4 ms·

Coal is a fossil fuel and was critical for the UK's industrialization quite a bit earlier than that. As for earlier civilizations... the Romans didn't use any

by jbotz 4y ago

Coal is a fossil fuel and was critical for the UK's industrialization quite a bit earlier than that. As for earlier civilizations... the Romans didn't use any fossil fuels, but their large construction projects used mind-boggling amounts of charcoal for lime-burning, resulting in massive deforestation in the Balkans. And of course all early metallurgy depended on charcoal as well.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Charcoal isn't a fossil fuel.
- simonblack 4y ago
  Strictly speaking you are correct. Though another way to look at charcoal is to consider it as artificial coal.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Which is relevant when rebooting the earth without fossil fuels, since charcoal had a vital part in the development of iron even after coal was available.
- jbotz 4y ago
  That's what I said. I said "the Romans did not use fossil fuels but they used charcoal (which has it's own problems).
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Everything has it's own problems. If the question is "Could we (re-)boot a modern civilisation without fossil fuels", then "charcoal is and was a widely-used, sustainable (and sometimes superior) alternative for things that fossil fuels were and are used for" isn't a "...but..." it's an "... of course ...". So, to be clear, deforestation is a potential problem for any kind of wood usage. It is generically, an issue for all resources, fish, buffalo, bees, golden geese. If you need something, don't kill the source of it, is a good general rule to follow. Though if you're an invading army on foreign land, that generally doesn't impact on your long term planning as much as it should. But, crucially for the question posed, wood can be managed as a sustainable resource, and is not a source of fossil carbon, so burning it, gasifying it etc., which almost certainly has "it's own problems" is not a problem from a carbon perspective, even though it releases carbon into the atmosphere when burnt.

by jbotz 4y ago

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Charcoal isn't a fossil fuel.

simonblack 4y ago
Strictly speaking you are correct. Though another way to look at charcoal is to consider it as artificial coal.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Which is relevant when rebooting the earth without fossil fuels, since charcoal had a vital part in the development of iron even after coal was available.
jbotz 4y ago
That's what I said. I said "the Romans did not use fossil fuels but they used charcoal (which has it's own problems).
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Everything has it's own problems. If the question is "Could we (re-)boot a modern civilisation without fossil fuels", then "charcoal is and was a widely-used, sustainable (and sometimes superior) alternative for things that fossil fuels were and are used for" isn't a "...but..." it's an "... of course ...". So, to be clear, deforestation is a potential problem for any kind of wood usage. It is generically, an issue for all resources, fish, buffalo, bees, golden geese. If you need something, don't kill the source of it, is a good general rule to follow. Though if you're an invading army on foreign land, that generally doesn't impact on your long term planning as much as it should. But, crucially for the question posed, wood can be managed as a sustainable resource, and is not a source of fossil carbon, so burning it, gasifying it etc., which almost certainly has "it's own problems" is not a problem from a carbon perspective, even though it releases carbon into the atmosphere when burnt.