4 ms·

Watt could be used as kind of universal physically based, end-game-level currency, sounds better than crypto or fiat IMHO.

nine_k 4y ago
As envisioned by sci-fi authors like Heinlein. The only problem is storage. Carrying a wallet with a few MJ in it may be just hazardous, even if transferring funds is 100% efficient (using superconductivity). So any realistic scheme would include some tokens, with associated energy stored / generated elsewhere. More realistically, these tokens are associated with the economic and military might of the issuing party; this is similar to what modern fiat money is.
pjc50 4y ago
To a great extent this is what the oil economy is like.
anonporridge 4y ago
It's bitcoin. Bitcoin is electricity money. The universal electro-dollar. Because the miner reward for securing the monetary network is intrinsically linked to electricity availability, there will always be fundamental link between cost of electricity and value of bitcoin.
- immibis 4y ago
  No, this is nonsense. In reality, there is a link between cost of electricity, value of bitcoin, hashing rewards, and electricity used in hashing. And the dependent variable is the electricity used in hashing - not the cost of electricity, nor the value of bitcoin.
ElevenLathe 4y ago
Naive utopian solution: Distribute a fixed amount of energy credits equally among the population on a regular basis and let the market determine what is best to do with them. Peg the amount of such credits to the dirtiness of the global energy mix, including transportation, gas usage, etc. such that, if we clean up our energy usage this month, everybody gets to spend more credits next month. Eventually we have more tokens than we know what to do with because our energy supply is nearly free of emissions. There may still be some niche uses for carbon-emitting fossil energy (running helicopters to inspect electrical transmission lines, for example) but market forces will have pushed them to the absolute minimum level. This is of course all a way of getting everyone on board with our real, material situation, which is that there is a finite amount of carbon that we can afford to dump into the atmosphere in the immediate next few centuries. This is basically just cap-and-trade with extra steps but has the advantage of novelty, and that it is graspable by the average voter who (rightfully) views cap-and-trade schemes as being 1) really boring and 2) mainly a way for Wall Street types to scam money out of productive enterprises. Under this scheme, we can generate huge public support for green energy schemes since each new watt of generation installed this month will mean everyone is better off in real terms next month.
- immibis 4y ago
  This is a dystopia. Utopia is where everyone can just do whatever they want, because the human population is lower than the carrying capacity.

nine_k 4y ago

As envisioned by sci-fi authors like Heinlein. The only problem is storage. Carrying a wallet with a few MJ in it may be just hazardous, even if transferring funds is 100% efficient (using superconductivity). So any realistic scheme would include some tokens, with associated energy stored / generated elsewhere. More realistically, these tokens are associated with the economic and military might of the issuing party; this is similar to what modern fiat money is.

pjc50 4y ago

To a great extent this is what the oil economy is like.

anonporridge 4y ago

It's bitcoin. Bitcoin is electricity money. The universal electro-dollar. Because the miner reward for securing the monetary network is intrinsically linked to electricity availability, there will always be fundamental link between cost of electricity and value of bitcoin.

immibis 4y ago
No, this is nonsense. In reality, there is a link between cost of electricity, value of bitcoin, hashing rewards, and electricity used in hashing. And the dependent variable is the electricity used in hashing - not the cost of electricity, nor the value of bitcoin.

ElevenLathe 4y ago

Naive utopian solution: Distribute a fixed amount of energy credits equally among the population on a regular basis and let the market determine what is best to do with them. Peg the amount of such credits to the dirtiness of the global energy mix, including transportation, gas usage, etc. such that, if we clean up our energy usage this month, everybody gets to spend more credits next month. Eventually we have more tokens than we know what to do with because our energy supply is nearly free of emissions. There may still be some niche uses for carbon-emitting fossil energy (running helicopters to inspect electrical transmission lines, for example) but market forces will have pushed them to the absolute minimum level. This is of course all a way of getting everyone on board with our real, material situation, which is that there is a finite amount of carbon that we can afford to dump into the atmosphere in the immediate next few centuries. This is basically just cap-and-trade with extra steps but has the advantage of novelty, and that it is graspable by the average voter who (rightfully) views cap-and-trade schemes as being 1) really boring and 2) mainly a way for Wall Street types to scam money out of productive enterprises. Under this scheme, we can generate huge public support for green energy schemes since each new watt of generation installed this month will mean everyone is better off in real terms next month.

immibis 4y ago
This is a dystopia. Utopia is where everyone can just do whatever they want, because the human population is lower than the carrying capacity.