,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Interesting thread but I think it vastly overstates the length and depth of the (very real) revolution wrought by fossil fuels:
1. The world didn't switch to fossil fuels when Watt's steam engine was invented in 1774.
1. The world didn't switch to fossil fuels when Watt's steam engine was invented in 1774.
Hydro power and horsepower remained *at least* as important as power sources until well into the 20th century in most of the world.
Hydro was a bigger share than coal in most early electricity grids, though coal was still very important.
Hydro was a bigger share than coal in most early electricity grids, though coal was still very important.
2. There were multiple "revolutions". The UK, unusually, switched from biomass to coal as early as 1600 because its trees were all used up as fuel or timber for ships. Then you have Watt's steam engine in 1774.
Then you have the Parsons steam turbine in 1884, which with hydro development helps fuel the growth of electrical grids.
Then you have the oil industry and liquid transport fuels at the same time.
Plus of course nuclear and renewables later.
Then you have the oil industry and liquid transport fuels at the same time.
Plus of course nuclear and renewables later.
I think it obscures what's going on to just mark this all down as "the fossil fuels revolution".
Fossil fuels only become the dominant part of the energy landscape in roughly the 1920s, so it's hard to argue that the industrial revolution=fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels only become the dominant part of the energy landscape in roughly the 1920s, so it's hard to argue that the industrial revolution=fossil fuels.
3. I also think it misses out the importance of mass production. Moore's law of transistors is just a special case of Wright's law of manufacturing learning curves, which was outlined in 1936 relating to improvements in aircraft technology.
Wright's law is really important, and the fact that the steepest learning curves are typically seen in manufacturing is a really important part of why productivity growth slows when countries de-industrialize. It's got very little to do with energy, though.
4. I think a bit of a fallacy has emerged thanks to the (very interesting) work of Vaclav Smil where people argue that the industrial revolution was merely a transition to fossil-fuel power and therefore transitioning away from fossil fuels must be similarly wrenching.
IMO the industrial revolution was vastly more complex than a mere energy transition, encompassing revolutions in trade, urbanization, government, innovation, law, foreign relations and war. Even in the energy field, hydro and horsepower were huge and crucial elements. /ends
