AFAIR, large part of it is losses due to voltage drop to finite resistance in the transmission, and one part is cost of transmission line (use of larger diameter to compensate for voltage drop). dahil para ma-achieve 'yung same required maximum voltage drop, kailangang gumamit ng ~3 times conductor area sa half voltage (110V), resulting in ~3 times more volume of copper needed than 220V.
Over long distances, larger conductors become expensive, and it is preferable to redesign the circuit to operate at a higher voltage. Doubling the voltage halves the current required to deliver the same amount of power, halving the voltage drop, and an additional doubling in efficiency is realized because that drop is a smaller fraction of the total voltage.
This is the motivation for commercial high voltage electrical power distribution, and for the use of the +12V power supply rail for high-power loads in modern personal computers.
IIRC, sa US 220V ang entry then split to 110V with one wire to GND, para mas efficient ang distribution at mas maliliit din ang wires na gagamitin sa bahay with power appliances.
^
Tama ka dyan bro 100%. Ang sa akin lang ay ang history kung bakit 220V at hindi 110V. From my earlier post below, back then they don't have the option of using different size conductors and have to make use of existing copper infrastructure. I guess the rest is history why 220V and 110V is still being used in Europe and the US.
Originally Europe was 120 V too, just like Japan and the US today. It has been deemed necessary to increase voltage to get more power with less losses and voltage drop from the same copper wire diameter. At the time the US also wanted to change but because of the cost involved to replace all electric appliances, they decided not to. At the time (1950s-60s) the average US household already had a refrigerator, a washing-machine, etc., but not in Europe.