Agree I hate this, but at the same time I don't know if I would have groked it correctly on first read if it had listed "10.7Pwh globally". We simply aren't exposed to numbers at that scale on a regular basis.
Not sure what the correct solution is here.
428.6 kg relativistic mass-energy equivalent: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=10.7PWh%2F%28c%5E2%29
But then, I am a silly person.
The problem is we don't live in a society powered by matter-antimatter annihilation reactions, or black evaporation so it's not really useful - unlike say, the electron-volt which at least serves physicists nicely.
This would be a devastating own if a single Joule wasn't exactly equal to a Watt-second.
I guess that if you want to stick to TWh you can use
- 10700
- 10,700
- 10.7×10³
- 1.07×10⁴
- 10.7e3
- 1.07e4
- 29E8₁₆
Scales to everything, you do not need to know any mapping, and directly supports mathematical manipulation.
We should also do the same for large number words in general. No thousand, million, billion, etc. E3, E6, E9, etc. Now you can count and represent any meaningful number without needing to memorize a dictionary of words and they would precisely match the unit scale “words”.
Put a different way: the total annual harvestable solar yield is within an order of magnitude of the energy we've caused to accumulate inside the atmospheric boundary. Think about that, for a second or two.