On a monthly level, we saved on average 30% compared to the standard variable price contract.
For a total annual saving of almost £250!
Thanks @octopus.energy and @gjuk.bsky.social for the extra cash!

At a daily level, we had a saving almost every day of the year except for a few days in December.

Note, this is with barely any active behaviour change aside from setting our heating to run early in the morning when prices are lower.

Let's look at our consumption pattern.
Our peak consumption (yellow) is about 2 hours later than the average peak price (pink) thus we should have a good advantage with the flexible tariff.
(being Mediterranean helps)

Last week was indeed scary, with hourly prices reaching the cap of 100p/kWh for the first time.
However, the prices quickly came down and on Monday we already had an almost full night of zero prices.

Context: single-bedroom flat in London, decent insulation and an electric boiler for hot water and heating.
As a result, our electricity consumption is quite higher than average.

Thus it made sense to try the Agile tariff where the electricity price varies every 30 minutes based on the market.

According to Google trends it barely lasted two days 😅

Beautiful, thanks!

Excellent source of realism Dave.
It would be amazing to also add # of hours German electricity prices below €10

In our new report we warn than Clean Power pathways relying on gas-CCS would extend the UK’s reliance on gas markets and prolong the toxic link between gas and electricity prices.

This would create a further barrier to electrification of heat and transport.

carbontracker.org/reports/off-...

So it seems that they have abandoned the G7 commitment of “achieving predominantly decarbonised electricity sectors by 2035”?

2- Among rising electricity demand, the country must quickly find a way to unlock investments in renewables, especially solar and wind (which are now painstakingly low) and decide whether to jump straight from coal to renewables or fall for the "gas bridge" trap.

The two big challenges are probably not economic nor technical:
1- The transition will not happen unless the Government finds a way to deal with the vested interests of the coal sector which is deeply engrained with the ruling class.

There are still many questions around this target (what about captive plants? how much international support? Is it really feasible?)
However, it shows a potential bright direction for the country. Now we need action!

The pace of ambition change has been breathtaking:
March 2021 "Consider net zero by 2070"
November 2021 "Explores net zero by 2060"
October 2022 "No new coal and phaseout by 2056"
November 2024 "Could achieve net zero before 2050 and phaseout coal in next 15 years"

For context:
Indonesia is the 4th country by population, the 5th by CO2 emissions, the 3rd largest coal producer, the 1st coal exporter and one the fastest growing economies.
Its energy and climate policies will have massive impacts on the world.

The Indonesian energy sector is notorious for providing contradicting numbers depending which ministry is speaking.
If you exclude captive plants from the count, add some biomass cofiring and a very optimistic (and unlikely) amount of CCS then the numbers might be plausible.

Honestly I wouldn't dismiss this as a simple error in the speech, rather signaling a scenario with higher ambition of what they could achieve with international support.
The 2040 target was already mentioned in the past www.reuters.com/world/asia-p...