Just watched TNG: The Dauphin. In it the following exchange occurs when receiving a powerful transmission:

Data Sir, sensors indicate the communication originated from a tera-Watt source on the planet
Riker That's more power than our entire ship can generate!

This seems silly.

  • There is currently a hydro power station that produces 22.5GW. 50 times that seems very large to us today, but when you consider the biggest nuclear weapons can release 0.5TWh, the numbers don't seem that extreme.
  • Shields! Phasers! 150KW defensive laser systems exist. A 1PW laser accelerator is a thing. Those on the enterprise must —by virtue of needing to go much further and charge much faster— need more power.
  • Transporters! Replicators! The holodeck! Surely the converstion of energy into matter and arranging that at distance, must pull a lot of power. And it's happening all over the ship, all the time.
  • Impulse engines. Even in a vacuum, shifting 4.5 megatonnes must take serious power. To accelerate 1m/s over a second, you're looking at 45GW and they seem to do things much faster, all the way up to 75,000,000m/s. Full impulse seems to take a few seconds... That makes my calculator cry, with numbers around 8 ×10^24W... That's way over.
  • Warp.
  • Computer.

All of that, while keeping the lights on running other day-to-day things.

Was Riker just off by a unit, or is there something I'm not factoring into these points? How much energy could the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D produce at peak output? Are there listed energy requirements for the components above that I've been guesstimating for?

  • 6
    As much (or little) energy as the plot requires :)
    – Philipp
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 11:09
  • 8
    The main reactor of the Enterprise produces 1.21 jiggawatts.
    – Gaius
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 11:21
  • @Philipp -- That's only true of TOS, or maybe you're thinking of (Gene Roddenberry's) Andromeda? :)
    – user23715
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 14:54
  • 1
    I came here to say you can't produce energy, just change its form. Oh look! I already made that comment three years ago! Commented Jul 25, 2018 at 19:50
  • 1
    @ThePopMachine To both your comments: Produce doesn't mean "create out of nothing". Product is the result of process. I think it applies just fine to energy transformation.
    – Oli
    Commented Jul 25, 2018 at 21:27

4 Answers 4


Memory Alpha explains that

The warp core was one of the most powerful in Starfleet, generating approximately 12.75 billion gigawatts of power. (TNG: "True Q")

The exact quote is:

AMANDA: It's hard to imagine how much energy is being harnessed in there.

DATA: Imagination is not necessary. The scale is readily quantifiable. We are presently generating twelve point seven five billion gigawatts per (an alarm goes off)


So, that's 12.75 million terrawats that the Enterprise-D warp core was capable of producing!

It also seems that's not the maximum amount. As per Relics:

SCOTT: Geordi, the shields will hold. Don't worry about that. I can get a few extra gigawatts out of these babies.


Now, I know that's for the shields, but it does seem to indicate that the power output could be slightly more, but probably not a huge amount.

Regarding what Riker was on about:

In 2365, the command headquarters of Daled IV utilized a communication system that originated from a terawatt source, which was necessary to penetrate the planet's atmosphere. According to Commander William T. Riker, "that's more power than our entire ship could generate," meaning that they lacked the ability to respond to the communique. (TNG: "The Dauphin")


That is, the communication system of the entire ship couldn't produce a terrawatt.

According to the excerpt from the script below, this seems to be confirmed:

DATA: Sir, sensors indicate the communication originated from a terawatt source on the planet.

RIKER: That's more power than our entire ship can generate.

DATA: It is what is needed to penetrate the atmosphere.

RIKER: Which means we lack the ability to respond, sir.


Just judging by this quote which puts Riker's explanation into context, it does seem by 'entire ship' he meant 'the entire ship's communication system'. It would be pretty poor if a First Officer didn't know the energy output of the ship!

This site, citing the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual says the Galaxy Class had a

total output 50,000 TeraWatts

for the phasers. Now, that's a separate system with an upper limit nowhere near the total energy produced by the warp core.

As for the out of universe reason, as suggested by Stan's comment below, bear in mind that The Dauphin was well before True Q and the TNG Technical Manual had yet to be released, so, from an out-of-universe perspective, Riker probably was referring to the entire ship's output as being about a terawatt. From an in-universe perspective this is later contradicted in True Q with the more realistic figure of 12.75 billion gigawatts, so we resolve this contradiction by assuming that, in-universe, Riker was referring to the communication system alone.

