5 ms·

> Ammonia is toxic, explosive, and corrosive Someone I knew died from inhaling ammonia vapors after the system wasn’t purged properly and they opened a valve.

by rdtsc 2y ago

> Ammonia is toxic, explosive, and corrosive Someone I knew died from inhaling ammonia vapors after the system wasn’t purged properly and they opened a valve. Having a whole ship fueled by it seems like insanity when there is fuel that does to that to a person.

patates 2y ago
I'm sorry for your loss. Ammonia is the the thing that our body happily spends its precious water in more-than-enough amounts just to make sure it's gotten rid of. The only mammal that optimized that process is camels if I'm not misremembering. I also found it a bit crazy to fill a ship with it.
- 38 2y ago
  [flagged]
GJim 2y ago
Petrol is also insanely dangerous, yet we seem to manage.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Petro is practically safe compared to ammonia. Petro only explodes in specific air-fuel situations. The vapors are harmful, but not deadly in small quantities like ammonia is. Calling petro "insanely dangerous" is wrong. Petro is the most dangerous substance normal people handle in quantity, but we allow normal people to handle it in quantity because it while it isn't safe it isn't all that dangerous. Your standard household ammonia CONCENTRATE people sometimes use for cleaning is 99% water - you dilute it significantly for use. Even used correctly it is nasty stuff.
  - unwind 2y ago
    Petro (sic) only explodes in specific air-fuel situations That seems to be true for ammonia as well, at least according to the Wikipedia page's [1] section on Combustion: Ammonia does not burn readily or sustain combustion, except under narrow fuel-to-air mixtures of 15–28% ammonia by volume in air. That doesn't sound too horrible, it feels like gasoline/petrol is easier to combust (although I know it's the fumes that are actually flammable). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia#Combustion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia#Combustion
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Maybe I wasn't clear. Ammonia is burning is not the worry. Ammonia in small quantities will kill you directly. no fire needed, it will kill you.
      - LeifCarrotson 2y ago
        To be clear, "small quantities" are in units of parts per million. 5ppm (0.0005%) and the room smells of ammonia, 25ppm means you should be wearing a respirator, 500 ppm (0.05%) can be lethal. Warning that 15% air-ammonia mixtures can burn is like warning that 100 kg of TNT could give you a concussion if it fell on your head. It's just not the concern at all.
        ClumsyPilot 2y ago
        This risk factor sounds less like a normal chemical substance and more on the level of uranium
        adrianN 2y ago
        It’s comparable to carbon monoxide, except you can’t smell that one.
- rdtsc 2y ago
  Like the sibling comment mentioned it is nothing compared to ammonia. Yeah if you dump it somewhere in the ocean it might decompose with less damage to the environment but I was talking about immediate damage to humans.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  Ships don't run on petrol, they run on various grades of bunker oil which is basically just really thin lubricating oil.
  - GJim 2y ago
    My god you are thick. The point was that risks can be managed.
    - rishav_sharan 2y ago
      And you are being rather rude. You can make the same point without resorting to name calling
  - 0_____0 2y ago
    You're thinking of something like regular fuel oil, like diesel or kerosene. Heavy fuel oil/bunker is very viscous, has to be heated to be pumped efficiently.
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      >You're thinking of something like regular fuel oil, like diesel or kerosene. Heavy fuel oil/bunker is very viscous, has to be heated to be pumped efficiently. I assure you I am not. I specifically compared it to lubricants to avoid a bunch of people mentally anchoring the discussion around diesel. Bunker C (the common one, also the most thick one) is basically on the automotive oil spectrum when it comes to viscosity. Go to 0:00 for room temp and 9:00 for operating temp (which is low enough for a plastic soda bottle and a bare hand to be appropriate). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZZ591x0Ajs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZZ591x0Ajs. Sure looks like 5w20 to me. Def thinner than gear oils and any comparison to 000 grease or roofing tar on a hot day is laughable. Bunker fuel is solidly on the oil spectrum.
      - aziaziazi 2y ago
        > very viscous > I assure you I’m not > bunker fuel is solidity You seems to be knowledgeable in that domain and has something interesting to share but I don’t understand your point. What is the scale 0.00-9.00 ? What is the preside point you don’t agree with GP? Please EMLI5.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Petrol (gasoline to Americans) is dangerous largely for is vapours. It's one of the lightest-possible liquid fuels with about 6 carbon atoms per molecule (C6).