Roy, you are a self-confessed weirdo - you don't have to explain anything! That's why we all love you.;D

Chris’s post was pretty interesting.
It would appear to me that this ‘new charcoal ‘ has a lot going for it as it also acts as an ion exchange resin.
This means that some of presumably the ‘poisonous cations’ can be first adsorbed into the pores of the structure and then, are stuck there by this ion exchange process.
In this respect this new material will be a lot better at removing rad, zinc cadmium and other nasties than other materials.
At least that’s as I see it?

Roy, you are a self-confessed weirdo -

that's the nicest thing you have ever said
:lol:

---

Hi John Lawson,
Biochar can be activated by combining it with a wide range of chemicals, and therefore can absorb many different pollutants, targetted specifically or not. (Metals, arsenic, nitrates, phosphates etc)
The absorption power of biochar is due to its colossal pore surface, inherited from the cellular organic feedstock, which is retained by pyrolysis.
Work on depolluting soil and water is progressing rapidly. Only today I read of work done on mine land remediation, which will be the subject of an international webinar in June.
Thorough scientific studies on Biochar(coals) only really began in earnest about ten years ago, which is not long in terms of bringing new technology to market. And the synthesis of all the very complicated interactions involved have only really begun to be fully clear in the last couple of years.
But the potential is there, and commercial ventures are now under way. And biochar can be recycled to recover the pollutants, including metal ions, but that particular subject has yet to be studied in great detail...

Would you details on that webinar please?

Hi Sapper923,

Here is the weblink for the june webinar :

https://ttcorp.regfox.com/ibi-land-reclamation-biochar-webinar 

Regards,
D.Send.

That depends on whether you believe in the laws of physics or what is printed in the Daily Mail!

I do believe in the laws of physics but, after the "Hockey Stick Graph" debacle and the subsequent revision of global warming to climate change it seems obvious that all the 'peer reviewed' research has only one purpose which is to mislead the more gullible green keyboard warriors. It is also a very lucrative pursuit for Governments and those on the 'peer reviewed' research grant bandwagon!

The company I worked for actually bought 'carbon credits' from underdeveloped countries to offset their own carbon emissions, it had no logical basis as a means of global carbon emission reduction?

Although not as quite as old as some on here, I remember when it was stated many many times that we were heading for a "mini ice age" so what happened to that then?

That depends on whether you believe in the laws of physics or what is printed in the Daily Mail!

I do believe in the laws of physics but, after the "Hockey Stick Graph" debacle and the subsequent revision of global warming to climate change it seems obvious that all the 'peer reviewed' research has only one purpose which is to mislead the more gullible green keyboard warriors. It is also a very lucrative pursuit for Governments and those on the 'peer reviewed' research grant bandwagon!

The company I worked for actually bought 'carbon credits' from underdeveloped countries to offset their own carbon emissions, it had no logical basis as a means of global carbon emission reduction?

Although not as quite as old as some on here, I remember when it was stated many many times that we were heading for a "mini ice age" so what happened to that then?

The climate changed (as it does) and the "cutting edge" of research moved on.;D

Hi,
Here is just one of many papers relating to mine-water clean-up, using biochar. The field is advancing rapidly.
D.Send.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1385894718307344 .


From the Abstract: "The a-FeOOH@PC composites outperformed other sorbents for copper removal (adsorption capacity of 144.7?mg?g-1). ... profoundly improved the removal efficiency (71.9%) compared to those of individual porous carbon foam (42.3%) and a-FeOOH nanorods (6.7%). A high adsorption capacity of 124.4?mg?g-1 was maintained after three adsorption-desorption cycles.”

It will be interesting to see if some mining company uses this technique to access Cu ions.
Instead of the usual scrap iron process?