Admittedly, I know and understand far too little about cryptocurrencies to have anything intelligible to say about the algorithms themselves, but I have some thoughts on the conceptual level (they also apply to the original SolarCoin concept).

From a conceptual perspective, the goal of promoting clean energy production makes sense to me, but I see the following issues:

1. It is limited to solar energy, neglecting all other renewable energy sources. This could lead to to an over-emphasis on solar energy production even in regions where other sources are more efficient, thus leading to an inefficient use of resources. This could of course be fixed by expanding it to other means certified renewable energy production, once they become viable on smaller scales (to avoid centralization).

2. Should, at some point in the future, the problem of limited energy be solved by technological advances (i.e. sources of renewable energy becoming so efficient that energy production cost becomes negligible), the currency’s value in promoting energy production would be irrelevant.

3. It sounds like it would favor people with the technical skills and knowledge who are able to set up efficient solar energy systems.

That is why – if 1. is fixed – I see this mainly as a short- to mid-term means to promote clean energy production, whereas I believe that using human effort (as Alan Moore suggested above) or time directly as a currency to be more future-proof in the long term, as it is independent of technological advances.

Thanks for this insightful article. I’ve thought of similar but using social proof of work/stake (e.g. volunteer work, projects/code, etc.). I didn’t think it through in this level of detail but seeing this inspires me to try!