Edison vs Tesla and Westinghouse
Ernest Fazio, LIMBA Chairman
Thomas Edison was fully engaged in his DC (direct current) system with power plants in Manhattan. All of the wealthy families of the day were tied into the Edison grid. Mr Edison had a remarkable inventor and innovator working for him. He was a tall handsome, brilliant man named Nicola Tesla. Tesla invented the alternating current system, and tried to convince Edison to change his system to AC. Edison was doing just fine with building out his DC system, but Tesla argued that DC had very high line losses and if you want to transmit electric power over long distances you would have to do it by using AC. The benefit of AC was that without any mechanical means the voltage could be raised to very high voltages and the line losses would not be as significant. Edison wanted no part of Tesla’s idea.
Meanwhile Tesla collaborated with George Westinghouse on a proposal to build a hydro-electric power plant at Niagra Falls. The power could then be transmitted to NYC using high voltage alternating current produced by transformers. The power could reach New York City and was a serious threat to Edison’s system.
Edison had the economics of the time on his side. Oil was $1 per barrel. The cost of building a hydro-electric plant had a cost equivalent to $2/barrel, therefore it would not be competitive. Westinghouse had become wealthy on his invention of air brakes that was used on every train in the country, and was convinced that hydro-electric would be economical as the price of oil would rise and the costs associated with building the hydro plant would remain constant. They built it and they won.
We are in a similar situation today. It is still cheaper to burn fossil fuels to create electric power than producing it with wind or solar. How long will that be true? Well last week oil was $91/ barrel. Is it going up? Yes, but we don’t know how much. Predictions are $100/ barrel in 2011. Beyond that who knows.
The facts are, we have other reasons to build alternative energy systems. Reasons such as; clean air requirements, mitigation of global warming gasses, and diversification of supply. The people who are suggesting that the status quo is acceptable are those that are profiting by the systems we have. Are these the people we should be trusting? Have they ever lied to us before?
