One object has value, because of mainly 2 reasons:
1. It contains useful energy that can be burned (like food, electricity or petroleum)
2. It can reduce your energy loss (like cloth or house that protect you from excessive energy loss in cold weather, or computer to reduce the physical paper work)
This is far too simplistic a way to look at things. There are plenty of very expensive things out there which do neither of things. Pretty much the entire entertainment industry (television, cinema, music, video games) neither contains useful energy nor reduces energy loss (in fact, they all use up energy and increase energy loss, without a tangible "benefit"). Drugs, including things such as alcohol and nicotine, also don't fit in to your definition, despite being the second largest market in the world. Luxury goods, sports cars, watches, jewelry, precious metals, the list goes on.
If you look at it closely, it always fall into two of the above categories. This is because, human as a living being, require constant energy input to maintain its activities throughout its life, so anything that contains usable energy or reduce the energy loss is of value to human
Entertainment for example, is used to reduce energy loss: Although they don't directly provide energy, but they reduce the inefficiencies inside your body, thus makes your mental status more healthy. You can compare with another case: The same energy input but pure loud noise through speakers, that will make you tired and lose energy quickly. A high level of mental status can come from reduced energy loss, which can be caused by drugs, drinks, luxury goods, holiday, etc...
it does not give you any scientific measure about the value of the object.
But the scientific measure of the value of an object is irrelevant if nobody is willing to pay that. Look at a sports car, for example. Thousands of dollars in design costs, in raw materials, in production and manufacturing costs, in testing, in labor, etc. which is reflected in its price. But then look at a Jackson Pollock painting - a few hundred dollars for a canvas and some paints, sells for over $100 million. The "scientific cost" means nothing.
Just look at what's going on at the moment. Toilet paper, with a production cost of maybe 30-40 cents per roll, is being sold for $30-40 dollars instead. Supply and demand is all that matters.
True, supply and demand do affect the price of goods and services, but that can also be explained with energy theory
The paint art's value does not only decided by the original production energy input. When it is scarce, the energy input to acquire it in open market competition will become prohibitively high. It is the same for bitcoin, its value now increased mainly due to the increase of energy input in competition
It is similar for the toilet paper example. A demand surge in a short time increase the energy input for end consumer to get the goods because of competition, but in the long run it is the energy input in making of the product decide its base value, or cost. And that cost is not easily changed by supply and demand, thus relatively stable
It is intereting that in bitcoin's case, that the constant competition in mining makes the energy input higher and higher, so its value is purely driven by the competition, it does not have a base value, or the least amount of energy input to make the product.
And this explained the phenomenon that there are always people asking the question like "Why does bitcoin have value", since they just can not see that base value component in bitcoin, and they feel uncertain