  • 4
    So why is Kirk always telling Scotty he needs more power? Seems like he's compensating for something...
    – Ryan
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 15:42
  • Hmm. As far as I can tell based on our current technology, the most powerful radio transmitters are around the order of magnitude of Megawatts. So for the Enterprise not to have a transmitter six orders of magnitude more powerful than today's... perhaps that's feasible, at least if we're talking about conventional radio only and not subspace (I'm not aware of the context of this quote). I'm not entirely sure how useful conventional radio is in the future, so maybe a Terawatt transmitter isn't exactly something they'd have lying around.
    – Muzer
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 15:43
  • 3
    Don't see how one concludes that Riker's statement is restricted solely to the communication system. He clearly says "entire ship" not "the communication system can't produce". And, as I recall the episode, there's astonishment in his voice when he says it. If the issue was the communication system, than I would expect something like 'the comm system can't handle that much power' or the 'comm system can't generate that much power'. Plot flaw in my opinion. Neverless +1 for the info on power production
    – Stan
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 18:39
  • 3
    @Stan “Don't see how one concludes that Riker's statement is restricted solely to the communication system.” Context? They are talking about communication. Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 22:38
  • 3
    Meanwhile, the transporters are a dinky 10 megajoules, and the shuttles can store ~30. It's almost like the writers were just making the numbers up instead of carefully considering the relative values of different things.
    – Kevin
    Commented Aug 23, 2015 at 4:30

This is not specifically an answer to the question but was going to be a comment to N_soong's wonderful answer but it ended up being too long and halfway to an answer itself.

Communications equipment is not something you can just throw more power at. If an antenna is not tuned to the power and frequency of the broadcast you will have some major issues due to what is known as reflected power.

When the antenna is not tuned to the transmitter then not all the power goes out the antenna. Any power that does not go out must come back at the transmitter. In the electronics world this is known as SWR and is a ratio of forward power (What makes it out of the antenna) and reflected power.

At lower levels you can get away with having a antenna that is not exactly tuned to the rest of the system but when you get higher up there in power you have to get a lot more narrow on what a specific antenna does. This is because of the fact that the transmitter can only take so much power coming back before it gets fried.

10% of 1 megawatt is 100 kilowatts. Star trek equipment could probably handle that although that is more than most FM radio stations put out in total. However 10% of 1 terawatt is 100 gigawatts. That is an astounding amount of energy to be feeding back into the system.

  • +1 but am compelled to point out that Riker says "the entire ship can't produce ...". Per my comments under N_Soong answer, if it was a question of the comm system would have expected something like "comm system can't handle that much power". And, if Riker simply misspoke, would expect Data to correct him by pointing out that ship can produce that much power but comm system can't handle. Data says nothing. Occam's razor - simplest explanation to me is 'plot hole'.
    – Stan
    Commented Aug 14, 2015 at 11:27

Here's another approach to this question:

From How long can a Galaxy class starship last before it needs servicing?, the Enterprise-D can carry 3,000 m^3 of anti-deuterium, which is enough to keep the ship running for three years of normal operation (source: Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda's Star Trek TNG Technical Manual).

Based on data from the Brookhaven National Laboratory, I'll estimate the maximum density of deuterium (in liquid or solid form) at ~ 0.2 g/cm^3 = 200 kg/m^3 (since it would be a liquid or solid, even vastly increasing the pressure wouldn't change the density much). Since anti-deuterium should have the same density:

200 kg/m^3 x 3,000 m^3 = 600,000 kg anti-deuterium

Now let's assume the Enterprise-D's engines could convert that anti-deuterium to energy with 90% efficiency (the manual specifies a minimum efficiency of 88% up to warp 7.0), by combining it with an equal amount of normal matter. Using E = m c2, that would give us a total of:

1,200,000 kg x (3.0 x 10^8 m/sec)^2 x .9 = 1.0 x 10^23 kg m^2/s^2 = 1.0 x 10^23 J of energy

[J = joules]

And that total energy output, sustained over a 3-year period, would give us an average power output (for propulsion, which should be the main power consumer; total will be more, since they'll also be running the stereo and A/C) of:

1.0 x 10^23 J/(94,608,000 s) = 1.0 x 10^15 J/s = 1.0 x 10^15 watts = 1000 terawatts

[There are 94,608,000 seconds in 3 years.]

[By comparison, total current worldwide energy generation (all sources -- coal, gas, oil, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal, etc.) is about 15 terawatts = 2 kilowatts/person.]

