You're right, of course, at least so long as one relies on the occasionally vast supply needed to do various things. However, the grid was designed, not on the basis of what is needed in order to supply the need, but, rather to distribute the product at the best profit. Waste was never a concern, since there was plenty of capacity.

We're getting up to the limits of capacity now, at least in North America. More generating plants presently means more pollution. We don't want that. Less demand means being sensible. We're clearly not willing to do that either. In California, and probably elsewhere as well, there have been some multi-MW generating facilities built that don't pollute, because they use no fossil fuels and that don't generate presently unmanageable waste, as they're not nuclear plants either. These experimental plants use a large array of mirrors to heat pipes through which a heat-conducting medium flows, by means of which steam is generated and used to drive turbines. It's another not-yet mature technology, but it shows some promise. Of course, it does require a distribution grid, which means all those 2% losses associated with each transformer, and the I*R losses in the grid would remain, but at least the 55% that goes up the chimney would be eliminated, as would the greenouse gas emissions and other pollutants.

I suspect, that the grid will be with us for many years yet to come, since local generation for industry is less practical than for homes. However, there is certainly hope, even WITH the grid, that the pollution can be significantly abated.

RE