Keiva spoke of early advocacy of a generator in every home. Terrible idea, inefficient, massive pollution, even dangerous. Great for boondocks and third world, but suggesting it in big cities is insane. uh, dr. bill, are you adjudging past positions as "terrible" based on the technology of the present?
In those days (before Insul/GE's breakthrough with the turbine generator, in roughly 1905) one simply could not build a generator big enough to produce enough power to serve a large area. So long as that was the case, any power sources would have to be diffused -- as indeed they had been throughout history. Given that, the advocacy of localized power-plants made a good deal of sense. Consider which would you prefer: for each building or small group of buildings to have:
(1) its own coal-fired generator, producing electrical power to be distributed by wire through the building; or
(2) its own coal-fired generator, producing mechanical power (a turning driveshaft), to be distributed by a series of belts and gears (more power-loss, by friction; plus danger of mechanical injury to person from whirring driveas and belt); or
(3) no power source other than muscle power -- human or animal -- with which to produce?
Post-edit: words in red above were added, as clarification, reflecting dr. bill's point below.
