% efficiency was not part of my calc. 9 qBTU for all cars delivered so 26ish qBTU at point of generation already reflects the inherent inefficiencies including battery charge/discharge inefficiencies. That 65% is strictly Ohm’s Law. Line loss. Until there are room temp superconductors Ohm’s law will lead to those losses. Generating where it is used gets around this because wires would be short, but many industrial scale efficiencies of scale go away.
Nat gas and petro and coal cost money to transport, but there is no appreciable energy loss in the transportation other than the power to physically get it there. 65% of their cost is not transportation. Been a long time since I was involved in trucking but a load NY to LA costs what? 4 to 6 K? That works out to around $1.20 a gallon in the worst possible scenario. What is US average gas today? $2.85?
NY to LA is less than 50% loss on the most inefficient modality for gas.
Your reply is doubletalk and smokescreen, and Ive lost respect for your opinion. PE in EE and computing here. There is nowhere near 65 % resistive loss in the system. Not even controversial. Google it. Dont throw around Ohms law and “l calced”.
Depending on the definitions transmission losses are 2 to 15%. The reason transmission is that efficient is that those very economics cause the power transmission companies to jack up the transmisission voltage (E) so high. The current term (I) in ohms law is inversely lower for the same power transmitted (EI) . Transmission power loss ( I squared R) goes down by the inverse square of the voltage, at the same line resistance and power transmitted. since I=E/R.
To convince you of this without explaining it, I cited the very source you yourself presented, the 65% figure was explained in the source of the data cited in your chart using with the note I quoted, but now you disavow your own your own data source.