First you say AC is way better for transmission, which is false - you should look into what HVDC is.. and second what you’re talking about “curb to home” is power distribution, not transmission - so your post is confused on a few levels - it’s hard to understand what you’re trying to even claim.
> its been repeated elsewhere, but transmitting dc power with any meaningful voltage is dangerous, like burn your whole house down dangerous
Would you like to specifically reference in your linked video where that claim is made? Because I didn’t see that, and I am puzzled what you’re referring to. Quite the opposite he demonstrates at household voltage, DC is safer than AC from a shock standpoint (see 2:08). Why do you think high voltage DC is inherently less safe than AC?
This video seems to demonstrate the basic historical concept that AC is superior for transmission due to the typical ease in converting to high voltage low current and back - the key point is that it is high voltage for lower current and lower loss and this has traditionally been easier achieved with AC. It doesn’t really get into modern power conversion which has changed things somewhat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7C5sSde9e4&t=7m34s
The thermal properties of AC for comparable amounts of power in a conductor are significantly better.
Copper is expensive, and having dealt with just the difference between connecting 12 gauge and 14 gauge to outlets and pulling it through conduits I'm certainly not enthusiastic about needing larger conductors.
If wikipedia is to be believed, DC is better in terms of conductor material costs and transmission losses than AC, at least for long distance high-power high-voltage transmission lines.
> A long-distance, point-to-point HVDC transmission scheme generally has lower overall investment cost and lower losses than an equivalent AC transmission scheme. HVDC conversion equipment at the terminal stations is costly, but the total DC transmission-line costs over long distances are lower than for an AC line of the same distance. HVDC requires less conductor per unit distance than an AC line, as there is no need to support three phases and there is no skin effect.
> Depending on voltage level and construction details, HVDC transmission losses are quoted at 3.5% per 1,000 km, about 50% less than AC (6.7%) lines at the same voltage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Ad...
This is correct. DC is a much better choice for long distance transmissions. You don't need to worry about reactive power, skin effect, reactive elements of the line, whether the generators and the grid are synced or not etc. The problem with DC voltage conversion are mostly solved as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Di...
Not to mention that circuit breakers are harder in DC.
[Citation needed]
(Apparently this is one of the reasons why cars stick with 12V for accessories, because if they used higher voltages the electrical switches would be more expensive and less reliable.)
I don't know how this is normally overcome. In a lot of cases, the solution might just be "use a fuse instead".
High power DC-DC conversion equipment is still more expensive than AC and the technology simply didn’t exist during the current wars.
One argument for AC though is that it's easier to make AC switches, since those have a self-extinguishing arc. Maybe even household light switches can be replaced by solid-state devices?
Aside from the difficulty of making reliable switches, I'm not aware of anything about DC that makes it inherently more dangerous than an equivalent AC voltage.
HVDC has some tradeoffs over HVAC, but you should be able to transmit power just fine with either.
HVDC doesn't suffer from the skin effect that AC does: https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-curren...
HVDC is however harder to make/break contact with compared to HVAC as AC crosses zero volts many times: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/325608
EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to pile on this comment with everyone else