I understand exactly what you are saying. I just don't think it makes any sense. If it does then every life cycle study that has ever been done is wrong. The variation in the numbers is because of differences in location. So the electricity in X place is dirtier then somewhere else and you have to adjust for that. These variables are well known. You just have to do the math for each location. This is exactly what I did and why I said that here it is better. Somewhere else it might not. See understanding this allows you to use the correct numbers.

So I will say the same thing again. Unless you are able to show which of my numbers are wrong, based on my location, then you can just stop writing anything at all because it is meaningless. Seriously it is like you are telling me that 2+2 = 5 but then can't tell me how you reached the conclusion. If you are right it should be extremely easy to show that using the correct numbers. Now if you are arguing that it is completely unknowable then what kind of stupid argument is that? You need to have words with every scientific publication that has ever published a life cycle study on this because they will all be wrong too.