Ammonia beware!

[AE-NMidlands]

Linked from the excellent "Hydrogen is a bubble" article I went on to this:
https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transpo ... -1-1327957

SPECIAL REPORT | Burns, blindness and agonising deaths: is it safe to ship hydrogen-derived ammonia around the world?
Highly toxic NH3 has emerged as the favoured fuel for zero-carbon shipping and as a cost-effective method for transporting H2 long distances — but what happens if it leaks or the vessel sinks?

Seems equally authoritative, which is a shame as I thought ammonia looked like the best option for exprting surplus Australian RE.

It occurs to me that this publication is demolishing various potential avenues for decarbonisation, so could it be broadcasting sophisticated disinformation?
I am glad to see "pie-in-the-sky" schemes called out so that well-meaning investors don't get milked, but we don't see many similar articles trumpeting RE successes. Maybe RE just rolls on quietly, benefitting its investors and (indirectly) everyone else?
A

[GarethC]

Is methanol an alternative? Seem to remember reading that somewhere.

[dan_b]

Methanol is also pretty nasty stuff - its a neurotoxin and is really not good to get any exposure to it.

It does just go to show that there are so many big companies who's interests are being destroyed by "electrify everything" - the high efficiency of electric machines, plus the relative simplicity of laying cables, vs the production, shipping/transport and burning of liquid fuels, with all its inherent inefficiencies, but is something that can be "controlled" by those companies ...

[Countrypaul]

Is methanol an alternative? Seem to remember reading that somewhere.

As the article on ammonia mentions near the end, there are already orders for methanol powered ships (none for ammonia). The major disadvantage for methnol is that it contains carbon. Most methanol is formed by reformation of natural gas with steam - so we are back to how to avoid carbon again.

[Oldgreybeard]

Methanol is also pretty nasty stuff - its a neurotoxin and is really not good to get any exposure to it.

It does just go to show that there are so many big companies who's interests are being destroyed by "electrify everything" - the high efficiency of electric machines, plus the relative simplicity of laying cables, vs the production, shipping/transport and burning of liquid fuels, with all its inherent inefficiencies, but is something that can be "controlled" by those companies ...

I have a few litres of it, left over from an experiment to make biodiesel some time ago. Not really as bad as it's made out, as long as you don't drink it. Good idea to take the usual precautions and wear gloves and eye protection, make sure there is no source of ignition nearby, etc, but it doesn't really need special handling other than that. The fact that you can still buy large quantities of the stuff freely (and fairly cheaply, it's typically around £2 to £3 per litre) is an indicator that it's not considered to be a major risk, unlike some other solvents that can only be purchased if you have the appropriate licence.

[smegal]

Is methanol an alternative? Seem to remember reading that somewhere.

As the article on ammonia mentions near the end, there are already orders for methanol powered ships (none for ammonia). The major disadvantage for methnol is that it contains carbon. Most methanol is formed by reformation of natural gas with steam - so we are back to how to avoid carbon again.

Or we need a source of carbon, such as direct air or flue capture. But that adds a whole order of magnitude more inefficiency to the process.

[dan_b]

Methanol toxicity is a big deal. Yes the main exposure risk is from drinking it directly - but it is still possible to get neurotoxic exposure through vapour inhalation, and long-term extensive skin contact.

[Oldgreybeard]

Methanol toxicity is a big deal. Yes the main exposure risk is from drinking it directly - but it is still possible to get neurotoxic exposure through vapour inhalation, and long-term extensive skin contact.

Not saying it's not toxic, but it does need to be put into context, and it is well worth remembering that all of us produce and breathe out methanol all the time (albeit in small amounts).

Everything is toxic, nothing is absolutely safe, it's just a question of where we choose to draw lines when classifying substances. Lots of everyday household substances are far more toxic than methanol, either by ingestion, inhalation or skin contact. Just means we need to be aware of the risks, not start banning everything that might possibly be a hazard. Being aware of safe handling measures is sensible for anything, but these do need to be reasonable and proportionate to the real risk.

I remember going through the process at work, many years ago, when Material Safety Data Sheets became mandatory, and we had hordes of people spending time on classifying thousands of substances we used at work and making sure every one of them had an MSDS. It was a spoof, but we even had an MSDS for the universal solvent, Dihydrogen Oxide. FWIW, the LD50 (the median lethal dose that will kill 50% of a sample population with a body mass of 80kg) of Dihydrogen Oxide is about 7.2 litres.

Perhaps worth listing a few LD50s (assumed body mass 80kg) to try and get a feel for relative toxicity:

Water 7200g
Petrol 1125g
Vitamin C 952g
Glyphosate 843g
Ethanol 565g
Sodium Chloride 240g
Paracetemol 155g
Methanol 65g
Ibuprofen 51g
Ammonia 28g
Aspirin 16g
Caffeine 15g
Vitamin D3 3g

[openspaceman]

Is methanol an alternative? Seem to remember reading that somewhere.

I like the sound of dimethyl ether, it's a gas at ambient temperature but only need mild pressure vessels. It doesn't produce many particulates when burned in a diesel and can be synthesised from woody feedstocks.

Methanol is less energetic but its high octane makes it good for spark ignition engines.

Australia looks well set up to be the source of bulk sustainable chemicals, they are a major producer of silicon and great potential for solar electrotype production.

Bulk liquids are cheap to transport but how you scale up production from tens of thousands of tonnes to the billions is the big question,

[Countrypaul]

Is methanol an alternative? Seem to remember reading that somewhere.

I like the sound of dimethyl ether, it's a gas at ambient temperature but only need mild pressure vessels. It doesn't produce many particulates when burned in a diesel and can be synthesised from woody feedstocks.

Methanol is less energetic but its high octane makes it good for spark ignition engines.

Australia looks well set up to be the source of bulk sustainable chemicals, they are a major producer of silicon and great potential for solar electrotype production.

Bulk liquids are cheap to transport but how you scale up production from tens of thousands of tonnes to the billions is the big question,

I believe most Dimethyl Ether (DME) is produced from natural gas - though it could equally be Biogas if available in sufficient quantity. It can also be produced from methanol by dehydration. Like methanol it does have a significant carbon content.

For those not familiar some formulas:

Methane CH4
Methanol CH4O
DME C2H6O
Ethanol C2H6O