This is one of those articles that while true, is unhelpful to the point of deliberate deception. The UK has energy trends posted here through September. The relevant table is 5.1 on page 42 of the PDF. Dropping the middle section of that table into Excel, adding the coal and gas TWhs and dividing it by the total TWh, the combined coal + gas has varied between 46% in 2015Q4 and 57% in 2014Q3. For 2016Q2, it was 49%. So what's up with the article? Coal is down about two thirds, a full 10 TWh less than the previous quarter. But total generation is down 14 TWh. Gas is up slightly from the previous quarter and up 50% from the previous year. If the 2015 trend applies to 2016, coal will be back up for the winter heating load. The article seems to be trying to paint a certain picture: solar is beating coal. That's true in the moment, false on an annual scale, and there's been no shift in reliance on fossil generation.
Thanks for the PDF. The article's fault is that it suggests that the fall in coal might be related to the increase in solar. Nevertheless, the fact remains that over a certain time period, solar energy production was higher than coal, which hadn't happened before. Given that wind and solar is seeing the highest growth in year over year generation, it's likely that this will be repeated in warm months again. Chart 5.6 on page 39 shows pretty clearly the drop in total production, and the changes in the sources.
I'm not sure I can relate to your reading of the article. Your conclusion is: As far as I can see, this conclusion doesn't really differ from what is stated in the article. It says directly in the subheading that this trend was true for 'six months until September'. Then, in the body of the text it says: Essentially, it's saying the exactly the same as you: For a 6 month period solar beat coal, but coal will overtake it again as winter approaches and more electricity is required. Nowhere in the article is the claim made that the UK is no longer reliant on fossil fuels. Or that solar power has permanently overtaken them. I guess if someone read only the headline then they could be mislead into thinking what you fear they might. But to me, the article as whole seems pretty innocent and to the point.The article seems to be trying to paint a certain picture: solar is beating coal. That's true in the moment, false on an annual scale, and there's been no shift in reliance on fossil generation.
The trend is unlikely to continue. Because there is less sunlight and a rise in demand for heating and lighting during the winter months, coal will once again overtake solar.
I didn't see it as historic. Solar's contribution is still negligible. No, they don't, for the reasons I laid out. But the uptick was gas, not solar, that caused coal to decline.Solar panels generated more electricity than coal in the past six months in a historic year for getting energy from the sun
The figures represent a dramatic turnaround in the UK’s electricity supplies.
“Solar overtaking coal this summer would have been largely unthinkable five years ago.
Notably: England became the industrial powerhouse it was because of all the available coal within its shores. A third of its natural gas, on the other hand, is Russian.
this is an interesting addition to this converstion: