You will not accept Solana's independently audited report but you will accept Visa's? Doesn't Visa have just as much to gain by casting itself in a favorable light, and significantly more resources to hire researchers who will put their thumb on the scale for them?

I choose to accept both, because the auditors used by both are credible organizations who do this research for a living, and whose continued existence is dependent on their track record of scientific objectivity.

As I noted before, however, there is a measure of checking you can do yourself on the numbers Solana published. Look at the number of validators running on the network (several links already provided) and consult the hardware requirements for running a validator (https://docs.solana.com/running-validator/validator-reqs). The cited hardware config is going to draw around 1000-1200 watts max, if you're actually running a standalone server (my estimate, and I welcome correction from an IT expert, but I think it's conservative). Most validators will be running in the cloud and using much less. Multiply that wattage by the number of validators and you have a pretty good idea of what the upper end of their power draw would be.

I share your desire for more 3rd party sources of information on Solana's energy use, and when they're available I'll be glad to update my article with them whether they support my argument or not. I'm trying to make responsible decisions for my company, not win an internet spat.

I noted Statista and Google Scholar were good sources to consult for research on Bitcoin's energy use, not Solana's. For example:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/881541/bitcoin-energy-consumption-transaction-comparison-visa/

Sorry about the misspelling of Statista.