“1. 60% thermal loss at generation plant/
2. 8% loss in transmission lines/
3. 1% loss charging the battery/
4. 7% loss from the electric motors in the car/
Total loss is 76%. (thus 24% makes it to your wheels)”
I only use your numbers for clarity in showing your glaring errors.
If you start with 100% then after 60% loss in generation you have 40% remaining.
If you lose 8% of that 40% in transmission you have 36.8%.
If you lose 1% in charging you have 36.8 x .99 = 36.4% remaining.
If you lose 7% in the motors that is 36.4 x .93 = 33.8% remaining.
33.8%, not 24%.
But the costs related to infrastructure do not seem to be negligible: changes required to support the sheer proposed volume of vehicles on the grid; the electricity generation capacity too.
So, while it would seem like your calculations point to similar efficiency characteristics (maybe), yet the infrastructure, the flexibility & better range of the internal combustion engine vehicles and also the safety characteristics (for example, Lithium batteries seem to have a combustion problem using current approaches; more so than gasoline tanks) still seem to be heavily in favor of the status quo.
Side issue: once there’s a maintenance issue with the EV batteries, it’s EXTREMELY expensive to fix. EVs cost more than the ICE.