Gunner Quinn
Author’s Introductory Disclaimer: I have no association with or receive any benefit from any of the companies whose products are mentioned in this article. They’re used for examples only, I haven’t used some of them, I’m not making recommendations, and the reader is advised to do their own research before making any purchases.
This is the first article of a planned series, discussing the various options for lighting our homesteads in a permanent grid-down world.
Some of us have been in a multi-day grid-down situation at least once in our lives. For some, it is an inconvenience, for others an adventure. We get out the flashlights, candles, or oil lamps and we wait anxiously for the power to come back on.
Whatever form of backup lighting we currently have for a temporary blackout is probably good enough for the short term. If not, a quick trip to Walmart this weekend can get us all the preps we need to make it through a four-day ice storm or hurricane.
But how prepared are we for the new normal that would accompany TEOTWAWKI? Have we as preppers thought about lighting well enough, and more importantly, done a real test of our lighting preps over a minimum two- or three-day period? As with everything else, in a post-SHTF world we’ll want the best lighting possible.
Most online prepper discussions about lighting refer to using candles and oil lamps. Surprisingly few mention using modern technology in the form of rechargeable or direct-powered USB and 12-volt lights. This article analyzes the practicality and quality of light that each of these sources provide. It also quantifies the cost to provide a year’s worth of lighting using candles, oil lamps, rechargeables, and direct-powered lights.
CRITERIA FOR LIGHTING EVALUATION
1. Four hours per day. In a gridless world, to maximize daylight hours to accomplish our long list of new-found chores, we’d get up earlier and go to bed earlier. Based on my latitude, the average amount of lighting needed over the year would be four hours per day, some in the early morning but mostly in the evening. This is a very conservative number. Areas in the northern US will need more than four hours of lighting each day.
2. Two lighting locations. Only two areas at a time would be illuminated for the full four hours such as the kitchen and living room. House members would have to share this light to conserve resources. Excluded in the calculations are the areas needing very short-use lighting such as the bathroom or getting dressed and undressed. In these cases, a very minimal level of illumination of short-term light would be sufficient.
3. One-year duration. Our lighting preps need to get us through the first year after the SHTF.
With these criteria in mind, let’s look at the various options.
FIRST OPTION: CANDLES
Due to the exorbitant price of beeswax candles, all candles tested were paraffin wax, a petroleum-based product. Beekeepers understand that harvesting beeswax decreases the amount of honey produced and that honey will be a far more valuable product in a gridless world than candles.
I tested different types of candles: stick candles, UCO survival candles, generic survival candles, votives, and even tea candles. I compared unit costs, burn times, hourly cost, and yearly cost. I calculated how many candles it would take to provide enough light to read by and how many for activities like cooking.
I discovered as far as producing light goes, for the most part an ounce of paraffin is an ounce of paraffin. Regardless of the form, the same amount of light will be emitted over the lifespan of the candle based on its weight. Candles with long burn times didn’t put out much light and candles that put out a lot of light didn’t have long burn times. For the most part, the cost per year to light a house with candles boils down to the cost per ounce of wax in whatever form the candle is in.
Aside from wick size, one thing that affected burn times was how much the candle dripped. Any dripped wax would have to be collected and reprocessed into new candles so it could be reused. Extra wicks should also be included in the preps of those planning to light with candles. One surprising discovery was that the slightest air movements affected both burn times and drip. In my small house (800 sq ft) in the winter, the woodstove blower creates small drafts everywhere, even in the far corners. During the hot summers, even the slightest wisps of air coming through screens would have the same effect. Candle holders which enclose the candle in a glass tube are available to shield the candles from drafts. I gave the candle manufacturers the benefit of the doubt when calculating yearly costs by using their advertised burn times instead of my own which tended to be shorter.
