You need enough distributed generation to offset local calm days and weeks. The storage near those would run out quickly and idle - or be filled from remote generation to then be discharged to remote consumers.
EDIT - Just removed a useless and confusingly deployed organizational element - /EDIT
You -always- need to generate enough overall power to match the consumption of your system, otherwise you will experience blackouts. You may generate it in a single place, in many stable places, or in many variable places, but the overall amount of energy produced -has to be- over a certain limit.
The direct consequence is that when your renewable plant gets idle, the energy is produced elsewhere and sold to where needed.There is no need to store it away if it's used right at that moment. The distance to cover, in this case, is (on average) the same as with your solution, becaue you don't have to charge anything.
If the needs to store the energy arise, you can store it either -near the site of production- or, in your scenario, in BEVs near the site of -presumed- future peak demand. That -presumed- element is the key. If the BEVs moves, or if the peak demand is, by any chance, some place else, you would have moved electricity to a place to then use it in a different place, getting energy to travel -more- distance than if you had power near the production site.
If your, say, wind farm is idle for long, because for weeks you have no wind, the excess energy it stored -before- is used up and depleted, and then the amount of energy needed is provided by other power plants somewhere else and transported directly where it's needed. If it were BEVs, the energy produced by the weeks-idle wind farm would be depleted anyway. Remember, you have an overall production that is able to provide an minimum amount of energy to your system, averaging the production among the country.
If, on the contrary, your wind farm is generating much energy for a long time, it can store the amount the storage facility is able to accomodate and then sell the rest directly to the grid, thus doing what will not be done by other idle farm with depleted storage facilities.
In this scenario, there is no need to move energy from one production site to any distant storage facilities.
In your scenario, BEVs would act as (inconsistently placed and available) storage facilities for energy which should then be allocated where it's needed, and you can't fully foresee where, because of the nature of renewable energies.
If you, on the other hand, are suggesting of storing energy in cars all the time and then use it from them, you are adding passages and distances to energy transportation, which are not needed to make the system work.
Same with solar - if you size the storage new a large solar plant for winter, it will need to use other remote storage in summer. If you size it for summer, its storage would be idle a lot in winter -
Solar is easier than wind, in this regard. If you had only solar farms, you -surely- would have excess production in summer, so you would have to store it somewhere, be it BEVs or storage facilities. Then scale them to accomodate excess energy for the winter.
If you have solar combined with other sources, size the facilities properly for production, and sell it directly to the grid when the facilitiy is full and as long as the bonanza continues. Lower the amount produced by other sources or use -their- energy (now in excess) to charge -their- own storage facilities for later. That would move the energy by no more distance than you would by charging BEVs.
BEVs are still unnecessary, because they would have the same transportation issues and, if not scaled, they would fill up and waste any excess energy anyway.
or be filled from remote generation to then be discharged to remote consumers.
This, as I have shown, is never happening.
Wind and solar are highly variable by nature. Sizing local storage that rarely goes idle (too much dedicated storage throughout the grid) and that rarely gets charged from remote generation (those transport losses you fear) is a contradiction.
Why can't it be idle? When the energy produced from its source is low for too long, it WILL be idle. The important thing is you don't -waste- any excess energy. When the facility is too full, as I have said, sell the produced energy somewhere else where there are idle plants, or lower the production of other sources to avoid wasting any energy. You would do this even by directly selling to BEVs.
The difference is you would already know -where- to allocate energy, while with BEVs you are just making assumption, and that would make you lose part of the energy in useless transportation later on.
The renewables aren't replacing oil, mostly nuclear. In fact, natural gas even has slightly increased. Oil never was a significant part of our electricity. If any fossil fuels are replaced then it's coal.
Narf, of course in your chart it isn't replacing oil... your chart shows the -production- of energy by sources in Germany, which produces no oil... I assure you there are countries that -do- produce oil and could use renewables to lower that production or use it for other things. Even Italy, for example (less than 10% produtction and declining).
The lowering in oil demand will lower oil prices for the same amount extracted. The recent war on oil prices started because there was an excess production which has be kept in order to kill some of the most expensive competitors off. The USA ones, for example. The price will rise again, but not so much, otherwise the expensive competition would come right back and steal market shares off, greatly displeasing some countries.
More renewable sources, more electric vehicles, less demand for oil, more competitiveness from old ICEs.