The thing is you’re not going to skip directly from making plows to building nuclear reactors. Each advance was just an incremental step beyond current technology. And that’s at best. For every step forward there were dozens of missteps.
People in 1800 didn’t know they were about to begin the industrial revolution. They weren’t consciously striving towards an industrial future. It’s only those of us who are living in an industrial age who can look back and see the “obvious” path to get here.
Oh, absolutely - hence the slow-and-steady curve notion. It’d most definitely take them much longer to reach our technological levels, even only conceptually (never mind putting them in production or democratizing them). But hey, you in a hurry ?
ETA: that being said, incrementally faster spread of information would still hurry research and such on, I reckon. Telegraphs, telephones, continent-wide newsletters… hell, even the radio isn’t out of the realm of the possible w/ 18th century tech, or require massive piles of raw power to “work”.
[QUOTE=Kobal2]
The Colonies, of course ! Europe raped the entire world for a couple hundred years for a bunch of tea, tobacco and calico ; I don’t think it out of the realm of the imaginable that it could rape it for precious, precious charcoal. Though your (and Lemur’s) point about Peak Lumber is well taken - it’s amusing to think of the geopolitics of an Earth where “the Middle East” is become “the Amazon” or “Yosemite”.
[/QUOTE]
Again, you are assuming that everything would be exactly the same until the late 18th century when suddenly we wouldn’t have had fossil fuels. It doesn’t work that way. I’ve pointed out examples of how we used fossil fuels for thousands of years prior to that, and you are positing that without that we’d have just made due but the result would have been the same (i.e. we’d still have been exactly where we were when the Europeans decided to start exploring the world a bit more to find a short cut to India).
However, even if we posit that the Europeans would somehow have the materials and energy to do everything with trees AND be able to explore and colonize the new world (:dubious:), I don’t see how a trade in trees is going to be feasible. Lumber is bulky, even in the form of charcoal (which is labor intensive to produce), and I’m not seeing the economics of European colonies sending back charcoal to the mother country in order to prop them up because they are out of trees.
Renaissance blacksmiths used coal (the Chinese and Indians had been using coal for quite a while by then) in making iron, and coal was a small but significant fuel source for heating and other early industries (backing, glass making, etc). Oil was also used for a variety of things both before and during the Renaissance. As I said earlier, the Egyptians and other peoples in the region had been using oil for thousands of years (coal as well).
You are positing that they could do away without any of that and yet be in the exact same position, with the exact same innovations and, more critically, have the exact same resources as they did in our actual history, but then suddenly hit a road block when they find they don’t have fossil fuels. To me, that’s not likely bordering on the impossible. There is evidence that man used fossil fuels for literally thousands of years (probably more, since Native Americans used natural oil seeps, and it’s not a stretch to say that other stone age or even earlier peoples did as well). But none of that would be available in this scenario…yet you think we’d be exactly where we were in the late 15th century to have the Europeans traipsing about exploring the world? Or the late 18th and 19th centuries getting started on an industrial revolution??
Most of human history involves basic stagnation, where change (technological or otherwise) is extremely slow or non-existent. The Romans and Greeks were able to innovate because they had enough slack in their system to allow folks the time and resources to pursue things that weren’t essential to their way of life.
Then you don’t understand the explosion of agriculture during the industrial age. It depended on cheap transport (what’s the point in growing a lot more food if you can’t get it to more remote markets?), on the production of industrial levels (quantities) of farm tools and the beginnings of mechanization, and on soil management through fertilizers. All of those things require more resources to produce, especially to produce cheaply. And you are figuring that you’ll just cut down MORE trees to make it all happen, yes? More plows, more steel, more wagons, more horses or oxen, more mouths feed, so more trees needed for more houses and more fuel needed…and this will all just work exactly like it did in our history until they get to where we started heavily using fossil fuels. :dubious:
No, they wouldn’t. It would have been a very different world.
Again, I disagree for the reasons I’ve already stated. You are handwaving away thousands of years of use of a resource and then saying we’d arrive at the same place anyway, and I’m not seeing it. Human history would have been significantly resource poorer, innovations would have been slower and different, and we’d have been resource strapped much earlier on without any fossil fuels on the planet.
Just a quick blurb on the use of coal for blacksmithing:
You pointed examples of how we did, but not how it were *necessary *that we did.
