The only variable in the system of Kardashev Money is how much money is issued. Too much, or too little, and the currency devalues.
Money is just a unit of measure that allows trading for things of different values and for a time interval between trades. It is a tool, in conjunction with taxation, that governments have to provision themselves without needing a revenue stream.
As such, and as long as it isn't dependent upon a commodity (gold standard), it is only limited by the things it can purchase, not its numerical quantity. A fiat currency that the issuer can produce at will cannot actually "devalue". Commodity prices may rise or fall according to their scarcity in the marketplace, but not in absolute unison as happens when currencies devalue. The two primary causes of inflation/price increases are war and disruptions in supply chains that aren't easily remedied.
Cryptocurrencies are already aligned with energy, but we can see those probably won't be accepted by mainstream until maybe complete collapse of fiat.
Crypto is a commodity and will remain such unless some major economies allow for payment of tax obligations in them. Even then, if its value is related to an existing currency it will be tied to that currency. Currency issuers are careful to demand their currencies in payment of taxes because that is what gives the currency its base value. No matter how many cryptos you hold, if you can't obtain US dollars to pay your taxes you are subject to some serious penalties.
Meantime banks could avoid that, if they see how this works, that they could recover the value of their currencies by issuing it, lots of it, to represent the solar energy coming in and being put to use.
Banks don't issue currencies. They issue "credit" that is denominated in the currency of their nation. Retiring that credit requires the currency only the issuer can provide. That credit spends much like the issuer's currency, but it cannot be net saved and is less than zero-sum because it carries an obligation of interest. It is also an obligation to the bank making the loan, so principal payments are applied to reduce that obligation and always also reduce the M2 money supply.
But they are between a rock and a hard place, it seems to me, as money devalues, so also does capital, issuing money to reflect valuable energy at least preserves the value of money, but the value of capital is alredy dead in the water.
Money, as I stated above, has no intrinsic value beyond the things it can purchase. Fewer goods available mean higher prices and there is no good remedy for that, as the nation is about to learn with the interest rate hike by the Fed. It would be wiser to keep rates low to stimulate investment in broken supply chains than to try to slow the demand for labor with higher rates.
Increased interest on Treasury debt also results in additional money creation to service the debt and higher ROI for investors. Fixing inflation by making everything more expensive is the dumbest idea I've heard recently, but the "experts" tell us it will work this time.
My use of the term "Austrian Economics" is deliberate, to use the same instrument as money issuers quote, as their weapon, when they ask us the question "But where will the money come from?"
There is only one source of money that doesn't carry an obligation of added interest, -- the US Congress spending in deficit into the private sector. It doesn't come from tax receipts or investors, since both require existing money to purchase or pay. Every such dollar spent but not clawed back in taxation becomes someone's monetary asset in the private sector.
Monetarists usually don't want to recognize anything beyond the sectoral confines of the government so "debt" becomes an obligation requiring repayment. If they would only look at the other side of the balance sheet, the private sector, they would recognize that the debt is our net money supply and past payment for the resources and labor government demands, not a mortgage against future productivity.
The nature of solar backed by hydrogen is that if a hydrogen backed installation has enough solar to meet all of its own electrical microgrid needs, then it will always have an excess of hydrogen, this is how the excess solar energy is "Dumped", but if it is hydrogen then it can be passed on to vehicles of all kinds, to use the energy of it userfully. Even EVs are easily converted to dual hydrogen / electrical use by swapping out the toxic battery for a reversible hydrogen fuel cell.
Just an FYI: This was my entry into my Jr High science fair when I was in 9th grade. That was 1960. I couldn't assure the safety of my crude hydrogen storage and did have one accident that cost me my eyebrows, so the demonstration was limited to producing it on demand with aluminum foil in a bottle with electrodes and a small piston engine with a bastardized electric generator and motorcycle battery. I understand the process and its potential.
I don't see any use for national grids in this scenario, I believe fuel for transportation could be generated at any point in the system, from community solar facilities everywhere.
I agree that the grid system should be made obsolete. However, all new processes require some transition, and the acceptance of any process is often more reliant upon that transition than it is on the end product and scalability. Like most new concepts, it will be introduced first to the wealthiest segment and its price will be representative of that market. The rest of us will have to struggle with a failed and obsolete system for a while yet.