[1] Most ships don't burn petrol itself,[2] but rather heavier fractions of petroleum, generally either diesel (~C16) or bunker fuel (~30 or longer), which don't vapourise readily. It's possible to extinguish a lit match in diesel fuel (the vapours above petrol would ignite and/or explode), and bunker fuel generally won't even flow until it's been heated above the boiling point of water (spent steam from steamships is used to heat the incoming fuel both so that it will flow and to vapourise it before injection into boilers or diesel cylinders). The comparatively small quantities of petrol carried in automobiles is not a grave hazard, though fuel tanks are protected against damage or ignition, and fires do happen. Larger vehicles, on land, sea, and air, often burn the comparatively safer kerosene (aviation) or diesel (heavy machinery). ________________________________ Notes: 1. "Distillate" and "NGL" (natural gas liquids) are used in some instances, and can boil well below 100°C. Butane boils at -0.5°C / 31.5°F. 2. As I'd just mentioned in an earlier comment. I thought a well-known cruise ship or ocean-liner had been converted to petrol, but can't find a reference. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43344605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43344605>
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
bluGill 2y ago
There are only around 30 people on such a ship - we can put that many through extensive training to make sure they don't make mistakes. However no ship fueled without such trained crew should get anywhere near one that is. Only special shipyards should allow such a ship to dock - even the route from the open ocean needs to be controlled - no beaches "near" those ships. I'm not sure what a right margin of safety is, but don't allow such ship into your national waters without first knowing that.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  > we can put that many through extensive training to make sure they don't make mistakes. I hope you are being sarcastic.
  - Lanolderen 2y ago
    You get skill issued, you get auschwitzed
- rdtsc 2y ago
  > However no ship fueled without such trained crew should get anywhere near one that is. Only special shipyards should allow such a ship to dock - even the route from the open ocean needs to be controlled - no beaches "near" those ships. I'm not sure what a right margin of safety is, but don't allow such ship into your national waters without first knowing that. I could see that. At least, it sounds good in principle. But with ships sailing under flags of countries with lax safety requirements it may not be practical.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
    I thought the cargo ship that crashed into the Baltimore bridge had a known failing engine. I get the impression that a lot of shipping equipment and regulations are thread bare.
- NikkiA 2y ago
  I once worked a job that involved training for handling anhydrous ammonia. No amount of training could ever make it feel 'safe', everything about it is 'if you make a mistake, even a small one, it WILL kill you'.
amelius 2y ago
> Ammonia is toxic, explosive, and corrosive It also smells like rotten fish.
- M_bara 2y ago
  I thought it smells like piss. Rotten eggs - hydrogen sulphide.
- MisterTea 2y ago
  Although the chemical responsible for rotten fish, Trimethylamine, is a derivative of ammonia, I never made the link between the two. Ammonia smells like ammonia to me, no matter the concentration level.
baybal2 2y ago
[dead]
userbinator 2y ago
Interesting fact: ammonia was (and still is) used as a refrigerant, but aboard ships, carbon dioxide, also known as carbonic acid at the time, became more common due to its relative safety. This was in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.
- rdtsc 2y ago
  It was a large refrigeration system that killed the person I had mentioned. It's kind of odd, ammonia was used back in the day on older systems. Then it was deemed too dangerous like you mentioned. But now, due to environmental impact it's now considered less dangerous and is "coming back".
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    The nonsense will last until the first large accident in some experimental vehicle. Then it will go away again. Hopefully, it won't happen on the middle of a populated area.
- daedrdev 2y ago
  We have yet to find a refrigerant that is not either toxic, explosive, or destructive to the ozone layer / a potent greenhouse gas. My understanding is that new consumer systems use propane because its relatively safe and not toxic or causing dangerous emmissions.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    Supercritical CO2 is a great refrigerant. It's neither toxic, nor destructive to ozone, nor is it a particularly dangerous for GW.
    - userbinator 2y ago
      CO2 was superseded by other refrigerants because it's less efficient (incidentally, ammonia is one of the most efficient), and the (very) heavy equipment required to utilise it due to the extremely high pressures is also costly.
tromp 2y ago
If widely adopted, I fear that in time there will be sufficiently many major incidents that we'll start talking about deammonization as we currently talk about decarbonization.
- theoreticalmal 2y ago
  The drivers would be wildly different. Carbon and GHG nowadays has this abstract, difficult to nail down effects. Ammonia leaks would have immediate and directly related negative effects.

by rdtsc 2y ago

patates 2y ago

I'm sorry for your loss. Ammonia is the the thing that our body happily spends its precious water in more-than-enough amounts just to make sure it's gotten rid of. The only mammal that optimized that process is camels if I'm not misremembering. I also found it a bit crazy to fill a ship with it.

