Skip to main content

As part of the Transportation Energy Futures (TEF) project, the data contained in the TEF project's tables and figures are available here for download into Microsoft Excel or can be viewed in Adobe Acrobat as PDF documents.

The individual reports are bullet-listed below the Search window in the left navigation as expandable/collapsable tables of content. If you have difficulty navigating this page, please contact our webmaster for assistance.




  • Beyond the LDV Sector
    • 1. Introduction
      • Figure 1.1. Non-LDV energy use by mode
      • Table 1.1. Energy Consumption by Mode
    • 2. Highway Modes
      • Figure 2.1. Truck fuel use and VMT
      • Figure 2.2. Average medium and heavy truck fuel intensity
      • Figure 2.3. Aerodynamic tractor devices
      • Figure 2.4. Combination truck rolling resistance by velocity
      • Figure 2.5. Aerodynamic devices: side skirts and boat tail
      • Figure 2.6. Speed reduction fuel savings
      • Figure 2.7. Truck activity and energy growth
      • Table 2.1. Truck Categories and Gross Vehicle Weight Classes
      • Table 2.2. Truck Energy Intensity Improvement Potential
      • Table 2.3. Truck Incremental Capital Cost for Energy Efficiency Improvements
    • 3. Non-Highway Modes
      • Figure 3.1. Average fuel burn for a new aircraft
      • Figure 3.2. Open rotor propulsion
      • Figure 3.3. Winglets
      • Figure 3.4. Blended wing body
      • Figure 3.5. Aviation activity and energy consumption
      • Figure 3.6. Marine Highway Corridors
      • Figure 3.7. Ship CO2 emissions intensity compared to rail and truck
      • Figure 3.8. Global marine fuel use by ship type
      • Figure 3.9. Marine energy growth projections
      • Figure 3.10. Range of rail car fuel efficiencies
      • Figure 3.11. Energy Intensity - Class I Railroads
      • Figure 3.12. Freight Rail Activity & Energy Growth
      • Table 3.1. Aviation Energy-Intensity Improvement Potential
      • Table 3.2. 2050 International Maritime Fuel and CO2 Savings Potential
      • Table 3.3. Fuel and CO2 Reduction Coastal Shipping Options
      • Table 3.4. GHG Reduction Potential for Inland Shipping Options
    • 4. Off-road Equipment
      • Table 4.1. Off-Road Subsectors and Equipment Type
    • 5. Military
      • Figure 5.1. Department of Defense energy consumption
    • A. Appendix
  • Biomass Utilization
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. Other Analyses
    • 3. Methodology and Default Data
      • Figure 3.1. 2020 Supply Curves
      • Figure 3.2. 2050 Supply Curves
      • Figure 3.3. Feedstock Logistic and Transport Costs
      • Figure 3.4. Fuel Distribution and Marketing Costs
      • Figure 3.5. 2020 Life Cycle GHG Estimates
      • Figure 3.6. 2050 Life Cycle GHG Estimates
      • Figure 3.7. 2020 Life Cycle Petroleum Consumption
      • Figure 3.8. 2050 Life Cycle Petroleum Consumption
      • Table 3.1. Feedstocks, Fuels, Markets
      • Table 3.2. Categorization of BT2 Biomass Types
      • Table 3.3. EIA Biomass Consumption
      • Table 3.4. Data Inputs
      • Table 3.5. 2020 Conversion Data
      • Table 3.6. 2050 Conversion Data
      • Table 3.7. Pricing Data
      • Table 3.8. Market Size Data
      • Table 3.9. 2020 Electricity Costs by Technology
      • Table 3.10. 2050 Electricity Costs by Technology
      • Table 3.11. Fossil-Fuel and Uranium Prices
    • 4. Results from Runs
      • Figure 4.1. 2020 Gasoline LCOE
      • Figure 4.2. 2050 Gasoline LCOE
      • Figure 4.3. 2020 Diesel LCOE
      • Figure 4.4. 2050 Diesel LCOE
      • Figure 4.5. 2020 Electricity LCOE
