This is AI generated because i was bored and playing with AI to see if its useful yet
The Biophysical Economics of Wood as a Primary Fuel
Introduction
Wood fuel (firewood, charcoal, etc.) has been humanity’s dominant energy source since prehistoric times. Burning wood yields by far the largest share of solid-biomass energy even today. Globally, roughly half of all wood harvested from forests is used as fuel. In this wood-powered “biomass era,” energy availability, transport effort, and land use were all tightly coupled. Societies managed forests intensively (e.g. through coppicing) to sustain fuel supplies, and settlements grew only as far as wood resources would allow. We survey this history (with emphasis on Europe and the United States) and the underlying energetics, then apply the lessons to a hypothetical rapid decline of fossil fuels over ten years. This scenario analysis uses biophysical constraints and EROI concepts to project impacts on settlement patterns, densities, and infrastructure. We conclude with a practical guide – informed by history and energy theory – for community resilience and rebuilding in a post-fossil-fuel world.
Historical Use of Wood Fuel
Global perspective (Medieval to Pre-Industrial)
Since the discovery of fire, wood has been humanity’s principal fuel. In many cultures, “firewood played an indispensable role in socio-economic systems from prehistory until the nineteenth century”. Pre-industrial Europe, for example, developed complex woodland management (especially coppicing) to produce a steady wood supply for heating and cooking. Over centuries of clearing and coppicing, even densely settled regions supported households on local wood. As one source notes, “about half of wood extracted from forests worldwide is used as fuelwood”. Wood – in the form of bundled twigs (“faggots”) or charcoal – was the norm for hearths and for industrial processes (e.g. iron smelting) until the 19th century. Charcoal, made by slowly burning wood under cover, was especially prized in metalworking for its high heat value. Traditional charcoal burning sites (such as the bricked kilns of Europe or covered platforms like that shown) were once common wherever iron was smelted or gunpowder made.
Figure: Traditional charcoal-burning kiln in British woodlands (rusty iron cover over a woodpile), illustrating the old practice of converting wood into charcoal for fuel. Charcoal was “an important fuel in ironmaking” and other industries in the pre-coal era.
In temperate Europe, staple fuels included the felled wood of coppiced woodlands. Over time these “managed woodlands” supplied local markets even into the early 20th century. For example, in England and Central Europe the same coppice systems supported urban fuel demand until about World War II. Only with the Industrial Revolution did a new fuel take over: burgeoning coal mining replaced most coal-for-wood in large-scale industry. But until roughly 1900, cities and villages largely relied on nearby forests. In Italy and Japan, too, 17th–19th century governments explicitly regulated forests because of fuel pressures. Edo-period Japan, faced with over-harvesting, created strict state forestry policies and reforestation initiatives to maintain timber and fuel supplies. These examples show that heavy wood use often drove deforestation and policy changes; energy scarcity could loom even as late as the early 1900s.
Wood Fuel in Early America
In colonial and early-American times, settlers also used wood almost exclusively. North America was settled amid vast forests, and in the 1700–1800s felling trees served multiple ends. Settlers cleared land for farms and sold timber and firewood to pay for clearing costs. By 1850, frontier clearance and local fuel sales had already stripped much of the eastern U.S. “By 1850, the lowland forests of the Atlantic seaboard, New England and much of the Midwest had largely been cleared,” largely for agriculture and fuel. Selling firewood and charcoal helped finance land clearing, and early American homes (often with open-hearth fireplaces) consumed vast amounts of wood. For example, an 18th-century Philadelphia house burned on the order of 20–30 cords of wood per year. (A cord is 128 cubic feet of wood.) From 1800 onward, as steam engines and locomotives spread, wood still heated rural homes and powered early steamships and trains, even as urban boilers began to adopt coal. The EIA notes that by 1860 wood was “the primary fuel for heating and cooking in homes and businesses”. But by 1890, coal had largely displaced wood in steam generation, and by 1930 most Americans in towns burned coal while rural Americans still used wood. After 1950, advances in natural gas and electricity ended wood’s role in most buildings.
Worldwide today, wood is still a major fuel in poorer regions. In much of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, for example, households still cook on open wood fires or charcoal stoves. Wood and charcoal economies persist in urban markets of the tropics, employing large numbers of people. Thus the historical patterns have continuing relevance: wood may seem “traditional,” but efficient local practices (like using deadwood or agro-forest trees) often stretch supplies in practice. Nevertheless, in every case wood energy is constrained by the biophysical limits of forests.
