The data exists of course. Lots of coal and gas has been burned to power computers to whine endlessly about it, the big boogeyman at Fukushima.
I have the numbers. I can produce them at will whenever I'm at my home computer, with reference to the primary scientific literature.
Numbers don't lie. People lie to themselves and to each other, but numbers don't. I would submit that the failure to face the numbers is the real reason that so much of the planet is in flames.
We could, of course ban electricity as "too dangerous." The solar industry is not sustainable because since ancient times it's been known that the sun goes down every day. Of course sun worship is about as old.
Reliability has an economic, thermodyamic, and thus environmental cost. The reason that major fires are breaking out all over the world, California being just one instance, is not that engineers are incompetent in the minds of people who know little about engineering but deign to sit in judgement of its practitioners.
My son is already a highly trained engineer and as his father he has worked to make me aware of the challenges. All engineering is an exercise in combinatorial optimization, irrespective of catcalls from the peanut galleries. Energy cannot be, by its very nature risk free. It can only be risk minimized. That's what engineers do, including those at PSGE, some of whom are surely excellent honorable people I am sure, who work extremely hard under difficult conditions to keep the lights on.
I refer to Theodore Roosevelt's famous lecture at the Sorbonne: "It's not the critic who counts..."
If we demonize the nuclear industry and praise in reactionary rhetoric the ancient mystical nonsense of thinking the sun God will save our asses, our legacy will be what we are already seeing, a planet in flames.
The solar industry is not sustainable. It depends on access to fossil fuels, and they, not nuclear are responsible for the disaster of climate change.
History will not forgive us nor should it.
= new reply since forum marked as read