This seems like a very strange comparison to me. Why would you suggest that an ICE is a substitute for moving electricity from solar panels in the southwest to NE?
The percentage losses are irrelevant, except in the context of substitutes. An ICE could be 1% efficient if the next best substitute cost 100x more to operate. Likewise, 5% losses in transmission might add up over very long distances to mean that it makes more sense to build wind in the appalachians or off-shore from NY than it does to power the NE with solar installs in Arizona. OR, beaming energy eating 50% while costing even more due to the amount of exotic materials in construction.
The percentage losses are irrelevant, except in the context of substitutes. An ICE could be 1% efficient if the next best substitute cost 100x more to operate. Likewise, 5% losses in transmission might add up over very long distances to mean that it makes more sense to build wind in the appalachians or off-shore from NY than it does to power the NE with solar installs in Arizona. OR, beaming energy eating 50% while costing even more due to the amount of exotic materials in construction.