Hacker News Reader

Comment by xstartup | Hacker News Reader

Generation is cheap. It's the distribution where the overhead is. Most of the electricity is lost in transmission. We must get wireless transmission working.

View on HN

> Most of the electricity is lost in transmission.

False.

"The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that electricity transmission and distribution (T&D) losses average about 5% of the electricity that is transmitted and distributed annually in the United States.1"

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3

I am not talking about the US. In developing countries, transmission loss/theft are the biggest reason they've long powercuts.

Well, the article was talking about a US utility. So people might be forgiven for importing that context into your comment.

Wireless is not going to solve anything. The lowest loss method for long distance transmission is high voltage DC.

Edison, is that you?

Ha, there used to be buildings in NYC that had DC power until relatively recently. AC is easier to work with since you can step it up and down easily, but DC has lower transmission losses over long distances.

DC or AC?

DC, but the equipment to convert from AC to DC and vice-versa is expensive so it doesn't get used as much.

We convert a lot of AC back to DC to use modern appliances: Computers, Phone Chargers and LED lighting. Although I am guessing down stepping DC voltage is also expensive to do efficiently.

Wouldn't that result in even more lost in transmission?

Could you explain what you mean? Wireless transmission does work (especially on the industrial scale), and has losses of its own.

or local generation.

But you still have to store it in that case. Unless you're using non-renewables, but transporting them around seems less efficient than just centralizing the generation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com