Why would we use direct current instead of alternating current?
What could be reasons to use direct current in the distribution of power?
I know that it is more efficient to distribute current at high voltages to reduce heat loss and that it is easier to step up voltage in AC. Regardless, what would be reasons to not use it (or at least not so wide-spread as it is now)?
Would I only need an alternate history or would I have to change the complete environment?
This post was sourced from https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/116022. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
1 answer
Reverse the War of the Currents.
In the late 19th century, Thomas Edison supported the use of direct current, and his company, Edison General Electric, attempted to use it on a large scale. A major competitor, George Westinghouse, supported the use of alternating current, with his competing company. Both tried to corner the market, but doing so would require the large-scale adoption of one of the two types of current. The resulting battle - which was hard-fought, very public, and world-changing - had a number of significant events:
- Edison and other DC supporters played up the possible danger of alternating current. There were accidental deaths around the country from AC wires, and one DC supporter, Harold Brown, deliberately used alternating current to kill animals. Brown also made sure that alternating current was used to execute William Kemmler in the electric chair. At the same time, alternating current proponents opposed the use of direct current for essentially the same reasons.
- Several prominent industry mergers consolidated power for the different companies. After Edison left industry, Edison General Electric merged with Thomson-Houston, and the resulting company, General Electric, used the Thomson-Houston AC patents. GE and Westinghouse, the two major players, now both used AC, meaning that most of the United States used alternating current. The exceptions were small, local DC networks in certain cities on the east coast.
- Alternating current was shown to be effective for transmitting current for long distances, especially when transformers were used. On large-scale power grids, which were needed for the rapidly-industrializing United States, this was a boon. Advances in minimizing loss in direct current lines did help DC survive, but it was too little too late.
If you could change the history books such that Edison remained involved with Edison General Electric (or controlled GE after the merger with Thomson-Houston), he could have remained a major player in the market, and would have held the power to continue to advocate for DC. Edison might have won the propaganda war, but if there had been many more accidents, and Westinghouse and other AC companies had lost revenue on a large scale, it's possible that Edison General Electric would have held onto the market, and DC would have been the only real option, financially. The only way to overcome the technical benefits of alternating current is to make it seem dangerous, and unfeasible or unpalatable to adopt.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads