Can Coal Deposits Explain the Fermi Paradox?

[BWV]

Reading McGhee's excellent book on the Carboniferous period and he explains in detail the unique circumstances behind the creation of 90% of the world's coal deposits - receding ocean in an ice age that created low lying swamps, high concentrations of oxygen in the atmosphere that would have been sufficient for wildfires to turn swamps into charcoal, lack of organisms that could digest plant material (no wood digesting insects and land herbivores only evolved in the late Carboniferous), and tectonic activity that buried the peat swamps, generating the pressure necessary to create high quality coal. While debate ranges around the relative importance of these factors, it does seem the creation of large coal deposits required a rather unique set of circumstances .

Coal of course was the first widely used fossil fuel and sparked the industrial revolution. Even today, few alternatives exist for metallurgical coal in mass steel production. The exploitation of oil and natural gas required the steel and other industrial technologies made possible by coal. Would have been far more difficult, if not impossible, for humans to develop oil or natural gas if coal was unavailable. Presumably other intelligent species would have fossil fuels from their planets past biosphere, but without large coal deposits would be unable to produce the energy required to create a technological civilization. Given that 90% of the coal on Earth was created in something like 2% of its geologic history, this could be a very rare event and a major bottleneck for the development of other technological civilizations in the galaxy

 

[russ_watters]

Coal of course was the first widely used fossil fuel and sparked the industrial revolution.

At first glance, I'm not sure I buy either premise. The first is true, but seems overly constrained: there are other sources of power besides fossil fuels. The second one...well, the analogy is ironic. "Sparked"? Fueled(literally and figuratively). And the fuel was in use for thousands of years before the figurative spark.

 

[BWV]

At first glance, I'm not sure I buy either premise. The first is true, but seems overly constrained: there are other sources of power besides fossil fuels. The second one...well, the analogy is ironic. "Sparked"? Fueled(literally and figuratively). And the fuel was in use for thousands of years before the figurative spark.

What other sources of power available to a pre-industrial civilization?

 

[Vanadium 50]

What other sources of power available to a pre-industrial civilization?

Hydro. Wind. Biofuels like peat (we don't talk much about whale oil these days, but...).

But suppose instead of taking ~75 years the industrial revolution took 10x longer. Does that really make any difference to your conclusion?

Further, lignite is much younger than anthracite. I don't think your argument says anything about lignite availability.

 

[PeroK]

What other sources of power available to a pre-industrial civilization?

Earth could be an unlucky planet. Many other planets might have an energy source that we don't have - and hence can't directly imagine. If we didn't have coal, oil and natural gas, could we imagine significant deposits of them?

You must avoid the logic that says:

$X_1, X_2 \dots X_n$ happened on Earth and allowed us to develop an advanced civilization.

The probability of all $X_n$ happening is vanishingly small.

Therefore, the probability of an advanced civilization is vanishingly small.

The problem is that you have no data to say that $X_1, X_2 \dots X_n$ are all absolutely necessary for an advanced civilization, which then cannot evolve in any other way than precisely (more or less) how it developed on Earth.

It's not much more sophisticated than claiming that if Isaac Newton had died in the Great Plague, then we would not have Newton's laws or modern science.

One could argue that we were unlucky that no one like Newton was born in ancient Rome. We could have saved 1600 years or so.

 

[BWV]

Earth could be an unlucky planet. Many other planets might have an energy source that we don't have - and hence can't directly imagine. If we didn't have coal, oil and natural gas, could we imagine significant deposits of them?

You must avoid the logic that says:

$X_1, X_2 \dots X_n$ happened on Earth and allowed us to develop an advanced civilization.

The probability of all $X_n$ happening is vanishingly small.

Therefore, the probability of an advanced civilization is vanishingly small.

The problem is that you have no data to say that $X_1, X_2 \dots X_n$ are all absolutely necessary for an advanced civilization, which then cannot evolve in any other way than precisely (more or less) how it developed on Earth.

It's not much more sophisticated than claiming that if Isaac Newton had died in the Great Plague, then we would not have Newton's laws or modern science.

One could argue that we were unlucky that no one like Newton was born in ancient Rome. We could have saved 1600 years or so.

Not at all, just arguing that without an easily exploitable source of energy, it would be difficult to develop a technological civilization. Coal has some unique benefits that other fossil fuels do not have. The assumption is certainly that some unknown source of power to some other preindustrial civilization is unlikely tp exist. One link in the chain of probability for a star-faring civilization is they first develop an industrial civilization, just speculating that those odds are influenced by what appears to be the rather fortuitous development of large coal deposits on Earth that were laid down over very narrow periods in the geologic history. We have no data to really prove anything relative to Fermi, its all just informed speculation

 

[PeroK]

The assumption is certainly that some unknown source of power to some other preindustrial civilization is unlikely tp exist. We have no data to really prove anything relative to Fermi, its all just informed speculation

On the one hand you assume that coal is universally the only possibility; on the other, you have no data to justify this?

