Energy as Currency

Good post. I also wonder sometimes, that people are installing solar panels and claim carbon credits but who is monitoring how much carbon is produced for the particular project; including carbon released during manufacturing the PV panels itself?

Thank you for your comment on my post. What you have described might be a "carbon currency" - how much carbon is removed compared to how much is used to remove it. There is also the aspect of a "carbon bank" that needs to be considered in the exchange. Carbon credits refer to the amount of carbon put or not put into the atmosphere.

With regard to energy, my question might ask how much energy is stored as carbon in the atmosphere "bank" and how much energy is spent to remove it or not to add to it? And then what are the best units to use to quantify the energy value.

Actually that ie a well researched and discussed point - just read the solar or green sites.

Yes, this is a good idea or criteria to use in selecting a unit of measure. The result would then be a quantity that is a whole number easy to relate to; e.g. 4, 37 or 743 etc. One can still compare orders of magnitude to see that one measure is almost insignificant compared to another quantity that is measured.

With regard to E = mc² ,if units of kilograms m²/sec² are used then one gets units of joules. see reference [ http://wiki.answers.com/Q/A_joule_is_defined_as_kilograms_Times_Square_meters_per_square_seconds_so_what_in_tarnation_is_a_square_second ]

Why not keep it simple and use one that everyone knows and is in standard use at this time - kWh

kWh [Kilowatt hours] is a useful energy unit but I think that an "ideal" unit should be a single term rather than a combination of units. For example dollars and cents when used as a currency makes description a bit more awkward and sometimes leads to rounding off to even dollars. The Yen is a single term but then one uses sub units there too (sen) so perhaps that is not a good example. Lira and kurus also. Perhaps the vatu ( Republic of Vanuatu ) doesn't have sub units so this might be a better example, but then, as you said, it might not be a currency that "everyone knows". [I certainly had not heard of it until today and now I might want to go visit there.]

Energy is a commodity, be it gas, oil, or kWh. It has a fluctuating price in the market in whatever currency you care to express it. The commodity saudi oil was way back when $5, now more like $80 for the very same barrel. The two equate by daily price fluctations. Wish for simpler, there ain't none.

KWH is a measure of energy & work

the voltage of electricity is meaning less, without the current

there are always subunits of any medium of exchange

if you want to approximate feel free to send me all the spare change...

What are the best units to use for energy when using it as a currency?

Why? The exchange rates are the same.

But it is an excellent idea.

Exchange rates are an important factor with regard to currency. We have seen very adverse effects of artificial manipulation of exchange rates, in particular, to influence political elections and in creating financial crisis, and if you want to know about the political persecution that can result when you discover and report on this, email me for details as I know first hand.

One of the benefits of using energy as currency would then be because the exchange rate ARE the same. Say someone was going to pay you 1000 joules of energy. Presumably it would not matter in what form the energy was received from the point of view of value although the form and availability of useful converted energy might be. (See my post #20) about suitcases full of energy currency.

I was not initially thinking of having coins as currency and the value of the coin being how much energy was stored in it, but that might have some merit. For example, if a coin was a capacitor and was charged up with your 1000 joules then you would have in your pocket actual energy as value. If you used this as a debit card, you would then either trade the capacitor coin or possibly discharge the capacitor coin into a bank and only carry one coin as your wallet full of money. Again, a benefit of this is that the currency is real where as today, a bank is able to loan you money that does not exist but is created only on paper as a debit on which they can earn interest.

And, with regard to interest, I would think it would be desirable that there be no interest paid or received for energy loaned but rather only charge or pay for services or commodities actually traded.

kWh is a useful size for many real world applications, but you need it convert it to Joule to do calculations (unless, in the US style, you want lots of scaling factors in your formulas).

The problem is it's too well known and too easily confused with kW. Look at most stories about wind turbines and you'll see the energy and power terms used interchangeably.

Joule, as well as being a unit known to engineers the world over, is less likely to be misused.

