For reference here's a video of F-18 doing it (with conventional landing):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj_eJxy8ojk

Properly designed heat pump system includes backup for the coldest days - usually direct electric heating.

Most houses in Finland have a (decent) fireplace for heating in case of an electric outage.

Selling electricity at wholesale rate is an incentive.

Are you saying the price is negative during high PV production? In sane markets like Finland solar panel owners need to pay for generating electricity to the grid if the price is negative (which is it sometimes).

> In sane markets like Finland solar panel owners need to pay for generating electricity to the grid if the price is negative

If this were the case, why would solar panel owners not stop "selling" power to the grid at their expense when that happens? What incentive would ever exist to pay to put power on the grid?

I think the point is to encourage people to have a way to stop exporting when there is not the demand by passing on the negative price that all generators would see in that situation.

Apparently not generating power will cause the panel to slightly overheat which will add additional tear on the panel, so it might make sense to pay the negative prices instead.

Note that electricity generated will first be used by the consumer and only excess is sold to the grid.

Regular consumers don't offer their production on the energy markets so they don't set the price. Maybe your panels can be counted as part of the energy company's solar production, in that case I guess they could indirectly have an influence? I'm not sure if this is done though. A negative price can just be a result of tax subventions (in case you still make a profit even if the price goes negative) or when it's simply cheaper to bid a negative price so that you can keep producing instead of having to turn off production and then reboot it at a later time.

The reasoning is that it incentives electricity producers to offer max amount of electricity at low prices without speculating how to maximize profit (as their sell offer will practically speaking have zero effect on the spot price). Nuclear plants, wind power, solar can just offer to sell at everything at around 0c/kWh.

It's claimed that another type of market would cause companies to speculate with their sell offers and thus generate less electricity. It would be interesting to see how this kind of market would work in reality, though.

You can buy a faucet that has a bidet connected to the mixer.

That is exactly how it works in Finland.

You just need nuclear and existing hydropower, which boils down to you just need nuclear. It's not politically probable or realistic though, but we really just need nuclear technically speaking.

Nuclear can also follow loads, but there's no economical need to build them to do that (in almost any market).

You can add a bit of insulation inside the concrete to make the house require less cooling than (any?) wooden house.

Concrete insulates quite well by itself. I don't understand the GP's complaint. It can be improved, and there are several improved alternatives on the market since basically forever, but it's not bad by itself, and it's certainly better than wood.

(I really thought it would be about concrete CO2 emissions at first.)

This is becoming quite common in Finland (thanks to insanely high spot prices of electricity). Shelly is usually used to do the automation. Note that the water is not heated "hotter than necessary" but rather water is heated up to the max amount when the price is cheap.

Traditionally water heaters were only on at night.

Yeah the "max amount" can vary - I have mine set higher than "you should" to prevent Legionnaires' disease and then have a mixer that reduces the temperature back to safe for the house.

https://www.amazon.com/Cash-Acme-Thermostatic-Temperature-Ap...

That's a very low tech solution that could take some advantage, and thermal mass of water is pretty high, especially if the tank is well insulated.