Yes, “rock oil” was used by some cultures for illumination (but what’s wrong with candles ?), for waterproofing (other cultures used other materials for the exact same purpose - the Inuit used seal fat for example, Europeans used pine resin or other glues, whale oil…), for warfare (but wars were of course handily won and lost without the involvement of alchemickal incendiaries)… and so on. I can’t really think of any technology or advancement up to and including the Renaissance that would have absolutely, unarguably, positively required coal or oil ; and couldn’t have been achieved with any equivalent or alternative whatsoever.
The same goes with your blacksmithing coal cite - in fact, it even states that Europe would reach the Renaissance before stumbling onto coal-based smithing. It follows that they hadn’t neededcoal up to this point, or *to *reach this point. Much less move past the Iron bloody Age.
Pretty much, yes - again, there were alternatives to the uses of oil and coal in the pre-industrial quantities they were used in ; and as for the better quality iron obtained thanks to coal, is there any purpose it served that bronze couldn’t have (before the actual industrial age, railroads and so on anyway) ? Cannon for example were cast in brass. I assume muskets could have, too. Have muskets, have caravels, the world is your mollusc.
I did state *that *would have been a tougher prospect.
Because the sharing and dissemination of knowledge & ideas was extremely slow to non-existent. Literacy wasn’t all too common, copying books took fricking ages, and people mostly died 10 feet from where they were born.
The Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the fantastic progress made over the last 200 years have, in my opinion, less to do with an abundance of resources and more to do with the increasingly free flow of ideas, particularly across cultural borders ; and the spread of the scientific method. That, plus lots of idle minds.
I’m not talking about during. I’m talking about which led to. Before there was an industrial revolution, there was an agrarian one, which ended a long era of episodic famines & diseases and freed the arms that would in turn be used in coal mines and in factories.
That seminal revolution did not rely on industrialization (again, tautologically), even though it did go on to form a self-reinforcing cycle with industrialization. But that happened later - hence “mechanization arrived late to the party”. The improvements in techniques, in crop rotations, in animal breeding, in timing of the cultivations, in seed selection & genetic tweaking and so on came before.
Well… kinda, yes. Since we tautologically didn’t rely heavily on fossil fuels before that point. They might have been used, they might even have been the most handy, the closest at hand, the more efficient or the cheaper way to do a smattering of things in some places at some times, but absolutely necessary ? For all of Europe/the world ? I don’t really see it.
What on Earth would prevent the bringing of the printing press to Europe ? Or its invention in the first place ?
But you’re assuming the curve must exist. Your premise is that people are inevitably heading towards an industrial age and the only variable is how long it takes us to get there.
An equally likely scenario is that the curve is a flat line. That human society would remain at essentially the same technological level for the next few millennia after 1800 as it had been in the millennia prior to 1800.
Not necessarily towards an industrial age - I was thinking more of science itself marching on, the boundaries of extant techniques and materials being prodded, things like that. And if science and innovation march on in just about any direction, *something *must follow. I’m honestly not quite sure what. Measure for Measure gave one intriguing notion (“back teching” from nuclear physics) but really, who can say ? Maybe the alternate reality us could even have stumbled upon forms of energy we ourselves haven’t gotten anywhere near.
Or humanity could simply have remained at ~1700 levels of technology forever, too. But that’s just no fun.
Technology and philosophy had been moving in leaps and bounds for a decent while before the 1800s. IMO the crucial, critical stepping stone to reach is the Renaissance (or rather, the point to move past is the bullshit caste+subsistence period). That’s where everything modern really started, in every field - from politics, to economics, to civics, to warfare, to science.
Once you’re there, continual incremental progress is inevitable (up to a point, I guess - but for a good while yet at least).
Exactly.
[QUOTE=Kobal2]
Yes, “rock oil” was used by some cultures for illumination (but what’s wrong with candles ?), for waterproofing (other cultures used other materials for the exact same purpose - the Inuit used seal fat for example, Europeans used pine resin or other glues, whale oil…), for warfare (but wars were of course handily won and lost without the involvement of alchemickal incendiaries)… and so on. I can’t really think of any technology or advancement up to and including the Renaissance that would have absolutely, unarguably, positively required coal or oil ; and couldn’t have been achieved with any equivalent or alternative whatsoever.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know how to explain it to you differently than I already have. Technology is built on the shoulders of earlier technologies, which are in turn built on earlier ones, etc etc. They are all interrelated. The OP is proposing taking out a resource that has been in use for thousands of years, and you are saying that it wouldn’t make any difference…that we’d develop exactly the same. To me, that’s ridiculous, but obviously you see it differently, so no point in continuing to say the same things over and over again.
