nawitus

You just need a spot market for electricity and then you can program the water heater to follow the spot price (or rather avoid heating when it's expensive).

This is available already in a few heat pump water heaters in Finland.

There are countries in Europe where wood buildings are common (and even most popular option for e.g. single-family homes). They can be considered the slightly cheaper option though.

Maybe because fossil fuel based power sources are not taxed enough (compared to Europe, where nuclear makes financial sense).

In that case you need to install air/water heat pump, which not only heats the house but also the potable water. They're more costly than regular heat pumps, but are _better_ choice than individual heat pump units around the house.

It's a more difficult situation if the house lacks water circulation (heated floors/radiators).

Yes, the overall economy does better, but the local people might get higher electric bills but little other benefits, as the profit goes to the power plants. Usually increased tax revenue is less than the increased cost for the consumer.

Stone houses (in the modern times they're made from concrete or brick, sometimes with insulation) exist in Scandinavia and they have good insulating properties. A modern stone house is even better than stick built houses when it comes to insulation.

Are you claiming they're failing European safety standards? American pickups are sold in "Europe". Or does "fail" mean low rating here?

In one department store in Finland there are two separate numbering schemes, see this photo from the elevator: https://hs.mediadelivery.fi/img/some/default/c244c43c3008429...

Europe already has such a military.

Apparently heat pumps are sold out and all the workers who are able to install them are booked up for the year. It's a bit late for drastic improvement there.

Fertility rate in EU seems to have peaked in 2016 (it declined every year from 2016 to 2020).

I think the data you linked is prediction from year 2020 onwards, and there is no observed increase from 2013.

The grid could handle this better if more people used a variable rate electricity plans. This would incentive consumers to reduce peak usage, and also incentive producers to produce more electricity during peak demand. Fixed rate consumers could continue to pay a premium price compared to variable rate consumers.

Wages are not that low in Thailand anymore. Vietnam and especially Cambodia are a lot lower than China.. for now.

Why is it so expensive? It's like $1k in Finland.

Really? US seems to be more productive: https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm

Try another city. The site didn't show anything for my location.

The more you add road capacity, the less 'demand is induced', because there's limited amount of people. In other words, at some point the traffic problem is solved by adding more roads.

It's another question if it makes sense to add that amount of road. It probably depends on the particular case.

You need actual cost and benefit analysis. The situation can actually be different if some measures prevent spread by 1%, 10%, 50% etc.

Cost and benefit analysis can be ineffective or unwanted in beginning stages of a pandemic.. but for COVID-19 it's been few years already and we can do such analysis.

It's better to tax the harm created from electricity generation, which I suppose is mainly CO2 emissions. Then the market will decide how much PoW mining should be done compared to Christmas lights etc.

Why use vaccines in a highly targeted way instead of giving it to everyone?

In software engineering the employee probably doesn't lose his revenua since he/she is likely already employed, and if not, will likely have other options.

In reality the supply and demand of employees of particular type determines the "negotiating power", and this can change over time.

Remote salaries might end up being somewhere between rural Montana and Bay Area. There's no reason to assume there's a huge supply of software engineers in the US which would make all remote salaries to be in the low-end.

There are far more sources of co2 emissions than just electricity and meat production. There's a lot to engineer to become carbon neutral, especially if we want to do it at a reasonable cost.

Technology often is the problem, or more concretely we can use technology to make the solution cheaper, which makes it more plausible for politicians to implement. Politicians already use x amount of money trying to prevent climate change. If technology was advanced enough that x is enough to prevent climate change completely, we could then solve the problem with a technological solution (assuming politicians are willing).

I don't think the tech is nearly cheap enough yet.

European car brands (combined) sold more EVs in January-March than Tesla. Also, Nissan was selling more EVs than Tesla for many years. It just doesn't seem that difficult to scale EV production.

Source: https://insideevs.com/news/504647/global-plugin-sales-march-...

Buran made an orbital flight. I think the reason of the project's failure was lack of funding, not technology in that case.

What other banks do this in Europe (outside of Denmark)?

Something like this already exists; you can construct a house from concrete elements with premade channels/cavities for the wires and pipes. However, they need to be finished up, I think with drywall usually.

I'm not aware this method has any real cost savings though compared to wood frame construction.

Poorer countries in Europe tax fuel more. If you raise fuel tax, people will find ways to buy less fuel. Generally this means more efficient (often smaller) cars, and perhaps prioritizing living more near to jobs etc.

The main problem is that fuel tax should be increased slowly so people can change their consumption accordingly.

That's odd, as headache is a common symptom for many vaccines (or pretty much any medicine).