# How much does it cost to run a tank?



## MARIOPARTY53

like how much extra on the power bill

Im trying to convince my mom of letting me have 2 55-60 gallon tanks (whatever size i have) so lighting 2 hours and filters on 24/7 how much is it?

Oh yeah any tips of her letting me add another? Really want 2


----------



## iamntbatman

It kind of depends on a couple of factors. The filters are practically negligible, since most only use a couple of watts. The lighting can be a huge range, on a tank like that anywhere from maybe a couple dozen watts up into the hundreds. Heaters can also use a decent amount of electricity, depending on the temperature of the room the tanks are in. 

Unless your house is freezing cold and you've got really bright lighting on the tanks, you're probably consuming about as much power as having an incandescent light bulb turned on all day, plus a little more when you have the tank lights on.


----------



## okiemavis

I'd say aside from the lighting it's pretty negligible, probably less than keeping your computer on all day. I can't really tell how much power I'm using with all my tanks, as my boyfriend's a techno geek with lots of computers and flat screen TV's...so I can't really help you on the specifics. I just know my power bill is *high*, but I choose to blame him


----------



## Tyyrlym

It's easy to figure out what it costs you to run some aspects of your tank.

Multiply the wattage of the following items by .72: Filter and or airpump (assuming 24 hour operation for 30 days)
Multiply the wattage of the following items by .36: Lighting (assuming 12 hour operation for 30 days)
Multiply the wattage of the following items by .24: Heaters (assuming 8 hours of operation for 30 days)

Add all that up. That's your monthly kilowatt hours that the tank uses. Multiply that by your electricity rate and you've an estimate for the power bill of your tank. The big wild card is your heaters. I assumed it was on 1/3 of the time. This can vary greatly though depending on your ambient temp. In the winter it might be on 24/7 but during the summer it could only rarely come on, without sitting by the tank and keeping track of when its on for several hours its hard to say. This also doesn't take into account any electric appliances like extra powerheads or anything like that. If you have any add them into the appropriate line based on their hours of operation.

Going by my formula I estimate my tank uses about 60 kilowatt hours a month which costs me right around $7 at local power rates.


----------



## Little-Fizz

okiemavis said:


> I just know my power bill is *high*, but I choose to blame him


 :lol: Hahaha way to be. I would too :wink: . I've always wondered this myself, being the little hippy I am, and going out and buying bio degradable cleaners, never tested on animals all this eco crap... Then I come home to my fish tanks, and I'm just like :? I wonder if there is eco friendly fish tank equipment? But I suppose I'm not using to much energy.


----------



## Tyyrlym

Compared to things like an air conditioner or refrigerator a fish tank is a non-issue.


----------



## beetlebz

Little-Fizz said:


> being the little hippy I am, and going out and buying bio degradable cleaners, never tested on animals all this eco crap... Then I come home to my fish tanks, and I'm just like :? I wonder if there is eco friendly fish tank equipment? But I suppose I'm not using to much energy.


Actually there is a new environmentally friendly aquarium lighting fixture on the market. 










I am fricken hysterical  <3


----------



## Little-Fizz

Lol! Cute :wink:


----------



## okiemavis

> Laughing Hahaha way to be. I would too Wink . I've always wondered this myself, being the little hippy I am, and going out and buying bio degradable cleaners, never tested on animals all this eco crap... Then I come home to my fish tanks, and I'm just like Confused I wonder if there is eco friendly fish tank equipment? But I suppose I'm not using to much energy.


If you're worried or feeling guilty, you can purchase carbon credits to offset the impact of the electricity. Or you could go even further and get some solar panels for your roof. (Of course then there's the whole consideration of how much nuclear energy it takes to create a solar panel).

There's other conservationy things you can do with your fish tank as well. I use the water I take out during changes to water my plants, it's actually great for them, as it's more rich in nutrients than tap water.

When I move to AU, which is in a drought, I plan to collect rainwater primarily for my tanks. The only reason I don't have it going here is because I don't own my house, and I think that my roof material is probably not fish safe.


----------



## iamntbatman

Totally off topic, I realize...but here's a few things for consideration:

Photovoltaic cells are a terrible form of power generation. The cells themselves are toxic and disposal of old cells is a huge environmental concern. Not to mention the fact that manufacturing them is a dangerous process. Thermal solar power for use at home, on the other hand, is pretty much completely safe and a great way to cut back on electricity use.

As for nuclear: I've done a huge amount of research (academic as well as personal) into the reality of nuclear power, and I'm sold. The amount of power produced vs. the amount of waste produced is phenomenal, and I believe the environmental impacts of nuclear energy use are far less than the impacts caused by equal power production via other "green" energy production methods, including tidal generators and wind power. The danger of radiation exposure from nuclear power plants is orders of magnitude less than the reality of radiation exposure we receive from coal-burning power plants that spew radioactive material into the atmosphere. The problem of nuclear waste could also be much alleviated if we were more forward-looking with a program to begin use of breeder reactors that would turn much of our nuclear waste into useful fuel for even more power generation. I believe anyone who considers themselves environmentally concerned (like myself) needs to seriously reconsider the demonizing that has destroyed public perception of nuclear power.

/rant.


----------



## okiemavis

Hehe- I completely agree with you on both counts actually.


----------



## Tyyrlym

As someone who works in the industry I agree, though coal plants don't spew radioactivity into the air in any amount that's even readily detectable.


----------



## iamntbatman

I've read many reports to the contrary. Coal contains detectable amounts of radioactive elements that become airborne during combustion. I've read several reports that indicate radiation exposure due to such airborne radioactive materials is considerably higher than the annual radiation exposure one would get from living in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant.


----------



## SheyFirestar

what if your like me and live in between one of each . with a steel mill and a coke plant too ?


----------



## Tyyrlym

I'm an engineer at a coal fired powerplant and am in charge of nearly a gigawatt of power production.

Do coal power plants emit more radiation than nuclear plants. Yes. Is it because coal plants are hurling tons of radioactive material into the air every day? No. It's because nuclear plants are so extensively shielded that they emit virtually no detectable radiation. So what's greater than zero? Almost anything. Radiation in coal plants comes from naturally occurring uranium. The amount of uranium in coal is undetectable by any conventional means but it is there. Only a small portion of this uranium is actually radioactive. The radiation emitted in the flue gas stream is undetectable against the normal background radiation emitted by the earth itself.


----------



## iamntbatman

Tyyr, that's true, but they can still measure the amount of radioactive material in the coal that goes in vs. what's left in the solid waste product and there's a measurable difference. The difference must have gone somewhere, and that somewhere is the flue gas stream.

I'm not trying to argue that there's some scary amount of radiation going on with coal-fired plants, but rather that the radiation fear that people have about nuclear power plants is unfounded because they're already receiving more radiation exposure from conventional plants than they would even living in close proximity to a nuclear plant.


----------



## Tyyrlym

Yes, that's true. Frankly I'm just touchy because everyone seems to be ready to believe anything said about coal plants no matter how ridiculous.


----------