Biophysical Economics of Wood Fuel
Wood’s role as fuel is fundamentally a biophysical-economic issue. Key parameters include energy content per mass, calorific yield, and the ratio of energy obtained to energy (or labor) invested – the EROI. Typical oven-dry firewood has an energy density around 15–20 MJ/kg, significantly less than coal (~24 MJ/kg) or oil (~45 MJ/kg). Wood is bulky and heavy for the heat it provides, making transport energy-intensive. In practice, traditional fuelwood gathering often involves carrying heavy bundles by foot or animal over rough terrain. Studies of hunter-gatherer fuel use emphasize this cost: one simulation in a Californian forest estimated that a central-place family would exhaust the available wood fuel within a year’s constant harvesting. In other words, the nearest wood supplies were quickly depleted and limited how far a village could spread.
Another biophysical measure is return on energy investment. Historically, gathering wood required human (or animal) energy. When computed in modern terms, EROI of simple fuelwood is surprisingly low if one counts all labor; estimates vary widely depending on assumptions. (By some accounts, intensive woodchip production can have EROI in the 20:1–30:1 range, but other analyses note that woodfuel can sometimes be energy-negative if all processes are counted.) In any case, wood’s EROI is modest compared to fossil fuels. Early oil in the 20th century had very high EROI, which has since declined. In general, an energy source with EROI below ~1:1 is worthless (it takes more energy to obtain than it yields). A sustainable civilization requires a net surplus; analysts suggest a bare minimum extended EROI of ~3:1 just to maintain basic infrastructure, with values of 8–12:1 or more needed for higher services. Present global energy (fossil+bio) is around 6:1, aided by remaining oil. By contrast, simple biomass fuels in an unmechanized economy barely exceed that threshold. Historical wood economies typically consumed a large fraction of society’s labor and captured little surplus.
Wood is also renewable, but with limits set by forest growth rates. Unmanaged forests add only a few percent of biomass per year. Traditional management (coppicing) accelerated supply by cutting stems at intervals, but even that cycle was on the order of 7–30 years. Thus woodfuel systems could be sustainable only if harvests roughly equaled regrowth. In practice, rising demand often outstripped growth, causing deforestation. Across pre-industrial Europe and America, forests retreated as farmland expanded for food and fuel. This deforestation eventually constrained fuel access: by medieval times many regions were managed as wood-production forests (e.g. coppice) to sustain heat needs. Wood scarcity even prompted social conflict and policy intervention (for example, castle forests or charters limiting cutting).
Energy Services and Technology
The way wood’s energy was used also shapes its effective value. Open fires waste most heat up the chimney. Technological advances (chimneys, enclosed stoves) improved efficiency by recirculating heat. For instance, Franklin stoves and later cast-iron wood stoves greatly increased warmth per cord burned. Still, wood heating in pre-modern times was inefficient: one source notes colonial American fireplaces were so leaky that room heating was “next to impossible”, necessitating huge wood consumption. Thus part of the “cost” of wood fuel was sheer inefficiency. In contrast, fossil fuel and electric heating today deliver far more usable heat per energy unit. Any biophysical analysis of wood must account for these efficiencies.
Wood Fuel, Settlement Patterns, and Transport Costs
Because wood must be transported from forest to settlement, transport costs critically shaped pre-fossil landscapes. In an agrarian society, land was organized around central markets. Classical spatial-economic theory (Von Thünen’s model, 1826) postulates concentric rings of land use around a city. Importantly, the second ring outward was forestry: fuelwood and timber zones close to the city. Von Thünen reasoned that bulky, heavy goods (like wood) must come from nearby to minimize transport cost. In his model, dairy and market gardens lay closest to town, then a ring of forests supplying wood and timber, then more distant fields and finally grazing lands. This pattern matches historical reality in the wood era: cities were often ringed by managed forests for fuel. (By the late 19th century in North America, the pattern changed as coal and railroads supplanted local wood, but in a wood-dependent society the forest zone would be economically essential.)
In practical terms, firewood procurement constrained settlement density. Villagers often spent many hours per week gathering wood. One experimental study found forager families might walk kilometers daily to collect fuel, and could spend 10–20% of their workday in fuel gathering. This daily cost limited how dispersed communities could be: if wood had to come from too far away, more labor would be required than a family could spare. In effect, each household radius was capped by the time-investment people were willing to devote to wood. Archaeological data support this: in medieval Europe and rural colonies, populations remained clustered in forested valleys or along riverines where wood (and timber transport via water) was available. Only when coal, gas, or electricity became cheap could cities sprawl far beyond former wood limits.
For example, colonial New England villages were typically built near forests, and early towns often bought common woodlots for public use. When nearby woodlands were cleared, fuel had to be hauled from increasingly distant hills. People documented “firewood shortages” in growing American towns by the mid-1700s; rising wood prices in cities like Philadelphia suggest local forests had been overused. In such a context, transport cost is a literal lifeline. Likewise, in medieval London authorities regulated forest leases to guarantee supply, since distantly-supplied wood (even by river) was costly. Thus reliance on wood strongly influenced where people settled and how dense those settlements could be: clusters tended to stay near fuel, and urban footprints stayed limited until fossil fuels expanded.
The Von Thünen Model in the Biomass Era
Von Thünen’s agricultural-land-use model provides a useful conceptual lens for a wood-powered economy. In the model, land uses are determined by distance-from-market (transport cost) and land rent. Importantly, as noted above, Von Thünen placed a “forest for fuel” zone immediately outside high-density farming. This reflects the fact that wood is heavy relative to its value, so it must be produced close by. In practice, a medieval or pre-industrial region might see precisely this pattern: the innermost ring (closest to a town) was intensive perishable agriculture; just beyond it, managed forest coppices and woodlots supplied fuel. Further out lay grain fields and grazing. (For example, 19th-century English land planners often described ringed landscapes: suburban market gardens near cities, a band of wood-pasture or coppice, then arable crops and finally open commons or heath.)
We illustrate Von Thünen’s classical scheme in Figure 1: concentric land-use rings centered on a market city. Zone 2 (green) is explicitly designated for timber and firewood. This idealized pattern collapses in the modern era, where oil-powered transport and electricity freed cities from local-wood constraints; indeed, today “forests no longer occupy a zone close to the market” because coal and gas replaced wood. But in evaluating a post-fossil future or interpreting the wood era, Von Thünen’s rings remain illustrative. They show how energy transport costs structure land use: when wood is the main fuel, proximity to forests determines urban form.
Fossil Fuel Descent Scenario: Biophysical Constraints and Spatial Impacts
Let us now imagine a 10-year “fossil fuel descent” – a rapid decline in global oil, coal, and gas availability. This extreme scenario (perhaps due to resource depletion or global crises) would thrust society back onto low-EROI, locally sourced fuels. Energy constraints become paramount. Biophysically, the same logic as in the wood era comes into play, but now applied to modern settlements.
First, energetic constraints tighten. As existing fields deplete, extraction rates must fall: “for each [oil or gas] reservoir, a maximum rate of extraction is eventually reached…after which production plateaus before an immutable decline”. Decline is governed by geology, not politics: most mature basins are past peak production. In effect, society will have less net energy (the surplus after paying the energy cost of extraction) to sustain non-energy sectors. As net EROI falls, less surplus remains for transportation, industry, and non-essential services. Hall et al. suggest a threshold: extended EROI below ~3:1 cannot support a complex economy. A rapid descent could push net EROI near that boundary, forcing contraction of infrastructure and services.
Second, higher transport costs will reshape settlement. With expensive oil, everyone pays more for gasoline and shipping. Commuting by car becomes unaffordable for many, so cities begin to densify – as predicted by peak-oil studies. Even moderate fuel price increases tend to favor urban infill, mixed-use development, and public transit. In our scenario, we assume fuel scarcity will cause a pronounced shift toward high-density nodes (cities or urban villages) and away from auto-dependent sprawl. Governments would face pressure to promote compact housing and mass transit, and to re-localize food production. The trend in research is that “peak oil is likely to result in… increases in urban densities”. (Of course, local factors matter: not every city will densify if blocked by rigid zoning, but overall the pressure favors clustering.)
At the same time, some de-urbanization may occur in fringe areas. Outlying suburbs and exurbs – built on the premise of cheap cars – could partially revert or decline. Some households might abandon distant suburbs and move into or near core cities or smaller towns with local energy supplies. Long-haul trucking will shrink, so goods must be produced regionally. Agricultural products will come from closer farms, reducing rural depopulation in some cases as peri-urban farming becomes viable again. However, infrastructure in far-flung areas will deteriorate: long-distance pipelines, highways and transmission lines might be neglected without fuel for maintenance. Consequently, hinterlands may see a gradual return to low-density, agrarian living reminiscent of the pre-motor era – though likely at much lower technological level, due to diminished energy.
