Each charge that traverses the length of some conductor begins at one end with a certain amount of potential energy, and exits the other end with lower potential energy. The potential difference (voltage) between the two ends is the amount of potential energy, in electron-volts (eV), that each charge loses on its journey between the two points. Electrons, being negatively charged, have their highest potential energy at the point of lower potential.
For instance if one end, X, of some device is at 2V, and end Y is at 10V, then all electrons have 10eV - 2eV = 8eV more potential energy at X than those at Y. An electrons will travel through the device under the influence of the electric field caused by the applied 8V potential difference, beginning its journey at X, where it has 10eV, and emerging at Y with a potential energy of 2eV.
In other words, each electron will have lost 8eV of energy to the device it travelled through, and by conservation of energy that lost energy must reside somewhere else now, or have a different form.
If the device has purely resistance, then all that energy has become heat, due to interactions with stationary charges in atomic nuclei. These "collisions" impart any accumulated kinetic energy of moving electrons (accelerated by the field of the potential difference) to the stationary atoms, which we recognise as heat. This also prevents the electrons accelerating unimpeded, resulting in an average speed of all the electrons to be somewhat fixed and predictable, current.
Clearly then, the energy imparted by each charge to the device after it makes a complete journey through the device, is proportional the voltage across the device.
Also, by extension, the rate at which energy is imparted, called "power" will be proportional to the rate at which charges complete this journey, and that will depend on the average velocity of a charge during its journey.
As you alluded to, current is the amount of charge passing by some point each second, which (assuming a constant uniform charge density in the conductive path) will be proportional to the average speed of the charges. We have two ways of influencing that. We may either we change potential difference, or we change the path's resitance, both will result in a change in current.
It is supremely interesting to me, from a purely physical perspective, that by doubling the voltage across something, you are simultaneously doubling the potential energy lost by each charge on its journey through that thing, and the speed at which it travels (current). Both of these factors individually contribute to the rate of delivery of energy, called "power". This gives rise to the square term in the famous equation \$P = \frac{V^2}{R}\$.
However, it must be noted that the power I refer to above, is the power delivered to the current carrying element, and not the power delivered via this element to some remote recipient. This is where most confusion stems from.
Our task as energy providers is to minimise loss in the delivery system, and maximise power arriving at the destination. Remembering that increased current results in greater heating (power loss) in the cables carrying those charges, we aim to keep that current to a minimum. The most common way to do this is by increasing the potential difference across the entire circuit loop, which is very different from increasing the potential difference across sections of charge-carrying cables themselves. Consider these two scenarios, which deliver (almost) exactly the same power to a remote load Rd:
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
R1 and R2, which I have chosen arbitrarily to be 4Ω in total, represent the resistance in the cables delivering power. In the first (top) circuit, I have chosen to provide power from a 12V source. The voltage "lost" across each delivery cable is 1V, and that corresponding power (heating) in those cables is 0.5W.
In the second circuit, I have increased the source potential, but also increased Rd such that it still dissipates 5W of power. Importantly, the current around the loop is now much lower. The voltage across the cables has correspondingly fallen to 0.43V each, even though the source potential has risen. This is not so difficult to understand when you remember that Rd is much greater now.
Since power companies and their customers are concerned purely with power delivery, and not the "resistance" of their connected appliances, this approach makes sense; to design appliances that operate from greater voltages, and increase the voltage at the source, so that current in the delivery path is minimised, as will be power lost therein.
P = U * I
. And with wordsPower=Voltage*Current
. So voltage is U, not V (which is volume). \$\endgroup\$V
is another commonly used letter for voltage (it depends on locality; in my country, we use exclusivelyU
, but I readV
99% of the time in English resources.) \$\endgroup\$