• niktemadur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    But I have to wonder if Edison’s vision of a DC electrical grid might have been environmentally better in the long run, as it would have been very, very decentralized, with a small power station necessary every couple of kilometers. It might have spurred an accelerated study into renewable sources of electricity, such as wind, even decades and decades ago.

    As things turned out, Tesla/Westinghouse’s victory with AC allows these centralized and “too big to fail” behemoths to suck coal and spit out black smoke out of sight and out of mind for most people.

    • Doug7070@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bold of you to assume that wouldn’t have just resulted in a coal burning power station every couple kilometers…

      • niktemadur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        At first, absolutely yes, coal smoke everywhere, creating an untenable crisis within the cities themselves. That type of crisis would have been tackled as a priority, would have been an integral part of the loudest political dialogues and arguments, decades ago.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          They already had coal pollution everywhere. And they had a solution for that.

          Which was “make the poor people live in the path of the smoke”.

          • niktemadur@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That can’t be done as easily if you have a power plant every mile or so. The issue would affect everyone to some extent, rich and poor. That would have been the issue with Direct Current, it would have been impossible to keep it out of sight and out of mind.

            • Blackmist@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Most of those would be small though. Like the size of a small factory. And most people in the UK would have had plenty of those within a mile of their house, right up until we offloaded all our manufacturing to China.

              Even a full sized coal plant isn’t objectionably dirty enough that people would demand an alternative. We only moved mostly to gas because it was cheaper (and that’s where renewables will eventually win again). There’s one less than two miles from my house. It would be nice if it wasn’t there, but the air is far from unbreathable. If a small coal plant every few miles was the price of having electricity, people would put up with it.

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I get what your saying, but I think the benefits of DC power plants would have been short term, rather than long term.

      Once scaling was introduced there’s no way Edison DC power stations every block would make any sense materially, financially or societally.

      I can’t blame Tesla for toxic capitalism any more than I can blame the wright brothers for manipulative airline ticket prices today.

      Same reason we didn’t have electric cars a hundred years ago

      Unregulated capitalism and undeveloped antitrust laws are the culprit with respect to centralization, not innovation.