4 ms·

Just realised it would probably just be a world filled with coal smoke, but at least less plastic pollution!

hesdeadjim 6y ago
A jump from coal straight to nuclear and renewables would have been possible. That said, there are an innumerable number of side effects from cheap fossil fuels that would change present reality as we know it were they removed. Removing cheap fossil fuel energy could have drastically slowed down emigration from cities to the burbs, so it’s also fun to imagine a different present where there’s dozens of New York Cities spread around the nation, connected by mass transport, and separated by vast swaths of mostly empty land. As EV tech and internet became widespread, it’s likely that the development of suburbia would only just begin to be happening now. Or not. Like you say though, fun thought experiment.
- Retric 6y ago
  Most of what oil provides you can get from coal and some chemistry, even liquid fuels. I think a world without coal would have been significantly different though. Metals would be much more expensive, so most structures would have stayed would or stone. I think electric street cars would have been possible based on hydropower and minimal metal usage. That means cities would end up with mid density suburbs based on row houses like san francisco. More dramatic is the lack of cars means dramatically higher density by default without parking etc. Wind power would have been a much bigger deal never really falling out of favor. Eventually solar would have become a major deal which probably scaled back to most of what we are used to.
- jonplackett 6y ago
  It’s weird to think if we hadn’t had fossil fuels at all how badly it would have hampered human development. Could we have even got to modern development level without so much free power? It doesn’t seem likely. Perhaps the challenge would have forced us to come up with more imaginative solutions - I mean there’s oceans full of hydrogen for starters. And the sun would still be shining and the oceans still full of waves!
  - TurkTurkleton 6y ago
    > Could we have even got to modern development level without so much free power? It's only free if you don't consider externalities to be a cost.
    - jonplackett 6y ago
      Yeah of course, we know that now. I just mean could we have got to where we are now without it. How could we have done it differently?
- jonplackett 6y ago
  I wonder what could have replaced all the plastic though? And what would China be like if they never got to grow by making so much cheap plastic stuff to get them up the ladder to making so much tech stuff.
genericone 6y ago
Have you seen before and after pictures of London buildings being power washed? The caked on coal dust is no joke, just imagine the inside of people's lungs... https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/nostalgia/manchesters-dark-history-archive-pictures-8722223 https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/nostalgia/manch...
maxerickson 6y ago
What meaning of oil are you using? Skin works a lot better with oil, for instance, and it isn't absurd to say that most cells in animals are made out of oil.
- jonplackett 6y ago
  Hah. I knew someone would take it super literally! I’m just meaning without the in the ground stuff!
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    I didn't take it super literally though, I just pointed out that it was ambiguous. Given the likely biological origins of petroleum, you'd have to phrase your hypothetical in terms of extraction to avoid the question.

A jump from coal straight to nuclear and renewables would have been possible. That said, there are an innumerable number of side effects from cheap fossil fuels that would change present reality as we know it were they removed. Removing cheap fossil fuel energy could have drastically slowed down emigration from cities to the burbs, so it’s also fun to imagine a different present where there’s dozens of New York Cities spread around the nation, connected by mass transport, and separated by vast swaths of mostly empty land. As EV tech and internet became widespread, it’s likely that the development of suburbia would only just begin to be happening now. Or not. Like you say though, fun thought experiment.

Retric 6y ago
Most of what oil provides you can get from coal and some chemistry, even liquid fuels. I think a world without coal would have been significantly different though. Metals would be much more expensive, so most structures would have stayed would or stone. I think electric street cars would have been possible based on hydropower and minimal metal usage. That means cities would end up with mid density suburbs based on row houses like san francisco. More dramatic is the lack of cars means dramatically higher density by default without parking etc. Wind power would have been a much bigger deal never really falling out of favor. Eventually solar would have become a major deal which probably scaled back to most of what we are used to.
jonplackett 6y ago
It’s weird to think if we hadn’t had fossil fuels at all how badly it would have hampered human development. Could we have even got to modern development level without so much free power? It doesn’t seem likely. Perhaps the challenge would have forced us to come up with more imaginative solutions - I mean there’s oceans full of hydrogen for starters. And the sun would still be shining and the oceans still full of waves!
- TurkTurkleton 6y ago
  > Could we have even got to modern development level without so much free power? It's only free if you don't consider externalities to be a cost.
  - jonplackett 6y ago
    Yeah of course, we know that now. I just mean could we have got to where we are now without it. How could we have done it differently?
jonplackett 6y ago
I wonder what could have replaced all the plastic though? And what would China be like if they never got to grow by making so much cheap plastic stuff to get them up the ladder to making so much tech stuff.

genericone 6y ago

Have you seen before and after pictures of London buildings being power washed? The caked on coal dust is no joke, just imagine the inside of people's lungs... https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/nostalgia/manchesters-dark-history-archive-pictures-8722223 https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/nostalgia/manch...

maxerickson 6y ago

What meaning of oil are you using? Skin works a lot better with oil, for instance, and it isn't absurd to say that most cells in animals are made out of oil.

jonplackett 6y ago
Hah. I knew someone would take it super literally! I’m just meaning without the in the ground stuff!
- maxerickson 6y ago
  I didn't take it super literally though, I just pointed out that it was ambiguous. Given the likely biological origins of petroleum, you'd have to phrase your hypothetical in terms of extraction to avoid the question.