I think having an energy backed currency, especially as it can be shown to be practical, is a good thing. As an alternative form of currency it could possibly add resilience to the monetary system while offering the opportunity for competitive advantages to emerge.  Likewise with land based currencies for which the 'use value' is sold by parcel and time duration. I don't think it would be a good idea to transition the entire economy to such a system until and unless it had been shown that such a currency had definite advantages over the current fiat currency systems and that the new system was adequate to the task of providing the entirety of the currency needs of the society.

On the one hand we have been through a several century long development process for the current fiat money system and have not properly been able to regulate and manage that system in a global economy. Logically we should be engaged in designing adequate and transparent regulation of that system on a global scale, were such action not blocked by beneficiaries of the status quo. Given how fundamental to economic activity the monetary system is I think great care should be exercised in making fundamental changes.

On the other hand, the current system, with its known inadequacies, could well fall into a collapse even more profound than that which we  experienced in 2008-09, so having a group of partial solutions available might turn out to be quite fortuitous.  Another two handed analysis. :-)

But even better would be having ways, leaders and the opportunity to break the current policy impasse. To a very large extent we have Barack Obama to blame for having insured that no substantive change to the financial system arose out of the Global Financial Collapse of 2008-09.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."