Britain without coal

Suppose some climatic conditions were different in parts of Avalonia during the Carboniferous and Permian and the coal forests did not appear over what would become Britain, how would Britain have done over the industrial period?

Without coal, Britain was already developing some industrialization in the textile industry and steam engines of a sort were being developed. Could they have still continued if the primary fuel was peat or wood? And would other countries with coal reserves have been able to combine the steam engine with coal mining to create what Britain did? Belgium and Germany had substantial reserves but could they have done it without Britain's example?

Compared to other European countries, how would Britain have fared? Already, it had done well in the Napoleonic wars and owned substantial portions of India. But without the economic drivers of coal, would it have have been able to dominate the globe in the same way that it did in real life? And would it's internal stability have been as good as it was given that it didn't experience any violent change in government during the period? Would some of the other countries been able to conquer lands that Britain would have otherwise not taken? Or would economic progress not have advanced enough to allow much conquest at all?

And would coal have been able to take off elsewhere in the same way? And if not, would oil have taken off as well or would most fossil fuels have been ignored?

steam power and coal go pretty much hand in hand. The earliest engines pretty much all ran on coal from the start, and the big kickstart to steam power was it's utility for pumping to drain mines, with the added benefit of on site fuel source when used in a colliery, especially for crap coal that couldn't really be sold on.

They would have still enjoyed their naval supremacy and the boons of being an island nation. However, once armoured steam ships like Ironclads began to take over as THE naval warfare units and the ships of the line are only viable for long range operations they would have to be a lot more careful around their european neighbours who could come down crashing across the canal with superior fleets.

The railways were also a major part of the industrialization process as they revolutionized the way goods and services were transported across land. Without access to cheap coal England's rail system would be set back considerably. You can see how that turned out for royal Russia (which had coal but had much larger swathes of land to cover with its rail system) - they had massive problems with infrastructure and railways in particular and therefore could not be as effective in industrializing.

Concur with Myth. The USA used wood-fired steam extensively, but mostly with steamboats. Without coal, railroads just can't accomplish as much in terms of haulage. Moreover, while wood-fired works great where there are lots of available trees, the English forests had been thinned back far more than America's both through normal usage and for those "Wooden Walls."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

They would have still enjoyed their naval supremacy and the boons of being an island nation. However, once armoured steam ships like Ironclads began to take over as THE naval warfare units and the ships of the line are only viable for long range operations they would have to be a lot more careful around their european neighbours who could come down crashing across the canal with superior fleets.

The railways were also a major part of the industrialization process as they revolutionized the way goods and services were transported across land. Without access to cheap coal England's rail system would be set back considerably. You can see how that turned out for royal Russia (which had coal but had much larger swathes of land to cover with its rail system) - they had massive problems with infrastructure and railways in particular and therefore could not be as effective in industrializing.

---

If Britain hadn't had coal, do you think the other powers of Europe would have known to begin using their coal reserves to eventually power Ironclads?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

If Britain hadn't had coal, do you think the other powers of Europe would have known to begin using their coal reserves to eventually power Ironclads?

---

Sure, why not? It's not that none else would ever have thought of using that black stuff for power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

If Britain hadn't had coal, do you think the other powers of Europe would have known to begin using their coal reserves to eventually power Ironclads?

---

Seeing as how many discoveries happened simultaneously or within the span of a year from each other, I'd say no particular one is truly exclusive, except for maybe the theory of relativity. So yeah, at some point they would have.

Also, from Wikipedia:

In the 18th and early 19th centuries fleets had relied on two types of major warship, the ship of the line and the frigate. The first major change to these types was the introduction of steam power for propulsion. While paddle steamer warships had been used from the 1830s onwards, steam propulsion only became suitable for major warships after the adoption of the screw propeller in the 1840s.

Steam-powered screw frigates were built in the mid-1840s, and at the end of the decade the French Navy introduced steam power to its line of battle. The desire for change came from the ambition of Napoleon III to gain greater influence in Europe, which required a challenge to the British at sea.

The steam propeller is not spaceflight. Someone would have figured it out. And even though the Royal Navy was working on an armoured frigate of some sort, it was the French who actually introduced the first ironclad warship.

Double post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

And even though the Royal Navy was working on an armoured frigate of some sort, it was the French who actually introduced the first ironclad warship.

