5 ms·

What is the environmental impact of this ship sinking, leaking, or even dumping the ammonia payload?

pbmonster 2y ago
It dissolves in water quickly. Then big algae bloom, lots of dead fish. Mammals handle it OK. Ammonia can directly act as a nitrogen fertilizer, and plants love that. Mammals quickly convert it in their livers, but aquatic animals can't handle having it in their bloodstream and die quickly from it. High concentrations can overwhelm the liver, and then its toxic even for humans. Pure, ammonia vapor is incredibly toxic and even tiny concentrations are bad for the mucosa.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  I believe in much of the ocean nitrogen is not the limiting nutrient for plant growth, because while it can be fixed from dissolved molecular nitrogen, there's no direct major source of things like phosphorus or iron. Things would be different near coasts where sediment is washing in.
- giardini 2y ago
  What could possibly go wrong? pbmonster says "Pure, ammonia vapor is incredibly toxic and even tiny concentrations are bad for the mucosa." As in "dissolves the mucosa"! The 1976 ammonia truck disaster: In 1976 a truck of ammonia gas ruptured on a freeway interchange in Houston. The scene was akin to early World War I gas warfare. The Houston Post newspaper office building was about a half mile from the spill. The ammonia cloud rolled over and past the building in minutes but quick-witted building engineers shut down the air circulation system so no one inside was hurt. The greenery around the building and area was scorched brown by the passing heavier-than-air ammonia cloud: "How A Deadly Cloud In Houston Decades Ago Led To ‘Shelter-In-Place’ (good pic of the initial truck explosion):" https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2016/04/25/144853/how-a-deadly-cloud-in-houston-decades-ago-led-to-shelter-in-place/ https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2016/04/25/... Film footage of the scene and victims - moderately gory: "The worst accident in Houston history: The 1976 ammonia truck disaster": https://abc13.com/ammonia-truck-disaster-houston/1332062/ https://abc13.com/ammonia-truck-disaster-houston/1332062/
xoa 2y ago
According to a quick search, Viking Energy apparently will have a 220 cubic meter tank, which would equate to 220000 liters of ammonia. In aquaculture apparently ammonia reaches an almost universally high damage/lethal combination for fish (mammals can handle significant amounts thanks to a specific enzyme to handle build up the blood, fish have to just excrete it fast enough) and other non-mammals at around 2mg/L. Assuming all 220000 L of ammonia went 100% into the water and dissolved completely times 0.769 kg/m^3 density at STP, it'd be at the lethal level when dissolved in less than 84590000 liters of water, which equates to a cube approximately 44 meters per side or a sphere with a radius of 27 meters. Even with a 10x margin (since apparently some organisms can suffer damage even if not death from 0.2mg/L) that's nothing for an ocean going ship in general. So at least at first glance to me that looks very favorable vs the bunker fuel ships normally use, which is also horribly toxic but also floats and is much harder for creatures to get rid of.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  > times 0.769 kg/m^3 density at STP The ship's tank is not at STP. The ammonia inside it is pressurized into a liquid.
  - yread 2y ago
    Indeed it's more like 600 kg/m3, so, about 1000 times more ammonia. So, the cube would be about 10 times bigger (side of 400m). https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ammonia-liquid-thermal-properties-d_1765.html https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ammonia-liquid-thermal-pr...
    - marcosdumay 2y ago
      Yep. You just immediately killed all life in a volume larger than the ship, and since diffusion on volumes that large take time, created a plume of toxic water that will wander for many minutes before dissolving well enough. Not a big deal on the ocean. And yeah, better than an oil spill.
timewizard 2y ago
You put people on a ship across the ocean and they're going to dump their waste tanks into it. They're going to spill and leak industrial chemicals into it. There's a certain amount of loss that occurs during shipping and additional packaging that goes into securing it. You're better off building things closer to where they are needed rather than relying on shipping for cheap consumer goods. Bunker fuel oil, LNG, ammonia, it's all putting the cart before the horse.

