Carbon: gas vs liquid

[freshfishies]

A great article I stumbled upon and wanted to share

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=4080

[charlie]

Thanks for sharing Jasmine- this should really help with understanding the importance of carbon.

[bizfromqc]

Great to see the cost breakdown itemized.

I have 5 small tanks, 3 of which are planted (10, 20 and 25) so the liquid carbon is cheaper for me. I know and am ok with the fact that I won't get the same growth as a pressurized system but that's good with me for now.

The cost savings are also significant if you can buy your liquid CO2 in bigger quantities and higher concentrations (i.e Metricide).

Thanks for posting the link.
Eric

[exv152]

There is one thing about the article; the author doesn't compare the cost of a larger co2 cylinder when run on a smaller tank which in my opinion equates to a huge savings.  A 10 or 20 lbs cylinder would last forever with a smaller tank say 20-30g, and the cost of filling with gas is negilible. But the article has a certain lean towards promoting liquid carbon. Which I don't disagree with when you want to run a nano, but in my experience nothing beats gas co2, once you make the jump to pressurized there's no looking back.

[bizfromqc]

The bottom line here is that no ones claiming that liquid is better than pressurized. There's no arguing a proper pressurized CO2 system is the WAY to go if money is no concern. It would be like saying a Hyundai (no offence to Hyundai owners) is the same as a Mercedes-Benz, sure they get you from A to B but that's besides the point.

I think liquid is a viable option and even if the cost of a larger canister of CO2 IS cheaper in the long run, the upfront cost is substantial and the limiting factor for a lot of hobbyist. That's where liquid carbon comes in handy and available to a lot of us running planted tanks.

We all know its a lot easier to tell your spouse you need another 10$/bottle of "plant stuff" every other month than to try to swing a 200$ (at least) system for "plants" right now because "it's cheaper in the long run" and you really want it 

My 10c.

[freshfishies]

The bottom line here is that no ones claiming that liquid is better than pressurized. There's no arguing a proper pressurized CO2 system is the WAY to go if money is no concern. It would be like saying a Hyundai (no offence to Hyundai owners) is the same as a Mercedes-Benz, sure they get you from A to B but that's besides the point.

I think liquid is a viable option and even if the cost of a larger canister of CO2 IS cheaper in the long run, the upfront cost is substantial and the limiting factor for a lot of hobbyist. That's where liquid carbon comes in handy and available to a lot of us running planted tanks.

We all know its a lot easier to tell your spouse you need another 10$/bottle of "plant stuff" every other month than to try to swing a 200$ (at least) system for "plants" right now because "it's cheaper in the long run" and you really want it 

My 10c.

+1
LOL!
I just really liked the article to be honest! It wasn't about what's better or cheaper..it was the breakdown on how each way can benefit your system, etc.

[exv152]

I was really only commenting on the section of the article entitled costing example #1, 2 and 3. That's the author's way of saying liquid is cheaper. In my opinion it's not a very good comparision as it doesn't deal with larger cylinders and how they would factor into the author's three scenarios. It's too bad the author didn't take advantage of making that comparision because I feel it would have served a useful purpose in this well written article. That's all I was really referring to. 

[bizfromqc]

I was really only commenting on the section of the article entitled costing example #1, 2 and 3. That's the author's way of saying liquid is cheaper. In my opinion it's not a very good comparision as it doesn't deal with larger cylinders and how they would factor into the author's three scenarios. It's too bad the author didn't take advantage of making that comparision because I feel it would have served a useful purpose in this well written article. That's all I was really referring to. 

Couldn't agree more with you.

I was also bringing forward another argument that was not outlined in the article; "Convincing your wife you need another piece of expensive equipment for your already expensive hobby" LOL That was not part of the costing models 

Eric

[exv152]

All the more reason to sneak a co2 cylinder in the house, put it under the cabinet and if she's like my wife, she'll never check in the cabinet.