4 ms·

Hopefully this ship of fools runs aground before it kills its whole crew with the first, inevitable, leak.

pbmonster 2y ago
Once corrosion is under control, is that danger actually higher than the risk of a natural gas fuel system leaking and killing a whole crew? Both gases are lighter than air, both form explosive mixtures with air (but ammonia-air mixture has much slower flame speed and slower pressure rise than natural gas - for which it makes up with its much higher toxicity). In the end, gas leaks are always bad. But at least you can easily smell an ammonia leak.
- iamthemonster 2y ago
  No the ammonia toxicity hazard is incredibly severe, it immediately burns your lungs and you die by choking on your own blood as your lungs dissolve. Whereas with natural gas leaks you can reduce the likelihood of ignition by intrinsically safe instrumentation and electrical components. In both cases, gas detection and automated shutdown and sectionalisation helps significantly.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  > But at least you can easily smell an ammonia leak. IIRC, they add a very nasty smelling chemical to LNG so that leaks are evident before they get explosive. In the case of ammonia, the additive is not really needed, and the toxicity being much higher makes me think that, by the time you realize you are breathing ammonia, it's already too late.
  - pbmonster 2y ago
    I know they add a thiol (sulfur compound that smells like rotten eggs) to the city mains for cooking/heating gas. Would be interesting to know if its commonly added to industrial LNG. Because we burn a lot of that - even if you only add a few ppm thiol to natural gas, that's a whole lot of sulfur being burnt...
- bluGill 2y ago
  If you inhale natural gas it is only deadly (it can cause other problems that are treatable) when it displaces enough oxygen. In open air you are hopefully okay because there is still enough oxygen that you can breath. Ammonia is deadly when inhaled in small quantities. I wouldn't want either, but ammonia is worse if you must choose. I'm not sure how likely fire is in case of a leak.
HPsquared 2y ago
Hopefully not. Like anything else, risks can be mitigated. The main concern for me is at dockside where there are lots of people nearby. Ideally I think they'd "lock down" and depressurise the ammonia system (except the storage tank) when close to port, and only bring it online when out at sea and far from population. Also the refuelling process seems a bit risky. But these things are already quite routine; ammonia is already a large-volume industrial commodity with well-developed controls.
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
  Risks can be mitigated. But the first step is always eliminating the hazardous material if possible. And many options exists that are less inherently dangerous than ammonia. Like methanol. At least it’s a liquid and not nearly as bad. But ammonia is chosen as a predatory delay strategy. They build the engines to be dual fuel (ammonia and methane) and then feign surprise when they have to run it on methane since the ammonia supply chain “isn’t ready yet” and the prices “need to come down a bit”.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
M_bara 2y ago
If you think this is bad, then the chemicals used in rocketry - read the book ignition [1] - will have you whimpering in a corner. As with any system, risks can be identified and controlled and operationalised - Gasoline has its risks, so does Chlorine trifluoride [2]. Yet both are wildly different and are used in day to day operations. 1. https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pd... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride
- j33zusjuice 2y ago
  I think that’s not a good comparison. I think we generally accept that leaving the planet is inherently riskier than traveling on it. You have to generate enough energy to exit the atmosphere, that’s a shitload of energy. Of course it’s dangerous. We’ve been sailing relatively safely for thousands of years, though.
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
  Yes rocketry has made very dangerous chemical. And hydrazine is used in other fields too. But it’s used because there aren’t safer alternatives that are fit for purpose. Ammonia is being pushed as a predatory delay strategy. The article hints at this when it talks about the engines being dual-fuel (ammonia and methane). Given the massive price difference between green ammonia and methane it doesn’t take a genius to know what their next message will be “our ships are ammonia ready, we will run them on methane until the ammonia supply chains are ready then we’ll transition to it”. Expect they have no intention of transitioning. The ships are “ammonia ready” in the same way my driveway is Ferrari ready. All that’s missing is a lot of other people’s money.
rbanffy 2y ago
> Hopefully this ship of fools runs aground Hopefully in a deserted rock in the middle of nowhere.
thijson 2y ago
I read about some of the mitigation methods for an Ammonia fueled ship. If Ammonia is detected in the air, they start spraying water, like a sprinkler system. Ammonia has a high affinity to water. Ammonia is also lighter than air. When it is first released it is typically cold, so it sticks around until it warms up. Eventually it will float up into the atmosphere. One disadvantage is its lower energy density, you need to store twice as much of it as bunker oil. One advantage that I can see for Ammonia is that the ingredients it is composed of are readily available from the environment. Also, the fuel may be upgraded by cracking it into hydrogen and nitrogen using waste heat from the engine. Hydrogen gives a bigger pop in the cylinder, Ammonia doesn't burn as easily. One scenario I can think of is using nuclear power on a platform in the ocean, manufacturing the Ammonia, ships can come by and refuel there.
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
  > readily available in the environment. That’s a red herring. Getting hydrogen and nitrogen out of their naturally occurring forms (bonded to other things or to themselves) and turning it into ammonia is very energetically intensive. > One scenario I can think of is using nuclear power on a platform in the ocean, manufacturing the Ammonia, ships can come by and refuel there. I can think of many such scenarios if money is no object. But as you say, they currently run on bunker fuel which is essentially garbage. You have to pay people to take that of your hands. It is being ridiculous to think that they would switch, on their own dime, to burning ammonia. And green ammonia at that which is orders of magnitude more expensive. Who is willing to pay the resulting shipping costs?
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Both hydrogen and carbon are also readily available from the environment. Synthesizing hydrocarbon analogues of fossil fuels (petrol, kerosene, diesel, bunker fuel[1]) is possible and has been theoretically demonstrated.[2] The problem is that it's not economically feasible, in large part due to structural market failures in the price of petroleum.[3] Physical abundance of the constituent elements has little to do with production costs of the resultant fuel. And hydrocarbons are vastly preferable to ammonia as fuels for all kinds of reasons: energy density, noncorrosive nature,[4] non-toxicity, convenience in general handling and storage, etc., etc., etc. So long as you're synthesizing fuels, make it the good stuff, not poison. ________________________________ Notes: 1. That last is probably a non-starter. It's harder to synthesize longer-chain hydrocarbons, so far as I'm aware, and the primary driver of bunker oil for marine propulsion is that it's an otherwise low-value surplus from conventional petroleum production, even a large fraction of much extraction, e.g., Venezuela's very tarry petroleum,and Canada's tar sands. Lighter fractions would be easier to synthesize and more attractive as fuels. 2. For about 60 years, including research at Brookhaven National Labs, M.I.T., and the US Naval Research Lab, as well as with a Google moonshot project. A list of sources is here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28970111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28970111> 3. A deep topic, but given the fact that we're extracting petroleum at roughly 1 million times its rate of formation, and in a highly unsustainable fashion, there's a fair argument that petroleum ought to be priced about 1 million times its current market price. The economics of nonrenewable resource extraction is grossly irrational and divorced from physical and geological realities. On rates of formation, Jeffrey S. Dukes, "Burning Buried Sunshine" (2003) <https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/5212176.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/5212176.pdf> (PDF). Previous discussions: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adredmorbius%20petroleum%20price%20millon&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...> 4. Indeed hydrocarbons are routinely used as lubricants and protectives for metals and other materials.