The net effect on population density is complex. On one hand, cities may regain economic importance and critical mass (encouraging migration into urban cores). On the other, basic necessities may need rural production (encouraging small-town or village living near farmland). Overall, key amenities (especially energy and food supply) will re-impose limits on spread. We can anticipate a restructuring toward shorter supply chains: people living near their work or farm, smaller local industries, and networks of towns spaced to match renewable-resource zones (e.g. woodlands, rivers). In other words, some high-density centers will expand (to exploit remaining infrastructure), but the outer fringe of exurban development will contract. This hybrid pattern loosely mirrors the concentric model but in reverse: core areas densify for efficiency, while the outermost regions revert to extensive, low-density (locally-self-sufficient) settlement.
Biophysical Constraints (EROI and Net Energy)
Underlying these trends is the steep decline in net energy. As fossil EROI collapses, society must rely more on ever-lower-EROI sources. The rapid ascent of solar and wind faces the same issue: new energy technologies do not escape physics. Critics caution that many renewables (and all biofuels) have far lower EROI than conventional oil. If global average EROI falls below, say, 5:1 or 3:1, only minimal energy services can be maintained. Urban infrastructures (water purification, freight delivery, high-tech medicine) would be strained. In effect, modern society’s complexity – from hospitals to supply chains – is built on abundant net energy. A ten-year descent would not allow a smooth transition: even if renewables ramped up, they would take years to scale. In the interim, energy rationing or allocation would become necessary.
This constraint has direct spatial implications. Fuel transport will contract to the most energy-efficient routes. Heavy goods might be relegated to rail or ships (if fuel still available), while light goods rely on local production. Long pipelines may be phased out in favor of local boilers and biomass plants. Many smaller communities could become effectively energy islands, reliant on local grids or microgrids and on biomass. Meanwhile, rich cities with remaining infrastructure (e.g. hydroelectric dams, nuclear plants) may have a temporary advantage, drawing population from poorer countryside. However, as overall energy declines, even large cities would eventually suffer, forcing further decentralization.
In summary, the biophysical constraints of a rapid fossil-fuel descent will likely push societies into a hybrid pattern: intensified cities and towns supported by shrunken hinterlands of local resource use. Denser settlement becomes necessary to reduce per-capita transport costs; yet without modern long-distance energy, some reversion to agrarian village life (reminiscent of the pre-industrial era) will occur in less-dense areas. This scenario poses enormous challenges for infrastructure – requiring re-localization of food, water, and services – but it is constrained by familiar limits (fuelwood radius, crop yields, human labor capacity) that shaped past societies.
Surviving and Rebuilding: A Practical Guide
Even as an extreme scenario, a ten-year energy crash invites proactive planning. History offers lessons: past societies managed wood and agriculture at village scales, and we can draw on those models. The following guide sketches survival and rebuilding strategies at household, community, and regional levels, grounded in biophysical realities and historical precedent.
-
Local Fuel Stewardship: Where wood remains available, communities must manage forests as a commons. This means planning coppice cycles and woodlots so that each household has access to a sustainable annual allotment of fuel. (In medieval Europe, legal commons often ensured villagers a right to limited wood for heating.) Replanting and selective cutting will be essential. At the household level, switch to the most efficient wood-burning technologies possible (mass-fired masonry heaters, rocket stoves) to maximize heat per cord. Recover and use all available biomass: wood scraps, fallen branches, agricultural residues, and even brush. Any surviving charcoal processes should be highly organized and regulated, since charcoal is far more energy-dense than raw wood.
-
Food and Agriculture: Communities must localize food production to avoid petroleum-based transport and fertilizers. Revive mixed farming and orchards near villages. Use labor-intensive but land-sparing methods (e.g. biodiverse polycultures, terrace or raised-bed gardens, draft animal plowing) rather than mechanized monocultures. Where possible, rotate fields out of production so woodlands or pastures can recover (medieval “forest farming” techniques). Preserve local seed stocks and traditional crop varieties adapted to low-energy farming. Develop community-based storage and processing (e.g. drying, fermenting) to deal with harvest variability. This echoes historical patterns: once, each village supplied its own grains, legumes, and vegetables, with limited long-distance trade.
-
Settlement Design and Transport: Reinforce settlement clustering. Urban design should shift to high density: infill empty lots, convert wide roads into shared lanes, and prioritize pedestrian and bicycle access. Residents will need to live near work and shops; mixed-use neighborhoods (combining housing, food markets, workshops) reduce travel. In towns, relocate or rebuild infrastructure (water, power, waste) around central hubs. Abandoned suburbs could be allowed to revert to farm or forest. At the regional level, create networks of smaller towns spaced by a day’s ride or walk; these can serve as nodes for trade of goods like timber or harvests, reducing the need for long hauls. Historically, empires like Rome or China operated via waystations and local provisioning; similar logic applies now.