Two things. First, you might want to consider WHY EARLY Renaissance blacksmiths started to use coal…and what it meant to their productivity, and how that affected the development and expansion of European civilization during the Renaissance. Secondly, did you miss the part about the Chinese using it since 1000BCE? Consider…most of the technologies that exploded in Europe during this period had roots back to China. So…what do you suppose the effect would be if China didn’t have coal or oil? Do you admit that it would have some detrimental effect on their technological development, or it would be exactly the same?
Finally (yeah, I only said two things, but this is just for fun), did you miss this part of my cite? ‘In fact, without coal, many historians believe that the Industrial Revolution could never have happened.’. Yeah, that proves nothing more than I’m not the only idiot who thinks that without coal we wouldn’t have had an industrial revolution…and we are talking about no coal, no oil and no natural gas either.
How about that gun powder stuff? Wasn’t that developed by those Chinese people somewhere out in Asia or something? 
Maybe the Chinese would still have developed gunpowder, but it’s not a given…technologies and technological development is dependent on a lot of factors. Remove a large resource and it might through off a lot of other developments that were necessary in order to arrive at the technologies we have today.
As for your question about bronze, the purpose of cast iron guns was that bronze was a more limited resource and more expensive, while iron is pretty much everywhere if you could work it. To do so you need much hotter furnaces though, which means either more trees/charcoal, or another fuel source. To make cast iron/wrought iron/steel on the scales needed to produce all you’d need to get to an industrial revolution you’d be burning down every tree in Europe and then some…which is why by the 1600’s European blacksmiths started using coal to work iron more efficiently. Coal has nearly double the amount of BTU’s per unit of fuel than charcoal. There are other reasons why cast iron was superior over bronze for guns (weight, the ability to take rifling), but the biggest one was just cost…you could build warships with larger numbers of guns with iron than you could with cast bronze because there was more iron available than bronze (copper/tin).
No, it’s because humans went through long periods when they didn’t have sufficient slack in their system to make it possible to explore ideas and concepts merely for the fun of exploring them. The Greeks and Romans had extensive information sharing and dissemination systems…the Library at Alexandria was a wonder of the ancient world, with accumulated knowledge from all over the known world. Rome had similar repositories of knowledge. So did Ancient Egypt and China.
But what *did *the use of coal-fueled forges provide the Chinese & Indians that Europe simply didn’t have at that time ? Did it lead to them having humongous quantities of iron on us ? Not really. Exceedingly better iron and steel, much finer tools ? Not that I’m aware of. Superior agrarian productivity ? Not sure about that one. It certainly didn’t kickstart an early industrial revolution over there (or even an early Renaissance !).
Again: from my point of view, they used coal because it was the better, more efficient, “easier” fuel among the various alternatives they had handy, all other things being equal. But there is a sizeable gap between this and the assertion: “they couldn’t possibly have achieved roughly similar results with just charcoal” (even if it had taken them *longer *to achieve them - that I might concede) or “anything but coal would have utterly wrecked their economies/energy budgets”, when Europe and the Muslim world trucked on fine and reached roughly similar levels of wealth, technology and craftsmanship without and in a similar time frame.
I did concede the Industrial Revolution. Thrice now. But you went much further than that - you claimed humanity wouldn’t have been able to move past the Iron Age. Which in my book at least means “no progress past the fall of the Roman Empire”, or around the 4th century CE since that’s where most historians peg the end of the Iron Age in Europe. You also went on to categorically state we couldn’t have reached the early Renaissance, ever.
Now that’s a somewhat taller and grimmer order of business to demonstrate, isn’t it ?
There’s a difference between a central repository of knowledge the access to which is mostly restricted to the exceedingly rich/idle who can afford the trip (and the reproduction of one volume of which took half a frickin’ lifetime) ; and the exponential, affordable reproduction & dissemination of knowledge that was enabled in Europe by the printing press.
Thanks to the printing press you could have (and pretty much did have) copies of “How to plant stuff gooder” or “Fattening record pigs for newbies” in every hinterland burg. You could disseminate plans of the latest pumps or plows throughout the place, and the principles that led to its conception too. Not just for the elite: for anyone who could read. Which, admittedly, was kinda still the elite at the time - but a much wider swath of it ! 
Secondly, as I’ve already touched upon, the directions in which the idle pondered was radically different than had happened during the Antiquity and the Middle Ages, in no small part because technical and even agrarian people too could now aspire to being part of the elite (or at least as rich, as educated and as idle as them).