Once corrosion is under control, is that danger actually higher than the risk of a natural gas fuel system leaking and killing a whole crew? Both gases are lighter than air, both form explosive mixtures with air (but ammonia-air mixture has much slower flame speed and slower pressure rise than natural gas - for which it makes up with its much higher toxicity). In the end, gas leaks are always bad. But at least you can easily smell an ammonia leak.

iamthemonster 2y ago
No the ammonia toxicity hazard is incredibly severe, it immediately burns your lungs and you die by choking on your own blood as your lungs dissolve. Whereas with natural gas leaks you can reduce the likelihood of ignition by intrinsically safe instrumentation and electrical components. In both cases, gas detection and automated shutdown and sectionalisation helps significantly.
rbanffy 2y ago
> But at least you can easily smell an ammonia leak. IIRC, they add a very nasty smelling chemical to LNG so that leaks are evident before they get explosive. In the case of ammonia, the additive is not really needed, and the toxicity being much higher makes me think that, by the time you realize you are breathing ammonia, it's already too late.
- pbmonster 2y ago
  I know they add a thiol (sulfur compound that smells like rotten eggs) to the city mains for cooking/heating gas. Would be interesting to know if its commonly added to industrial LNG. Because we burn a lot of that - even if you only add a few ppm thiol to natural gas, that's a whole lot of sulfur being burnt...
bluGill 2y ago
If you inhale natural gas it is only deadly (it can cause other problems that are treatable) when it displaces enough oxygen. In open air you are hopefully okay because there is still enough oxygen that you can breath. Ammonia is deadly when inhaled in small quantities. I wouldn't want either, but ammonia is worse if you must choose. I'm not sure how likely fire is in case of a leak.

HPsquared 2y ago

Hopefully not. Like anything else, risks can be mitigated. The main concern for me is at dockside where there are lots of people nearby. Ideally I think they'd "lock down" and depressurise the ammonia system (except the storage tank) when close to port, and only bring it online when out at sea and far from population. Also the refuelling process seems a bit risky. But these things are already quite routine; ammonia is already a large-volume industrial commodity with well-developed controls.