38 2y ago
[flagged]

GJim 2y ago

Petrol is also insanely dangerous, yet we seem to manage.

bluGill 2y ago
Petro is practically safe compared to ammonia. Petro only explodes in specific air-fuel situations. The vapors are harmful, but not deadly in small quantities like ammonia is. Calling petro "insanely dangerous" is wrong. Petro is the most dangerous substance normal people handle in quantity, but we allow normal people to handle it in quantity because it while it isn't safe it isn't all that dangerous. Your standard household ammonia CONCENTRATE people sometimes use for cleaning is 99% water - you dilute it significantly for use. Even used correctly it is nasty stuff.
- unwind 2y ago
  Petro (sic) only explodes in specific air-fuel situations That seems to be true for ammonia as well, at least according to the Wikipedia page's [1] section on Combustion: Ammonia does not burn readily or sustain combustion, except under narrow fuel-to-air mixtures of 15–28% ammonia by volume in air. That doesn't sound too horrible, it feels like gasoline/petrol is easier to combust (although I know it's the fumes that are actually flammable). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia#Combustion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia#Combustion
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Maybe I wasn't clear. Ammonia is burning is not the worry. Ammonia in small quantities will kill you directly. no fire needed, it will kill you.
    - LeifCarrotson 2y ago
      To be clear, "small quantities" are in units of parts per million. 5ppm (0.0005%) and the room smells of ammonia, 25ppm means you should be wearing a respirator, 500 ppm (0.05%) can be lethal. Warning that 15% air-ammonia mixtures can burn is like warning that 100 kg of TNT could give you a concussion if it fell on your head. It's just not the concern at all.
      - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
        This risk factor sounds less like a normal chemical substance and more on the level of uranium
        adrianN 2y ago
        It’s comparable to carbon monoxide, except you can’t smell that one.
rdtsc 2y ago
Like the sibling comment mentioned it is nothing compared to ammonia. Yeah if you dump it somewhere in the ocean it might decompose with less damage to the environment but I was talking about immediate damage to humans.
potato3732842 2y ago
Ships don't run on petrol, they run on various grades of bunker oil which is basically just really thin lubricating oil.
- GJim 2y ago
  My god you are thick. The point was that risks can be managed.
  - rishav_sharan 2y ago
    And you are being rather rude. You can make the same point without resorting to name calling
- 0_____0 2y ago
  You're thinking of something like regular fuel oil, like diesel or kerosene. Heavy fuel oil/bunker is very viscous, has to be heated to be pumped efficiently.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    >You're thinking of something like regular fuel oil, like diesel or kerosene. Heavy fuel oil/bunker is very viscous, has to be heated to be pumped efficiently. I assure you I am not. I specifically compared it to lubricants to avoid a bunch of people mentally anchoring the discussion around diesel. Bunker C (the common one, also the most thick one) is basically on the automotive oil spectrum when it comes to viscosity. Go to 0:00 for room temp and 9:00 for operating temp (which is low enough for a plastic soda bottle and a bare hand to be appropriate). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZZ591x0Ajs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZZ591x0Ajs. Sure looks like 5w20 to me. Def thinner than gear oils and any comparison to 000 grease or roofing tar on a hot day is laughable. Bunker fuel is solidly on the oil spectrum.
    - aziaziazi 2y ago
      > very viscous > I assure you I’m not > bunker fuel is solidity You seems to be knowledgeable in that domain and has something interesting to share but I don’t understand your point. What is the scale 0.00-9.00 ? What is the preside point you don’t agree with GP? Please EMLI5.
dredmorbius 2y ago
Petrol (gasoline to Americans) is dangerous largely for is vapours. It's one of the lightest-possible liquid fuels with about 6 carbon atoms per molecule (C6).[1] Most ships don't burn petrol itself,[2] but rather heavier fractions of petroleum, generally either diesel (~C16) or bunker fuel (~30 or longer), which don't vapourise readily. It's possible to extinguish a lit match in diesel fuel (the vapours above petrol would ignite and/or explode), and bunker fuel generally won't even flow until it's been heated above the boiling point of water (spent steam from steamships is used to heat the incoming fuel both so that it will flow and to vapourise it before injection into boilers or diesel cylinders). The comparatively small quantities of petrol carried in automobiles is not a grave hazard, though fuel tanks are protected against damage or ignition, and fires do happen. Larger vehicles, on land, sea, and air, often burn the comparatively safer kerosene (aviation) or diesel (heavy machinery). ________________________________ Notes: 1. "Distillate" and "NGL" (natural gas liquids) are used in some instances, and can boil well below 100°C. Butane boils at -0.5°C / 31.5°F. 2. As I'd just mentioned in an earlier comment. I thought a well-known cruise ship or ocean-liner had been converted to petrol, but can't find a reference. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43344605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43344605>
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

