By showing only your provided data it seems. But when looking at the share of primary energy consumption from renewable sources it looks totally different!

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy?tab=line&facet=n...

▲

avsteele 6 hours ago | parent [-]

That metric doesn't answer the same question. It isn't saying 18% of their needs are being met by renewables.

▲

JensKnipper 5 hours ago | parent [-]

If you look at the growth rate of renewables it should be pretty clear that coal will not play a major role in the foreseeable future. Why is it not saying 18% of the needs are being met by renewables? That's exactly what it does

▲

avsteele 4 hours ago | parent [-]

This is not energy output (production, usage), it is that plus an adjustment for the in->out energy efficiency. It would only == production if all energy sources in the mix has the same factor.

Because fossil fuels have higher in/out losses this is number is larger than usage. This metric is generally used to track decarbonization.

Using the IEA number you can see the hydro+solar+wind production is about 9.5% of the total, not 18%.

ChatGPT or you favorite LLM can explain in greater detail, just send it the plot image and ask.

	▲	ZeroGravitas 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The adjusted graph is a better reflection of "meeting their needs" than raw primary energy, since more than half of fossil primary energy is lost as waste heat.