      • Figure 4.6. 2050 Electricity LCOE
      • Figure 4.7. 2020 Biomass Market Share
      • Figure 4.8. 2050 Biomass Market Share
      • Figure 4.9. 2020 Electric Market Share
      • Figure 4.10. 2050 Electric Market Share
      • Figure 4.11. 2020 Carbon Prices Effect on Natural Gas and Coal
      • Figure 4.12. 2050 Carbon Prices Effect on Natural Gas and Coal
      • Figure 4.13. 2020 Biofuel Production
      • Figure 4.14. 2050 Biofuel Production
      • Figure 4.15. 2020 Biomass Consumption by Market
      • Figure 4.16. 2050 Biomass Consumption by Market
      • Figure 4.17. 2020 Biomass Consumption by Fuel
      • Figure 4.18. 2050 Biomass Consumption by Fuel
      • Figure 4.19. 2020 Biomass Consumption by Feedstock
      • Figure 4.20. 2050 Biomass Consumption by Feedstock
      • Figure 4.21. 2020 Forest Residue Supply Curve
      • Figure 4.22. 2020 Fuels GHG Emissions
      • Figure 4.23. 2020 Electric GHG Emissions
      • Figure 4.24. 2050 Fuels GHG Emissions
      • Figure 4.25. 2050 Electric GHG Emissions
      • Figure 4.26. 2020 WTW Petroleum Use by Market
      • Figure 4.27. 2020 WTW Petroleum Use by Fuel
      • Figure 4.28. 2050 WTW Petroleum Use by Market
      • Figure 4.29. 2050 WTW Petroleum Use by Fuel
    • 5. Sensitivity Results
      • Figure 5.1. Low Biopower Cost 2020 - Biomass Consumption
      • Figure 5.2. Low Biopower Cost 2020 - Market Share
      • Figure 5.3. Low Heat Rate 2050 - Biomass Consumption
      • Figure 5.4. Low Heat Rate 2050 - Market Share
      • Figure 5.5. CCS 2050 - Market Share
      • Figure 5.6. CCS 2050 - Biomass Consumption
      • Figure 5.7. CCS 2050 - Biofuel Production
      • Figure 5.8. CCS 2050 - Emissions
      • Figure 5.9. CCS 2050 - Petroleum Use
      • Figure 5.10. No Pyrolysis 2050 - Biomass Consumption
      • Figure 5.11. No Pyrolysis 2050 - Biofuel Production
      • Figure 5.12. No Pyrolysis 2050 - Emissions
      • Figure 5.13. No Pyrolysis 2050 - Petroleum Use
      • Figure 5.14. High Corn and Soy Prices 2020 - Biomass Consumption
      • Figure 5.15. High Corn and Soy Prices 2020 - Biofuel Production
      • Figure 5.16. High Corn and Soy Prices 2020 - Emissions
      • Figure 5.17. High Corn and Soy Prices 2020 - Petroleum Use
      • Figure 5.18. High Biomass Prices 2020 - Biomass Consumption
      • Figure 5.19. High Biomass Prices 2020 - Biofuel Production
      • Figure 5.20. High Ag Residue and Switchgrass Prices 2020 - Biomass Consumption
      • Figure 5.21. High Natural Gas Price 2020 - Market Share
      • Figure 5.22. High Natural Gas Prices 2020 - Biofuel Production
      • Figure 5.23. High Natural Gas Prices 2020 - Emissions
      • Figure 5.24. Low Oil Prices 2020 - Biofuel Production
      • Figure 5.25. Low Oil Price 2020 - Biomass Consumption
      • Figure 5.26. Low Oil Price 2020 - Market Share
      • Figure 5.27. Low Oil Prices 2020 - Emissions
      • Figure 5.28. Low Oil Price 2020 - Petroleum Use
      • Table 5.1. 2050 CCS Costs
    • 6. Proposed Improvements
    • 7. Conclusions
    • A. Appendices
  • Built Environment
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. Urban Form Characterization
      • Table 2.1. Sprawl Indicators
    • 3. Urban Form Impacts
      • Figure 3.1. VKT per Capita versus Urban Density
      • Figure 3.2. Car Ownership versus Urban Density
      • Figure 3.3. Vehicle Trips per Capita versus Income
      • Figure 3.4. Comparison CO2 Rates for Driving
      • Table 3.1. Annual VMT per Capita
      • Table 3.2. Comparison Land Use and GHG Reduction
      • Table 3.3. Mode Share by Census Tract Density
