5 ms·

I think coal is exaggerated. The early industrial Revolution, especially in the US, relied much more heavily on water power to drive machinery than coal. In fac

I think coal is exaggerated. The early industrial Revolution, especially in the US, relied much more heavily on water power to drive machinery than coal. In fact, for the First Industrial Revolution, steam power was a footnote. Coal was used for making steel in England, but America primarily used charcoal for iron and steel well into the mid to late 1800s. Coal enabled faster scale up in the Second Industrial Revolution and on into the 1900s, but it was not essential for industrialization.

jcranmer 4y ago
The argument here is that coal was specifically necessary to iterate the steam engine to the point that it was viable even on dearer fuel. In the context of railroads, at least in the US, railroads were primarily reliant on wood fuel for steam power during the First Industrial Revolution. But until steam engines became efficient enough to the point that Stephenson could build his Rocket, a steam locomotive powered even by coal wouldn't make for a viable railroad. So without coal, you get no railroads, and without railroads, I doubt you get to the Second Industrial Revolution because inland bulk transport is still too limited.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  But again, steam power was irrelevant to the economy in the early part of the first industrial Revolution (1760-1800). The first industrial revolution relied at first almost exclusively on water power. Mills and bellows and such were designed to run on water power. Power loom was designed at first for water power. And a lot of the early steam-powered equipment was actually water-powered, with the steam engine serving to pump water to run the machines. Coal wasn’t essential for the first industrial Revolution, except maybe to keep Britain from freezing to death in the winter. The coal-essentialism argument is partially an anachronism as water powered machinery was supplanted by steam (and later electricity) in the Second Industrial Revolution.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    It seems like the earliest practical steam engine was the Newcomen Engine which wikipedia dates to 1712. It was extremely inefficient so it was pretty much used only at coal mines to pump water out. That water had to go somewhere and formed a canal system in England that helped take the coal to market. I think the problem with trying to find the cause of or the source of a phenomenon like the Industrial Revolution is that it's obviously multi-causal. And the inter-related bootstrap process is fascinating.
  - Attrecomet 4y ago
    This seems to be a common thread here in the forum, but I'm very confused. You yourself claim that the steam engine was essential for pumping water - what does the "steam was irrelevant" side actually think would have provided enough energy to pump that much water? Not anything whose caloric output depended on the input from farmers' fields, for sure, those were used for other consumers. Steam for the first time gave access to an energy source independent of feeding someone or something oats, that wasn't constrained to being next to the perfect stream. Not to mention that TFA actually has an example of a steam engine driven industry that was central to the GDP of the UK, pretty much destroying the "it was only water, never coal" argument.
    - Robotbeat 4y ago
      Rivers provided the power for water. Steam engines were a kind of hack to allow you to run pump powered machines away from rivers, but this was a tiny proportion of the first part of the industrial Revolution. And perfect streams weren’t required, just water falling a certain height. Headraces and tailraces were dug to distribute water power to places nearby but not directly on a river. I’m thinking of cities like Minneapolis built on rivers whose industry (milling grain to flour) was powered precisely by such water-driven machines.
ghaff 4y ago
This is partly a geographical/topological thing. The Northeast US--which is mostly what we're talking about--has a lot more fast flowing rivers and streams than England. So it was natural to site mills on those rivers and build waterworks to extract power from the water.

jcranmer 4y ago

The argument here is that coal was specifically necessary to iterate the steam engine to the point that it was viable even on dearer fuel. In the context of railroads, at least in the US, railroads were primarily reliant on wood fuel for steam power during the First Industrial Revolution. But until steam engines became efficient enough to the point that Stephenson could build his Rocket, a steam locomotive powered even by coal wouldn't make for a viable railroad. So without coal, you get no railroads, and without railroads, I doubt you get to the Second Industrial Revolution because inland bulk transport is still too limited.

Robotbeat 4y ago
But again, steam power was irrelevant to the economy in the early part of the first industrial Revolution (1760-1800). The first industrial revolution relied at first almost exclusively on water power. Mills and bellows and such were designed to run on water power. Power loom was designed at first for water power. And a lot of the early steam-powered equipment was actually water-powered, with the steam engine serving to pump water to run the machines. Coal wasn’t essential for the first industrial Revolution, except maybe to keep Britain from freezing to death in the winter. The coal-essentialism argument is partially an anachronism as water powered machinery was supplanted by steam (and later electricity) in the Second Industrial Revolution.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  It seems like the earliest practical steam engine was the Newcomen Engine which wikipedia dates to 1712. It was extremely inefficient so it was pretty much used only at coal mines to pump water out. That water had to go somewhere and formed a canal system in England that helped take the coal to market. I think the problem with trying to find the cause of or the source of a phenomenon like the Industrial Revolution is that it's obviously multi-causal. And the inter-related bootstrap process is fascinating.
- Attrecomet 4y ago
  This seems to be a common thread here in the forum, but I'm very confused. You yourself claim that the steam engine was essential for pumping water - what does the "steam was irrelevant" side actually think would have provided enough energy to pump that much water? Not anything whose caloric output depended on the input from farmers' fields, for sure, those were used for other consumers. Steam for the first time gave access to an energy source independent of feeding someone or something oats, that wasn't constrained to being next to the perfect stream. Not to mention that TFA actually has an example of a steam engine driven industry that was central to the GDP of the UK, pretty much destroying the "it was only water, never coal" argument.
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    Rivers provided the power for water. Steam engines were a kind of hack to allow you to run pump powered machines away from rivers, but this was a tiny proportion of the first part of the industrial Revolution. And perfect streams weren’t required, just water falling a certain height. Headraces and tailraces were dug to distribute water power to places nearby but not directly on a river. I’m thinking of cities like Minneapolis built on rivers whose industry (milling grain to flour) was powered precisely by such water-driven machines.

ghaff 4y ago

This is partly a geographical/topological thing. The Northeast US--which is mostly what we're talking about--has a lot more fast flowing rivers and streams than England. So it was natural to site mills on those rivers and build waterworks to extract power from the water.