Contrary to what they seem to imply the consensus is that the pyramid is much more recent than 10000 years. As a general better be weary of all those "ancient civilization" articles, as they often either fall under bad science, if not straight up conspiracy.
What happened here in short is that they found some organic material dated roughly 10000 years by drilling under the pyramid. Ex: ashes or similar. Instead of concluding that 10000 years ago some humans did a fire here, and that thousands of years later other humans people decided that was a good spot to built a pyramid, they concluded those had to be the same humans. It is like finding Celtic artifacts under the Eiffel tower and concluding it had to be built 2400 years ago
I read somewhere that the Earth now has so much more fungi that substantial new fossil fuel deposits won’t develop even over hundreds of millions of years. If that’s true, we were lucky bastards to have chanced on the only easily accessible massive fuel resources in this planet’s entire history.
Also, if civilization collapses it's still fairly likely that a powerdrill will survive (not necessarily functioning, but intact enough that people will look at it and play with copper spirals). Actually, so will internal combustion engines probably, although that won't do much without the requisite metallurgy.
We've mined out all the easy copper, too.
Before we started using coal as an energy source, wood was a popular source, but that was far from sustainable. See for example the graph in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry_in_the_United_Kingdom...
If we had to start from that point again, there still would be lots of coal, but mostly not in places that are as easily accessible as what was there in the 1800s. If you have to manually dig a few hundred meters down to even reach coal, and (likely) wouldn’t even know where to dig, would you even consider starting digging?
Oil and gas similarly would be problematic. There’s very little at or near the surface left.
So, likely, the jump would have to be from wood to wind, solar or nuclear.
That has been shown to be possible for wind (https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/10/wind-powered-facto...), but it will have to be different from what happened in the Industrial Revolution.
You don't, though.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/how-much-coal-is-le...
53% of the recoverable coal reserves in the United States can be recovered with surface mining.
Coal mines of that depth nothing special, even with 19th Century steam technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coal_mining
"By 1856, the average depth in the Borinage was 361 meters (1,184 ft), and in 1866, 437 meters (1,434 ft) and some pits had reached down 700 to 900 meters (2,300 to 3,000 ft); one was 1,065 meters (3,494 ft) deep, probably the deepest coal mine in Europe at this time."
In the 19th Century?
Steam engines that burn part of the extracted coal. What else?
> by the late 19th century the seams were becoming exhausted
Those particular seams, maybe. They're not the only seams, dude.
I think we're done here.
hydrocarbons are energetically stable on titan because it's oxygen-deficient, a reducing environment. earth's surface is, by contrast, an oxidizing environment
the deep hot biosphere is unrelated
abiogenic petroleum prooduction is still not as well understood as you suggest
Petroleum and gas came much later.
Edit: 435 years worth of recoverable coal in the United States alone, of which 53% is recoverable by surface mining.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/how-much-coal-is-le...
Note that your link says "include only the coal that can be mined with today's mining technology". A fresh industrial revolution likely wouldn't start with "today's mining technology".
As the reference also says, 53% of it is recoverable by surface mining. Bagger 288 is only notable for being a big shovel. It doesn't do anything that couldn't be done by guys with smaller shovels. 30 meters deep is nothing. The Big Hole in South Africa was dug to 240 meters deep by hand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hole
Edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coal_mining
"By 1856, the average depth in the Borinage was 361 meters (1,184 ft), and in 1866, 437 meters (1,434 ft) and some pits had reached down 700 to 900 meters (2,300 to 3,000 ft); one was 1,065 meters (3,494 ft) deep, probably the deepest coal mine in Europe at this time."
Maybe time to take the L and move on?
The Big Hole is absolutely miniscule in comparison - 42 acres - and mining for diamonds is a lot more lucrative by volume.
You're not digging out https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Bannerak... by hand.
The question isn't "is there stuff to burn", it's "is there enough to burn to bootstrap a self-sustaining industrial economy". Our industrial revolution took place in a time where oil bubbled to the surface in Texas, coal could be dug up from rich surface seams with a shovel, and copper as pure crystals.
geothermal energy (so-called egs) and solar are each individually far more abundant than fossil fuels ever have been; wind energy is comparable to fossil fuels and easier to harness. hydropower is a smaller resource but still one that's sufficient for industrialization
fossil fuel exploitation for mass production of steel in blast furnaces was widespread in song china 800 years ago but didn't lead to the industrial revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Song_dynasty#St...
contrary to kris de decker's wishful thinking, medieval and early modern holland didn't have an industrial revolution either, despite wind power
the industrial revolution still hasn't reached much of the planet; consider how many people still subsist on agriculture or unskilled, non-mass-production urban labor, in places like my own country (my experience here is the part that's hard to put into words) but most especially in the regions where fossil fuels are most abundant
the hard part of the industrial revolution was probably science, liberalism, and capitalism; superstition and kleptocracy are the human default