[FpUser]

Nope it will not be rendered useless.

1) Price of the energy when you pay for it only grows over time. Short disruptions are possible but overall trend persists.

2) More energy also correlates to more goods produced so unless artificially manipulated the ratio should stay more or less the same.

3) All major currencies undergo inflation so even if energy becomes more plentiful there is nothing really new here

[birdsbirdsbirds]

(2) actually remains constant. If you use energy to pay for energy, then one unit always costs one unit.

But if the world energy production doubles, do you think that scarce resources cost the same? Prices of e.g. concert tickets or art pieces will adjust.

[FpUser]

Some of scarce will become not so scarce as their availability limited by energy. Other will increase in price as they're limited by other factors. Same way as with inflation.

If you do not like it you're always free to by gold or whatever resource does not depreciate long term.

[birdsbirdsbirds]

>Some of scarce will become not so scarce as their availability limited by energy.

Then those resources will cost the same in units of energy

>Other will increase in price as they're limited by other factors.

So why use energy to store value and not those resources? Of course I am free to choose gold on a personal level, but shouldn't it be the default strategy of every investor to not store value in energy?

Going back to your first comment:

>Everything we produce can be measured in / has energy cost. So maybe some kind of energy units should be the universal currency.

I can imagine that energy can be used as the unit for value transactions. For value storage however, it's the other way round: I think value has to be stored in assets that don't depend on energy.