tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post816871398766541450..comments2024-02-23T01:30:06.101-08:00Comments on Early Warning: Energy in the Industrial RevolutionStuart Stanifordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07182839827506265860noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-1148425205787102642011-07-25T02:06:26.771-07:002011-07-25T02:06:26.771-07:00One point we tend to forget in these energy calcul...One point we tend to forget in these energy calculations, is that the sun is still the primary source of energy for humans and the biosphere in general, and most probably by far.<br />Solar energy used by agriculture, or simply for bodies heat (humans or animals) without specific equipment, is never taken into account in these calculations, although it is clearly part of the used energy.<br />Of course saying so doesn't change much about the current problems regarding energy, but would be nice to have a look at the true used energy graphs. (and can also be a reminder that for architecture for instance, south facing windows can be energy collectors as much as PV are).<br />Nice texts below from G Bataille regarding energy (but in french) :<br />http://iiscn.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/bataille-et-lenergie/yvesThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16431704289577407263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-1042743525178195652011-07-23T12:46:48.373-07:002011-07-23T12:46:48.373-07:00One critical aspect of UK development is the fact ...One critical aspect of UK development is the fact that the UK did in fact expand her land area.<br /><br />The capital of Canada, Ottawa, was first developed as the locus of a timber trade that saw wood harvested from an immense watershed and shipped to the UK.<br /><br />The British also "harvested" the West Indies through the development of the cane sugar industry. This was initially dependent on cheap human slave labour and provided a low cost source of calories to the growing UK population.<br /><br />All of these imperial outposts became markets for UK industrial production which further drove UK energy demand.BOPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08397257436471166836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-19947073811355157592011-07-23T08:19:42.075-07:002011-07-23T08:19:42.075-07:00Historians have identified a number of changes tha...Historians have identified a number of changes that greatly increased the demand for wood. One of the interesting ones was the wide-spread adoption of glass windows by the well-off. Increased production of glass for panes required very large amounts of wood to fuel the furnaces; and the poor insulating qualities of the windows required increased amounts of wood for space heating. Deforestation led to the regular relocation of glass houses in order to be close to fuel sources.Michael Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01472223216496790376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-35855437135255333142011-07-22T11:45:35.702-07:002011-07-22T11:45:35.702-07:00Stuart. If you want more summer reading, then I al...Stuart. If you want more summer reading, then I also suggest that you pick up a copy of Ayres and Warr's 'The Economic Growth Engine: How Energy and Work Drive Material Material Prosperity'. <br /><br />Ayres and Warr were referenced in the IMF's recent WEO that covered peak oil for the first time. The IMF mentioned that traditional approaches that limited the importance of the energy sector to its share in GDP were now being challenged in the economic literature. <br /><br />I'm grinding through the book, but is is highly illuminating in its treatment of energy, technology and growth. Think it would be just up your street.The Rational Pessimisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15839671809950298150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-27774614427230794902011-07-22T08:26:10.766-07:002011-07-22T08:26:10.766-07:00Interesting find. I want to read his book too.
...Interesting find. I want to read his book too. <br /><br />This is what really caught my eye, though:<br /><br />"Yet, remarkably, the best informed and most perspicacious of contemporaries were not merely unconscious of the implications of the changes which were taking place about them but firmly dismissed the possibility of such a transformation."<br /><br />Nobody expects the industrial revolution! Nor do they adequately anticipate the energy transition in store for us in the 21st century.Sethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16486234948199900568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-89551373478927100172011-07-22T08:22:00.544-07:002011-07-22T08:22:00.544-07:00Joseph Tainter says:
"The development of the ...Joseph Tainter says:<br />"The development of the coal-based economy in England is a case in point. Wilkinson (1973) has shown that major jumps in population, at around A.D. 1300, 1600, and in the late eighteenth century, each led to intensification in agriculture and industry (see also North and Thomas [1973]). As the land in the late Middle Ages was increasingly deforested to provide fuel and agricultural space for a growing population, basic heating, cooking, and manufacturing needs could no longer be met by burning wood. A shift to reliance on coal began, gradually and with apparent reluctance. Coal was definitely a fuel of secondary desirability, being more costly to obtain and distribute than wood, as well as being dirty and polluting. Coal was more restricted in its spatial distribution than wood, so that a whole new, costly distribution system had to be developed. Mining of coal from the ground was more costly than obtaining a quantity of wood equivalent in heating value, and became even more costly as the most accessible reserves of this fuel were depleted. Mines had to be sunk ever deeper, until groundwater flooding became a serious problem.(P. 98-99)"<br /><br />JohnDenver and I had an argument about the British Wood/Coal transition at PeakOil.com a few years ago. It more or less starts <a href="http://peakoil.com/forums/post940583.html?hilit=coal%20england#p940583" rel="nofollow">here.</a><br /><br />We weren't directly discussing why Britain was deforested, but rather whether the period while they switched to coal was a relatively smooth transition. Tainter doesn't suggest there were significant problems, and JD chose that as his example of such a transition. The answer is no, that was the period in which the British more or less enslaved the Irish, and stripped Ireland of wood. <br /><br />"In large measure because of timber shortages in England, Wales, and Scotland, Ireland suffered colonial exploitation of its forests during the seventeenth century. Firm colonial control freed proprietors to exploit Irish forests. The generally accepted estimate is that about one-eighth of Ireland was covered by forests and woods in 1600, and an additional amount was composed of land that was barren, boggy, or both. By 1700, the Irish woodlands had been reduced to about 2 percent of the total land area. A flourishing seventeenth-century timber export trade died out in the early years of the eighteenth century, and Ireland became a timber-importing country." ("The Unending Frontier", p223, Prof. John Richards of Duke, 2003)kjmclarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00490417628052004621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-24547713891872894312011-07-22T07:45:05.424-07:002011-07-22T07:45:05.424-07:00Greg Clark, a real economist, in his A Farewell to...Greg Clark, a real economist, in his A Farewell to Alms, discounts the notion that energy was central to the IR. However, his definition of the IR is simply the reinvestment component in the Solow equation (Solow did not review Clark's book favorably). On the other hand, the ecological historian, Kenneth Pomerantz, gives energy a key, but not the central, role in the IR. Wrigley's work is new to me, and I'm going to get into it.Fixed Carbonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06321707907871138659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-21005005300751930952011-07-22T07:17:11.978-07:002011-07-22T07:17:11.978-07:00Hal:
IIRC, the Romans were aware of coal and that...Hal:<br /><br />IIRC, the Romans were aware of coal and that it could be burned for heat. But, like people everywhere, they thought it was an inferior dirty fuel and didn't use it at scale. And they never developed the steam engine beyond mechanical toys:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology#The_energy_constraintStuart Stanifordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07182839827506265860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-54806800924784247642011-07-22T06:34:17.921-07:002011-07-22T06:34:17.921-07:00I'm not sure wood is the factor. I doubt Ital...I'm not sure wood is the factor. I doubt Italy ever had near the wood production of England. The Italian climate is a lot like California, whereas isn't England, you know better than me, but more like the Northwest or the East Coast? And wasn't the whole Mediterranean pretty heavily deforested during Roman times? So Italy should have been ahead of England. I don't know a thing about Italian coal resources, but I'm pretty sure if the Romans had known a use for it, they would have brought it in from wherever in the empire it existed.<br /><br />Ha, interesting alt history: Rome discovers Britain's coal resources and it brings on the industrial revolution. The energy bonanza is enough to keep the empire going and we all speak Latin.HalFiorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18432415155069446325noreply@blogger.com