Why is AC cheaper to generate than DC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter R0nin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ac Dc
AI Thread Summary
AC is less expensive to generate than DC primarily because efficient generator designs favor AC, and AC voltage can be easily transformed for long-distance transmission with minimal losses. This allows power companies to transmit high voltage safely and step it down for consumer use. Contrary to the assumption that AC generates more energy, the potency of AC sources is due to higher voltage levels rather than the nature of the current itself. Both AC and DC can deliver the same power if they are at the same voltage, with 110 volts DC being equally potent as 110 volts AC. Additionally, there is no such thing as an AC battery, as batteries provide direct current.
R0nin
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hey guys! Novice physics scholar here who's studying electronics on his downtime. I have some questions concerning AC and DC. If you guys could answer them (simplistically please, I still have a lot to learn :P) I'd really appreciate it.

I'm reading here that 'AC costs less to generate then DC'. Why is that? If anything, I'd think that DC would be cheaper and easier to use. After all, wouldn't it require MORE energy to constantly alternate the direction of a current, as opposed to simply letting a current run a direct course, as it does in DC?

Now, new question... AC current DOES typically generate MORE energy then DC, right? Since the direction of current is constantly being mixed up, the SAME electrons end up traveling a FARTHER distance. Whereas in DC, because the direction of current is so linear, it would seem as if the electrons reach the opposite battery terminal far more quickly then they would in AC, thus lending a shorter 'current life' to DC then to AC. In other words, if you have a 10 V AC battery and a 10 V DC battery, the AC battery would last far longer then the DC.

Am I correct here? Or am I just not making any sense at all?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
R0nin said:
I'm reading here that 'AC costs less to generate then DC'. Why is that? If anything, I'd think that DC would be cheaper and easier to use. After all, wouldn't it require MORE energy to constantly alternate the direction of a current, as opposed to simply letting a current run a direct course, as it does in DC?
AC costs less to generate because the simplest and most efficient generator designs are AC designs but that is not the primary reason that power companies distribute AC. The primary reason is that AC voltage can be easily stepped up and down using transformers. High voltage power can be transmitted long distances with low losses, but is too dangerous for household use. Using AC makes it easy to step the voltage down to a less dangerous level when it reaches the consumers.

R0nin said:
Now, new question... AC current DOES typically generate MORE energy then DC, right?
No. AC motors are simpler and more efficient for the same reasons that AC generators are simpler and more efficient but AC does not inherently pack more punch.
The AC sources you are familiar with are household circuits that are either 110 or 220 volts. The most common DC sources are batteries that range from 1.5 to 12 volts. The AC sources are more potent but it is because the voltages are higher, not because they are AC. 110 volts DC would be just as potent as 110 volts AC.

R0nin said:
if you have a 10 V AC battery
I don't and neither does anyone else. There is no such thing as an AC battery.
 
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top