2

Let's say oil had never been used as an energy source, and while it could still be a resource for other things, let's say it's not as important or valuable as it is today.

And let's imagine somehow that since the industrial revolution we never transitioned to it and instead used solar and wind as our main energy sources.

Which nations would be the world's super powers in the 20th and 21st century?

Since there would be no "oil princes" or "oil magnates", which countries would be the ones with the rich and lavish lifestyles?

And who would be the new world's super powers after nuclear energy was discovered?

EDIT More details to narrow it down: basically what I'm trying to figure out is that if we had never depended on oil for energy, what would cause certain countries to be more powerful and richer than others and, eventually, rise enough to become superpowers?

If we had gone through the whole "renewable energy" route as soon as it became available, and therefore energy not being an issue to get, what would be the resource that countries fight for? Would it still be land? Would it be fighting for waterfalls and places where more energy can be produced?

a4android
  • 38,445
  • 8
  • 54
  • 143
kirgod
  • 192
  • 6
  • 1
    This is an interesting question but I'm afraid that it is probably either too broad, or opinion based, or both. It would also be likely that Britain, France America and Russia would still be world powers until at least post WW1 because they owned most of the land and manpower which were more important than having oil reserves. – Bellerophon Feb 18 '17 at 16:44
  • 2
    Welcome to the site. Interesting question but as it is currently written it falls into the "too broad" category. Check out the [help] for guidance. – James Feb 18 '17 at 16:45
  • 1
    I agree a fun question but way too broad. narrow your question down to a specific technology like say factories or shipping and you might have something answerable. – John Feb 18 '17 at 16:47
  • What of coal? Whale Oil? Water power? – John_H Feb 18 '17 at 17:09
  • 1
    It may also not be a feasible alternative history. In the absence of fossil fuels for global mobility, would we ever have developed solar power? Most modern technology involves a union of elements and compounds from around the world. If we didn't have an effective way to transport those compounds over global distances, the unions and therefore the technologies probably never would have come into being.
    Go back in time to the first plants and modify their genetics such that the rotting matter which they create is not flammable, and quite literally humanity stays in the dark ages.     – Henry Taylor Feb 18 '17 at 17:09
  • Hello and welcome to Worldbuilding. As others have pointed out, this question is much too broad and the possible paths are wildly speculative. There is not a single aspect of human life that is not touched upon by the use of petroleum since it came into widespread use. Everything for the past 100 years would be different. You need to set up some premises to narrow the question down and make it answerable. – MichaelK Feb 18 '17 at 17:40
  • It would be most plausible if such a change occured around 1880, if fossil fuels started becoming scarce and they where made to look into other sources of energy; hydroelectricity, solar cells and electric windmills where all appearing in this time period. If those areas advanced due to the necessity through the lack of fossil fuels, then a time line could vaguely be formed. – Necessity Feb 18 '17 at 17:54
  • Hi, as there are some comments here about your question being too broad I want to remind you that your question might be put on hold for some time. This is a standard procedure on WorldBuilding to ensure that questions and answers fit the sites standard. If your question gets put on hold the community will try to help you make the question a good fit for the site. After some edits of yours the question will be reopened. As others have stated: is there an aspect that you are particularly interested in? This would be a good start for narrowing down the question. Have fun! – Secespitus Feb 18 '17 at 19:05
  • I actually had a good answer going before this was put on hold. It's a broad topic, but I don't think of it as too broad. It can be pinned down fairly quickly with some back of the napkin logic. – Paul TIKI Feb 18 '17 at 19:12
  • @Paul no, it can't. You would need to hand wave the fact that without coal we wouldn't even have iron the way we have now. Iron and steel would be an expensive commodity and you would have to reinvent all the progress,including the fact we wouldn't have materials to build wind turbines, couldn't really afford copper cables as readily as we can, and so on. Without that you answer just wouldn't be full. – Mołot Feb 18 '17 at 21:57
  • @Molot the OP does not specify no fossil fuels, just no oil based fuel, that is at best looking at a deviation of 110 years or so. Even so, diesel fuel for an internal combustion engine was originally meant to be peanut oil. It just turned out to be cheaper to use crude as a base instead. This is what I was putting in my answer. No handwaving required – Paul TIKI Feb 19 '17 at 03:08
  • 3
    OP specified wind and solar. Thus, we need to somehow skip the coal powered cars, and this is next to impossible without skipping coal altogether. Plus, we can make gasoline from coal all right, it was known much earlier than solar panels or efficient wind turbines, so allowing coal == gasoline like today, and not sun and wind as main energy source. – Mołot Feb 19 '17 at 09:42
  • There's enough sunny, uninhabited and relatively accessible land in Australia (crazy flat with limited sand dunes and sandstorms) to build a solar power plant that'd supply the whole planet's energy needs... does that answer your question? – Samwise Feb 19 '17 at 23:33
  • @Molot, you are reading in more than is actually in the OP. The desire is to get to renewable energy without relying on Oil. Coal is not mentioned, either in the positive or in the negative. Coal has broad ranges of uses, up to and including the ability to create high quality alloys and other heat related materials. It has been used for such for several centuries before the advent of wide spread petroleum use. True, you can make gas from coal, but someone needs to think about it first. ponder for a moment the horse collar, simple, but wasn't thought of until the 14th century. – Paul TIKI Feb 20 '17 at 16:47
  • sorry, 10th century in europe – Paul TIKI Feb 20 '17 at 16:54
  • 1
    OP can and should edit and make it clear and consistent. That's what [on hold] status is for. No need to argue, it's OP job to clear things up to the point where such disagreement has no place, and that's the end to it. – Mołot Feb 20 '17 at 16:56
  • Okay, got carried away a bit there. What I am getting at, mainly, is that the "On Hold" came down very fast and without any communicative specifics for the questioner. I brought this up over in Meta (where our discussion belongs) Your particular reason for thinking the question was too broad, so far as I can tell, doesn't come up until 4 comments in, and that comment was nearly as cryptic as the OP. It wasn't clear until 10 comments in. When it's about to be put on hold, comment for the OP using specifics rather than just dumping it over to the help center. – Paul TIKI Feb 20 '17 at 17:45
  • There are also similar questions: http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/48018/world-without-oil-what-is-the-quick-replacement http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/45919/what-would-the-industrial-age-be-like-without-oil-and-coal http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/57761/how-to-make-the-development-and-use-of-steam-engines-preferred-over-that-of-comb/57796#57796 which should help the OP clarify what they are asking for. – John_H Feb 21 '17 at 00:06

0 Answers0