      • Table 3.4. VMT Elasticities for Built Environment Variables
      • Table 3.5. Water and Sewer Costs per New Dwelling Unit
      • Table 3.6. Local Road Costs per Person
      • Table 3.7. Unit Residential Costs by Density Group
    • 4. Analysis Methods
      • Table 4.1. Summary Tools Methods for Urban Form
    • 5. Urban Form Factor Influence
      • Table 5.1. Projected Housing Demand 2025 versus 2003
    • 6. Federal Action Influence
      • Table 6.1. The Top 10 American Metropolis Influences
      • Table 6.2. Examples of Existing Federal Actions
      • Table 6.3. Assessment Federal Policy Program Options
      • Table 6.4. Opportunity Matrix Built Environment Strategies
    • 7. Needed Analysis to Understand Changes
    • 8. Conclusions
  • LDV Non-Cost Barriers
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. Non-cost Adoption Barrier Types
    • 3. Quantifying Non-cost Barrier Approach
    • 4. Noncost Barriers Values
      • Figure 4.1. Implied value and Compensating variation for vehicle range increase
      • Table 4.1. Ranking of Barriers by Severity
    • 5. Non-cost Barrier Policies
    • 6. Conclusions
      • Table 6.1. Non-Cost Barriers by Severity and Effectiveness
  • Technology Deployment
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. Technology Penetration Rate
      • Figure B-1. Theoretical Market Penetration Curve
      • Figure 2.1. Market Growth Rate between Regulated/Non-regulated
      • Figure 2.2. Technology Penetration after Introduction
      • Figure 2.3. Sales, stock, VMT for new technology - VISION model
      • Figure 2.4. Timeline Major Vehicle Technology Rollout
      • Figure 2.5. LDV hydrogen FCV Sale Scenarios
      • Figure 2.6. HyTrans Vehicle Technology Market Shares
      • Figure 2.7. 80% GHG Reduction Scenario - CA LDV Fleet
      • Table 2.1. Time Scales for Technology Impact
      • Table 2.2. Pathways for Max Technology Penetration Rates
      • Table 2.3. Revised Max Technology Penetration Rates
    • 3. Business Case Technology Scenario
      • Figure B-2. WACC Automotive Industry
      • Figure 3.1. Simulated FCV Cash Flow - No Policy Case
      • Figure 3.2. Decision tree Option to Abandon
      • Figure 3.3. Input Investments Decision Tree
      • Figure 3.4. Input CFs Decision Tree
      • Figure 3.5. Input Terminal Values Decision Tree
      • Figure 3.6. Assign Values Decision Tree
      • Figure 3.7. Low/High Volume Vehicle Decision Tree
      • Figure 3.8. Input Investments Decision Tree
      • Figure 3.9. Input Revenue CFs Decision Tree
      • Figure 3.10. Input terminal values to end branch Decision Tree
      • Figure 3.11. Assign Values Decision Tree
      • Table 3.1. Cash Flow Table for Option to Abandon Case
      • Table 3.2. Required Investments for low/high-volume model
      • Table 3.3. Low/high-volume model net cash flows
    • 4. Future Work
      • Table 4.1. Lithium Ion Capital Costs
    • 5. Final Comments
  • Travel Reduction
    • 1. Introduction
      • Table 1.1. Efficient Driving
    • 2. Travel Choice Factors
    • 3. Predictive Methods
      • Table 3.1. Predictive Methods by Strategy
    • 4. Strategy Review
    • 5. Strategy Impacts
      • Table 5.1. Strategy Impacts
      • Table 5.2. VMT Reduction
      • Table 5.3. CO2 Reduction
      • Table 5.4. Fuel Savings
    • 6. Federal Actions
      • Table 6.1. Federal Actions
      • Table 6.2. Opportunity Matrix
      • Table 6.3. Strategy Assessment
    • 7. Needed Research and Analysis
      • Table 7.1. Research Needs
    • 8. Conclusions
      • Table 8.1. Strategy Impacts and Opportunities
    • A. Appendix
TEF Analysis Paper:

