I'm not sure how I'm being so unclear. > So if we're not pegging money to a kJ (or whatever), then we're no longer talking about energy backed money. You appe

I'm not sure how I'm being so unclear. > So if we're not pegging money to a kJ (or whatever), then we're no longer talking about energy backed money. You appear to be talking about pegging the USD to a given amount of energy. I think that's a bad idea, for the same reason as pegging the USD to a certain amount of gold was when the US didn't have enough gold to actually redeem it. Using energy as money is not about a fixed exchange rate from some non-energy system. I guess the problem here is that "based" and "backed" are being used interchangeably, and they aren't the same thing. Instead, I think it would be an interesting experiment to price everything else in energy. > I get what you're saying: that the increases in efficiency reduce the "value" of your energy holdings Well, increase the "value". Efficiency increases are personally deflationary if we're using energy as a currency, but without the macro effect of reducing the monetary supply or velocity, I would think.