[pflanze]

> At the end of the last century, coal was used to generate more than 95% of the UK's energy, but last year it had fallen to 1%.

That looks like an impressive change, even if the coal use hasn't been replaced with renewables. But looking up details, the 95% number doesn't appear to be true:

- "Energy mix of UK"[1] shows no time when coal was above ~55%, and even total fossil fuel use was over 95% in 1965, not around the year 2000. But this may be total energy use, not just for electric (not sure).

- "UK electricity production by source"[2] shows that around the year 2000 fossil fuels made up perhaps about 70% of the mix.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_mix_of_UK.svg [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_electricity_production...

[philipkglass]

I wonder if the author was thinking of 1899 as "the end of the last century." It can happen to people who lived much of their lives in the 20th century.

[OJFord]

I was born not that far off the end of the last century and I didn't bat an eyelid at that, heh.

Even weirder is that we are currently in the '20s. That's always going to mean 1920s to me, but I imagine I'm going to have to get used to younger family & news etc. using it to mean 2020s in the not too distant future.

[pflanze]

That sounds plausible. I've sent them a mail.

[Symbiote]

The BBC failing to copy and paste from the press release:

> At the turn of the 20th century, coal supplied over 95% of energy consumed in the UK.

https://www.uniper.energy/united-kingdom/news/gb-railfreight...

[OJFord]

Because that only goes back to 1965 and we've been burning coal since the 19th century..?

[pflanze]

OK, but they wrote "At the end of the last century", which implies towards 2000 not 1900.

[tialaramex]

I subtitled an album of music written and performed by friends and colleagues in about 2000, "Music from Turn of the Century Southampton" and some people were initially confused because they indeed hadn't got used to the idea that nope, this is in fact the turn of the century - all that stuff you thought would happen in the 21st century? Well that's now.

Historians tend to talk about "long" versions of the centuries, e.g. European historians might have a "long 19th century" which ends when World War I breaks out in 1914 and begins with the French Revolution in 1789. The idea is that although calendars start and end arbitrarily, these "log" centuries are roughly 100 years but are bookended by substantial change to society.

I think there's an argument to be made that the "Long 20th century" didn't end until a few years back, historians doubtless have numerous events they'd focus on, Ukraine, Liz dying, financial crash... So it may still feel to some people like "last century" still means the 19th.

[zeristor]

Liz Truss died?

[tialaramex]

A different woman, somewhat more important than Liz Truss, but also with the given name Elizabeth. She was roughly the same age as my (dead) grandmother and they had roughly the same notional military job during WW2, driving a truck.

[OJFord]

GP means Queen Elizabeth II, it's an annoying antimonarchist trope of being coy about the most obvious descriptors and using generics because 'they're just like the rest of us' etc.

[tialaramex]

I don't think I've ever been called "antimonarchist" before. I think a (constitutional) monarchy is a very good solution to a big real problem if it's available and so the UK is in an enviable position in this regard.

[syncsynchalt]

The article has been updated to "At the turn of the 20th Century", which ambiguously means either 1900 or 2000.