-
Community Organization: Grassroots cooperatives can manage local resources and share labor. For example, communal woodcutting teams can harvest timber efficiently, and rotating duties could ensure all households get firewood. Community gardens, tool libraries, and shared kilns or workshops multiply productivity. Learning and re-learning “traditional” skills (carpentry with hand tools, blacksmithing with charcoal, hand-threshing) becomes survival work. Education should focus on these skills and on practical sciences (agroecology, permaculture, renewable energy basics). Psychological and social resilience is also crucial: planning for energy descent requires public buy-in. Historical analogs include monastic or communal settlements that organized daily life around local resources – a pattern that might be revived at a larger scale.
-
Infrastructure and Policy: At the regional/policy level, governments must adapt regulations. Possible measures include: rationing fuel and gasoline (to equitable ends), subsidizing renewable installations (like village-scale solar or wind, as far as possible), protecting remnant forests with strict cutting permits, and converting vacant land into communal woodlots. Transportation policy would pivot away from highways toward rail and river barges (if still operable). Energy-intensive industries (steel, petrochemicals) may be phased out or retooled to smaller scales using local inputs (for instance, small charcoal iron furnaces for toolmaking). Zoning laws should be relaxed to allow urban gardening and livestock in city neighborhoods, mirroring medieval practices of inner-city horticulture. Health and education budgets will need drastic revision as transport costs rise; telemedicine and remote learning (where electricity survives) can help.
-
Economic Adjustments: Price all remaining energy to reflect true cost: remove any fossil-fuel subsidies immediately to avoid wasteful consumption. Encourage barter and local currencies that reduce reliance on fuel-derived GDP. Protect vulnerable populations by community food banks, mutual aid, and decentralized healthcare. Disaster-preparedness will be vital (for example, winterizing homes since heating fuel may be limited).
All these actions are supported by historical precedent. For instance, 17th-century landowners used documented forest management plans to allocate coppice stands between villages. Edo-period Japan compiled detailed land registers and enforced timber permits to avoid fires and famines. In New England, towns once funded schools and mills by selling common woodlots. These are transferable lessons: equitable, planned resource use at the local level ensures survival of the community as a whole.
Finally, renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro) will play a role where possible, but note its constraints. Manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines may be bottlenecked by the energy descent itself. Thus, most rebuilding will rely on low-tech, proven methods: wood energy, muscle (human/animal), and simple machinery (watermill, hand mill, etc.). Communities should “prefamiliarize” themselves with lower-consumption lifestyles before crises fully hit.
Table 1 (for illustration): Comparison of Energy Sources (indicative)
| Fuel Type |
Approx. Energy Density (MJ/kg) |
Typical EROI (modern) |
Typical Usage Context |
| Wood (dry) |
15–20 |
~10:1–30:1 [varies; see text] |
Home heating; small cogeneration |
| Charcoal |
~30 |
Low (energy-intensive to produce) |
Iron smelting (historical) |
| Coal (bituminous) |
~24 |
30:1–80:1 (historical) |
Power plants, industry |
| Oil (crude) |
~42–45 |
~100:1 (1930s) → 10:1 (now) |
Transport, petrochemicals |
| Natural Gas |
~50 (MJ/kg) |
High (since 1970s) |
Heating, power, feedstock |
| Wind/Solar (LCOE) |
— |
Varies; low net output early on |
Electricity (future) |
Notes: EROI = Energy Return on Energy Invested. Values depend on technology, scale, and location. Fossil EROI historically far exceeded wood’s; as Hall et al. note, oil’s EROI has “relentlessly declined” while many renewables and biomass fuels remain low.
Conclusion: Toward a Bioeconomy
Wood energy underpins a deep history of human settlement and economy. Its biophysical realities – low density, finite regrowth, and modest EROI – forced past societies to cluster and manage resources carefully. In a coming post-fossil era, these lessons must be relearned on a global scale. Communities will have to align land use with energy transport costs much like the concentric model of Von Thünen: essentials nearest to population centers, with renewable resource zones (wood, water, fields) organized around them. The transition will be at least as dramatic as the original Industrial Revolution, requiring system-wide preparation. By studying history and energy science, we can anticipate the constraints and begin building resilient communities now – before the woodpile runs out and we must restart by the light of the hearth.