Sandia Labs Researcher Develops Fertilizer Without the Explosive Potential 180
cylonlover writes "Ammonium nitrate is a commonly used fertilizer, but when mixed with a fuel such as diesel, it makes a powerful explosive – as seen in last week's fertilizer plant explosion in Texas. But it's the deliberate use of the compound in improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and acts of terror such as the Oklahoma City bombing that gives rise to even greater cause for concern. This is why Kevin Fleming, an optical engineer at Sandia National Laboratories, developed a fertilizer alternative that isn't detonable and therefore can't be used in a bomb."
Useless .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Useless .... (Score:5, Insightful)
This stuff would prevent accidental explosions. Its hardly useless if this stuff is similarly effective and inexpensive as a fertilizer.
Re: Useless .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Useless .... (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Useless .... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Useless .... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Useless .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Erm, unless I'm mistaken, calcium ammonium nitrate can also be turned into IEDs can't it? It is primarily a mixture of ammonium nitrate is it not?
Re: Useless .... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They're brown-skinned foreign farmers. They have no legitimate use for either fertilizer or oxygen.
Haven't you been reading your Tee-party indoctrination guidelines?
Re: (Score:3)
But it sounds more than a little like the 'war on drugs'. Yes, there have been attempts at weaning Afghanistan farmers away from the lucrative poppy crop. Might have even put a bit of a damper on heroin production. But addicts got to get their fix, haters got to hate. I don't see it as materially improving the IED situation.
It might be able to prevent another Texas fertilizer plant explosion - that in itself is a worthy goal, but changing the dynamics of the Middle East, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for demonstrating you know nothing whatsoever about the problem.
The "Problem" is that "making something that is explosive" can be done whether the US likes it or not, and with materials that everyone has access to.
I dont know what the solution is, but its certainly not to go after anything that contains nitrogen in the hopes that you'll win that arms race.
Re: Useless .... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You'll have to limit the amount of salt available to people then. Ordinary NaCl can be converted into NaCl3 easily. As can KCl be converted into KClO3. A very crude electrochemical cell can make the chlorates quite easily, without requiring any exotic materials, or leaving much of a "telltale footprint".
And a kg of KClO3/NaClO3 + fuel is going to produce a significantly nastier boom than a kg of blackpowder, as used in the Boston bombs.
At the end of the day a "war on precursors" has to go so far up the ch
Re: Useless .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Curious. Doesn't the price per bag for fertilizer going from $4 to $100 make it prohibitively expensive for it's normal use as fertilizer?
Was there a considerable reduction in the number of IED's since the price skyrocketed?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I see, so that was a change in price for illicit goods, and the safer alternative in Afghanistan is a good replacement? I don't know much about farming, but it sounds like an "everyone wins" scenario, to me. Well... everyone but the bad guys.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Useless .... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
As this is Slashdot, due to your misspelling of the word 'cooperative', all points that you have raised, and all factual information given, is now incorrect. Your argument has been officially dismantled.
Welcome to Slashdot. Thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
TFA says that you just need to mix the AN with a byproduct from steel manifacturing. That doesn't sound like it would make the stuff more expensive. In fact, I would say that since it would remove the need for all kind of administrative crap like background check, it could actually make fertilizer cheaper. Finally, the article says that it should actually be a better fertilizer in Afghan soil.
Re: (Score:2)
OR... and I know this may be hard for a US "intelligence" analyst to grasp... but if our troops weren't in Afghanistan, it really wouldn't matter what kinds of fertilizers they make in Pakistan.
Then there's the whole idea that we're going to raise the price of food (if fertilizer costs more, food costs more) because of what? 2 IEDs in the entire history of the US? And less than 10 accidents? Total killed under a few hundred? How many people will die due to hunger because of the higher price of food? How man
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OR... and I know this may be hard for a US "intelligence" analyst to grasp... but if our troops weren't in Afghanistan, it really wouldn't matter what kinds of fertilizers they make in Pakistan.
Not really my call, is it? I don't think we should still be there at all, but we are and my job is to track down people who are using IEDs.
Then there's the whole idea that we're going to raise the price of food (if fertilizer costs more, food costs more) because of what? 2 IEDs in the entire history of the US? And less than 10 accidents?
