[Stoves] Project Drawdown

Wed Aug 30 13:09:03 CDT 2017

Ron:

I agree with everything you say. Just a slight comment - it is not enough
that "*we need to understand ALL the assumptions for ALL 100
technologies." *We should also validate the logic and structure of the
model. If it is a dynamic linear programming model, optimizing a certain
path to drawdown of carbon from the atmosphere, with limited or no ability
to change the input assumptions over time, then it will basically give
spurious answers.

This is roughly what I remember of certain national and global models of
carbon caps to derive a "shadow price" for carbon emissions. In an exercise
some 20 years ago, I looked at three or four different models for the US.
Certain US government agency could not figure out why all these models h ad
identical assumptions about population, electricity demand growth, fuel
prices, they gave widely different economic costs. I identified the
problems in the way power system dispatch was modeled and in one case,
adding an option of super-efficient coal power technology.

Something similar (in the opposite direction) may be happening here because
they ignore BECCS - "* Too much biochar today is produced without attention
to its huge potential capability to backup wind and solar".*

I for one learned 40 years ago - dissecting global systems modeling at MIT
- that global models are invariably pretentious punditry.  Most of them are
good for scenario analysis, not for policy decisions. Burt this Drawdown
business reminds me of that "wedge" analysis by Bob Socolow of Princeton
and his Carbon Mitigation Initiative. It helps bring unusual options in
focus.

May I suggest

Mediocre review - NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/climate/drawdown-climate-solutions-quiz.html
Nice interview - BAS:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2017.1314995
Another nice interview -
https://chireviewofbooks.com/2017/04/18/project-drawdown-is-reversing-climate-change-an-interview-with-paul-hawken/

I might buy the book. I like Hawken's way of modeling. I like the emphasis
on system feedbacks, which puts land and food in the top category. The
numbers one may quibble with, but I find this quote (from BAS interview)
worth citing:

 "In climate science, I think some groups and people have certain solutions
they favor. They can be in a kind of solutions filter bubble. Data that
support their belief, they bring in. And data that contradict it, they push
out. They may double count or may not take system dynamics into
consideration. Our job was to model without bias. "

Now it's up to you to challenge him on his own biases and errors in systems
interactions.

Thanks,

Nikhil

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net
> wrote:

> Jock and list:
>
> Yours below is an important message - the first extra information re
> biochar (or any approach) beyond the limited information in the book (which
> I bought in e-book form).  I can’t find it now, but remember reading that
> all the model information would be publicly available “soon”.
>
> So ,  It would be of great help to everyone, but especially to Paul Hawken
> and this Project, for everyone to know ALL the pertinent assumptions/cites
> behind each technology in their list. We should also know who are the
> authorities involved.   As an example, why did they assume that biochar
> would only be associated with food (and not energy nor materials nor water
> quality nor fertilizer and irrigation savings - much less CDR [carbon
> dioxide removal] or simply improving land values)?  All are taking place
> today - with favorable economics.
>
> One of the main reasons that biochar is ranked so low is that BECCS (the
> only technology that I often (inappropriately) see ranked higher than
> biochar) is not even listed at all!   Afforestation is ranked highly, but
> the fact that both large scale biochar and BECCS would require similar or
> larger land use doesn’t appear.
>
> The horrible intentional use of fire to clear land is not mentioned (where
> much more carbon could go into soil via biochar, and the presently-lost
> energy could replace all forms of fossil energy).  Forests everywhere are
> unhealthy because there is too much biomass - caused by the (commendable)
> desire to terminate wildfires as quickly as possible.
>
> Why not couple biochar with improving ocean health?  Are the oceans
> coupled with CDR anywhere in this model?
>
> My guess is that their assumption that biochar only fits into their food
> category also assumes a low increment - see below.
>
> Your great new connection to the Project suggests that you should remain
> biochar’s main contact;  this will help them a lot.
>
> See a few more inserts below.
>
>
> On Aug 28, 2017, at 7:47 PM, Jock Gill <jock at jockgill.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps
>
> RWL1:   No - definitely!
>
> of interest:
>
> *From:* Jeff Gilliland <jeff.gilliland at drawdown.org>
> *Date:* May 15, 2017 at 7:44:05 PM EDT
> *To:* jock at jockgill.com
> *Subject:* *Re: Biochar in Drawdown*
>
> Dear Mr. Gill,
>
> Thank you for contacting Project Drawdown. Apologies for the delay: we
> have been quite busy promoting *Drawdown* for the last month!
>
> I sent your comments about the Biochar solution on to Project Drawdown's
> research team, and here is what they said:
>
> *"**Thank you for taking the time to write us. We chose to model biochar
> primarily as a sequestration technique, despite its potential for energy. *
>
> *[RWL2:  And bioenergy already today is often shown as the largest form of
> renewable energy worldwide (competing with hydropower) - both larger still
> than wind and solar for electricity.  Too much biochar today is produced
> without attention to its huge potential capability to backup wind and solar
> (displacing natural gas).   *
>
> * They have also ignored the potential of char-making stoves - where half
> the world’s population could benefit for health reasons alone, much less
> income generation.  Many times their small projection for biochar in just
> this one application/source for biochar.*
>
> *Our model assumes that a maximum of 50% of crop residues that are
> currently burned are instead used as biochar feedstock.*
>
> *[RWL3:  The words “currently burned” is itself limiting - but the
> resource base for biochar is much larger than crop residues - and all use
> is beneficial - including income - not expense - generation.*
>
>
> *We also avoided including sequestration impacts from application to
> soils, as data on this is not sufficiently robust. However we did model a
> yield increase from soil application.”*
>
> *[RWL4:    One key word is “sufficiently”, but this appears to say that
> biochar received zero credit for CDR [carbon dioxide removal].   Admittedly
> the right amount is not yet agreed upon for all combinations of char, soil,
> crops and weather - but the terra preta soils demonstrate that the right
> amount is greater than zero.  The IPCC is calling for increasing soil
> carbon - why should biochar’s sequestration impact be avoided?   There are
> repeat customers for more than 100 biochar companies in the US alone.  *
> * It’s good to see they modeled yield increases, but if it was 5 or 10%,
> that number is way too low on average.  Hans-Peter’s most recent paper
> showed an average 100% increase - as seen with Terra Preta soils, after 500
> years.*
>
>
> I hope that helps explain our approach and position!
>
> *[RWL5 -  To better understand biochar’s potential, we need to understand
> ALL the assumptions for ALL 100 technologies.   Is there now public access
> to the model - or when?  Without the promised access to the model, the
> whole exercise should be ignored.*
>
>
> As for glass batteries and better solar cells, we will certainly keep our
> eye on those as the technologies develop. We intend to update the book
> every year or two, so with any luck they will make it into the next version!
>
>
> *[RWL:  These are carbon neutral issues.  That battle is over - and we
> have won.  But the carbon negative issue is still much alive and much
> needed.*
>
> * Jock - thanks for getting through to this project.  Let’s hope they open
> up further (through you).*
>
> *Ron*
>
>
>
> Thanks, all the best,
>
> Jeff Gilliland
> Communications Coordinator
> Project Drawdown
> jeff.gilliland at drawdown.org
> Visit us at drawdown.org
>
>
> Jock Gill
> P.O. Box 3
> Peacham
> VT 05862
>
> Cell: 617-449-8111 <(617)%20449-8111>
>
> Regenerate the Commons
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170830/02e99c2b/attachment.html>