---

Or possibly the Koreans did, though the "Turtle ship" bears little resemblance to a Western style ironclad, so I don't know if you want to count it or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_ship

I wouldn't as those were not even present in the Western mindset, I don't recall the Koreans or other East Asians ever using the Turtle Ships against European fleets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

Seeing as how many discoveries happened simultaneously or within the span of a year from each other, I'd say no particular one is truly exclusive, except for maybe the theory of relativity. So yeah, at some point they would have.

Also, from Wikipedia:

In the 18th and early 19th centuries fleets had relied on two types of major warship, the ship of the line and the frigate. The first major change to these types was the introduction of steam power for propulsion. While paddle steamer warships had been used from the 1830s onwards, steam propulsion only became suitable for major warships after the adoption of the screw propeller in the 1840s.

Steam-powered screw frigates were built in the mid-1840s, and at the end of the decade the French Navy introduced steam power to its line of battle. The desire for change came from the ambition of Napoleon III to gain greater influence in Europe, which required a challenge to the British at sea.

The steam propeller is not spaceflight. Someone would have figured it out. And even though the Royal Navy was working on an armoured frigate of some sort, it was the French who actually introduced the first ironclad warship.

---

Which continental powers do you think would have lead the way in the absence of Britain and how do you think they might have shifted the balance of power in Europe?

Germany and France, mostly. Austria didn't have that much access to the sea except some tiny outlets to the Adriatic and the Russians were busy fighting land wars.

Yep. Germany and France, with France becoming the dominant colonial power and Germany focusing heavily on industrialization and rail development.

Well, we might as well go on a complete alternate history timeline… would France have used the extra manpower from its African and American colonies to counter the increasing might of the Prussian armies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

Yep. Germany and France, with France becoming the dominant colonial power and Germany focusing heavily on industrialization and rail development.

---

Given that Belgium was the second power to industrialize, do you think they would have been able to get a serious head start on Germany or France? Or maybe even try to prevent Germany from forming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

Given that Belgium was the second power to industrialize, do you think they would have been able to get a serious head start on Germany or France? Or maybe even try to prevent Germany from forming?

---

Not very likely, and I say this as a Belgian.

Our first two Kings were quite belligerent, but the government was never ready to follow their ideas. Leopold II then went on a spree in the Congo, without any real backing from Belgium.

So we would've industrialized and perhaps become the most industrialized nation of Europe for a while, but we'd be no threat to any other nations. Appeasement was a large part of our international politics. (Our Kings were attached to both the English, German and French monarchies).

In any case, militarily we'd never be a match for France or Germany or even Prussia for that matter.

Well, geography isn't exactly your friend when it comes to European confrontations. As I understand it, Belgium is right between two large powers , with no English channel or even serious terrain obstacles to keep out enemies.

And unlike the Nederlanders to the north, they don't have weather awful enough to make their country uninteresting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Barto

And unlike the Nederlanders to the north, they don't have weather awful enough to make their country uninteresting.

---

Obviously you haven't been to Belgium :D

The weather makes our country uninteresting, but it's no impediment for an invasion unfortunately :D

With regards to European confrontations: whoever wins, Belgium loses (and it was like that for the better part of a 1,000 years in Western European warfare.

Belgium and the Netherlands should have stayed as parts of the Holy Roman Empire. In fact, we need a new HRE today IMO.

The part of Belgium I'm from was never a part of the HRE.

One issue that this discussion is missing is the fact that Britain had other options than domestic coal. As noted, they had already established their global empire before coal became important to the economy and military. Britain would simply have imported coal in much larger quantities from their colonial possessions to meet their needs. Australia and India have some of the largest coal deposits in the world, with many other colonial nations also having deposits of note. If the UK couldn't supply its own needs locally, it would have simply invested heavily in coal production throughout the Empire and imported whatever it needed. The UK certainly had a merchant marine capable of transporting the quantities required and a navy capable of protecting that merchant marine. So, my answer is that nothing much would have changed, except that coal industries would likely have been more developed in some of the British colonies than they otherwise were at the time.

But would they have developed coal-based technologies without any coal under home soil? I don't think they'd've mined and shipped tons of the black stuff simply to see if it was any use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Barto

But would they have developed coal-based technologies without any coal under home soil? I don't think they'd've mined and shipped tons of the black stuff simply to see if it was any use.

