[lowtechmagazine]

Maybe read the article before you comment?

Here's the last two paragraphs:

A thermoelectric heating system that runs on fossil fuels also compares favourably to a large cogeneration power plant, which captures the waste heat of its electricity production and distributes it to individual households for space and water heating. In a thermoelectric heating system, heat and power are produced and consumed on-site. Unlike a central cogeneration power plant, there's no need for an infrastructure to distribute heat and electricity. This saves resources and avoids energy losses during transportation, which amount to between 10 and 20% for heat distribution and between 3 and 10% (or much more in some regions) for power distribution.

A cogeneration power plant is more energy efficient (25-40%) in turning heat into electricity, meaning that in comparison a thermoelectric heating system supplies a larger share of heat and a smaller share of electricity. This is far from problematic, though, because even in Europe 80% of average household energy use goes to space and water heating.

[acidburnNSA]

I read it! I meant a large central non combustion power plant with district heating that doesn't emit air pollution or carbon. Not a biofuel cogen plant!

Yes you have to transfer the power and yes infrastructure is needed. These are important activities in the quest for not killing people via air pollution and stopping climate change.

[lowtechmagazine]

A "central non-combustion power plant that doesn't emit air pollution or carbon"? What fuel is it running on?