 

[BWV]

On the one hand you assume that coal is universally the only possibility; on the other, you have no data to justify this?

Where did I say it was 'universally the only possibility'? I said it 'could be a major bottleneck'

 

[PeroK]

Where did I say it was 'universally the only possibility'? I said it 'could be a major bottleneck'

This is the whole implication of your posts, surely?

You said this, for example:

Presumably other intelligent species would have fossil fuels from their planets past biosphere, but without large coal deposits would be unable to produce the energy required to create a technological civilization.

That's fairly explicit: no coal, no civilisation.

 

[BWV]

This is the whole implication of your posts, surely?

You said this, for example:
That's fairly explicit: no coal, no civilisation.

Ok, fair enough, some sloppiness on my part - I also said ' Would have been far more difficult, if not impossible, for humans to develop oil or natural gas if coal was unavailable '

you disagree that developing an industrial civilization without coal would be more difficult?

 

[PeroK]

you disagree that developing an industrial civilization without coal would be more difficult?

I don't know what other planets are like. We might have been forced to coal as a last resort. That is not a question that can be answered. Not in a way that the answer has any bearing on what the reality might be.

 

[BWV]

I don't know what other planets are like. We might have been forced to coal as a last resort. That is not a question that can be answered. Not in a way that the answer has any bearing on what the reality might be.

Then any speculation on the Fermi paradox is a waste if time, surprised you gave this thread any of yours

 

[russ_watters]

Hydro. Wind. Biofuels like peat (we don't talk much about whale oil these days, but...).

Don't forget animals and people. The Eli Whitney cotton gin was hand cranked.

Point being; Burning stuff produces heat. The industrial revolution didn't (primarily) need heat, it needed rotational power. People attached these newfangled rotating machines to anything that could spin them.

And if we want to talk about biofuels and heat, the most significant are trees and dung. Wood has a third the energy density of coal. Is that really a deal breaker for driving a train? Clearly not, since it was done. Wood is a popular biofuel even today, so I don't think it is accurate to say it couldn't be a viable heat source for powering machines.

 

[russ_watters]

One could argue that we were unlucky that no one like Newton was born in ancient Rome. We could have saved 1600 years or so.

I blame Aristotle.

 

[BWV]

Don't forget animals and people. The Eli Whitney cotton gin was hand cranked.

Point being; Burning stuff produces heat. The industrial revolution didn't (primarily) need heat, it needed rotational power. People attached these newfangled rotating machines to anything that could spin them.

[And if we talk about biofuels, the most significant are trees and dung.]

It needed vast sources of stuff to burn, more than the living biosphere could provide

the living biosphere contains about 500 gigatons of carbon with less than 300 gigatons in the world's forests (excluding soil) - how much of that can be burned per year (never mind the fuel density and transportation issues)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle#Terrestrial_biosphere
http://www.fao.org/3/ca8753en/CA8753EN.pdf

around 0.1 gigatons/year of carbon from coal was burned in the early 1900s

 

[Nugatory]

...developing an industrial civilization without coal would be more difficult?

On earth, yes. But it’s not so clear that that conclusion generalizes to other hypothetical planets.

 

[russ_watters]

It needed vast sources of stuff to burn, more than the living biosphere could provide

the living biosphere contains about 500 gigatons of carbon with less than 300 gigatons in the world's forests (excluding soil) - how much of that can be burned per year (never mind the fuel density and transportation issues)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle#Terrestrial_biosphere
http://www.fao.org/3/ca8753en/CA8753EN.pdf

around 0.1 gigatons/year of carbon from coal was burned in the early 1900s

Well, the US alone uses 0.2 gigatons/year of wood fuel today, and that's only 5% of wood production.
https://www.forest2market.com/blog/how-much-timber-does-the-us-harvest-and-how-is-it-used#:~:text=Last year, wood energy production,regeneration of trees very seriously.

And as others said, I don't think it's really debatable that a no-coal industrial revolution would have been slower/less...explosive - it would have been. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened.

 

[BWV]

Well, the US alone uses 0.2 gigatons/year of wood fuel today, and that's only 5% of wood production.
https://www.forest2market.com/blog/how-much-timber-does-the-us-harvest-and-how-is-it-used#:~:text=Last year, wood energy production,regeneration of trees very seriously.

