The mention of nuclear in the article was weird: > But [solar at 7%] remains eclipsed by wind, which grew to 8% last year, and nuclear to 9%. Which is a bit m

The mention of nuclear in the article was weird: > But [solar at 7%] remains eclipsed by wind, which grew to 8% last year, and nuclear to 9%. Which is a bit mangled but seems to be suggesting nuclear grew to 9%. Nuclear did grow slightly in absolute terms, but in percentage terms it hit a 45 year low as the total grew faster and so the share shrunk.