The power grid may start scheduling your sleep
A research programme on demand flexibility asks what happens when the cheapest hours of the day stop being the ones people are awake for. Its least popular finding concerns bedtime.
MISTAKE
Every future we have published so far.
9 stories
A research programme on demand flexibility asks what happens when the cheapest hours of the day stop being the ones people are awake for. Its least popular finding concerns bedtime.
A hypothetical 2050 allocation policy would assume the organ shortage is solved and the waiting list is not. What would be scarce is printer time — and the points system deciding who gets it would be the document nobody wants to read aloud.
A corporate sustainability report could one day note, in a footnote, that some of the removal certificates behind an earlier neutrality claim have expired. The claim would not be withdrawn. It would simply stop having happened.
A scenario written from a kitchen table: a one-off gene therapy financed over ten years, where the instalments continue only for as long as the child keeps meeting the outcome criteria written into the contract.
A model site agreement under discussion would end the outdoor working day at a number rather than at a time. The number would be read off a mast by the gate, and nobody has yet agreed who pays for the hours it removes.
A draft regulatory guideline would allow the placebo arm of a clinical trial to consist wholly of modelled patients. The open question is not whether it works. It is whose medical history the model learned from.
A draft hospital protocol would schedule planned operations against an institutional allowance of working antibiotics. When the allowance ran out, a hip replacement would slip a year for reasons that are not medical.
A discussion draft circulating among orbital coordination bodies would hand out launch windows by numbered slot. The number itself would be free. The right to stand in the queue would be priced by an underwriter.