Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

The change of perspective apparently happens quite quickly :)

It happens even faster if you drive a car one day and also ride a bike on the same day. ;-)

Apples and oranges
Because that could simply be due to the low electricity prices of around 15 cents/kWh in Sweden. Hydropower and nuclear power combined with a sparse population density make it possible. The former is hardly feasible here, and the latter two points are politically not expedient...

Or this as well. I was more referring to the note that a 48% wind power share in Germany is not so great compared to 90% elsewhere. In Sweden – a country that is not exactly kissed by the sun. And where nonetheless neither construction activity has come to a standstill, nor do people's limbs freeze off in winter.

Sweden, extremely sparsely populated. Five houses together already count as a kind of village. Even in fairly southern provinces like Halland or Västergötland, you drive 20 km without seeing a single! building. In the north, it is often 100 km without a single person or any trace of one. There, only wood or electricity is used for heating, there is no natural gas network. That is really not comparable to Germany. But it's true, all Scandinavian countries, incl. the fairly densely populated Denmark have decided to completely abandon fossil fuels. For that, they are expanding wind energy so extremely that in Germany, it would lead to an uprising by the friend of the blue tit. There is no free lunch, Leute.

I was already expecting "you can't compare, everything is different in Germany, because that's just how it is." Four posts earlier you had considered photovoltaics more as supplementary power for saunas and whirlpools, so just a helpful hint: you can also use it for heating ;)

You have already understood that. It's about if you need 2000 kWh p.a., then you get a PV system and a sauna, otherwise it would be so expensive with electricity!, then you might need 4000 kWh p.a., the PV system dissipates, but it was produced after all, no gain in CO2, only lost. And because that's just how it is, I didn't say otherwise. Just please Sweden and we are really too different. A meaningful comparison would be with GB, F or the NL, there the structure is more similar. Besides, I'm not running with the 90% yet. The three big cities Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö plus their metropolitan areas bind the lion's share of the population, and often in multi-storey buildings, which are, as far as I know, almost entirely supplied with district heating, this heat is produced by combined heat and power plants, mostly with gas.

Sweden, extremely sparsely populated. Five houses together are already a kind of village. Even in fairly southern provinces like Halland or Västergötland, you can drive 20 km without seeing a single! building. In the north, it is often 100 km without any humans or any trace of them. There you only have wood or electricity for heating, there is no natural gas network. That is really not comparable to Germany.

The three large cities Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö plus their metropolitan areas hold the lion's share of the population, and often in multi-story buildings, which as far as I know are almost continuously supplied with district heating, this heat produced by combined heat and power plants, mostly with gas.

You notice it yourself, right? Besides, it was about new construction. If you don’t like Sweden as an example, just take Switzerland, Austria, etc... You will hardly find any other country that lags as far behind as we do. But my original post was not about that either, rather about my claim:

As long as providers get away with rejecting existing and long-proven principles and techniques out of sheer laziness to think, nothing will change. ... I am firmly convinced that it would be possible to build significantly more resource-efficiently at no extra cost – if one wanted to.

No idea what digressions about as few purchases as possible (illustrated with a photo of your new build) or fictitious sauna visits have to do with that.