What if we'd never had fossil fuels?
Discussion
Crossflow Kid said:
Eric Mc said:
No fossils fuels means no fossils which means no life - so no point in question.
I think the idea was that although there's life, what if its fossilised form hadn't been exploited as fuel.And for clarity, I'm not remotely interested in what will happen when fossil fuels run out, I want to imagine what it would be like if they never existed.
otolith said:
The question of whether we could now build a society with no dependency on fossil fuels is very different to the question of whether we would have got here without them. I think that without abundant cheap energy and chemical feedstock it is likely that the industrial revolution and the accompanying industrialisation of agriculture facilitated by the Haber process and mechanisation would simply have failed to happen. We needed that cheap activation energy to light the fire.
The industrial revolution got itself underway 50 years before any of that new fangled steam power.Soory if already mentioned?
The Ethanol in our fuel is a natural product, as is Methanol, which I much prefere as it truly is a clean fuel.
Because of cheap oil, bio-plastics are only just becoming available on an industrial scale.
So we could have done a great deal with these fuels, like the building of dams, Nuclear power and lets not forget windy-mills!
Although on a much smaller more efficient scale, and probably 20 years later.
Oil has probably enabled the world population explostion as we see it today.
Unfortunately I suspect most of us would still be peasants, "owned" by the Lord of the Mannor.
We can see this in History, Romans etc.
Good old Oil I say!
The Ethanol in our fuel is a natural product, as is Methanol, which I much prefere as it truly is a clean fuel.
Because of cheap oil, bio-plastics are only just becoming available on an industrial scale.
So we could have done a great deal with these fuels, like the building of dams, Nuclear power and lets not forget windy-mills!
Although on a much smaller more efficient scale, and probably 20 years later.
Oil has probably enabled the world population explostion as we see it today.
Unfortunately I suspect most of us would still be peasants, "owned" by the Lord of the Mannor.
We can see this in History, Romans etc.
Good old Oil I say!
Crossflow Kid said:
Eric Mc said:
No fossils fuels means no fossils which means no life - so no point in question.
I think the idea was that although there's life, what if its fossilised form hadn't been exploited as fuel.We have been exploiting fossil fuels probably almost as early as we learned how to harness fire.
Although our use of fossil fuels in gigantic quantities has only been for under 200 years, we've been burning fossil fuels for tens of thousands of years.
The Romans burned coal and oil you know.
So off the top of my head:
We wouldn't have had the industrial revolution in anything like the form it took. Wood would make up for coal to a certain extent, so I guess we'd have zoomed round on wood powered trains for a long time. I'm sure electricity is still possible, but would be very expensive even now. The cost of transport means the economy would be enormously less globalised.
As a result I imagine we'd have very few virgin forests left. Ironically this may have countered some of the positive co2 effects of the absence of coal.
Obviously the absence of fossil fuels would have an impact on food production, coupled with the need to devote a lot of land area to forestry. So there'd be a lot less people on Earth.
Am I right in thinking coal is required to make steel? So none of that. Aluminium is hugely energy intensive, so none of that.
If it was possible to discover nuclear power it would IMO be seized on much more enthusiastically than it was in reality, as a huge leap forward.
One thing that struck me is how wars would be fought. I imagine we'd have got stuck at ww1 type trench warfare, the stalemate only broken by nukes (fired by artillery?), so that might have got messy.
There would certainly be no air travel or space travel, unless nuclear power was used.
Of course there would be unlikely to be cars (so no PH!) again unless we all had mini-nuclear reactors powering our cars.
All this ignores the fact that uranium is a finite resource which would run out very quickly under these pressures.
Finally, under all these pressures I very much doubt computers/the internet would have appeared by now, so again, no PH!
We wouldn't have had the industrial revolution in anything like the form it took. Wood would make up for coal to a certain extent, so I guess we'd have zoomed round on wood powered trains for a long time. I'm sure electricity is still possible, but would be very expensive even now. The cost of transport means the economy would be enormously less globalised.
As a result I imagine we'd have very few virgin forests left. Ironically this may have countered some of the positive co2 effects of the absence of coal.
Obviously the absence of fossil fuels would have an impact on food production, coupled with the need to devote a lot of land area to forestry. So there'd be a lot less people on Earth.
Am I right in thinking coal is required to make steel? So none of that. Aluminium is hugely energy intensive, so none of that.
If it was possible to discover nuclear power it would IMO be seized on much more enthusiastically than it was in reality, as a huge leap forward.
One thing that struck me is how wars would be fought. I imagine we'd have got stuck at ww1 type trench warfare, the stalemate only broken by nukes (fired by artillery?), so that might have got messy.
There would certainly be no air travel or space travel, unless nuclear power was used.
Of course there would be unlikely to be cars (so no PH!) again unless we all had mini-nuclear reactors powering our cars.
All this ignores the fact that uranium is a finite resource which would run out very quickly under these pressures.
Finally, under all these pressures I very much doubt computers/the internet would have appeared by now, so again, no PH!