We can compare this figure to one that can be estimated from the power usage chart for the engines (Fig. 5.1.1. p 55), and accompanying explanatory text, in the same Star Trek TNG Technical Manual. On p 57, Sternbach and Okuda say the Enterprise is able to cruise for an unlimited amount of time (until its fuel is depleted) at warp 6. So let's assume that's our average cruising speed. Now according to Fig. 5.1.1, the power usage (for propulsion) at warp 6 is 3 x 10^6 MJ/cochrane. Of course, those are the wrong units; since it's power, it should be MW/cochrane (MW = megawatts). So let's make that correction.

They further say that a warp 6 field bubble has a field strength of 392 cochranes. Thus the power required for propulsion at warp 6 is:

3 x 10^6 MW/cochrane x 10^6 W/MW x 392 cochranes = 1.2 x 10^15 watts = 1200 terawatts

This is nearly the same as the first value we calculated! [This is probably serendipitous :).] Of course, as mentioned above, there are other power consumers besides propulsion, but I'm assuming that's the big one, at least for sustained operation.

We can also use the graph and figures in the technical manual to estimate a maximum power output. At its maximum theoretical speed of warp 9.8, we have:

8 x 10^9 MW/cochrane x 10^6 W/MW x 2 x 10^3 cochranes = 1.6 x 10^19 watts = 16 million terawatts = 16 exawatts

This is very close to the 12.75 million terawatt (= 13 exawatts) figure quoted by Data (though I don't know how fast the ship was travelling at the time). At the same time, the 13 and 16 exawatt figures seem a little silly to me, even for 24th–century technology, since they're over 100 times the power the earth receives from the sun (174 petawatts)!

Furthermore, at a 90% conversion efficiency, the engines would need to dissipate 1 exawatt of heat, i.e., 10 times the power the earth receives from the sun! [Additionally, according to the tech manual, conversion efficiency tends to decrease at high warp speeds.] Though I suppose they could deal with this by saying the heat is dissipated into subspace...

Interestingly, the Wikipedia article referenced above says the Enterprise-D can maintain emergency warp, 9.6, for 12 hours. Using the same sort of estimates given above, that would require 11 exawatts of power. However, at that power output, the ship would use up its total fuel capacity in 3 hours. So clearly there's not perfect consistency among these different specifications.


A 1PW laser accelerator is a thing. Those on the enterprise must —by virtue of needing to go much further and charge much faster— need more power.

It's important not to conflate peak power output capabilities (of things like lasers) with sustained power output. Today we are capable of building a pair of lasers with a combined peak power output of 20 petawatts = 20,000 terawatts. But this device will put out that power for only 150 femtoseconds = 1.5 x 10 ^-13 s, thus delivering a total energy of 3000 joules. It can do one shot/minute so, as impressive as its peak power output is, its sustained power output is only:

3000 J/min x 1 min/(60 s) = 50 J/s = 50 W

And remember that when we are talking about the power output of the Enterprise-D's warp engines, we're referring to sustained power output.

[Notably, the peak power output of these lasers is >1000x the current 15 terawatt sustained power output of human civilization!]


Data mentioned '12.75 billion gigawatts per...' and got cut off by the alarm at that point. The script was supposed to say 'per second' however.

Power generation has been a little inconsistent in Trek (ok by quite a bit and probably because at the time when they created the show, the writers thought those would be very big numbers - but they forgot about exponential advancements), but it is more or less reconcilable when you factor in that Starfleet and the Federation (and most Trek spacefaring species) rely on subspace technology and other implementations of exotic matter in all their systems.

We've seen on more than one occasion that application of subspace technology can radically increase efficiency, power outputs, etc. So, when we hear 'joules', 'megajoules' etc... they may be relative baseline figures which do NOT take into account the application of subspace technology which gives you a total output (and could easily be orders of magnitude higher).

Also, the Dauphin episode occurred in Season 2, episode 10. 'True Q' occurs in Season 6, episode 6... basically 4 years later.

Enterprise also underwent a major refit (and upgrades to its weapons, shields, and energy generation following the Borg incursion of Federation space ('Best of Both Worlds').

It stands to reason that Enterprise-D power generation capabilities and all other systems would have been progressively enhanced during the course of TNG (in Season 1 episode with the Bynars, they received a major refit of their computer core for example).

It was also mentioned in Star Trek Voyager episode:'Night' (season 5, episode 1) that Federation ships (or at least Voyager) uses a Transkinetic chamber and Radiometric converters among other things: TORRES: The residual anti-matter is then processed in the transkinetic chamber, where it's broken down on the subatomic level. EMCK: What about the theta radiation? TORRES: Oh, it's absorbed by a series of radiometric converters. We recycle the energy, use it to power everything from life support to replicators. EMCK: We don't have this kind of conversion technology.

