comment: >
context: The US is up this year too. They were trying for 22% for 2022. But the first half of the year was 24%. Nuclear was about 18% >
  
  All for reducing co2 etc.. but The Netherlands pulled off some bat crazy shit with 'biomass' electricity generation. A simple and efficient idea that was turned into a huge bureaucratic scam. >
  
  Biomass here in my state is taking agriculture waste like rice seed shells and burning it, then filter the gas. The same thing for cow shit, but the plants use the methane that comes out of It to generate power and then filter what's not used. It's enough energy to power an entire city, since my state's main money maker is agriculture and beef production, but it's equally distributed to the state >
  
  Something here in Belgium they could learn from >
  
  Writer of the article doesn't seem to know the difference between energy and electricity. ('40% is sustainable' he/she refers to electricity).
  I'd read this one with a grain of salt. >
  
  From the article; "In general, generating energy is not just about electricity, but about all energy consumption, including heat and transport. Electricity currently accounts for 20 percent of energy consumption in the Netherlands, but this share will increase as industry, transport, cooking and heating become increasingly electric." >
  
  "41 percent of the energy consumed in the  Netherlands is now generated sustainably, compared to last year, when it was only one-third of all electricity." 
  Not original commenter who should learn to read instead of telling other people how to read, but tbf this that author makes a bad comparison. Author should stick to either energy or electricity when comparing fractions of one variable. 
  Idk, Maybe just a typo, would make sense as a 15% increase of 1/3 is 38% which is close enough to 41%, especially with the rounding of 1/3. Would still prefer consistency in the reporting of numbers but thats beyond the point.