KDF Search Results

Displaying 1 - 20 of 77

Agricultural crop and residue production by county - near-term scenario

This dataset contains data on agricultural crop and residue production by county in 2041. The agricultural crops in this dataset include barley, corn, cotton, grain sorghum, hay, oats, rice, soybeans, and wheat. The agricultural residues include barley straw, corn stover, oats straw, sorghum stubble, and wheat straw. The dataset was obtained from the database of the BT23 (Davis et al.,2024) for the near-term scenario with biomass market prices of up to $70 per dry ton.

For access to this dataset, please use the contact form and indicate this dataset by name.

Organization:
DOE
Author(s):
Jin Wook Ro , Maggie R. Davis , Chad Hellwinckel

Economic Analysis of Market Conditions and Incentives for Efficient Utilization of Biomass in Hard-to-Decarbonize Transportation Sectors

This project contributes to understanding and enhancing socioeconomic and environmental benefits of biofuels through modeling the effect of prices and policy incentives on fuel markets for “hard-to-decarbonize” transportation sectors. The main analytical tool used in this project is the BioTrans model, originally developed to assess and quantify the economic and energy security benefits of biofuels for light-duty vehicles and bioproducts.

Organization:
DOE
Author(s):
Rocio Uria Martinez , Jin Wook Ro

Conventional forest product data

This dataset contains data on forest production. The forestry products in this dataset includes hardwood, softwood, and mixed, and the dataset was obtained from the database of the 2023 Billion-Ton Report (Davis et al., 2024). The intended use is for the Feedstock Production Emissions to Air Model (FPEAM).

If you would also like access to this dataset, please use the "contact" button for a request to our research staff.

Organization:
DOE
Author(s):
Jin Wook Ro , Maggie Davis , Hope Cook

Agricultural crop and residue production by county - mature-market medium scenario

This dataset contains data on agricultural crop and residue production by county from 2022 to 2041. The agricultural crop in this dataset includes barley, biomass sorghum, corn, cotton, energy cane, eucalyptus, grain sorghum, hay, miscanthus, oats, pine, poplar, rice, soybean, switchgrass, wheat, and willow, and the agricultural residue includes barley straw, corn stover, oats straw, sorghum stubble, and wheat straw. The dataset was obtained from the database of the BT23 (Davis et al., 2024) for the mature-market medium scenario with biomass market prices of up to $70 per dry ton.

Organization:
DOE
Author(s):
Jin Wook Ro , Maggie R. Davis , Chad Hellwinckel

2021 Forestland Biomass Production Costs for the 2024 Billion Ton Analysis

This dataset contains harvesting, chipping, and production cost data for forestland production by region and forest harvest system. The dataset supports Biomass from the forested land base analysis in the BT23 (Davis et al., 2024) and subsequent modeling using the Forest Sustainable and Economic Analysis Model (ForSEAM). The cost data was updated by Burton English and is in 2014 dollars and 2021 dollars.

Author(s):
Burton English , Jin Wook Ro , Lixia Lambert , Maggie Davis , Matthew H Langholtz

Appendix C. Appendix to Chapter 5: Biomass from Agriculture

Hellwinckel, C., D. de la Torre Ugarte, J. L. Field, and M. Langholtz. 2024. “Appendix C. Appendix to Chapter 5: Biomass from Agriculture.” In 2023 Billion‐Ton Report. M. H. Langholtz (Lead). Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. doi: 10.23720/BT2023/2316182.

Organization:
DOE
Author(s):
Chad Hellwinckel , Daniel DeLaTorre Ugarte , John L Field , Matthew H Langholtz

Appendix B. Appendix to Chapter 4: Biomass from the Forested Land Base

Davis, M., L. Lambert, R. Jacobson, D. Rossi, C. Brandeis, J. Fried, B. English, et al. 2024. “Appendix B. Appendix to Chapter 4: Biomass from the Forested Land Base.” In 2023 Billion‐Ton Report. M. H. Langholtz (Lead). Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. doi: 10.23720/BT2023/2316181.

Organization:
DOE
Author(s):
Maggie Davis , Lixia Lambert , Ryan Jacobson , David Rossi , Consuelo Brandeis , Burton English , Jeremy Fried

Chapter 8: Looking Forward and Next Steps

U.S. Department of Energy. 2024. “Chapter 8: Looking Forward and Next Steps.” In 2023 Billion‐Ton Report. M. H. Langholtz (Lead). Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. doi: 10.23720/BT2023/2316179.

Organization:
DOE
Author(s):
Matthew H Langholtz

Chapter 7.2: Macroalgae

Chapter 7.2 — Coleman, A., K. Davis, J. DeAngelo, T. Saltiel, B. Saenz, L. Miller, K. Champion, E. Harrison, and A. Otwell. 2024. “Chapter 7.2: Macroalgae.” In 2023 Billion‐Ton Report. M. H. Langholtz (Lead). Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. doi: 10.23720/BT2023/2316176.