Finally, the socio-economic upheaval of the Renaissance, and the agrarian revolution that it led to also provided those idle minds, the “slack” as you say. That’s why suddenly there was space for a Michelangelo, for a Galileo, for a Copernicus ; and shortly after (relatively speaking) for the Newtons, the Huygenses, the Boyles, the Leibnitzes, the Spinozas… all buzzing in each others’ ears.
[QUOTE=Kobal2]
I did concede the Industrial Revolution. Thrice now. But you went much further than that - you claimed humanity wouldn’t have been able to move past the Iron Age. Which in my book at least means “no progress past the fall of the Roman Empire”, or around the 4th century CE since that’s where most historians peg the end of the Iron Age in Europe. You also went on to categorically state we couldn’t have reached the early Renaissance, ever.
[/QUOTE]
Guess it depends on what you think was in-between the iron age and…well, there isn’t an ‘official’ ‘age’ between the end of the iron age and today. Some folks make a distinction for a ‘steel age’, some for an ‘industrial age’, and some for finer distinctions. Basically, I was saying that there wouldn’t be an industrial age (which isn’t part of the original 3 age system), so we’d still be in the iron age, albeit in the late iron age (which means, to me anyway, a technological development on par with pre-industrial Europe…say, up through the 1500’s, though perhaps with some major changes in what technologies were available, due to earlier impacts on on technological development). The main point I was getting at is we wouldn’t have an industrial age though, so pegging exactly what ‘age’ that would be is pretty much a semantics question IMHO…though, if you didn’t get that from what I was saying, I can see the confusion.
At a minimum it meant that the Chinese didn’t have to cut down and use more trees than they did in history…and neither did the other civilizations who used fossil fuels. It meant that they had more resources than they otherwise would have had overall.
So, to get this straight, your contention is that the invention of the printing press trumps resources when it comes to zero access to things like coal, oil and natural gas? That it’s the more widespread dissemination of information that’s the key to the Europeans getting to the industrial age, and that access to fossil fuels was trivial before the Europeans started more widespread use of those resources starting in the mid-17th century? Just want to make sure I have that right before commenting.
I think that the printing press contributed to the explosion, but without the resources it would have been moot. Let me ask you something…if the Europeans were using their trees for everything, where would they get more for more books to disseminate all of this wonderful knowledge? I mean, they are burning them down to make charcoal, they are using them for pitch and tar, they are using them to build…well, everything…they are using them as a fuel source to heat their homes. They are using them for everything…AND now they are going to go whole hog on a paper industry as well? How does this seem reasonable to you? I showed you that by the mid-1600’s Europeans (who HAD been using fossil fuels prior to that, as had the Romans and Greeks) had started to use coal more and more in blacksmithing. When would they have reached that if they never had access to any fossil fuels, and neither did anyone else that came before them? Just forget about all of the technological changes in invention and development that would have been different, and just think of it simply from a resource perspective. If the Romans had needed X% more forest than they otherwise did, and if the Germanic tribes had needed Y% more, and if the European statelets and kingdoms had needed Z% more…well, where is it going to come from? How are the Europeans going to have the resources to throw away on journeys of exploration to find spices in India and the like?
And, of course, we haven’t even gotten into the Chinese or Indians, but it’s the same question. If each Chinese civilization needed X% more trees to do what they did using fossil fuels, well…where is that extra going to come from? At some point (fairly early on), they are going to have to start cutting back, rationing their resources, or finding other alternatives…otherwise, they are going to be looking like the Rapa Nui on Easter Island when they cut down the last tree. It would be a serious ‘oh shit’ moment.
How about the Middle one, for starters ?
All right then. In that case your claims aren’t quite as dramatic as I thought they were, and we’re more or less in violent agreement, give or take a century.
Granted, but if they never did anything special with the resources they freed up, it’s a wash.
I think you’re conflating two ideas that I don’t: the progress/growth of industry, and the progress of human knowledge/techniques/philosophy.
I think the invention (or more accurately, the historical exploitation - AFAIK the Chinese never milked their own invention to the extents we did) of the printing press was *the *major factor that led to an increase in the latter by leaps and bounds IMO, especially compared to the long stagnation (or very slow curve) that had preceded it, yes. Well, coupled with the rise of the merchant class, the suddenly increased farming outputs and quite a few other factors. But certainly the main one.