Anyone out there read Kim Stanley Robinson's Red, Green, and Blue Mars books? 2nd book delves into energy based economic models. Good sci-fi read. Really, existing units of currency are effectively an expression of energy in and of themselves. The more important question would be: can one describe a functional economic model with a currency that cannot be inflated or deflated outside its actual value. Because it becomes quickly apparent that existing economic systems are NOT grounded in actual value.

".. existing economic systems are NOT grounded in actual value".

That depends on how you define value. Our economic system says that an item's value is what someone is willing to pay, at any instant in time.

To misquote Churchill - It's the worst system known, except for all the others

re: "Anyone out there read Kim Stanley Robinson's Red, Green, and Blue Mars books? 2nd book delves into energy based economic models."

I have not read but l did look briefly at a review of these. Thanks for the reference.

Why use energy as a currency?
What is the "exchange rate" for energy?

In the cinema film "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope" (1977),
Han Solo,(played by Harrison Ford), and his Wookiee co-pilot,
Chewbacca,(played by Peter Mayhew) receive payment for
transporting Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia and the droids, C-
3PO and R2-D2, to a Rebel base.

Did you see the movie? Did you see how they were paid?
It looked to me like it was by very heavy; like extremely
heavy, suitcases of gold or some other universal intergalactic
currency.

What was in the suitcases? What "currency" would be given or
accepted for an intergalactic trade??

I have wondered about this for a long time and finally came to
the conclusion that an acceptable currency would be "energy".
Energy could be exchanged for any commodity or service.

If so, then what form would the energy be in? Would it be in a
readily usable form or would it need to be unpacked and
converted to a usable form? And of course, then, what usable
forms of energy are there that could be used as a currency?

This leads to a question about conversion efficiency. What %
of the energy in an energy currency could be directly
converted to a usable form? For example, the total energy in a
material might be E=mc² but then the readily usable energy
might only be part of the chemical energy stored in it. If the
chemical energy component is 2% of the the total intrinsic
energy and one can only easily convert 1/2 of the chemical
energy for use, then only 1/2 of 2% = 1% of the total energy value of the energy currency should be considered usable [unless you acquired better conversion technology].

So, in this case, the exchange rate might be considered 1% or perhaps 99% if one is looking from the perspective as to what is "lost" in accessing the energy.

An advantage of gold is it just sits there gaining value.

The nearest energy system would be hydro

dilithium crystals?

Good thought

Barrel of oil equivalent makes the most sense because it is comprehensible by the average person. The problem with energy only is that its prices are too volatile. A basket of varied commodities would make more sense because it would be more stable.

I propose a transmogrification unit of "BSAU"... which bankers have been using for centuries.

Essentially it is the amount of energy required to convert one long ton of bullshit (99.999%pure) into one ounce of gold. (99.999%pure)

SI Unit of energy is a Joule. I won't go into a physics lesson here and explain the derivation of joules from kWh. Every product or service has embedded energy aka the energy of production(delivery). I think the discussion may really be a socio/economic one. The idea of having a unit of energy to replace cash currency was put forward by the Technocracy Movement early last century. Given the recent economic woes of the world there might be a chance for revival of this movement.The time is right.... It is no coincidence that the standard of living and accessibility to human energy augmentation are somehow correlated.

A Joule is a Watt per second.

Using Joules is just abolishing the hour and billing in seconds.

Mind you, a 50 MW wind turbine is going to sound much more impressive.

Watts per second = watts/s ≠ watt-seconds (= joules).

Regard my use as per Latin, ("for each") rather than per = / on denominator = "for each", but implies a division, given I was remiss in placing a "1" preceding "second".

But yes, Ok, for the pedants: 1 Joule = 1 Watt for a duration of 1 second

Equally pedantically - I don't think you can subtract a "seconds" from a "watt"

Like Phoenix said, "the exchange rates are the same". Energy is energy regardless of any handle of convenience or the size of the package. We would have to come up with a new name fully approved by the marketing department first of course. How about calling the unit a "grunt"?