_aavaa_ 2y ago
Risks can be mitigated. But the first step is always eliminating the hazardous material if possible. And many options exists that are less inherently dangerous than ammonia. Like methanol. At least it’s a liquid and not nearly as bad. But ammonia is chosen as a predatory delay strategy. They build the engines to be dual fuel (ammonia and methane) and then feign surprise when they have to run it on methane since the ammonia supply chain “isn’t ready yet” and the prices “need to come down a bit”.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

M_bara 2y ago

If you think this is bad, then the chemicals used in rocketry - read the book ignition [1] - will have you whimpering in a corner. As with any system, risks can be identified and controlled and operationalised - Gasoline has its risks, so does Chlorine trifluoride [2]. Yet both are wildly different and are used in day to day operations. 1. https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pd... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride

j33zusjuice 2y ago
I think that’s not a good comparison. I think we generally accept that leaving the planet is inherently riskier than traveling on it. You have to generate enough energy to exit the atmosphere, that’s a shitload of energy. Of course it’s dangerous. We’ve been sailing relatively safely for thousands of years, though.
_aavaa_ 2y ago
Yes rocketry has made very dangerous chemical. And hydrazine is used in other fields too. But it’s used because there aren’t safer alternatives that are fit for purpose. Ammonia is being pushed as a predatory delay strategy. The article hints at this when it talks about the engines being dual-fuel (ammonia and methane). Given the massive price difference between green ammonia and methane it doesn’t take a genius to know what their next message will be “our ships are ammonia ready, we will run them on methane until the ammonia supply chains are ready then we’ll transition to it”. Expect they have no intention of transitioning. The ships are “ammonia ready” in the same way my driveway is Ferrari ready. All that’s missing is a lot of other people’s money.

rbanffy 2y ago

> Hopefully this ship of fools runs aground Hopefully in a deserted rock in the middle of nowhere.

thijson 2y ago

I read about some of the mitigation methods for an Ammonia fueled ship. If Ammonia is detected in the air, they start spraying water, like a sprinkler system. Ammonia has a high affinity to water. Ammonia is also lighter than air. When it is first released it is typically cold, so it sticks around until it warms up. Eventually it will float up into the atmosphere. One disadvantage is its lower energy density, you need to store twice as much of it as bunker oil. One advantage that I can see for Ammonia is that the ingredients it is composed of are readily available from the environment. Also, the fuel may be upgraded by cracking it into hydrogen and nitrogen using waste heat from the engine. Hydrogen gives a bigger pop in the cylinder, Ammonia doesn't burn as easily. One scenario I can think of is using nuclear power on a platform in the ocean, manufacturing the Ammonia, ships can come by and refuel there.

_aavaa_ 2y ago
> readily available in the environment. That’s a red herring. Getting hydrogen and nitrogen out of their naturally occurring forms (bonded to other things or to themselves) and turning it into ammonia is very energetically intensive. > One scenario I can think of is using nuclear power on a platform in the ocean, manufacturing the Ammonia, ships can come by and refuel there. I can think of many such scenarios if money is no object. But as you say, they currently run on bunker fuel which is essentially garbage. You have to pay people to take that of your hands. It is being ridiculous to think that they would switch, on their own dime, to burning ammonia. And green ammonia at that which is orders of magnitude more expensive. Who is willing to pay the resulting shipping costs?
dredmorbius 2y ago
Both hydrogen and carbon are also readily available from the environment. Synthesizing hydrocarbon analogues of fossil fuels (petrol, kerosene, diesel, bunker fuel[1]) is possible and has been theoretically demonstrated.[2] The problem is that it's not economically feasible, in large part due to structural market failures in the price of petroleum.[3] Physical abundance of the constituent elements has little to do with production costs of the resultant fuel. And hydrocarbons are vastly preferable to ammonia as fuels for all kinds of reasons: energy density, noncorrosive nature,[4] non-toxicity, convenience in general handling and storage, etc., etc., etc. So long as you're synthesizing fuels, make it the good stuff, not poison. ________________________________ Notes: 1. That last is probably a non-starter. It's harder to synthesize longer-chain hydrocarbons, so far as I'm aware, and the primary driver of bunker oil for marine propulsion is that it's an otherwise low-value surplus from conventional petroleum production, even a large fraction of much extraction, e.g., Venezuela's very tarry petroleum,and Canada's tar sands. Lighter fractions would be easier to synthesize and more attractive as fuels. 2. For about 60 years, including research at Brookhaven National Labs, M.I.T., and the US Naval Research Lab, as well as with a Google moonshot project. A list of sources is here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28970111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28970111> 3. A deep topic, but given the fact that we're extracting petroleum at roughly 1 million times its rate of formation, and in a highly unsustainable fashion, there's a fair argument that petroleum ought to be priced about 1 million times its current market price. The economics of nonrenewable resource extraction is grossly irrational and divorced from physical and geological realities. On rates of formation, Jeffrey S. Dukes, "Burning Buried Sunshine" (2003) <https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/5212176.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/5212176.pdf> (PDF). Previous discussions: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adredmorbius%20petroleum%20price%20millon&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...> 4. Indeed hydrocarbons are routinely used as lubricants and protectives for metals and other materials.