Candle results
A single candle works well for short-time uses where even low light is sufficient: getting dressed and undressed, for bathroom duties, washing dishes, or just sitting around in the living room conversing. With a single candle I could read a book as long as it was closer than sixteen inches. Unfortunately, the book has to be facing the light so your head ends up pretty close to the candle and the risk of your hair going up in flames is high. In case you’ve ever wondered why people say preppers wear tinfoil hats, now you know. Even with ten candles the reading distance only increased to 36”. But ten candles at a time is unrealistic based on the number of candles you’d have to have in your preps to provide all the lighting you’d need for the first year. Something like a card game at the table wasn’t possible with a single candle.
Candle preppers will need a sufficient amount of matches or butane lighters for lighting candles, especially those lit repeatedly for short-time uses such as bathroom duty.
I tried both regular mirrors and parabolic mirrors behind the candles. A regular mirror more or less doubled the amount of light, as expected, and the parabolic three or so times. Different parabolic mirrors would increase the light differently depending on the curvature (focal length) of the mirror.
We’re all aware that light gets dimmer the farther we move away from the source. A single candle a foot away provides enough light to read a book by. But more so than you’d think, the light gets dim very quickly the farther you move away from the candle. At two feet, the light spreads out enough so reading is difficult, and by three feet, with a single candle it’s impossible to even see the words on the page.
The law of physics that explains this phenomenon (don’t worry, there’s no quiz at the end of the article) says the brightness of light decreases by the square of the radius. That simply means from one foot away you’ll get one foot-candle of light. From 2 feet away (2 squared = 4) you’ll only get 1/4th as much light, and at three feet (3 squared = 9) you’ll only get 1/9th as much light. Put another way, if you can read a book at one foot, you’ll need 4 candles to be able to read at two feet, and nine candles to be able to read at three feet. You can see how quickly the light diminishes and why it takes so many candles to create an environment where you can see well enough to accomplish even basic tasks. For activities such as cooking, working, or that nightly Scrabble game, even fifteen candles provide just a sub-par amount of light and then shadows become a huge factor.
All of this is hard to believe so go ahead and test these numbers of candles for yourself.
With candles, notice how your eyes will start to burn after a while. As paraffin burns, petroleum-based chemicals are vaporized which can sting our eyes when the concentrations get high enough, as well as affect our breathing. More information on these chemicals can be found in the article What Gases Do Paraffin Candles Release When Burning? When candles are burned frequently enough, as they will be for those using them and a sole light source, these chemicals in burned paraffin can become an issue. After the SHTF, of necessity, carcinogens will become less of a factor when making survival decisions. For those with serious concerns, consider another source of light than candles in your preps.
While candles may be a good way to get through that three-day ice storm, they’re not feasible for a long-term SHTF event. During an ice storm we can sit around the dim candle-lit living room singing Koombaya, eating popcorn, and reminiscing about the olden days when peppermint patties were the size of a hubcap and only cost a nickle. Our routines have been disrupted only for the short term so it’s easy to make do. For the long term where we have to settle in to a new lifestyle with new routines, we’ll need enough light to work and live by so look for something besides candles to light up your life.
As a side note, in movies where you see candles being used for illumination, they’re merely props. All the real light is being provided by electric lamps overhead as evidenced by the shadows not conforming to the light of the candles. In paintings previous to the advent of electric lights, the light is almost exaggerated to one degree or another for the artistic value. Gerrit Dou’s “Astronomer by Candlelight,” (above) though slightly exaggerated light-wise, still gives an accurate portrayal of how a task like reading will have to be accomplished.
Yearly Cost of Lighting With Candles: $2,920
Since that number seems so outrageous, here’s a simplified version of how it was obtained: Generic stick candles cost 40 cents each and burn for 4 hours. Each of the two areas inside the house which will be illuminated will need a minimum of 10 candles burning to be able to see and work (realistically, it’s closer to 15 or 20.) 10 candles, each burning for 4 hours x two groups = 20 candles per night (7,300/year). 20 candles @ 40 cents each = $8.00 per day. $8.00 x 365 days = $2,920 per year. Or for a more realistic 15 candles per day, $4,380/year. For 7,300 candles, approximately 8 cubic feet of storage space will be needed.
For $2,920, sub-par lighting and fire risk, candles are not a viable option for long-term lighting.
(To be continued tomorrow, in Part 2.)
Read the full article here