Turning off the Lights Won't Save Oil

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Today, more than 80% of the energy used in the United States comes from fossil fuels - specifically from petroleum, natural gas and coal. In the transportation sector, this number is even higher with fossil fuels (almost exclusively petroleum) supplying 97% of the total energy used. But, on the electric power side of the equation, while coal and natural gas still supply more than two-thirds of the total energy used, petroleum barely registers. This is why turning off the lights in your home of office probably won’t reduce your petroleum consumption.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) publishes a data-packed graphic that shows the flows of energy between supply sources and demand sectors in the United States. In this graphic, you can see that the transportation sector is responsible for 28% of total energy demand in the US and that 94% of this energy comes from petroleum (3% comes from natural gas, and the remaining 3% comes from a mix of renewables, including biofuels). But in the electric power sector, only 1% of the total energy supply comes from petroleum.

The nation’s top two consumers of petroleum in terms of total BTUs used for electric power generation are Florida and Hawaii. But, due to Florida’s above average total electricity use, petroleum only supplies about 0.4% of its total electric power generation needs. Hawaii, on the other hand, uses petroleum-fired power plants for about three-fourths of its electricity.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


For the rest of the United States, petroleum represents a small fraction of the electricity supplied. This means that, reducing your power consumption probably won’t lead to a significant reduction your indirect petroleum consumption. Instead (in terms of fossil fuels) it is more likely to reduce your consumption of coal and natural gas.

Calculation inputs:

  1. Total energy from petroleum consumed by the US electric power sector in 2009 = 390 trillion BTUs (sum of residential and distillate fuel oil and petroleum coke)

  2. Total energy from petroleum consumed by US electric power sector by state

    1. Florida = 97 trillion BTUs (~0.4% of total generation)

    2. Hawaii = 80 trillion BTUs (~74% of total generation)

    3. New York = 26.6 trillion BTUs (~1.6% of total generation)

    4. Kentucky = 24.2 trillion BTUs

    5. California = 18.5 trillion BTUs

Photo Credit:

  1. Graphic courtesy of the United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA).

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe