1

It takes an enormous amount of energy to manufacture a computer, and less to create a ceramic food bowl, but only a small amount to grow a strawberry in Earth soil. Could we be setting product & service prices by measuring the entire amount of energy required to make or do something, including e.g. mining energy, purification energy, delivery energy, pollution clean-up energy etc? Can that be meaningfully computed? This is not quite the same as using the calories as a currency. This is using the energy input to set the base price of a thing.

SRM
  • 25,402
  • 4
  • 43
  • 113
iSelfy
  • 37
  • 1
  • 1
    A massive problem with energy is entropy. You can't contain it because it'll disperse, so it's really inconvenient as currency. – Hyfnae May 14 '17 at 17:39
  • Welcome to world building! Be sure you take a tour and look over the help is you have any questions. For your question, you may be astonished at how much energy it takes to grow a single strawberry when compared to industrial scale manufacturing. The difference may be smaller than you think. – Joe Kissling May 14 '17 at 17:40
  • 1
  • @apaul34208 Close, but I think this is unique enough. – Joe Kissling May 14 '17 at 17:42
  • I don't think it's duplicate because linked question is more detailed and specific. This one is either opinion based v or too broad - what does it mean "should"? And shouldn't land be free? Because we didn't make it, so we didn't use any energy making it? – Mołot May 14 '17 at 17:46
  • VTC, even though I answered the question. This is all about economics, and nothing about world building. – RonJohn May 14 '17 at 17:47
  • @Mołot I disagree, the question is a Could. Meaning is there a circumstance when energy would be worth using as a currency. So a scenario where energy would be valuable would answer the question. – Joe Kissling May 14 '17 at 18:00
  • Energy being valuable - which it is - isn't really a good criterion for a currency. It's like the question of using bullets as currency: neither one makes a good currency because they're consumables. In addition, the value of energy depends strongly on the form it's in. As noted, we get ~700 W/m^2 of free energy whenever the sun shines, but only a fraction of that if we use PV cells to make more-valuable electricity. And if we need energy to run cars or planes, that electricity isn't of much use. (Unless you can afford an electric car, of course.) – jamesqf May 14 '17 at 18:21
  • @Joe it's "should" in the question body, you see. And it looks like "hig concept ", as recently discussed on meta. – Mołot May 14 '17 at 19:51
  • 1
    current systems actually do that, that's why a kg of berries worth much less than a kg of iPhones. But what you can't say is - how fair is the price, and we rely on the market to care about that. There are some examples through to use energy as currency this, that. In general, it is a good idea to use energy as money, but the system has met some requirements to make it better than the current system. – MolbOrg May 14 '17 at 21:49
  • Its already used as de facto currency in the Paolo Bacigalupi books. – John May 14 '17 at 22:51
  • This seems to be conflating two issues. One is using energy as money (the title question). The other is pricing things based on the amount of energy required to produce them. The first has several similar questions. The second doesn't. – Brythan May 15 '17 at 00:27
  • @MolbOrg: But the price of a kg of berries can vary several-fold, depending on the kind of berry and the season, and a kg of wheat or broccoli probably costs less than the same weight of berries, even though they might take about the same amount of energy to produce. – jamesqf May 15 '17 at 05:28
  • @jamesqf first of all market says if you consider the price of berries overpriced, and you think you can offer a better price you move into production of those berries, to get your slice of pie. The price of entering into growing plants isn't high, compared to those of making processors and phones. Most likely you mean Strawberries, the pdf is for you, the pdf is about broccoli. The price of picking Strawberries is $0.4 in labor cost. berries cost $0.65 processed per pound, broccoli $0.3 – MolbOrg May 15 '17 at 17:10
  • @MolbOrg: No, I'm talking about any kind of fresh berry in the store. Depending on season, strawberries might run anywhere from $1 to $4 per pound (going from memory), blueberries $2 to $5, blackberries & raspberries maybe $2 to $6 or more. Yet the amount of energy input (solar plus harvest & transport to store) is about the same, as is the food value. – jamesqf May 16 '17 at 04:46
  • @jamesqf I could find the analysis for other berries too, I recommend you to look at provided pdfs. More than half cost of strawberries is the labor price to harvest them. And that is true for most of the berries. Another significant contributor for their price is their shelf life, they get squishy in a few days after harvest, especially those berries you would enjoy to eat and not the berries which are rubber-like because they not ripe enough. The way they are distributed also adds price up and adds losses of berries thus - thus the process is less efficient than growing corn or potatoes. – MolbOrg May 16 '17 at 11:30
  • @MolbOrg: This does not make a lot of economic sense. It would imply that berries should be priced the same all season long, when the price fluctuates by at least a factor of 2-3 during the season. – jamesqf May 17 '17 at 16:46
  • @jamesqf it's you who will talk in terms of energy and thus in terms of efficiency, it's you who implies they should cost like grass, and it's you who implies they should cost the same amount of (of what?) because energy used to grow them do not changes after they are grown. I'm the one who shows to you - why it is not. But I'm not the one who will make all school work for you. Do not forget there should be some interest in doing that growing, and no they can't cost the same all season unless you have a constant environment to grow them aka hydroponics, greenhouse etc, they have plants-cycles – MolbOrg May 17 '17 at 17:15
  • @MolbOrg: I think we are getting off track here. When I'm talking about the energy in berries (or any plant food, really), I'm talking primarily about the solar energy needed to grow them, and equally, the food energy you get from eating them. That energy IS basically the same all season. Likewise the human-added energy used in growing & harvest is about the same. Only the shipping is likely to vary, depending on how far away you are from the fields. E.g. in the western US, early berries might come from Mexico, late ones from Canada - and pricey out-of-season ones from Chile. – jamesqf May 19 '17 at 04:11
  • @jamesqf "Likewise the human-added energy used in growing & harvest is about the same." it is not the same. Berries are collected manually in the most cases. cranberries aren't collected manually, but I would call it as an exotic way of collecting them, then an efficient way to collect them https://youtu.be/MKbI-T4yaa8?t=26 – MolbOrg May 19 '17 at 13:28
  • @MolbOrg: You're still misunderstanding me. What I'm saying is that the amount of human labor needed to pick a pound of say strawberries is the same, regardless of whether the berries are early season ones from Mexico, mid-season from California, or late season from Canada. – jamesqf May 19 '17 at 17:58
  • @jamesqf I will read your next comment, but I will stop there. Yes, There is/maybe hype factor, it is the way market works when the supply is limited. However there are not less objective factors than energy which are involved in forming the price difference between berries and other plants on the market. – MolbOrg May 19 '17 at 18:40

2 Answers2

2

Embodied Energy

What you're talking about is the idea of Embodied Energy. For the sake of ease, think of embodied energy as:

the energy it takes to get a product to a consumer; including the harvesting or gathering of raw materials, the refinement of these goods, transportation, and any manufacturing processes.

In a way, the cost of most goods are already linked to their embodied energy. After all, the cost of gathering materials, manufacturing a product, and shipping that product (both to the manufacturer and the consumer) is real, and this is basic economics.

Forcing governments to tax goods for embodied energy that the company does not pay for could be a way to mitigate climate or energy issues, but this is not trading energy directly!

Trading Energy?

You can't just bust out energy like you can coins. Energy is not a tangible thing. At the most, if there is a universal energy particle1, this energy-particle is more ethereal than dark matter, and at the least, energy is just an idea scientists use to keep track of how much work a thing can to. You cannot hand someone some unit of energy, but you can give them something which possesses energy.

Trading work, or the promise of work, for goods has happened. The Inca Empire hat mit'a, but they also used barter-systems. Other historic economies used a type of work-in-place-of-money system called "corvee."

The real problem with trading energy is the non-physicality of it: that energy must be carried by something. If I had to pay you 20,000 kcal for something, how do you want that energy? Do you want the promise of 20,000 kcal of future mechanical work? What if I gave you some amount of a chemical which, when burned, releases 20,000 kcal of heat energy? What if I turn on a laser that gives you 20,000 kcal in a very short time- essentially burning whatever the laser hits? Maybe I'll expose you to some nuclear radiation which will give you the 20,000 kcal!

Wouldn't this be easier if we just agreed that some thing- be it currency or another good- would be more useful to you?

The Conclusion

Trading energy without some middleman- something that holds the energy- is very, very, veeeery impractical, potentially destructive, and also not helpful.

1. According to the standard model, there are particles which act as energy carriers which are sometimes described as energy itself. It appears these particles are not interchangeable- a photon does not do the things a gluon does. These particles are also described as having energy, so the issue of if these particles are energy or not is a matter of contention. Also, we're not sure if describing them as particles is a good idea, too. In any case, if these are particles, all of them can be in your hand, but not held by your hand!

PipperChip
  • 32,239
  • 2
  • 88
  • 135
0

Not for a very long time

Energy is not a good form of currency because it is everywhere and it is very easy to get more. Aluminum used to be more valuable than gold, now it's used as foil and thrown out by the ton. Its abundance has made it nearly worthless (compared to gold). In order for energy to have significant value, it would need to be very scarce, especially since a kilocalorie is not much energy at all.

Energy may be a currency if a society survives until the Heat Death of the universe. In the far far far future energy in the universe will become very scarce. The expanding universe will rob the universe of energy and what remains will be spread so far and thin as to be essentially nonexistent. In this time there will be no stars that shine, nor radioactive elements to derive energy from. The only source of energy will come from the Hawking Radiation from supermassive black holes. Their energy will be the most valuable thing left in the cold dark universe because without it nothing could occur and thuse its value preiceless.

Joe Kissling
  • 6,706
  • 2
  • 18
  • 35
  • At that time, there won't be enough energy for multicellular life to function, much less societies. – RonJohn May 14 '17 at 18:01
  • @RonJohn a far planning society could gather black holes for such a time, or set up shop in the center of a galaxy – Joe Kissling May 14 '17 at 18:04
  • I think this answer misses the mark: can we value goods in terms of their embodied energy and not, say, their relative abundance? – PipperChip May 14 '17 at 18:16
  • @PipperChip Good point, but I think my answer still applies. Valuing an object in terms of its energy is only really viable when energy is scarce. – Joe Kissling May 14 '17 at 18:19