Terawatt to Calories (th)/minute

The Sun delivers about 173,000 TW to Earth's surface. Human civilisation uses roughly 18 TW total. So we'd only need to capture 0.01% of incoming solar energy to power everything — an area of solar panels roughly 400 km × 400 km, about the size of Montana. The challenge isn't total energy availability; it's cost, storage, transmission, and the fact that sunlight is spread thin and intermittent.

Imagine 18 trillion light bulbs burning continuously, or 9 billion people each running a 2 kW heater non-stop. That 18 TW figure includes everything — electricity, transport fuel, industrial heat, cooking, heating. About 40% comes from oil, 27% from coal, 24% from gas, and the rest from nuclear and renewables. The US alone accounts for about 3 TW despite having only 4% of world population.

Replacing all 18 TW of human energy with clean sources would require roughly 60–75 TW of installed solar capacity (accounting for ~25% average capacity factor). That's about 40 times current installed solar. At 2023 installation rates of ~0.4 TW/year, it would take 150 years — but installation rates are doubling every 2–3 years. If that exponential trend holds, we could theoretically reach 60 TW of solar within 15–20 years.

Earth radiates about 47 TW of geothermal heat from its interior, driven by radioactive decay and residual primordial heat. That's 2.5× human energy consumption, but it's spread across the entire surface at extremely low density (~0.09 W/m²). Iceland, sitting atop a mantle plume, exploits geothermal for 90% of its heating. Globally, geothermal electricity capacity is only about 16 GW — a tiny fraction of what's theoretically available.

No — the terawatt scale is a very recent phenomenon. In 1800, global human power consumption was about 0.5 TW (mostly biomass burning). By 1900 it reached 1 TW with coal industrialisation. We crossed 10 TW around 1985. The jump from 1 to 18 TW in just 120 years tracks almost perfectly with global population growth times rising per-capita energy use. Pre-industrial humans used about 0.1 kW each; Americans now average 10 kW per person.

Running at 10 km/h burns about 8,000–12,000 cal(th)/min (8–12 kcal/min) depending on body weight — that's roughly 560–840 W of total metabolic power. Sprinting can hit 25,000 cal/min briefly. But here's the catch: only 20–25% becomes mechanical work; the rest is heat, which is why you get hot. A 70 kg runner at marathon pace (~12 km/h) burns roughly 12,000 cal/min and must dissipate about 700 W of waste heat through sweating.

Before SI standardisation, the calorie was the dominant energy unit in biology because it was defined by water's heat capacity — and most biological calorimetry involved water baths. Measuring oxygen consumption in liters per minute and converting to cal/min via the caloric equivalent of oxygen (4.825 kcal/L O₂) was standard practice. The per-minute rate matched the natural timescale of spirometry measurements. Modern papers have mostly switched to watts, but the older literature is vast.

Metabolic rate scales with body mass to the 0.75 power (Kleiber's law). A 3 g mouse produces about 36 cal/min; a 70 kg human about 1,200 cal/min; a 5,000 kg elephant about 30,000 cal/min. Per kilogram, the mouse is 12× more metabolically active than the elephant. This is why small animals eat constantly and have rapid heartbeats — they burn through their energy reserves much faster relative to their size.

In the late 1800s, Wilbur Atwater burned thousands of food samples in a bomb calorimeter — a sealed steel vessel submerged in water — and measured the temperature rise in cal/min to calculate total energy. He then subtracted energy lost in digestion (measured via feces and urine calorimetry) to derive the "physiological fuel values": 4 cal/g for protein, 4 cal/g for carbohydrate, 9 cal/g for fat. These Atwater factors, over 120 years old, are still the basis for every nutrition label worldwide — remarkably accurate despite their crude origin.

Most wrist-based trackers are 15–30% off for cal/min estimates — some studies found errors up to 93%. They estimate from heart rate, which correlates loosely with metabolic rate but is confounded by temperature, caffeine, stress, and fitness level. Chest-strap heart monitors are better (10–15% error). Gold standard is indirect calorimetry with a face mask measuring O₂ and CO₂, accurate to about 3%. For most people, tracker estimates are directionally useful but not precise.