> You really think the only change in our usage in that time period is we left the lights on 60% longer?

Of course not. This was just an example to attempt to drive the point that there's a very real difference between energy and power. You can deliver more kilowatt-hours (energy) without changing kilowatt (power) generation capacity. The bottom line is that energy metrics or charts are impossible to use in this discussion.

> your argument of leaving the lights on longer and power capacity points to how EVs are still possible

In small numbers, sure. At scale, 300 million vehicles. No. Nobody is going to wait 16 hours to charge their cars. The infrastructure has to be able to deliver double the power we can deliver today.

I read through your reasoning about the 50 A circuit at one or many homes. The problem with this reasoning or story is that, while it is easy to say these things, until you sit down with Excel and quantify it all with a reasonable model of reality, it is just words. Once you do that you will very quickly realize a full migration to electrics is absolutely impossible with the current power generation and distribution infrastructure.

As I said before, I wanted to understand this in some detail. I kept hearing these claims about going electric, yet nobody showed any calculations. As an engineer, I had to put numbers to the claims.

The model I created about five years ago simulated a fleet consisting of 300 million vehicles of various types. This being US-centric, I divided the fleet into six time zones based on current population distribution figures. And, within those time zones, I created variables to manipulate utilization scenarios. For example, a percentage of the population would only drive 20 miles a day and would be happy slow charging over eight hours. Another portion of the population required fast charging a few times per week (pretty much as one might get gasoline today). Some would be hybrid: plug in at home every night and top-off with fast chargers during the week as needed. Yet another part of the model looked at some percentage of those vehicles being mid and long distance trucks, which simply cannot afford to sit idle for eight or more hours while charging. Etc.

The point is, the model wasn't a simplistic statement of the kind that is often offered in these discussions, things like "We have more than enough solar to do this" while nobody bothers to put some numbers to it.

Having said all of that. The best confirmation of my numbers I can offer is Elon Musk himself explaining in that video that we need to double our power generation capacity and redo our entire infrastructure. Until Elon was asked this question I was, to be dramatic, entirely on my own making these kinds of claims. People want to religiously believe that these things are possible. They are not. So, don't believe what I say, but, please, do believe what Elon Musk said --which happens to confirm my findings from many years ago.

Assuming both Elon and I are not completely full of shit, well, reality is that the fully-electric transportation dream will require leaving this cult-like delusion behind to put into place a realistically attainable plan. This plan requires --absolutely requires-- cheap oil. Oil is what we have to use to build the very infrastructure required to support electric transportation. Without cheap oil we cannot get there. That is VERY important to understand. Without an admission and an understanding that petroleum is critical in making the all-electric dream a reality, there is no way to make it happen.

And so, the plan must include a well-defined and intensely funded period, about 50 years long, where we drive local petroleum costs as far down as possible in order to be able to engage in a massive construction project to revamp power generation capacity. This plan should also include a vey serious commitment and a solid plan to build hundreds of nuclear power plants. We cannot do it without nuclear. And, yes, solar and wind must be a part of this.

The precise proportions and sequencing of the above will be a matter of detailed analysis and, yes, math. None of this is particularly difficult --outside of the politics and ideological delusions we must leave behind. It's just a matter of starting to bring the truth to the forefront and having the adults in the room lay out a clear, attainable plan for a transition to all-electric transportation within the next 50 years.

To drive the point home: If you feel you still need to argue against my claim that we need to double power generation and infrastructure, you need to argue against Elon Musk. You are free to discount me as some nutcase on HN. Elon, on the other hand, well, he is confirming what I am saying. Not sure how anyone can argue against that one.