I'm thinking no mass production, no cheap steel, no cheap glass, no cheap tools, no cheap anything. Everything would be a cottage industry. We might have sailing ships, but making a Marine Chronometer (or any kind of optical device) to navigate with would have been even more expensive than they were back then, assuming we even managed to develop them.
Smaller harvests= smaller population with less time free for education & technological development. Even something so simple as the washing machine could change the future of a nation. Much as I love cars, I can't help feel that digging oil out of the ground just to burn it driving to the shops is a waste that we won't be forgiven for in a couple of centuries. There'll be astronauts on Mars cursing us for blowing such an amazing chemical resource!
Smaller harvests= smaller population with less time free for education & technological development. Even something so simple as the washing machine could change the future of a nation. Much as I love cars, I can't help feel that digging oil out of the ground just to burn it driving to the shops is a waste that we won't be forgiven for in a couple of centuries. There'll be astronauts on Mars cursing us for blowing such an amazing chemical resource!
Edited by glazbagun on Sunday 21st July 20:03
Fubar1977 said:
I kind of knew this would go this way...
I have NO idea how we`d properly harness the energy from a nuclear reaction and I`m sure much more qualified people are struggling with that issue.
I simply said it would make more sense, if technically possible, than the whole "turn it into steam" thing we do now, essentially using the waste heat from the reaction rather then the reaction itself.
but the product of nuclear reactions is energy, we may as well use it as heat, our most advanced energy generation (actually conversion) techniques harness heat and turn it into electricity. they are very efficient. I have NO idea how we`d properly harness the energy from a nuclear reaction and I`m sure much more qualified people are struggling with that issue.
I simply said it would make more sense, if technically possible, than the whole "turn it into steam" thing we do now, essentially using the waste heat from the reaction rather then the reaction itself.
i think the major boon from fossil fuels really was the development of modern chemistry.
yes, we wouldn't have abundant electricity, or the beginnings of the industrial revolution without fossil fuels.
but without the development of chemistry (which started in earnest with synthetic dyes developed from chemicals extracted from coal), we'd have no medicine, no fertilisers (no population explosion - slower innovation), probably even the understanding/development of atomic theory would have been delayed - and therefore later quantum mechanics, and much later development of semconductors/transistors.
yes, we wouldn't have abundant electricity, or the beginnings of the industrial revolution without fossil fuels.
but without the development of chemistry (which started in earnest with synthetic dyes developed from chemicals extracted from coal), we'd have no medicine, no fertilisers (no population explosion - slower innovation), probably even the understanding/development of atomic theory would have been delayed - and therefore later quantum mechanics, and much later development of semconductors/transistors.
Johnnytheboy said:
Replying to a thread that poses a 'what if' question by denying the question is relevant is a bit pointless, don't you think?
Depends.If I asked "what would our lives be like if the sun didn't exist", surely the only answer is "we wouldn't have lives."
Te answer isn't "we'd have to wrap up warm and have a decent torch."
Eric Mc said:
Crossflow Kid said:
Eric Mc said:
No fossils fuels means no fossils which means no life - so no point in question.
I think the idea was that although there's life, what if its fossilised form hadn't been exploited as fuel.We have been exploiting fossil fuels probably almost as early as we learned how to harness fire.
Although our use of fossil fuels in gigantic quantities has only been for under 200 years, we've been burning fossil fuels for tens of thousands of years.
The Romans burned coal and oil you know.
I guess if the question had been "What if TSR2 hadn't been cancelled?" you'd be all over it?
[quote=Johnnytheboy]So off the top of my head:
Am I right in thinking coal is required to make steel? So none of that. Aluminium is hugely energy intensive, so none of that.
quote]
Assuming we had been able to develop electricity, I think Aluminium might have been a staple metal. It requires huge quantities of electric it's true, usually powered by renewables (hydro), so no oil burnt there. However the transportation would have been a bit tricky. Turbo powered mule anyone?
I think most things would have been invented at some stage, but would be much more expensive and limited. I'm equally sure population would have been smaller too.
Am I right in thinking coal is required to make steel? So none of that. Aluminium is hugely energy intensive, so none of that.
quote]
Assuming we had been able to develop electricity, I think Aluminium might have been a staple metal. It requires huge quantities of electric it's true, usually powered by renewables (hydro), so no oil burnt there. However the transportation would have been a bit tricky. Turbo powered mule anyone?
I think most things would have been invented at some stage, but would be much more expensive and limited. I'm equally sure population would have been smaller too.
Crossflow Kid said:
Eric Mc said:
Crossflow Kid said:
Eric Mc said:
No fossils fuels means no fossils which means no life - so no point in question.
I think the idea was that although there's life, what if its fossilised form hadn't been exploited as fuel.We have been exploiting fossil fuels probably almost as early as we learned how to harness fire.
Although our use of fossil fuels in gigantic quantities has only been for under 200 years, we've been burning fossil fuels for tens of thousands of years.
The Romans burned coal and oil you know.
I guess if the question had been "What if TSR2 hadn't been cancelled?" you'd be all over it?
If you want a planet with no fossil fuels, go to a planet with no life.
It will be interesting to see what they eventually find on Mars, for instance.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff