What about France if it controls the West Bank of the Rhine? How would France develop as it too has a large number of rivers which helped it become a demographic giant in Europe until the later 19th century.
Development of an Electrical Industrial Revolution
- Thread starter DominusNovus
- Start date
To be fair, the first underground line was in the 1860s, so it might not be that different ITTL.
Or the War of 1812, which started after the main casus belli had already been dealt with and whose last battle was fought after peace had already been signed. 🤪
I would say the importance are fall heights, amount of water and ease of transportation. I tend to think that the Rhone would be move valuable for a electric industrialization than the Rhine. @Mad Bad Rabbit brought up the copper prices and it’s a good point, early on you need to lay the industry close to the sources of kinetic energy.
In general I would say border regions between highland and lowland with a lot of water is the places you would see as centers for a early hydro electrical industrialization. Preferable highland with a lot of snow which melt slowly.
I think also we need to recognize that a electrical industrialization need a lot more energy than the kinetic energy produced in water mills in the proto and early industrialization. While a textile mill can be run with a 1 meter fall height, a aluminium mill need vastly more energy. A modern water mill with a fall of 8 meters produce around the same energy as a middle sized modern wind mill.
Who is talking about aluminum production? As far as I can tell, everyone, certainly the OP, is mainly talking about substituting electrical power for direct steam power in early industrial facilities and maybe a few unique electrical applications like the telegraph and telephone (or radio). You don't need aluminum mills for that, and they're not likely to appear until rather a long ways along--if nothing else, you need a lot of chemistry for that to happen. Electricity is just being used as a more convenient way to "transmit" electrical power than belts and chains and such things.
Yes, but as a system, subways did not really take off until they were electrified.
I used it as example on a industrial process. There’s plenty of other energy intensive processes. The point is that while the early industrialization is not very energy intensive, it fast grow more and more energy intensive.
I can argue that when those pioneering times do come, aluminum manufacturers and other proponents of "cutting-edge" technologies would have found themselves with quite a competition in the real estate around the hydroelectric dams.
I also think we need to remember that Netherlands was very strong in use of kinetic energy to save labor in OTL, but in the end they were outcompeted by UK. UK have less potential for kinetic energy than many other countries, so even if they develop the early electrical engines they like Netherlands have a competitive disadvantage. Of course if they move to coal power they regain some of that advantage, but coal power plant is like almost all power plant a giant steam engine, so they would need to develop that steam engine technology anyway.
It may still have ended up on the specific policies that would have provided or restricted not just the fuel, but also the supply of labour needed to man all those factories anyway. Even if the demand is residual of what it had been IOTL, it would have still been big enough enough for those coal cities to be given quite a capital investment.
Also, this premise also meant that exploiting the coal deposits is now a necessity for the furthering of Great Britain's industrial development and capability to compete with these alternate industrial centers.
Water power in Appalachia/the South very easily could've been more utilised OTL, at least earlier. It isn't surprising where the earliest industrial areas of the South were after all.
I don't think British overall lead can be overtaken from the beginning, even if some other regions in Europe may gain ITTL. By the mid-18th century, Britain held technological advantage in almost every key sector, ranging from textile to metallurgy and more importantly, machine tools. It was no coincidence that most inventions were from Britain during the 1750s-1870s era. In addition, British policy of banning technological exports during 18th and early 19th centuries would (and IOTL did) slow down technological spread.
On top of that, Britain was already the strongest commercial power with a vast trade network, together with the most well-developed financial system.
As for large-scale water power, Scotland and Wales had plenty. And note that Scotland was already one of the foremost industrial centers during the OTL Victorian Era - so definitely a Scot-wank TL.
On top of that, Britain was already the strongest commercial power with a vast trade network, together with the most well-developed financial system.
As for large-scale water power, Scotland and Wales had plenty. And note that Scotland was already one of the foremost industrial centers during the OTL Victorian Era - so definitely a Scot-wank TL.
Last edited:
Also note that half the world's copper production came from Cornwall during that time, giving the U.K. a fundamental edge in this new industry.
Interesting detail that I hadn’t counted on. I imagine this is before some of the larger American copper mines came online?
Yes, the Chilean mines weren't developed until the 1830s, and the Great Lakes deposits weren't found until the 1840s.
One complication: the reason copper became so expensive in the late 1700s (tripling in price) was because the RN was buying it all up to put copper sheathing on their ships hulls, crucially important in the tropics to repel shipworm and other marine pests. Until supplies increase, the UK will have to choose a tradeoff between developing their new electrical industry and having the world's strongest navy.
Last edited:
I mean, this happened. In a really major way, and in multiple waves, but mostly after WWII.
well unless you can somehow make an electric powered battleship ( impractical even with 21st Century tech ) , the Navy is still going down a steam route, closely followed by the merchants ( faster and more reliable journey times )
Is there a reason that steam turbine technology might not be more advanced ITTL? If steam is being used to generate electricity, then it might displace reciprocating steam engines much sooner than IOTL.
Heck, not just displacing them sooner, but reciprocating engines would be very niche, relatively speaking. They'd still have their uses, of course, but I have to think that turbines - perhaps rudimentary at first -would be the primary way of turning steam into useful power from almost the beginning. As it was, it seems that Watt himself did work on steam turbines, so perhaps in this alternate history, he is not refining a reciprocating engine, but a primitive turbine.
One effect might be that instead of huge power stations feeding into a transmission grid, electricity is instead generated on a much more local scale. The village mill (water or wind) becomes the village power station, for example. Copper availability (/cost) will limit where this is practicable, of course, but the societal changes of not being dependent on big companies for electricity would be interesting...