Essentially, she described the process of how 'waste energy' is re-absorbed into the system and used for power generation. In this sense, Starfleet ships emit very little or no waste byproducts to begin with (it makes sense because they ARE focusing on technical efficiency and EVERYTHING is recycled as much as it possibly can be). When you have a closed system like a starship, it makes sense. Even the NX-01 used recycling to a very large extent (such as converting human waste into edible food - a process which we can do today fairly easily as well, but NX-01 had a molecular seqencer onboard which made things easier - and actually, we also had molecular manufacturing technology since 2015, and AI controlled atomic scale manufacturing since 2018).

Also, anti-matter warheads like the ones in Photon Torpedoes are probably a lot more powerful than just 64 Megatons as some people imply. Sure, they may carry 1.5kg of matter and 1.5kg of antimatter, but, the yields are highly variable and these weapons also carry subspace technology and anti-deuterium as well which increase overall explosive yields to 690 gigaton range.

Here's a quote from memory alpha: The second type warhead was loaded with a maximum yield of only 1.5 kilograms of antideuterium. Due to the premixed reactants, the released energy per unit time was greater than in a rupture of a storage pod containing 100 cubic meters of antideuterium. The torpedo had a dry mass of 247.5 kilograms. (pp. 129 & 68) By using standard physics calculations, a payload of 1.5 kilograms was equal to about 64.4 megatons. The second type, at maximum yield, generated the destructive effects greater than in an antimatter pod rupture. Antimatter was stored as liquid or slush on starships. (p. 69) Density of mere liquid antideuterium was around 160 kilograms per cubic meter. According to this comparison, the high annihilation rate energy release would be comparable to the effects in a 690 gigaton explosion. For the sake of plausibility the affected blast area at these intensities might be extremely small. Visual effects on-screen would seem to confirm this. See this antimatter calculator for more information.

That's how you can get gigaton and (later on) teraton level fire-power outputs (from both directed energy weapons and torpedoes). So standard conversion metrics don't apply because people fail to usually take into account subspace and other materials which can (when mixed together appropriately) produce massively larger effects.

Taking that into account, it is reasonable that Trek ships employ technologies that on one end seem to require minuscule amounts of power (relative to what we see today), but end up with massive numbers (by many orders of magnitudes greater) once you factor in subspace technology, anti-deuterium, etc.

Also, from TNG to DS9 (at least by the episode 'The Die is Cast' Season 3, Episode 21), there is more than enough time for exponential evolution of weapon (and other) technologies... more than enough to result in Teraton level outputs that have been estimated for the Romulan/Cardassian fleet which managed to destroy 30% of planetary crust in an opening volley.

My guess is that Warp drive could also be described as 'brute force' method of FTL as it progressively requires more and more energy the faster you go. That's why also speed and energy requirements increase practically exponentially beyond Warp 9.9 with every increment (and why no ships were actually seen using anything faster than Warp 9.9 - not even Voyager as their on-screen dialogue actually mentions 9.75 as a maximum sustainable speed, not 9.975 - and this also makes sense as this is a notch above Warp 9.6 which was an absolute maximum for Enterprise-D - at least until USS Prometheus entered the scene which managed Warp 9.9 without effort as a sustainable speed).

So, one can say that power generation for Trek is quite potent, and the Enterprise-D is quite a lot more powerful than what some people claimed - and it wouldn't be necessarily 'unrealistic'. So, internal volume size of storage matters to a point... even if the Ent-D sotres 3,000 m^3 of anti-deuterium... the USAGE of this substance will be relatively low over time while still producing mind-boggling amounts of power when you factor in all the power enhancements technologies in place (like subpsace), and other things.

Factor in recycling of energy, and you basically end up with massive amounts of power. And the Federation demonstrated it can STORE massive amounts of energy for later use (such as when they are replicating objects... if they recycle it, that energy can be later used to create something else - and its not inconceivable that they would be actually converting energy into matter just as the dialogue explains).

  • Don't even need fancy subspace technology to make your torpedoes hit like that. Spherical explosions waste a lot of the energy unless you detonate it in the middle of the target, but it turns out that "shaped charges" can be a thing, even with nukes, and would almost certainly work with antimatter as well. In which case you can put 90% of the explosion down a path about 2.5 degrees wide... 65 megatons hitting like hundreds of gigatons sounds about right if I'm remembering the napkin math I did on it once correctly. Subspace fields would just let you choose the aperture size on the fly.
    – Perkins
    Commented Oct 15, 2023 at 5:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.