/c/worldbuilding thread I'm cross-posting here - i think it'd be nice if people answered there instead of here, /c/worldbuilding could use the activity
Metallurgy would've been affected since charcoal has to be used instead of coke. Since coke can't be used, there's a cap to the production of steel and other metals. This also has implications in the production of other manufactured goods since charcoal can only burn so high a temperature, but I'm not an expert at all.
The Industrial Revolution would probably not occur because the original practical application of the steam engine was to pump water out of mines. The Industrious Revolution, which occurred before the Industrial Revolution in Europe and concurrently with the Industrial Revolution in Asia, would've been seen as how we see the Industrial Revolution today. This doesn't mean the steam engine wouldn't have been invented, only that the steam engine wouldn't have affected human society as much as it did.
Without fossil fuels, people are stuck with charcoal, which would lead to massive deforestation. This would mean lumber is far more expensive. The cost of building a trading ship would be far more expensive than what it is now, which means land trading routes would've been less costly and overall more profitable than maritime trading routes. This has many geopolitical and historical implications as the rise of Europe and establishment of Western hegemony coincided with the Silk Road being overtaken by maritime routes. In other words, no European colonies in the Americas and in the middle of the Pacific, which means no genocide of the Indigenous of the Americas. Perhaps there wouldn't even be an Atlantic slave trade either since the original purpose of the slave trade was to replace the Indigenous slaves toiling in the European colonies. Trade of African slaves would've been controlled by various Arab traders and polities instead.
Capitalism would almost certainly not have began in Europe because the origin of capitalism in Italian city-states and its further development in the Dutch Republic and the UK is intimately tied with maritime trade. Without maritime trade, Venice, Genoa, and so on would've just been a bunch of shitty Italian city-states instead of dominating European trade and giving rise to capitalism. The Dutch Republic wouldn't have colonies in Indonesia, and the UK would just be a backwards collection of islands instead of a Great Power with a powerful navy. Capitalism would've probably had a Chinese or Indian origin instead. Because both polities didn't generate wealth exclusively through trade, capitalism with Chinese/Indian characteristics would've been totally different. Perhaps it would be so different it wouldn't be considered capitalism at all but an alternate post-feudal pre-socialist economy instead.
There's also the chance of massive and rapid deforestation completely destroying an empire, but that gets to more hypotheticals.
Overall, I think without fossil fuels, Europe would've just been a backwards dump while most old-school Asian empires (Ottoman Empire, Safavid Iran, Mughal Empire, Ming/Qing Dynasty) would've maintained their status as Great Powers. The lack of investment in a navy due to the cost of lumber would've meant those empires would probably "settle" within their natural geographic land boundaries rather than have ambitions of forming an ever-expanding empire that span oceans like the British Empire. The history of Africa is one where African polities like Dahomey are allowed to develop and collapse without interference from Europeans. The history of the Americas is basically full blown AU hypotheticals at this point since they wouldn't have had to deal with genocide and settler-colonialism.
In other words, no European colonies in the Americas and in the middle of the Pacific, which means no genocide of the Indigenous of the Americas. Perhaps there wouldn’t even be an Atlantic slave trade either since the original purpose of the slave trade was to replace the Indigenous slaves toiling in the European colonies. Trade of African slaves would’ve been controlled by various Arab traders and polities instead.
All of that started before the Industrial Revolution. I could see it being much more limited in scale, but colonialism, slavery, and international trade could still happen even without fossil fuels or cheap lumber. There would still be an international market for sugar, cotton, tea, spices, beaver pelts, etc. but they would probably be luxury goods reserved for wealthy aristocrats, instead of the middle class/bourgeoisie. There would at least be a few small colonial port cities, trading posts, and plantation agriculture along various coasts and islands, maybe at the scale they were circa 1750.
Otherwise I agree with everything you wrote.
If human technology stagnated at sailing vessels whales may have been better off. Whales in the 1800s invented tactics to avoid whaling ships and spread them culturally to other groups of whales. These tactics became obsolete with the advent of steamships and no such tactics were feasible against increasingly industrialized whaling efforts.
As long as you're still allowing charcoal, modernish civilization could probably develop and you would still be able to make steel. In the modern era, iron ore could be reduced with hydrogen instead of coal. Then you would only need coal (or charcoal hopefully cause otherwise IDK what you would do in this scenario) to make the steel in an electric arc furnace. You could also of course just recycle steel. Another way to reach high temperatures for metallurgy is with solar furnaces. Parabolic mirrors focus light onto a single point, reaching up to 3,500°C. Concentrated solar power is a similar concept. Mirrors or lenses focus sunlight on to a single point and the heat drives a steam turbine for mechanical or electrical power. Molten salts can be used as a working fluid instead to store energy better through the night.
There are, of course, issues with solar power. CSP requires a fair amount of water and yet the best regions in the world for solar power tend not to have much water. So perhaps you would have equatorial civilizations being industrial powerhouses with tons of solar industry that embark on huge hydrological projects that provide water for industry, agriculture, and hydroelectricity. Materials could be an issue. I believe glass is usually used, but silver and aluminum are being investigated. I can't tell you which is best, but keep in mind that aluminum was notoriously expensive because a way to process the most common aluminum-bearing ore had not been discovered. Silver could have interesting geopolitical consequences as silver played a role in European colonialism in both the east and west, although I have no idea if the technology for silver-lined mirrors would be available at this time.
Eventually photovoltaics would be invented. In real life, I believe the first photovoltaic panels were invented around a century ago but have only recently been competitive with other energy sources. Concentrated solar power, meanwhile, is much more expensive (China is still investing in it though :some-controversy:). However, in this hypothetical world, CSP would have had a head start so we would end up in the opposite situation I imagine! There is also the hypothetical "solar updraft tower" and "energy tower" that you may want to look at.
Next of course we have hydro power. Before steam engines, factories first used water power. Factories based on flowing water and big solar concentrators cannot be moved easily, so perhaps this would be advantageous to the proletariat as the capitalist would have a harder time doing a capital strike. BTW I think the Islamic world and China both had highly developed hydro infrastructure, so perhaps they would industrialize first.
If we are allowing charcoal, it could be used in steam engines instead of coal. I don't really know how that would affect class struggle, but if you are interested then you would want to compare the two industries. There's also the issue of deforestation. Charcoal can be made sustainable with coppicing, but capitalists are not sustainable. Coal was much more plentiful in England and drove industrialization. So if the steam engine was to be relied upon, capitalists would probably just deforest the country in a decade.
As for trains, steam locomotives are definitely still a possibility, even without using biofuels! "Fireless locomotives" pick up and store steam rather than creating it in the locomotive itself. A bit of an aside, but I always thought it would be hilarious to use the steam generated by a nuclear power plant for a fireless locomotive. Definitely way less effective than using the plant's electricity, but way funnier.
Another important energy source would be wind power. And then finally there is biofuel. There are a lot of problems with biofuel, but do keep in mind that corn and sugar cane ethanol farmed in gigantic plantations are not the only way it could be produced. I've been writing and researching for a while now so I'm gonna end it here and let someone else elaborate on these if they'd like.
searching "no fossil fuel" on https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/ brings up some good results
I'd like to imagine electric steam locomotives would've been more popular
I think we'd still transition from animal energy to thermal energy, but now using wood, charcoal, peat, ethanol, wood gas, and biodiesel. hydropower would definitely be more utilized.