---

Science doesn't fail to advance simply because there aren't large quantities of the substance around for industrial use. The existence and combustibility of coal was well-known throughout the world even in ancient times. It didn't become a big deal until the industrial era because the need for large-scale heat production, of the kind enabled by coal, simply did not exist before the invention of the steam engine. It was the steam engine itself that made coal important, not vice versa. Early steam engines actually ran off of wood, not coal, so a coal shortage would not have stifled its invention. Once production of steam engines ramped up, the need for large quantities of fuel for them was inevitable, and the search for that fuel was also inevitable. As coal was well-known throughout the world, it was an obvious resource to turn to. Britain would have noted their need for the substance and started importing it. It's really no different than any other resource Britain traded in. Textile production was a major part of the British economy, but Britain was not capable of producing much cotton. As a result, they produced it in their colonies (first the US, then India) and imported it to keep the mills running. Similarly, Britain did not have enough old-growth timber to support its own shipbuilding industry. As a result, they bought their wood from the Baltic and, later, their North American colonies. So, Britain already had a history of reliance upon imports of resources to sustain its own economy and military long before coal even entered the picture.

Importing really is not all that difficult, and I think you err when you assume that lack of availability of a local resource would impact the course of industrial development. There are very, very few situations in which that kind of scenario occurs. An example is helium. Helium's properties were well-known to the world, but it was a very scarce resource and basically only the United States was capable of producing it prior to WW2. The US monopoly on that resource was actually enforced at a legislative level, where the government banned all foreign sales of helium for military reasons. As a result, Germany was unable to obtain enough helium for its zeppelin fleet and we all know what happened as a result of their substitution of hydrogen. However, that is a scenario in which basically all of the world's supply of helium (at that point) was controlled by a single nation that refused to export it. The same was never true of coal, particularly not for Britain which controlled some of the world's largest reserves in her colonies, even if her own domestic supply somehow vanished.

IT mightve gone different, but Water was the defining power here, Germany was divided and could probably catch up faster, but not that much.
France mightve ran ahead though, and belgium would probably have been dominated more by its neighbours, if britian culd get the belgian coal they mightve made it anyhow.

@ Tin Cow

Perhaps cars and the gasoline are a similar example, at least to some extent? AFAIK the first car that ran on gasoline was made in Austria, which doesn't have any oil refineries that I have ever heard of. Later America became a superpower, which certainly has oil, but depends heavily on imported oil.

The parallel is not exact, of course. The US does not possess a lot of handy colonies with plenty of oil, and the oil trade is much more tightly regulated by the producing nations than coal ever was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Early steam engines actually ran off of wood, not coal, so a coal shortage would not have stifled its invention.

---

THat's the case in the US, but it's not in the UK, steam engines ran mainly on coal right from the start. Smeaton, and Boulton and Watts engines all ran on coal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catiline

THat's the case in the US, but it's not in the UK, steam engines ran mainly on coal right from the start. Smeaton, and Boulton and Watts engines all ran on coal.

---

I was not talking about on an actual production level but rather on an invention/prototype level. My point was that the lack of coal would not have prevented the invention of the steam engine. Certainly its use as an industrial product required coal, but at that point the need for large quantities of coal would have been known and the coal would have been procured from imports if it could not have been procured domestically.

Very probably so. I'd forgotten about the Lancashire mills and their imports of cotton from al over the (English-dominated) world.

Smeaton and Baulton Watts were the prototypes.

You're probably right that the technology would have been invented separately, but a big driver for the development of early steam was the need to drain mines so it's all a bit chicken and egg.

As others have pointed out, it's unlikely that the lack of local coal would have been a particular detriment to Great Britain technologically or otherwise.
I believe that history would have carried on as it did up until the great wars, in both cases Britain's ability to import was hampered by both iterations of Germany's navy. The absence of local coal on top of all the other material shortages could have been enough to affect it's performances, if not in the first, certainly it would have made the second world war a much more close affair perhaps even spelling defeat for the still somewhat coal reliant Royal navy.

I've belatedly realised that one must also wonder what'd've happened to Thatcher's government if she hadn't had any coal miners on home soil to rail against.