Before that point, Europe saw a constant increase of its industrial output (due to population growth, if nothing else) but a much more muted increase of its body of knowledge.
You on the other hand seem to be of the opinion that absent the industrial revolution, we’d have remained technically, ideologically, scientifically stagnant for ever and ever, world without end. That’s a bit too pessimistic to me.
The paper industry didn’t use wood pulp until the 19th century. Before that, it was made from rags. And it *was *more expensive/labour intensive - but there was still enough of it to support the Enlightenment at least. But maybe not penny dreadfuls or J’accuse *!s *suppose.
I think I recall that shipping lumber was becoming an issue by the tail end of our age of exploration (well, a little later, when the shipping lines became highways) - the bulk of it had to be imported from Scandinavia, Germany and the vast, untapped forests of Russia ; traded via the Baltic & North seas. The Spanish & Portuguese might have imported theirs from Africa as well. And then India + the New World shouldered a large part of the burden obviously once that got going.
Although do note it wasn’t just a question of bulk wood supply - it’s also that shipping required very specific wood, in very specific sizes and shapes. If you could have built a frigate from olive trees, vineyards or turnip pulp… 
But then again, before we started building ships like it was going out of style, and sending half of them to the bottom, wood supply never was problematic in Europe (the Middle East is another story). Would X% less of it have made a significant difference ? Possibly - you’d have to look up actual numbers to tell I guess. I’d WAG that there was way more than enough cordwood, furniture wood, scaffolding wood to go around relative to the needs and population sizes involved (even factoring in a slightly larger usage throughout recorded history), but you obviously disagree.
But even if there wasn’t and we actually felt a pinch, doesn’t that just slow down the curve, rather than flatten it ? It simply means we’d have to wait for more wood to grow, that the percentage of wood that can be freed up for this or that purpose is smaller per time unit - smaller but not null.
There’s also a simple factor that could have varied: population size. Had we felt the resource crunch you fear, it might have led to there being fewer of us to begin with, too (and thus, no ressource crunch !)
More evidence against the energy shortage line of attack. The Lowell system of manufacture (1813-1840+) appears to have relied entirely on canals and water power. So we have a famous example of industrial scale manufacture without the use of steam.
That said, Europe’s demographic problems were solve by coal if you believe E. A. Wrigley.
Ok, but by the same token, there are many technological paths to nuclear power, of which by necessity we only have witnessed one.
Maybe. But my point is that for every path that leads to nuclear power there are thousands of paths that don’t lead to it. The chances that we would happen to find one of the right paths is remote.
I’d say this is evidence in support of the argument we’ve been making. By 1840, rivers that were suited for this type of water-powered manufacturing were crowded with factories along their banks. The capacity for water-powered industry has already reached its plateau. If fossil fuel hadn’t been available to start providing power and allowing industry to expand, the global industry level would still be where it was in 1840.
Well, actually some are arguing that we couldn’t get passed 1780 or rather we wouldn’t have an industrial revolution at all. And that may be true! But I’m arguing that if that’s the case, it’s not because of an energy shortage.
Upthread I argued that without fossil fuels we could still have universal primary education, an industrial revolution, extensive canals and wagons (whose transport potential can be underestimated), certain forms of light industry etc. And that physics wasn’t a capital-intensive endeavor until the 1940s. So there might be a path to nuclear power, which would provide us with the missing energy for aluminum smelting say, though still leaving us with a transport challenge. Under this story, widespread washing machines and maybe indoor plumbing would come after nuclear power was invented. And that would seem utterly natural or even inevitable in that sort of world.
I’m in no position to argue about technology,
but what really makes me wonder is how much role “easy transport” had to play in the development of where we are today, and if this could have happened without fossil fuels.
That is, having the learned together and exchanging ideas must have jump started any number of things (the Manhattan Project comes to mind) - without which the technology would never have been developed.
I tend to think that you’re right that science had taken a huge leap well before the heavy use of fossil fuels. While this may have been retarted by a lack of coal for making steel, I think it still would have happened. (By now? who knows.)
Jared Diamond argues that plagues and the depopulation of Europe were a significant factor in the advancement of technology. Prior to that, labor was cheap, so there was no need to invent labor-saving devices. After several serious waves of population reduction, labor was not so cheap.
I should let XT speak for himself, but I think that’s an exaggeration of his point. However, periods of stagnation can last a long time (e.g., the Dark Ages).
[/quote]
Downward population pressures wouldn’t be applied until resources were scarce.
