I disagree. Fossil energy was convenient, but I don't think it was necessary.
Imagine an Earth without fossil coal and crude oil. This would be a big problem for the steel industry - with just charcoal available, we couldn't make iron on the scale we did during the industrialization. So we get a world where iron is more expensive, and thus not used as much. To some degree, substitutes would have been used - more stone in bridge construction, less steel, more wood in goods and passenger wagon construction, etc. Our means of transport would be somewhat less efficient.
On the other hand, hydropower would still be there. It was one on the important power sources during early industrialization. E.g. in some rural placesm farms had their small-scale hydroelectirc facilities in the early 20th century, when there was no power network, and no diesel generators. With no fossil fuels, those power sources would have been kept in use (better for the climate, worse for river fish). Hydro and wind power were in use since ancient times, so we would have wind power (we possibly would have seen more intermediate stages between windmills and modern wind power). That would have gotten us all the way to solar and nuclear power.
In the end, IMO, we'd have reached today's technology levels. A lack of fossils fuels would have delayed humanity by a few decades to a century, but not stopped it. Depending on how well we can deal with climate change caused by our use of fossil fuel, in the end the difference might be not be that big.