Organization:
DOE
Author(s):
Andre Coleman , Kristen Davis , Julianne DeAngelo , Troy Saltiel , Benjamin Saenz , Lee Miller , Kathleen Champion , Eliza Harrison , Anne Otwell

Chapter 4: Biomass from the Forested Land Base

Davis, M., L. Lambert, R. Jacobson, D. Rossi, C. Brandeis, J. Fried, B. English, et al. 2024. “Chapter 4: Biomass from the Forested Land Base.” In 2023 Billion‐Ton Report. M. H. Langholtz (Lead). Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. doi: 10.23720/BT2023/2316170.

Organization:
DOE
Author(s):
Maggie Davis , Lixia Lambert , Ryan Jacobson , David Rossi , Consuelo Brandeis , Jeremy Fried , Burton English , Robert Abt , Karen Abt , Prakash Nepal , Claire O’Dea , Jeffrey Prestemon , Matthew Langholtz

Chapter 2 Biomass Currently Used for Energy and Coproducts

Jacobson, R., and S. Curran. 2024. “Chapter 2: Biomass Currently Used for Energy and Coproducts.” In 2023 Billion‐Ton Report. M. H. Langholtz (Lead). Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. doi: 10.23720/BT2023/2316167.

Organization:
DOE
Author(s):
Ryan Jacobson

Chapter 1: Background and Introduction

Langholtz, M. H. 2024. “Chapter 1: Background and Introduction.” In 2023 Billion‐Ton Report. M. H. Langholtz (Lead). Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. doi: 10.23720/BT2023/2316166.

Organization:
DOE
Author(s):
Matthew H Langholtz

2023 Billion-Ton Report

Videos

Organization:
DOE
Author(s):
Matthew H Langholtz , Maggie Davis , Chad Hellwinckel , Daniel DeLaTorre Ugarte , Rebecca Efroymson , Ryan Jacobson , Anelia Milbrandt , Andre Coleman , Ryan Davis , Keith L. Kline , et al.

Compatibility Assessment of Elastomer Materials to Test fuels Representing Gasoline Blends Containing Ethanol and Isobutanol

The compatibility of elastomeric materials used in fuel storage and dispensing applications was determined for test fuels
representing neat gasoline and gasoline blends containing 10 and 17 vol.% ethanol, and 16 and 24 vol.% isobutanol. The
actual test fuel chemistries were based on the aggressive formulations described in SAE J1681 for oxygenated gasoline.
Elastomer specimens of fluorocarbon, fluorosilicone, acrylonitrile rubber (NBR), polyurethane, neoprene, styrene

Author(s):
Michael Kass
Funded from the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Bioenergy Technologies Office.

Compatibility Assessment of Plastic Infrastructure Materials to Test Fuels Representing Gasoline Blends Containing Ethanol and Isobutanol

The compatibility of plastic materials used in fuel storage and dispensing applications was determined for test fuels representing gasoline blended with 25 vol.% ethanol and gasoline blended with 16 and 24 vol.% isobutanol. Plastic materials included those used in flexible plastic piping and fiberglass resins. Other commonly used plastic materials were also evaluated. The plastic specimens were exposed to Fuel C, CE25a, CiBu16a, and CiBu24a for 16 weeks at 60oC.

Author(s):
Michael Kass
Funded from the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Bioenergy Technologies Office.

Compatibility of elastomers with test fuels of gasoline blended with ethanol

This article summarises the compatibility of six elastomers – used in fuel
storage and delivery systems – with test fuels representing gasoline blended
with up to 85% ethanol. Individual coupons were exposed to test fuels for four
weeks to achieve saturation. The change in volume and hardness, when wetted
and after drying, were measured and compared with the original condition.

Author(s):
Michael Kass
Funded from the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Bioenergy Technologies Office.

Life cycle impacts of forest management and wood utilization on carbon mitigation: knowns and unknowns

This review on research on life cycle carbon accounting examines the complexities in accounting for carbon emissions given the many different ways that wood is used. Recent objectives to increase the use of renewable fuels have raised policy questions, with respect to the sustainability of managing our forests as well as the impacts of how best to use wood from our forests. There has been general support for the benefits of sustainably managing forests for carbon mitigation as expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007.

Author(s):
Lippke, Bruce

Scientific analysis is essential to assess biofuel policy effects: In response to the paper by Kim and Dale on “Indirect landuse change for biofuels: Testing predictions and improving analytical methodologies”

Land-use change (LUC) estimated by economic models has sparked intense international debate. Models estimate how much LUC might be induced under prescribed scenarios and rely on assumptions to generate LUC values. It is critical to test and validate underlying

Funded from the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Bioenergy Technologies Office.

The Demand for Ethanol as a Gasoline Substitute

This paper estimates household preferences for ethanol as a gasoline substitute. I develop a theoretical
model linking the shape of the ethanol demand curve to the distribution of price ratios at which individual
households switch fuels. I estimate the model using data from many retail fueling stations. Demand
is price-sensitive with a mean elasticity of 2.5�3.5. I find that preferences are heterogeneous with many
households willing to pay a premium for ethanol. This reduces the simulated cost of an ethanol content

Author(s):
Soren Anderson