Ammonium Nitrate is illegal in Afghanistan, the only place I've been talking about. It's free and cheap in the U.S. where there are "only" a few hundred IED events a year. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, thousands a year and many of them are huge, and quite deadly. The steps taken in Afghanistan to reduce the number and lethality of IEDs is not security theater; it's been
Re: (Score:3)
Analyze THAT.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Yes, over time they could switch, and we'll follow suit and limit the
> availability of that chemical next.
which is the point isn't it, as long as you keep duping people into thinking you are solving a problem, you will always have a job. Thats the real point here. Its not going to save any lives at all, its just ensuring jobs for consultants.
Kind of reminds me of what the guy making thise fake bomb detectors was said to have commented when asked about the fact that they don't work "they do exactly w
Re: (Score:2)
We have in fact saved many lives and thwarted many attacks.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't thank you, I said your wasting my money; and I meant it. On every front you are playing whack-a-mole and having every bit as much effect on the mole population. None of this addresses the causes of the problem, which the people actually calling the shots seem to be actively working to make worst. Sorry I am not willing to take your contribution completely out of context.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't hold your responsible at all for the overall budget, but thats entirely besides the point, you still chose to work for warmongers who have been instrumental in the radicalization of extremeists around the world.
Whose actions were the Marathon bombers upset about? Certainly wasn't US civilians. Certainly wasn't about domestic policy. It was the direct result of the actions of your employers.
But you are right, I should take my complaints directly to my congresscritters. Afterall, they are the ones who
Re: (Score:2)
you still chose to work for warmongers who have been instrumental in the radicalization of extremeists around the world.
Well, excuse me for seeing things differently. Or are you not aware that your opinions are just opinions and not everyone sees things the way you do?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prevent use in "Acts of Terror" which wtf?
WTF yourself. Were you trying to quote me? Because I didn't use that phrase in that post.
That even being an accepted valid phrase is an act of blistering stupidity.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about a post I just read. If you'd like to form whole sentences containing rational thought on the current topic, I'd be happy to reply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on where you are. Some parts of the world like to use "Republican Army" a lot (Ireland has like 6 xRA insurgencies), I'm being silly because I don't like the term in America due to there being an actual Republican party and a lot of retarded people who will draw a connection and start being assholes.
OKC was terrorism. The summary went babbling on about modern paramilitary threats, which are not terrorism. But we call everything terrorism. Show up with a gun at a restaurant? You're a terrorist,
Re: (Score:3)
As for conventional weapons caches in Afghanistan, they haven't really been a problem there. Nor are there any fertilizer plants in Afghanistan.
Re: (Score:2)
Which one are you going to ban, flour or air?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why cant you just go after the people making flour bombs, rather than foisting a massive burden onto society?
Re: (Score:2)
By the way i intend no disrespect to you personally-- I admire that your job seems to be trying to solve these sorts of problems-- but I think what you are expressing is the wrong way to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but I simply don't see how this stops anyone from going to a grocery store, buying flour, and walking out. One kilogram of wheat flour, for example, contains around 14 MJ. Compare this to TNTs 4 MJ/kg, and it should be obvious that getting enough flour is not a problem for would-be terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Based on my experience (past the statute of limitations) you should watch out for people purchasing large amounts of powdered coffee creamer and trying not to grin.
At some point they're going to start leaching manure piles to make black powder.
Then again, how many land mines in the ground? How many anti-tank mines?
Also LOX is easy to make out of any other liquified gas...I was a rotten kid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem is a mentality that we need to find every conceivable danger and remove it from society,
Maybe that works out for some states, but it doesnt fit with my conception of what a free state is. If flour bombs become a problem, we can deal with it the same way society has always dealt with these sort of problems: by punishing the people causing havoc after they commit the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Deal with a combat zone the way societies always have. I dont buy that the proper solution to "there are enemy soldiers with guns" is to try to apply enough regulation that enemy soldiers cant buy guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Dude, where are you going with 2 tons of ammonium nitrate?"
"Uh, I got me a farm and I'm using it for fertilizer?"
"Oh, OK."
Instance 2:
"Dude, where are you going with 2 tons of finger nail polish remover?"
"Uh, you should see how big my girlfirend's fingers are?"
"Up against the wall! Spread 'em!"
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
Re: Useless .... (Score:4, Insightful)
there are way too many household chemicals that can be turned into explosives or highly dangerous chemicals. (Bleach and ammonia make hydrazine for example.
The difference is that few people have a reason to buy a ton of both bleach and ammonia, so it would raise suspicions. Anybody who farms has a reason to buy a ton of ammonium nitrate. Your hydrazine example has other problems: hydrazine is very toxic, flammable, and dangerously unstable. Ammonium nitrate is far easier to handle. That is why it is actually used in IEDs, whereas hydrazine is not.
Non-explosive fertilizer will not prevent 100% of IEDs, but it will help. It will also help prevent explosions like the one in Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that few people have a reason to buy a ton of both bleach and ammonia, so it would raise suspicions.
Uhu. So how much bleach and ammonia do you need to make a bomb?
Re: (Score:2)
Uhu. So how much bleach and ammonia do you need to make a bomb?
RTFM [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Uhu. So how much bleach and ammonia do you need to make a bomb?
Quite a bit. Hydrazine is not a high explosive. It is not even a low explosive. It is a propellant. A high explosive can be used to shatter things. A propellant can be used to push things over. So you cannot use it in a small bomb to send shrapnel through armored vehicles. But you can use it in a truck bomb to knock down a building. You also need to factor in that the gunk you make at home from bleach and ammonia is not going to be very pure. If you want a small bomb, you are probably better off ju
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah? So it's cheap to manufacture and there won't be any excessive patent fees?
Sorry, this sounds either useless or an attempt to create a brand new exploitive monopoly. Can't tell which from here, but I'd be extremely surprised if it were as cheap to make as ammonium nitrate.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC last week's explosion was purely due to the pressure and temperature at which the ammonia was being stored.
They hadnt crafted the nitrogen into an explosive, its just when you have a gigantic tank of gas stored at 250psi @ room temperature, and it gets heated up by a fire, it tends to rupture with explosive force. Article says that this new stuff uses ammonium sulfate, which makes the flunky chemist in me think that theyd still need to store high-pressure ammonia, and could experience the exact same "
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, am curious how the West, Texas fertilizer plant exploded.
There are rules and regulations for the storage of diesel fuel. Likewise for fertilizer. They don't get stored in close proximity. How did they combine in a sufficiently high ratio to create an explosion of the magnitude seen without some additional catalyst? That was a huuuuuge explosion!
Nitrogen wants to be free (Score:2)
ask anybody in The Biz anything with a buncha nitrogen tends to be a bit "frisky"
for example
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/01/09/things_i_wont_work_with_azidoazide_azides_more_or_less.php [corante.com]
is a compound that will go BOOM if you so much as look at it cross-eyed
Re:Useless .? Then try this headline (Score:2)
Non-explosive fertilizer cast as useless? I beg to differ. But to make it have a better sounding headline, try this one:
Sandia Labs develops organic compost pile for only $720,000 per pound.
There! Now you can see how commercial opportunities abound and will help our economy, especially if Haliburton gets a contract to provide automatic compost bins to military mess halls everywhere. (And yes, I expect my thinly veiled reference to Haliburton to push my moderation up to +5)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fertilizer that can't be used in a bomb? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
+1. I wish that I had mod points!
I have a Spanish motor bike (Score:2)
"No, I swear it's true!"
Questions (Score:3, Interesting)
Acidifies soils (Score:5, Informative)
According to the article it acidifies soils which the author finds good for areas with alkaline soils. And he says that some areas of Afghanistan have alkaline soils. Fine, but unless Afghanistan is unlike the rest of the world, some areas will have alkaline soils and some have acidic soils. I happen to have acidic soils on my farm and would never use a fertilizer that would further decrease the pH. We have plenty of iron in the soils here already too.
The cost increase may be low, but they cannot argue that with the added materials and logistics, the cost will be the same in places that already have ammonium nitrate fertilizers in use. Perhaps where their crony governments force farmers to buy calcium carbonate fertilizer it would be cost neutral.
But until hunger is eliminated in the world and all the world has healthy food to eat, governments have no business increasing the cost of food. Far more than 180 have died due to malnutrition since the Murrah building. Governments could trying sticking to courts, police and defense if they want to minimize the incidence of terrorism. And maybe help out with world hunger if they just can't stand sitting on their hands.
Re:Acidifies soils (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Feric sulphate has an additional advantage: it stops the "Shake and Bake" production of meth cold by converting the lithium used to Lithium Amide: LiN2. It's been suggested as an instant cold pack additive for that reason.
"Shake and Bake" meth production involves generating ammonia in-situ with the reaction of NaOH (drain cleaner) with NH4NO3 (instant cold packs). This dissolves in some organic solvent, like methyl ethyl ketone, in which one has already dissolved pseudo-ephedrine. The presence of lithium (f
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I missed your point in your whole anti gov't rant. On this one, it's the only thing they still manage well - considering all the players.
Not sure where you live, but in America, the standard diet is absolutely abysmal, and guided mostly by subsidies for the most unhealthy types of foods and trade embargoes against some of the alternatives. Meanwhile, they mandate absurd ideas that take away arable land from crops and drive up the cost of food, while prohibiting labelling of GMO foods and appointing
Why buy this? (Score:5, Funny)
Right now you can buy Amonium Nitrate that gives you a ton of readily available nitrogen for your crops at a relatively small cost.
And, in case I need it, I can build a bomb with the stuff, too.
I don't often need to build an IED, but whether it's a stump in your field or a neighbor messing with you or the damn federals raiding your moonshine still, sometimes you need to blow something up. With amonium nitrate, I don't have to buy and store expensive and potentially dangerous explosives just on the off chance I need to blow something sky high.
But this new no-go-boom-fertilizer just takes away the features I'm used to getting for free with my fertilizer. It's like DRM for ag chemicals.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who leveled hills with AN explosives as a child (to increase grazable land, of course), I heartily agree with this sentiment.
Sorry, decreasing the availability of AN will only do one significant thing: it will make farming and ranching (by proxy) more expensive and even less "profitable". For ag, there is no significant incentive to switching, particularly since it is likely to cost more (you'll need amendments to counteract the acidity) and/or it will have limited applicability (increasing soil
Re: (Score:2)
no you have to think of the whole plot of land
if you blow the hills up (and then plow the loose soil into the gullies/ dips) you make more FLATish land.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about hills which are more like plateaus, in accessible from their perimeter by grazing cattle. It levels out the perimeter (and dents the center) if you bury it a good 5' down...
Re: (Score:2)
Why Is Terrorism Worse? (Score:5, Interesting)
But it's the deliberate use of the compound in improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and acts of terror such as the Oklahoma City bombing that gives rise to even greater cause for concern.
Why? If the number of people dying from industrial accidents is greater than the number dying from terrorism, shouldn't we be focusing on the greater threat to human life? Particularly given that the explosion in Texas looks like it was caused, at least in part, by lax regulatory compliance.
The only reason I can see for terrorism being worse is that it terrifies us. But the rational solution for that is, colloquially, to grow a pair. Stop saying things like "terrorism is a greater cause for concern" when it is not. Be rational, and help the public to be rational -- stop adding to the emotionalistic, irrational fear of terrorism.
The reason-for-being of terrorism is asymmetric warfare. That only works if a society offers the asymmetric, panicky response that terrorism is meant to induce. Stop contributing to that by claiming that a statistically smaller threat is a greater concern.
Iron (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
AN doesn't explode all that readily. That's why it gets mixed with diesel.
If you've ever been to a small time farm or ranch, you'd see how the conditions there might be conductive to an "accidential explosion". You'd hear of farmers getting blowed up all the damn time while out having a smoke in the barn. It's easier to make diesel light on its own, or make gasoline 'explode' like in the movies. Sorry, but no: it doesn't explode all too easily on its own. Since West didn't have diesel in the explosion, one
I hadn't heard... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was a spontaneous act of God...
I'm personally terribly interested in hearing the AAR on the West, TX explosion... I've seen no likely explanation for why AN would explode so catastrophically on its own, yet.
Re: (Score:2)
How hard is it to chemically process back again? (Score:2)
Looking at this page [chemos.co.uk] I see that you could dissolve NH4NO3/FeSO4 mixture and add lead(II) citrate, which should cause the Fe to precipitate as citrate and the SO4 to precipitate with the lead, leaving NH4NO3 solution behind which can be dried and used in a bomb.
Practical problems abound - most notably, can you get lead citrate, and can you find a way to reuse it? However, I have only high school chemistry and it is unlikely that I found the optimal 'cleaning' reaction in a few minutes of web searching. Can
Now, let's do similar things with Nuclear Reactors (Score:2)
Invest in any additional research that may be needed
to [further] prove the safety & efficacy of Thorium-based
reactors (a.k.a. "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors"
or LFTRs), per Kirk Sorensen's 10-min TED-talk.
They seem to be safer than the high-pressure reactors
we use today... and they don't need or produce Plutonium.
We'll also need changes to nuclear reactor regulations,
to make it easier to build lots of small ones, closer to
where the energy (heat &/or electricity) is needed.
I'll just bet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just bet CNN will lump AN with the arbitrary term "Assault Weapons", along with most other non exploding fertilizers, and push for reintroducing the AW Ban.
we're so messed up!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The explosion at the Texas plant was not from mixing Ammonium Nitrate with Diesel fuel
The real WTF is that it's explosive without mixing it with diesel. Why even mention mixing it with diesel?
Re: Did you read the summary??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you read the summary? First line: "Ammonium nitrate is a commonly used fertilizer, but when mixed with a fuel such as diesel, it makes a powerful explosive – as seen in last week's fertilizer plant explosion in Texas." Your parent points out that the explosion in Texas does not demonstrate that it makes a powerful explosive when mixed with diesel. The explosion in Texas demonstrated that it's pretty explosive all on its own.
The interesting thing is that this heightened interest in ANFO seems to have been caused by two explosions that did not involve ANFO. The explosion in Texas was straight AN. The explosions at the Boston Marathon were powered by gunpowder. It's possible that the next explosion could be caused by ANFO, but that's not the current problem.
The big issue here is that we could stop treating farmers buying fertilizer as potential terrorists. They could buy all of this new fertilizer that they wanted without triggering terror checks. That doesn't really make us safer (the current system seems to be successful at preventing ANFO's use in terrorism), but it would make farmers' lives easier. Frankly, I think that that would be a good thing.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There was a huge explosion back in 1917: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion
That actually started the trend of mining use of ANFO as a safe explosive.
The chemical companies do not just make Ammonia Nitrate for fertilizer _ALONE_, as there are other industrial uses for the chemical. So your comment would only apply to Fertilizer plants alone.
This is a knee jerk reaction and not something new. If there were a safe way to handle _OTHER_ industrial uses for the chemical, they would have done so in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"unless you live in Texas in which case be sure to live far away from fertilizer plants and cargo ships. "
all the tanks are intact; not a BLEVE (Score:5, Informative)
Look st the post-explosion photos and you'll see that the anhydrous ammonia tanks are all intact. They're hard to miss - they're virtually the only thing left standing. BLEVE explosions obliterate the tanks they occur in and throw massive amounts of shrapnel.
Sorry, chief. It was an ammonium nitrate explosion. It was not a BLEVE (note the correct spelling.)
Re: (Score:3)
Is there anyway to remove this thread from Slashdot so we don't look like people who should be prevented from reproducing?
Your concern is misplaced. To reproduce sexually, an organism has to engage in actual (rather than simulated or conjectured) intercourse with the other gender of the same species.
For the universe of Slashdot readers, a theoretical possibility to be sure, but in actual practice it is of little consequence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup that's the problem - people think other people are stupid. Gunpowder was being made 1,000 years ago so anyone who thinks this will "solve" anything is seriously delusional. Explosives are not HARD to make. They are EASY to make.
Frankly, some other people are stupid. Not every terrorist is an evil genius. Hell, most of them are pretty dumb, that's part of the reason why they are able to convince themselves that murder is somehow going to improve things.
So yes, making misbehavior more difficult for stupid people is often a worthwhile thing to do, even if smart people can work around it. Hell, look at iTunes -- easily broken DRM, but still good enough to keep most people buying instead of pirating.
Re: (Score:2)