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).

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe