[p2p-research] The Case for Energy As P2P Currency

[marc fawzi]

*Hi Michel,
*

*This section from the latest model sounds like energy credits except it has
incentives for peer production and completes the picture on wealth building.

*

*
It seems that part of this is vital for existing P2P theories .. but it is
*not* in opposition to what those theories stand for!*

*
The issue is explained in the text below
*

*The Case for Energy As P2P Currency*

We (and everything else that's functioning, i.e. everything) have a
continuous cost of energy (see:
Thermoeconomics<http://p2pfoundation.net/Thermoeconomics>)
If we get our energy from fusion we will still need energy to maintain and
upgrade the fusion technology, and while that energy can come from the
fusion reactor itself (since it's so efficient) you still need to move that
energy, at the scale of the economy, from the reactor to the farmer who
makes the food for the scientists who then perform the maintenance and
upgrades to the reactor. It's the flow of energy that has to be enabled, on
efficient basis, between all nodes within the economy, and the idea of
tokenizing a universal form of energy (i.e. electricity), as we have here
(see: Common Energy Bank) allows us to enable the flow of this energy from
one node to another alongside the flow of goods and services. In other
words, the fusion reactor's maintenance and upgrades are paid for with
tokenized energy, which the maintenance crew and the fusion scientists can
exchange with the farmer for food, and which the farmer can redeem for
actual energy to power production on the farm or trade for other goods and
services, use to purchase more land, etc. The issue not discussed in current
P2P theory is how do we assure the flow of energy through all nodes of the
economy in such a way that we get maximum "globally sustainable"
productivity from every node. The thesis in this model is simple: in order
for nodes to have maximum "globally sustainable" productivity they must give
and take in equal amount, i.e near unity for exchange ratio (i.e. exchange
of products, services and assets for energy, which in our reactor example
means providing the maintenance service, which costs energy, and getting
paid back in a tokenized form of universally utilitarian energy, e.g.
electricity.) If a given node gives more than it takes in energy then it
stops to function eventually (see: Thermoeconomics: Laws of Thermodynamics:
Implications<http://p2pfoundation.net/Thermoeconomics#Laws_of_Thermodynamics:_Implications>)
If a given node gives less than it takes in energy then it is taking this
extra energy from some other node, and that's because energy is conserved,
i.e. if a given node takes more than it gives then it's ultimately taking
from another node, not from some cost-free fountain of energy (see:
Thermoeconomics:
Laws of Thermodynamics:
Definitions<http://p2pfoundation.net/Thermoeconomics#Laws_of_Thermodynamics:_Definitions>)


The case for using renewable, clean energy, e.g. fusion, solar, wind,
bio-fuel, as opposed to fission reactors or coal etc is two fold:
1. Renewable energy is abundant which means that it can be accessed and
harnessed by everyone. Having said this, it's important to note that
sustainable abundance comes from a regulated whole not unregulated
individuals (see: Anti-Dumping and Anti-Monopoly Caps for Energy
Production.) 2. Minimal cost to environment. --The updated currency model
core is at:
http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Social_Currency_Model#Common_Energy_Bank
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20081229/1bf478d9/attachment.html>