Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

The problem is the power frequency. ...
... Storage will probably become mandatory and at some point, feeding electricity into the grid may no longer be allowed. Wind power is also just a difficult-to-calculate "gap filler"
Maybe the small system on all roofs is an important intermediate step for now....

Unfortunately, all of that is wrong. Please read up on the topic. It has been known for 15 years that it works and how it works. Please look at current studies on 100% renewable energy supply. It is not only possible, it is even cheaper AND people are preserved.

But they like to keep quiet that it was more the 60 cent feed-in tariff that was the motivation.

It is also kept quiet that it was still cheaper than compensating for the consequences of climate change. So even back then, photovoltaic power was cheaper than all other forms of generation. Only, that was not reflected on the electricity bill.

The recent posts related to the topic suggest that it is not necessarily a bad thing that building is becoming more expensive – because from an ecological perspective, it is not ideal. Follow-up costs, which were not included before, are now entering through various channels.

What actually is prosperity? An extreme example: Everyone lives in their own house with 80 sqm per person, but we have to bear the consequences of 4.5 degrees of global warming. Is that prosperity?
It would have the advantage that the population would be drastically reduced, and you would have fewer people to share with. In a +4 degree world, food for everyone is basically out of the question. But: house. Hmm… if only it didn’t affect me…

What actually is prosperity and which goods belong to it, that you don’t have to buy but can still lose, you ask yourself with the above.

I am glad that the old mindset is gradually fading away.

It is nice if we redefine the term prosperity for ourselves, but it changes nothing globally. A look at the world shows what people strive for. We have that. Money, food, clean water, medical care, etc. If we lose some of that because we rely on [EE], we are simply a deterrent example. We can only act as pioneers as long as our economy is doing well. We should devote ourselves to global realpolitik and write off idealism (externally).

The people in the world who really look up and see us there don’t think in terms of home ownership rates, square meters per person, or second TVs. They think in terms of enough food, clean water, health and education systems, human rights, and democracy.

I don’t see that any of this suddenly no longer belongs to prosperity with a different perspective. Or that it gets lost when switching the energy industry.

At the same time, people definitely want, if possible, each their own house, each a nice car, each day an endless selection in the supermarket, entertainment, security, etc. Who doesn’t want that?
It just doesn’t exist bundled with excessive global warming. Physics is relentless there and doesn’t need idealism. So what now?

I stick to my thesis (it’s nothing more), that we are bringing those costs into the construction industry through the back door and by five corners, costs which honestly have always been there – they were just outsourced for so long until it no longer worked.

For everyone building now, still a bitter pill.

...that we are bringing those costs into the construction industry through the back door via five corners, which honestly have always been there - they were just outsourced for so long until it was no longer possible.

d'accord!

But that does not explain the explosion of land speculation as a cost component. This was never so extreme before.

In addition, construction technology has actually become more expensive. Here your thesis is of course correct: triple glazing is inevitably more expensive than double glazing. Central ventilation with heat recovery is of course initially more expensive than window ventilation.

etc.