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.

Burning wood might be even less efficient than burning gasoline. But if wood was free, that makes it pretty efficient per dollar.