bluGill 2y ago

There are only around 30 people on such a ship - we can put that many through extensive training to make sure they don't make mistakes. However no ship fueled without such trained crew should get anywhere near one that is. Only special shipyards should allow such a ship to dock - even the route from the open ocean needs to be controlled - no beaches "near" those ships. I'm not sure what a right margin of safety is, but don't allow such ship into your national waters without first knowing that.

rbanffy 2y ago
> we can put that many through extensive training to make sure they don't make mistakes. I hope you are being sarcastic.
- Lanolderen 2y ago
  You get skill issued, you get auschwitzed
rdtsc 2y ago
> However no ship fueled without such trained crew should get anywhere near one that is. Only special shipyards should allow such a ship to dock - even the route from the open ocean needs to be controlled - no beaches "near" those ships. I'm not sure what a right margin of safety is, but don't allow such ship into your national waters without first knowing that. I could see that. At least, it sounds good in principle. But with ships sailing under flags of countries with lax safety requirements it may not be practical.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
  I thought the cargo ship that crashed into the Baltimore bridge had a known failing engine. I get the impression that a lot of shipping equipment and regulations are thread bare.
NikkiA 2y ago
I once worked a job that involved training for handling anhydrous ammonia. No amount of training could ever make it feel 'safe', everything about it is 'if you make a mistake, even a small one, it WILL kill you'.

amelius 2y ago

> Ammonia is toxic, explosive, and corrosive It also smells like rotten fish.

M_bara 2y ago
I thought it smells like piss. Rotten eggs - hydrogen sulphide.
MisterTea 2y ago
Although the chemical responsible for rotten fish, Trimethylamine, is a derivative of ammonia, I never made the link between the two. Ammonia smells like ammonia to me, no matter the concentration level.

baybal2 2y ago

[dead]

userbinator 2y ago

Interesting fact: ammonia was (and still is) used as a refrigerant, but aboard ships, carbon dioxide, also known as carbonic acid at the time, became more common due to its relative safety. This was in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.

rdtsc 2y ago
It was a large refrigeration system that killed the person I had mentioned. It's kind of odd, ammonia was used back in the day on older systems. Then it was deemed too dangerous like you mentioned. But now, due to environmental impact it's now considered less dangerous and is "coming back".
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  The nonsense will last until the first large accident in some experimental vehicle. Then it will go away again. Hopefully, it won't happen on the middle of a populated area.
daedrdev 2y ago
We have yet to find a refrigerant that is not either toxic, explosive, or destructive to the ozone layer / a potent greenhouse gas. My understanding is that new consumer systems use propane because its relatively safe and not toxic or causing dangerous emmissions.
- cyberax 2y ago
  Supercritical CO2 is a great refrigerant. It's neither toxic, nor destructive to ozone, nor is it a particularly dangerous for GW.
  - userbinator 2y ago
    CO2 was superseded by other refrigerants because it's less efficient (incidentally, ammonia is one of the most efficient), and the (very) heavy equipment required to utilise it due to the extremely high pressures is also costly.

tromp 2y ago

If widely adopted, I fear that in time there will be sufficiently many major incidents that we'll start talking about deammonization as we currently talk about decarbonization.

theoreticalmal 2y ago
The drivers would be wildly different. Carbon and GHG nowadays has this abstract, difficult to nail down effects. Ammonia leaks would have immediate and directly related negative effects.