And as others said, I don't think it's really debatable that a no-coal industrial revolution would have been slower/less...explosive - it would have been. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened.

no industrialization without mass production of steel, which requires coal (or some other advanced technology that requires an existing industrial infrastructure , like creating H2)

 

[russ_watters]

no industrialization without mass production of steel, which requires coal

Both of those statements are nonsense. Early industrial machines were made of cast iron, and early steelmaking processes (ancient) used charcoal (wood). I think you're trying too hard to cling to this idea that no coal = no industrialization.

 

[BWV]

Both of those statements are nonsense. Early industrial machines were made of cast iron, and early steelmaking processes (ancient) used charcoal (wood). I think you're trying too hard to cling to this idea that no coal = no industrialization.

ancient steel making was artisanal and not scalable. While mass produced steel did not develop until a century or so into the industrial revolution it is fundamental to an industrial society. It’s a major challenge today to develop steel making methods that do not require coal

 

[PeroK]

ancient steel making was artisanal and not scalable. While mass produced steel did not develop until a century or so into the industrial revolution it is fundamental to an industrial society. It’s a major challenge today to develop steel making methods that do not require coal

The problem is that if we did know of another civilisation that had developed using, say, a super-wood that grew on that planet, then you would just as fervently be proclaiming:

Advanced civilisation is impossible without either coal or super-wood.

You are guilty of the faulty generalisation fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

 

[BWV]

The problem is that if we did know of another civilisation that had developed using, say, a super-wood that grew on that planet, then you would just as fervently be proclaiming:

Advanced civilisation is impossible without either coal or super-wood.

You are guilty of the faulty generalisation fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

Yes, but that is how one speculates on the Fermi Paradox, for all we know the galaxy is also full of rock aliens who can live on airless worlds and don’t need an Earthlike climate

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why do you need steel? Could you use brasses and bronzes? If your answer is "too expensive", doesn't that assume an earth-like crustal abundance?

On Rigel VII, are Kang and Kodos debating whether copper-poor and iron-rich planets could ever get enough brass at all to form a civilization?

 

[Vanadium 50]

For that matter, why do you need fuel? Maybe you need oxidizer. If your planet's atmosphere is mostly methane, "natural gas" might be oxygen. Earth once had an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen. Only in the last half billion years has it had a significant fraction of plant poop.

 

[Bandersnatch]

What I want to know is if it's ethical for r-selection aliens to employ their larvae in fluorite mines.

 

[Keith_McClary]

Oil wells were drilled with wooden rigs and ropes . The bit (chisel) would have been steel.

 

[fresh_42]

One could argue that we were unlucky that no one like Newton was born in ancient Rome. We could have saved 1600 years or so.

I don't want to go off-topic too much, but we had 2,200 years since Eratosthenes, yet we have flat earthers!

 

[sophiecentaur]

I think you're trying too hard to cling to this idea that no coal = no industrialization.

On Rigel VII, are Kang and Kodos debating whether copper-poor and iron-rich planets could ever get enough brass at all to form a civilization?

Industry Jim, but not as we know it.

You have to wonder whether the readily available coal merely produced a change in the direction of our 'civilisation'. As we all know, there has been a definite downside to the vast amount of coal we've been using. "Good" may well not imply "like us". I'm not suggesting we should indulge in a guiltfest but then neither should we feel too smug about where we are at the moment.

The only thing that I would say is definitely on the plus side for humans would be modern medicine and even that has not been made proper use of by everyone.

 

[russ_watters]

Moved to Earth Sciences.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm not suggesting we should indulge in a guiltfest

I don;'t think we should, since we don't know the alternative. Whale oil? Slave labor?

 

[sophiecentaur]

I don;'t think we should, since we don't know the alternative. Whale oil? Slave labor?

That’s a bit of a straw man, I’m afraid. You must accept that our consumption (civilation?) is not sustainable.
no one needs to starve if the major consumers consumed less. We may need to forego some consumer pleasures and pay a bit more for what we do use but that won’t hurt you or me.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It seems that you have moved away from the topic of this thread as a historical what if.

 

[sophiecentaur]

It seems that you have moved away from the topic of this thread as a historical what if.

Not sure about that. It's more a matter of defining terms like 'civilisation'. The narrower the range then the less probability of the situation arising.

 

[TeethWhitener]

One could argue that we were unlucky that no one like Newton was born in ancient Rome.

Actually, we were unlucky that someone like Newton was born in Ancient Rome (ok, Ancient Greece). His name was Archimedes and he got stabbed to death by an ancient Roman soldier.

 

[BvU]

Actually, we were unlucky that someone like Newton was born in Ancient Rome (ok, Ancient Greece). His name was Archimedes and he got stabbed to death by an ancient Roman soldier.

Perhaps lucky after all, otherwise Attila would have had nuclear weapons ...