4 ms·
As you mention yourself, the US got by using mostly wood until relatively late in the second industrial revolution. There is still a lot of useful energy in woo
by Houshalter 10y ago
As you mention yourself, the US got by using mostly wood until relatively late in the second industrial revolution. There is still a lot of useful energy in wood. Even ancient rome burned a ton of wood for heat and their own industries. It would have been more expensive and less sustainable sure, but I think it would have been enough to start. There is also wind and water power which was utilized a lot during the start of the industrial revolution.
- dredmorbius 10y agoWood is sustainable until it isn't. Rome and the Mediterranian had a long history of deforestation, going to Egypt and Sumer. The first story, the Epic of Gilgamesh, can be read as a story of ecological limits and deforestation. Roman heating systems, hypocausts, had voracious fuel appetites. I'm not finding a solid reference but believe one could consume a ton or more of wood daily. That was imported from distant locations. Early industrial windmills and water wheels typically produced 10 - 20 kW of power, with perhaps a few thousands throughout Europe, for a total power capacity of a few tens of MW. The power availed by coal and oil is thousands and millions of times this. U.S. woodfuel consumption wasn't sustainable, and hasn't increased from levels of the late 19th century.
- Houshalter 10y agoI'm trying to say that it would be possible to start some industrial processes and automation. A water mill is enough to power a lot of machinery, and they could have become more efficient as they developed the technology. There is a huge amount of energy in moving water and air.