I don’t know exactly where the cut-off would be without fossil fuels, but the energy shortage from no fossil fuel would be a major reason for the industrial revolution to not have occurred. This is separate from the question of the direction technology would have taken without fossil fuels in the first place, which I’ll address below.
As I’ve posted previously, you can’t simply take the total amount of energy available as that is too simplistic and ignore too many factors, including availibility in specific locations and the associated costs of transportation.
From this (PDF) article:
Holland was a world powerhouse during the Dutch Golden Age, which roughly spanned the 17th century. Inexpensive, readily available peat allowed this competitive advantage over other countries. Even though there were still a great amount of timber supplies further away, the rising costs of transporting them would not have permitted the development in the Netherlands. The linked PDF shows that extensive utilization of wind power was very must a later development.
Likewise, without coal, England would have suffered from local energy shortages, which would have increased prices even more.
So the problem is not a global shortage of wood, but local shortages which occurred in centers of economic growth in the 17th century, which brings us to the next point.
The industrial revolution just wouldn’t have happened. It was completely dependent on abundant sources of cheap thermal energy for everything from steam engines to manufacturing bricks for factories and proving lighting, and without the economic growth accompanying the industrial revolution, then wholesale development of electricity wouldn’t be possible.
We looked at the steam engine above, but even had there been another compelling reason for the dependence on fossil fuels in its development: the initial models had an efficiency of only 1%. Yet without them being built and operated then the efficiency would never have been reduced to where charcoal would be viable.
I just cannot see a path to nuclear power without a tremendous amount of energy. Projects of the scale just are not possible to do through gradual progress.
I am puzzled by your argument TokyoBayer. The aggregate data indicates that industrialization preceded high energy usage. The Lowell example shows that you can have industrialization without the use of coal. Peat is not a fossil fuel. The industrialization started around 1780 in the UK and spread to the US and Europe soon after. Intensive use of energy occurred around the mid 19th century. Where fossil fuel usage is trivial there are ready substitutes: recall that wood use didn’t peak until the mid 1800s.
It seems to me that the counter argument would be that industrialization would occur but progress would hit some sort of wall. Europe would be in trouble as fossil fuels saved them from a demographic crunch - but the US didn’t have that challenge. Although rubber would be available, I don’t know whether you can build a chemical industry without fossil fuels.
Later on, to get nukes you basically require a governmental research program. Agricultural land grant colleges and roving consultants sponsored by the Dept of Agriculture would be one precedent, but I suspect that something like the example of Edison’s R&D facility would be necessary as inspiration. I don’t know whether that could have happened at one fifth speed growth.
Just a drive by here…sorry, just don’t have much time atm:
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
I am puzzled by your argument TokyoBayer. The aggregate data indicates that industrialization preceded high energy usage. The Lowell example shows that you can have industrialization without the use of coal. Peat is not a fossil fuel. The industrialization started around 1780 in the UK and spread to the US and Europe soon after. Intensive use of energy occurred around the mid 19th century. Where fossil fuel usage is trivial there are ready substitutes: recall that wood use didn’t peak until the mid 1800s.
[/QUOTE]
You are still looking at overall energy usage and ignore the other applications of coal, natural gas and oil. Earlier I showed you a cite that showed that blacksmiths began to extensively use coal in the UK starting in the mid-1600’s, and gas lights were used in London starting around the 18th century. Coal wasn’t used extensively as a fuel source, according to your earlier cite, until the mid-19th century, and wood didn’t peak (again, according to your cite…from the US IIRC) until the same period, but saying that this proves that industrialization could happen without fossil fuels ignores the fact that you’d have to make up for the differences with something…and you’d have to start making up for those differences much earlier in history. I showed you that the Romans used coal and oil…as did the Egyptians…as did the Persians and Greeks and Chinese. So, take that away and they would either have had a lower energy budget overall OR they would have had to rely more heavily from a much earlier time on alternatives, which means mainly wood.
Your argument seems to be that no one used any fossil fuels in any significant way until the mid to late 19th century, then BAM! it burst on the scene and took over from wood. That’s not how it worked, either with fossil fuels or with any market.
Even leaving aside the other technical aspects and how the government with a much lower economy could or would have spent vast amounts of money on what would basically be a complete shot in the dark for these people, how would you get the materials to build nuclear power plants? Where would the industrial levels of steel and stainless steel (as well as all the other things you’d need to build even a rudimentary nuclear power plant) come from?