TitleLink to PDF file of this TEF report.

Image of this figure or table.
Link to PDF file for this figure or table.
Link to comma-separated-value file containing the data in this figure or table.

Provenance Information

Item Provenance
[7] - (2011). Biomass Logistics Model. Idaho Falls, ID: Idaho National Laboratory.
[9] - (n.d.). Biomass Allocation and Supply Equilibrium (BASE) Model.
[32] Agricultural Policy Research, Institute, with Food. (2010). FAPRI 2010: U.S. and World Agricultural Outlook. Ames, Iowa. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[56] Augustine, Chad; Young, Katherine R.; Anderson, Arlene. (2010). Updated U.S. Geothermal Supply Curve. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[82] Benson, Geoff; Bullen, Gary. (2007). Break-Even Soybean and Corn Harvesting Yields.NC State University and NC A&T State University Cooperative Extension.
[88] “GREET Model: The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation.”. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[204] Davis, Ryan; Aden, Andy; Pienkos, Philip T. (2011). “Techno-economic analysis of autotrophic microalgae for fuel production.” Applied Energy (88:); pp. 3524-3531. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[218] Development. (2010). “Main Economic Indicators - complete database.” (2010:
[229] (DOE), U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2010c). Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary Statistics 2009. Washington, DC. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[230] (DOE), U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2011a). Annual Energy Outlook 2011 with Projections to 2035. Washington, DC. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[231] (DOE), U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2011b). Petroleum Marketing Monthly. Washington, DC. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[423] Hsu, DD. (2011). Life Cycle Assessment of Gasoline and Diesel Produced via Fast Pyrolysis and Hydroprocessing. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[427] Humbird, D.; Davis, R.; Tao, L.; Kinchin, C.; Hsu, D.; Aden, A.; Schoen, P.; et al. (2011). Process Design and Economics for Biochemical Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol: Dilute-Acid Pretreatment and Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Corn Stover. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[467] Jones, SB; Valkenburh, C.; Walton, C.W.; Elliott, D.C.; Holladay, J.E.; Stevens, D.J.; Kinchin, C.; Czernik, S. (2009). Production of Gasoline and Diesel from Biomass via Fast Pyrolysis, Hydrotreating and Hydrocracking: A Design Case. Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[509] Laser, Mark; Larson, Eric; Dale, Bruce; Wang, Michael; Greene, Nathanael; Lynd, Lee R. (2009). “Comparative analysis of efficiency, environmental impact, and process economics for mature biomass refining scenarios.” Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining (3:); pp. 247-270. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[532] Mai, T.; Wiser, R.; Sandor, D.; Brinkman, G.; Heath, G.; Denholm, P.; Hostick, D.J.; Darghouth, N.; Schlosser, A.; Strzepek, K. (2012). Renewable Electricity Futures Study: Exploration of High-Penetration Renewable Electricity Futures. 1. Golden, CO. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[551] Melaina, M.; Sandor, D.; Webster, K. W.; Vimmerstedt, L. (2012f). Transportation Energy Futures Series: Expansion of Retail Fuel Infrastructure to Meet 2050 Greenhouse-Gas Reduction Goals (forthcoming). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.
[575] Morrow, William R.; Griffin, W. Michael; Matthews, H. Scott. (2011). “Modeling Switchgrass Derived Cellulosic Ethanol Distribution in the United States.” Environmental Science & Technology (40:); pp. 2877-2886. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[580] Mullins, Kimberley A.; Griffin, W. Michael; Matthews, H. Scott. (2010). “Policy Implications of Uncertainty in Modeled Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Biofuels⊥.” Environmental Science & Technology (45:); pp. 132-138. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[686] Reinbott, David. (2012). “2012 Southeast Missouri Crop Budgets.” External link to this bibliographic entry.
[703] Ruth, M.; Mai, T.; Newes, E.; Aden, A.; Warner, E.; Uriarte, C.; Inman, D.; Simpkins, T.; Argo, A. (2013). Transportation Energy Futures Series: Projected Biomass Utilization for Fuels and Power in a Mature Market. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.
[704] (S&T)2 Consultants. (2004). “GHGenius: A Model for Lifecycle Assessment of Transportation Fuels.” External link to this bibliographic entry.
[724] Short, W.; Sullivan, P.; Mai, T.; Mowers, M.; Uriarte, C.; Blair, N.; Heimiller, D.; Martinez, A. (2011). Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS). Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[738] Spath, Pamela L.; Mann, Margaret K. (2004). Biomass Power and Conventional Fossil Systems with and without CO2 Sequestration – Comparing the Energy Balance, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Economics. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[757] Swanson, Ryan M.; Platon, Alexandru; Satrio, Justinus A.; Brown, Robert C. (2010). “Techno-economic analysis of biomass-to-liquids production based on gasification.” Fuel (89, Supplement 1:); pp. S11-S19. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[763] Tao, Ling; Aden, Andy. (2009). “The economics of current and future biofuels.” In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology - Plant (45:); pp. 199-217. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[764] Tao, Ling; Aden, Andy. (2011). Technoeconomic analysis of corn butanol and corn stover butanol (forthcoming). Golden, CO. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
[813] U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2011). U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry. Washington DC. External link to this bibliographic entry.
[854] U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007). Biofuels: DOE Lacks a Strategic Approach to Coordinate Increasing Production with Infrastructure Development and Vehicle Needs. Washington, DC. External link to this bibliographic entry.
Provenance information is currently not available for this figure or table. Please see the full report for more information.
Share