Energy units in astronomy

Imagine a recipe for bread that started like this:

Ingredients:

4×10³⁵ eV/c² strong white flour
5×10^-55 pc³ salt
1.7×10^-55 pc³ sugar
3.8×10^-55 pc³ active dry yeast
Approx. 1.4×10^-53 pc³ warm water
...

That's roughly how I feel when I read that a supernova outputs an energy of 10⁵¹ ergs. Not content with using the SI unit of energy, the joule, which this supernova would output 10⁴⁴ of, astronomers go out of their way to choose an even smaller unit, which is non-standard and deprecated by the International Astronomical Union, to describe the output of some of the most energetic events in the entire Universe.

Astronomers have a history of using specialized units, which can look a little perverse at first, but which at least are appropriate to the size of what's being measured and have a history rooted in observations (parsecs are handy to measure the distances of stars, and solar masses are a good way of thinking of the mass of a galaxy). Ergs don't have any of those advantages, and need to be consigned to the dustbin of history, along with the rest of the CGS system.

In the spirit of being constructive, what would be a more appropriate energy unit for these astronomical events? Well, you know, we could always just use SI, like proper, civilized scientists. For a supernova, we could use something like a year's worth of energy output from the Sun (about 1.24×10³⁴ J), but that seems a bit arbitrary, in that we could equally well have chosen a different star or period of time.

So, to compromise, how about the energy latent in 1kg of mass, about 9×10¹⁶ J (using E=mc²)?  There will still be 10²⁷ of them coming from a supernova, but at least it's whittled down the exponent a bit, and it actually means something. I was going to suggest we could call it an Einstein, since it comes from his most famous formula, but that name's apparently already taken for one mole of photons. [Doesn't that already have a name: the 'mole'? Seems a waste of such a famous name]. So my suggestion is the 'arghh!'. It's a lot of energy, after all. It only sounds slightly more stupid than 'erg', and we could finally have a unit with a proper punctuation mark in it, rather than these half-hearted ångströms (which astronomers like) and °F (which, thankfully, they don't, though if you're going to use ergs anyway, why not?).

OK, I vented enough for now, back to work.