallon reef w/CO2 powered calcium reactor and such. After a while you start to wonder about that, and then you REALLY start to wonder. It does seem like there's a couple of people who think nothing of a 200$ electrical bill each month but think a couple hundred gallons of RO effluent are an environmental catastrophe ( ignoring that you could likely reuse that water out in the garden anyway if you had one ). In some places water use per capita is actually critical, but overall for most places probably not so much.

Once it gets out there in the public mind, it's VERY hard to convince people otherwise since it gets dragged out there as "fact". The gun control advocates ( for or against ) do this all the time with debunked "facts". It's all about sound bites and extremely tough to fight. Green is the latest "religion" for many people. Add that to the "echo chamber" effect you get in forums and things get tougher to refute.

-
S
 

Philosophos

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,346
0
36
Yay for confirmation bias and memetics slowly dragging down the human race.

This is what books are for; people believe what they read. Books have some sort of strange place in people's minds as sources of authority. I can't count the number of outright bad books on fish and planted tank care, but people still memorize them and spit them back out after reading it.

The subject of this thread should be cross-posted to any forums holding wit the idea of water waste being a major drawback of EI. Perhaps not the exact same words, but in a similar spirit, and by different people. Repetition works because circular logic works because repetition works.

-Philosophos
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
771
113
shoggoth43;37277 said:
Amusingly enough I see it on the reef sites. The salt is too $$$ and the RO units required to have consistent water parameters are too $$$ and waste tons of water, etc. The ecological cost of the metal halide lighting and chillers and wavemakers are conveniently ignored, let alone the energy required to manufacture the salt or ship it. The cost of flying a tiny fish halfway around the world are ignored. But that waste water from the RO or the water from the tank, environmental Chernobyl for some people.

At first I thought some of that was kind of tongue in cheek. Ha ha, we'll talk about water waste but ignore the sheer amount of electrical waste needed to sustain my 120 gallon reef w/CO2 powered calcium reactor and such. After a while you start to wonder about that, and then you REALLY start to wonder. It does seem like there's a couple of people who think nothing of a 200$ electrical bill each month but think a couple hundred gallons of RO effluent are an environmental catastrophe ( ignoring that you could likely reuse that water out in the garden anyway if you had one ). In some places water use per capita is actually critical, but overall for most places probably not so much.

Once it gets out there in the public mind, it's VERY hard to convince people otherwise since it gets dragged out there as "fact". The gun control advocates ( for or against ) do this all the time with debunked "facts". It's all about sound bites and extremely tough to fight. Green is the latest "religion" for many people. Add that to the "echo chamber" effect you get in forums and things get tougher to refute.

-
S

Do not get me started(hack hack), here I who cares for reefs for clients says..........:rolleyes:

I chose not to make a 60 Cube into a nice SPS reef.
Mostly due to moving etc, and the heat in Sacramento, having a chiller etc and more light.

But my clients do not have such concerns(I'm changing them here and there, their philanthropic donations have been really well served in other ways to the environment, as well as going all organic landscaping for several hundred acres, landscape recycling of the water etc), so they are doing some things to offset the footprint.

Still, you start to think about these things, concerns, where and how to cut waste.
This makes it a good discussion even if you have wing nuts claiming all sorts of mind warped garbage.

That is really the focus here. for you to think about these things carefully and look at the trade offs, not listen to hype. then apply it to your own aquarium and see how might you reduce and use less. Which was morphriz premise, over consumption.

Look at the trade offs and cut where the trade off makes the most sense for you, think about it etc. Nothing wrong with that, but
It does seem like there's a couple of people who think nothing of a 200$ electrical bill each month but think a couple hundred gallons of RO effluent are an environmental catastrophe ( ignoring that you could likely reuse that water out in the garden anyway if you had one ). In some places water use per capita is actually critical, but overall for most places probably not so much.

Each person is unique in their habit, location, ability to use the water/reuse etc, cost etc. So they should make their own decision based on their situation and do so thoughtfully. Seems many claim they want to do "their own thing" demanding their right to that, then criticize others with warped logic. Oh boy.


Regards,
Tom Barr