It dissolves in water quickly. Then big algae bloom, lots of dead fish. Mammals handle it OK. Ammonia can directly act as a nitrogen fertilizer, and plants love that. Mammals quickly convert it in their livers, but aquatic animals can't handle having it in their bloodstream and die quickly from it. High concentrations can overwhelm the liver, and then its toxic even for humans. Pure, ammonia vapor is incredibly toxic and even tiny concentrations are bad for the mucosa.

pfdietz 2y ago
I believe in much of the ocean nitrogen is not the limiting nutrient for plant growth, because while it can be fixed from dissolved molecular nitrogen, there's no direct major source of things like phosphorus or iron. Things would be different near coasts where sediment is washing in.
giardini 2y ago
What could possibly go wrong? pbmonster says "Pure, ammonia vapor is incredibly toxic and even tiny concentrations are bad for the mucosa." As in "dissolves the mucosa"! The 1976 ammonia truck disaster: In 1976 a truck of ammonia gas ruptured on a freeway interchange in Houston. The scene was akin to early World War I gas warfare. The Houston Post newspaper office building was about a half mile from the spill. The ammonia cloud rolled over and past the building in minutes but quick-witted building engineers shut down the air circulation system so no one inside was hurt. The greenery around the building and area was scorched brown by the passing heavier-than-air ammonia cloud: "How A Deadly Cloud In Houston Decades Ago Led To ‘Shelter-In-Place’ (good pic of the initial truck explosion):" https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2016/04/25/144853/how-a-deadly-cloud-in-houston-decades-ago-led-to-shelter-in-place/ https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2016/04/25/... Film footage of the scene and victims - moderately gory: "The worst accident in Houston history: The 1976 ammonia truck disaster": https://abc13.com/ammonia-truck-disaster-houston/1332062/ https://abc13.com/ammonia-truck-disaster-houston/1332062/

xoa 2y ago

According to a quick search, Viking Energy apparently will have a 220 cubic meter tank, which would equate to 220000 liters of ammonia. In aquaculture apparently ammonia reaches an almost universally high damage/lethal combination for fish (mammals can handle significant amounts thanks to a specific enzyme to handle build up the blood, fish have to just excrete it fast enough) and other non-mammals at around 2mg/L. Assuming all 220000 L of ammonia went 100% into the water and dissolved completely times 0.769 kg/m^3 density at STP, it'd be at the lethal level when dissolved in less than 84590000 liters of water, which equates to a cube approximately 44 meters per side or a sphere with a radius of 27 meters. Even with a 10x margin (since apparently some organisms can suffer damage even if not death from 0.2mg/L) that's nothing for an ocean going ship in general. So at least at first glance to me that looks very favorable vs the bunker fuel ships normally use, which is also horribly toxic but also floats and is much harder for creatures to get rid of.

marcosdumay 2y ago
> times 0.769 kg/m^3 density at STP The ship's tank is not at STP. The ammonia inside it is pressurized into a liquid.
- yread 2y ago
  Indeed it's more like 600 kg/m3, so, about 1000 times more ammonia. So, the cube would be about 10 times bigger (side of 400m). https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ammonia-liquid-thermal-properties-d_1765.html https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ammonia-liquid-thermal-pr...
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    Yep. You just immediately killed all life in a volume larger than the ship, and since diffusion on volumes that large take time, created a plume of toxic water that will wander for many minutes before dissolving well enough. Not a big deal on the ocean. And yeah, better than an oil spill.

timewizard 2y ago

You put people on a ship across the ocean and they're going to dump their waste tanks into it. They're going to spill and leak industrial chemicals into it. There's a certain amount of loss that occurs during shipping and additional packaging that goes into securing it. You're better off building things closer to where they are needed rather than relying on shipping for cheap consumer goods. Bunker fuel oil, LNG, ammonia, it's all putting the cart before the horse.