A pretty fundamental question here is whether we try and look at the part's actual mass - but that will break for any two-in-one part like kerballed command modules, so it's a non-starter; so we have to just multiply or divide the existing performance. This will, vexingly, break mods which already have adopted the 1EC = 1kJ convention. Worse yet will be mods which mix that convention with other parts with stockalike performance. Solar - seems like we can scale the lot, factor of 6 selected. EC capacity Battery capacities want multiplied up by 20. Bit of a wrinkle in that for control parts, I might like not to change their built-in endurance and ability to use reaction wheels; I intentionally are not going to address RW balance, but giving probe cores 20x the EC kind of does change it. On the other hand, not multiplying up risks an inadvertent nerf to parts like the HECS2 which contain a significant mass of battery. I think best to err on the side of caution (and also before you could just stick on an OX-STAT and run the wheel forever) which also spares me writing a giant rune about _which_ part to edit. Of course there's a gotcha here that fuel switching mods won't know about this. Mind you, many of them don't increase mass much or at all - EC doesn't weigh anything, but batteries to put it in certainly do! RTGs: We think an RTG is any part with a ModuleGenerator making EC with no input resource and no other output resource. (This also does the launch clamp; who cares?) Fuel cells are a bit more complex because we will want not just a sensible EC/mass ratio, but a sensible input amount of LF/O. A base fuel cell uses 0.01875 kg of LF+O every second to make what will be, once we multiply it up, 9 kW power. It is surprisingly hard to find a figure for the energy density of RP-1 + LOX, but kerosene is 43 MJ/kg, which at 2.3 oxidiser to fuel ratio (as in the F-1) gives 13 MJ/kg. (Of course we are stretching here because KSP's LF/O ratio isn't anything like that, but we need _a_ real-world analogy. The other approach would be to use KSP's LF/O ratio, but that would produce an even bigger adjustment to mass flow!) Fuel cells are about 50% efficient (the alkaline chemistry ones used in aerospace are better, but then they're working off H2/O2, not somehow magicing kerosone into electricity without combustion). This would warrant a consumption of... huh, 0.0014 kg/s. Fuel cells are going to be a lot more viable in CAMREC, consuming 1/13 the amount of fuel. This also runs me into my first mod compatibility problem - On-Demand Fuel Cells. Oddly, ODFC _already_ changes fuel cell performance - quite dramatically, with a LF/O ratio closer to RP-1/LOX than KSP LF/O. Sigh. Where the standard fuel cell produces 1.5 EC/s, the ODFC one produces 5 EC/s, consuming 0.104525 kg/s of LFO, 0.02 kg/s monoprop, 9.4 * 10^-5 kg/s hydrogen and 0.0011 kg/s oxygen (and producing 0.00084 kg/s of water), or 0.002 kg/s LF if IntakeAir is available. These are odd figures to reconcile (for example, the energy density of monoprop is better than LFO, the energy density of hydrogen is amazing, about half the mass used in the H2/O2 cycle disappears, for some reason having IntakeAir available makes your LF go further) so I think they have to be rewritten. The LF/O process now produces the same numbers as CAMREC without ODFC. The monoprop process has reduced efficiency (J/kg) by a factor of about 2, and reduced peak output (which conveniently keeps the 0.5 EC/s ODFC adds to pods intact if they run on monoprop). The LF/IntakeAir process is like the LF/O one except it wants more air because air mostly isn't oxygen. The CRP H2/O2 process is based on the circa 130MJ/kg energy value of hydrogen and the circa 60% efficiency of aerospace H2/O2 fuel cells. 1kW output needs circa 1.3 * 10^-5 kg/s hydrogen, and 4x that mass of oxygen. 90% of the mass emerges as water (there's a reason fuel cells and electrolysers don't make good long-term energy storage). I'm kind of curious as to why it uses Hydrogen not LqdHydrogen but presumably in a RealFuels world there's a way to warm the stuff up before you use it. 0.143 units /s for 1 kW, and 0.0364 units of oxygen. (Oxygen is much denser in the CRP than hydrogen). Also I totally confused myself here with the way resource densities are shown in _tonnes_ per unit, but I think I have it all right now. As a brief test I launched a vessel with 2 H2/O2 arrays, an empty 80MJ battery, and Universal Storage hydrogen, oxygen, and (empty) water tanks. It should take about 6-700 seconds to fill the battery, and it does; and if I deploy a much larger version of it, the total vessel mass decreases by 1kg when it's made about 10kg of water, which is the loss figure I was looking for. An obvious downside here is that I might have turned electrolysers into perpetual motion machines, at least until the water runs out. A brief look at the US Elektron says I haven't, but its output numbers are funny, perhaps because it doesn't account for the relative density of H2 and O2. So what's next? This is enough to let me do the next thing in my current game, but on the list are the US Elektron (because I know it's wrong), Kerbal Foundries (which just has a large fudge factor to make driving on batteries even vaguely possible), Karbelectic generators, ion drives (since Nertea mentions they are wrong), USI nuclear reactors (and I think there's one apiece in the Mk2/Mk3 Expansions), and radiators - those being the parts I want to work plausibly later in the current game. Electrolysis of water is around 80% energy efficient, and (says Wikipedia) producing 1 kg of hydrogen (which has a specific energy of 143 MJ/kg) requires 50–55 kW⋅h (180–200 MJ) of electricity. The Elektron used to pull 2 EC/sec; 2kW. At this rate it should be able to produce a kg of hydrogen every 100,000 seconds, 10^-5 kg/s, 0.11 units/sec. This is _slow_ (per mass of electrolyser) even compared to the figures I can find which are for non-aerospace applications where there is no real need to make the thing light at all costs. Let's have it pull a chunky 10kW, making 0.55 units/sec of hydrogen. It will produce oxygen at 4x the kg/s rate it does hydrogen; 0.142 units/sec. The good news for our arithmetic is that this is the same ratio as the H2/O2 fuel cell. The extra good news is that this is about half the per-kW rate of the fuel cell, corresponding to its 60% efficiency.