Energy price predictions through to March 2024

The_Green_Hornet

[Deleted User] said:

Mstty said:

After all we are in all but name at war with Russia and if they team up with China we know what happens to energy prices

BBC News - F-16 fighter jets: US lets allies give jets to Ukraine

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65649471

The most sensible post of the day so far. We have an ongoing War in Europe: the first in 80 years. It only requires a single British-built StormShadow to land on Russian soil and the UK could come under direct attack. For example, power inter-connectors and internet cables could be severed causing widespread disruption. Our National Grid could come under cyber attack. 

Any energy price predictions for January 2024 are based on assumptions not facts. A lot could materially change in 6 months.  This War is far from over.

I very much doubt that even Putin's Russia would want to take on the whole of NATO as an attack on one member will invoke Article 5.

[Deleted User]

The_Green_Hornet said:

[Deleted User] said:

Mstty said:

After all we are in all but name at war with Russia and if they team up with China we know what happens to energy prices

BBC News - F-16 fighter jets: US lets allies give jets to Ukraine

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65649471

The most sensible post of the day so far. We have an ongoing War in Europe: the first in 80 years. It only requires a single British-built StormShadow to land on Russian soil and the UK could come under direct attack. For example, power inter-connectors and internet cables could be severed causing widespread disruption. Our National Grid could come under cyber attack. 

Any energy price predictions for January 2024 are based on assumptions not facts. A lot could materially change in 6 months.  This War is far from over.

I very much doubt that even Putin's Russia would want to take on the whole of NATO as an attack on one member will invoke Article 5.

Caged animals when provoked have a habit of striking out. If you think that our Armed Forces are adequately manned and equipped to take on Russia, you might well be disappointed. Our Army is being reduced in strength to 72.5k personnel. The same applies to a number of other NATO nations. None of this helped by a Government that think its Armed Forces exist to provide back up services.

Clearly, we are now well off topic. The key point is that any escalation of the War could result in a spike in wholesale energy prices.

MikeyPGT

On my calculations my monthly bill will fall by 21.5p - assuming that the useless knobs in Ofgem don't decide to reward National Grid for their 4.6Bn profits by increasing the standing charge.  Not really sure whether to laugh or cry!

Krakkkers

We spend money on equipment for the armed forces rather than personnel as war has changed since WW2.
Having worked for RR i know that the Submarines we make are better than anything any other country has.
Why shouldn't we use armed forces for other duties when required if they have the equipment and expertise required? 

Krakkkers

Having solar my bill in the summer months can be made up of 60% standing charges.

MattMattMattUK

[Deleted User] said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

[Deleted User] said:

Mstty said:

After all we are in all but name at war with Russia and if they team up with China we know what happens to energy prices

BBC News - F-16 fighter jets: US lets allies give jets to Ukraine

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65649471

The most sensible post of the day so far. We have an ongoing War in Europe: the first in 80 years. It only requires a single British-built StormShadow to land on Russian soil and the UK could come under direct attack. For example, power inter-connectors and internet cables could be severed causing widespread disruption. Our National Grid could come under cyber attack. 

Any energy price predictions for January 2024 are based on assumptions not facts. A lot could materially change in 6 months.  This War is far from over.

I very much doubt that even Putin's Russia would want to take on the whole of NATO as an attack on one member will invoke Article 5.

Caged animals when provoked have a habit of striking out.

Russia is not a caged animal though, it is a combination of predator and parasite, predators almost always fall back when outmatched and parasites lay low and find another victim. The most rational move for Russia would be to stop starting fights it is ill equipped to win, even better to stop starting fights full stop, grow up and contribute to the world.

[Deleted User] said:
If you think that our Armed Forces are adequately manned and equipped to take on Russia, you might well be disappointed. Our Army is being reduced in strength to 72.5k personnel. The same applies to a number of other NATO nations. None of this helped by a Government that think its Armed Forces exist to provide back up services.

That would depend what you mean by "take on" Russia. The UK alone could not invade Russia successfully, but Russia could not invade the UK successfully either. NATO probably has the capacity to defeat Russia in conventional warfare if it wanted to, Russia's only advantage is manpower, badly trained, incredibly poorly equipped and ineffective manpower, they can throw meat into the grinder but the results are unsuccessful and only really a delaying tactic with modern warfare. The more important factor though is that should Russia choose to attack NATO then we are all screwed, the best case scenario would be a limited nuclear exchange, the most likely scenario is a very short World War 3 that would destroy almost all of civilisation and human life. 

mmmmikey

Bringing this back into the context of energy prices, for me the question isn't whether I think escalation of the war in Ukraine is likely. The question for me is more along the lines of what is the worst realistic scenario I should consider as part of my financial planning.

I think it would be a bold (or naive?) person who believes that the risk of an escalation of the war leading to similar energy prices to last winter is a completely unrealisitic scenario to be ignored. Some may think it is unlikely (as I do) but I certainly think it is a realistic scenario worthy of consideration.

I also don't think it's safe to assume that future government intervention / price support would be on the same scale. It might be, yes, but that's not guaranteed.

So the reallistic worst case scenario I've planned for is prices the same next winter as last winter and government support more targeted (meaning I don't get any). To be clear, I'm not saying I think this is likely. I haven't renewed my house insurance because I think this is the year my house is going to burn down - I've renewed it because my house burning down is a realisitic worst case scenario and I would like to protect myself against it. In the same way, I've planned my finances so I can cope with high energy prices so I'm covered if they do go up to silly levels again. Easy enough for me to do because (a) I'm a low user and (b) there's plenty of scope for scaling back holiday plans, making savings elsewhere or dipping into my rainy day savings.

If I was in the position where I'd taken a big hit last winter and already scaled back as far as I could, and also drained my savings I would certainly give serious thought to signing up to a fix rather than gamble on the CI predictions being right and/or things stabilising in Ukraine.

On the flip side, it's perfectly sensible, in my view, to accept the risk if you do so with your eyes open. What I would be extremely cautious about is downplaying the risk and/or assuming it's not real.

MikeJXE

Krakkkers said:

Having solar my bill in the summer months can be made up of 60% standing charges.

Not got solar I have dumb meters not particularly looking forward to the price reduction either.

I read my meters weekly and input them on a very accurate spreadsheet, give them to Octopus monthly 

I have read where high users do not agree with abolishing the standing charge and increasing the kWh  as it would not be fair to them.

So guess it's fair to me a low user as no one smart enough has found a formula that suits everyone. 

This week my standing charge for both electric and gas is now more expensive than the charge for the energy I use. 

matt_drummer

MikeJXE said:

K

Not got solar I have dumb meters not particularly looking forward to the price reduction either.

I read my meters weekly and input them on a very accurate spreadsheet, give them to Octopus monthly 

I have read where high users do not agree with abolishing the standing charge and increasing the kWh  as it would not be fair to them.

So guess it's fair to me a low user as no one smart enough has found a formula that suits everyone. 

This week my standing charge for both electric and gas is now more expensive than the charge for the energy I use. 

So you think as you use very little you should not pay the same as everybody else to be connected to the grid?

Why is that?

The standing charge represented nearly 95% of my bill for April.

I am happy to pay, both for the service I receive and so that people like you don't have to pay even more to subsidise people like me.

Krakkkers

Fact is that high users pay less overall per unit (inc SC) than low users and that does not send the right message.
Not convinced the SC money is used in the way described.