But I am partially serious, it would be a bad idea because while you are moving and building new energy infrastructure you would needlessly suffer deflation. And renewables are more resiliant then fossile fuel or nuclear which would be part of any mix if we switched today.

I am also playing avocado, because I don't think there is any risk of energy based currency replacing government violence backed currency. States have no reason to do that, and contrary to Chris I don't think states will fade away. Institutions last and the states has many ways to keep themselves relevant.

So the realistic scenario is energy tokens in addition to government money, in which case an energy crisis may cause a crisis of confidence in the energy tokens, but not deflation as government money remains dominant. It looks interesting as a way to make financing of new energy production easier, as long as it is not turned into yet another financial scam. Right now any and all alternative currencies (that are not horribly poorly constructed) is of interest as states while having the means to marshall the productive resources of society are instead insisting on them being idle, and if human punished for it.

So I guess I am with ARGeezer on this one, it is a partial solution. Which is not to bad.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se