...If there were a better way it would have been implemented. We've been solidly grounded for almost a century now. More than that if you go back to the telegraph days.
Not to disagree, exactly, but my understanding is that France and Japan adopted new and quite different (TT) systems after WWII, when everything in those places was destroyed enough that it didn't cost too much to essentially start from scratch. So sometimes things keep getting done a certain way because it's too expensive to change the entire system at once, rather than because there isn't a better way.
...
While ground rods protect against lightning they can also carry current in a fault to earth though this is not their intended use- the earth has too much resistance to clear a fault. It's also why we only have to size our ground rod GEC's to #6. You can have a 40 story building with a 4000 amp 480v service and you still will only need #6 to ground rods. Bonding to water pipe as GE we follow 250.66 because we have to consider the service potentially energizing the water pipes.
Maybe I'm off base in a matter of semantics.
The purpose of grounding (to earth) our electrical systems is for lightning, static, and other foreign voltages. A water pipe is exceptional as it can run along with the electrical system throughout the building and is to be apart of the GEC system. But a ground rods purpose is NOT to clear faults or protect against shock from our systems.
I think you should be careful thinking that the NEC required GES does much, if anything, to help with lightning. I think it's definitely the case that some people who've had a hand in writing the code think that. But my understanding is that in reality it's not going to help all that much. Poor grounding practices
can also make lightning problems worse. I think even some NEC required grounding practices could make issues with lightning worse, given some bad luck. If you want real lightning protection, there are SPDs which the NEC does not require, and there's NFPA 780 for lightning protection systems.
Again, the GES potentially does a lot of different things, I think some of which you are grasping and some of which you aren't yet.
We drive ground rods for lightning.
And some other stuff, which you mentioned. And some other stuff that you don't seem to be accepting. By the way, have you read what the NEC actually says the purpose of grounding is? It's 250.4(A)(1) and (2). (2) in particular is very, very general and I believe is motivated by what I said in post 3.
This is my problem with the word "grounded". If you subtract the GES but still have the main bonding jumper of all metal parts to neutral is the system grounded?
If it's a service, it's probably still grounded somewhere else. If it's an SDS, no, the system is no longer grounded. By the way, the NEC allows some systems to be ungrounded by design. But those systems should still have a GES, and the NEC requires it.
This is my issue with the words grounding and bonding. I feel like too many mistake grounding for having much to do with the MBJ and clearing a fault.
It's certainly correct that too many are confused, and the traditional use of 'Equipment Grounding Conductor' in the US is partly to blame. EGCs are for bonding, not grounding per se. And clearing faults using OCPDs is the primary reason for bonding.
But, there are still other reasons to
ground the same stuff. EGCs ultimately ground stuff as well, if they are ultimately connected to a GES.
There are also different kinds of faults and different kinds of fault protection, and different ways designing systems to deal with them. In systems that rely on RCDs and similar devices to clear faults, the GES is still important to clearing faults as well.
but that is equipment bonding and earthing and has nothing to do with SYSTEM grounding.
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Did the OP originally ask about system grounding? In the US, earthing and system grounding tend to be quite conflated. In other countries it might be less so.
