Sandia Labs Researcher Develops Fertilizer Without the Explosive Potential

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."

Comments

Useless ....

[pollarda]

There are way too many things you can fashion into explosives. For example, chicken manure has enough nitrates in it you can use it as a replacement for ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate / Fuel Oil.) Knowing our government however, they would use this as an excuse to genetically engineer chickens with lower nitrate poop then try to ban all other varieties.

Re:Useless ....

[Nadaka]

This stuff would prevent accidental explosions. Its hardly useless if this stuff is similarly effective and inexpensive as a fertilizer.

Re: Useless ....

[pollarda]

True. But as it says, this fertilizer was primarily developed to prevent fertilizer from being used in IEDs. To this it is at least a partial failure as there are way too many household chemicals that can be turned into explosives or highly dangerous chemicals. (Bleach and ammonia make hydrazine for example. Ammonium nitrate is found in instant cold packs that can be purchased in any drug store.)

Re: Useless ....

[oodaloop]

Intelligence analyst from JIEDDO here. True there are other household chemicals that can be used in IEDs. But Ammonium Nitrate is produced in such mass quantities that it provides a ready source of IED material. There are caches found with 20,000 lbs plus of AN, and it's produced just over the border in Pakistan by several fertilizer companies. If the fertilizer companies were to switch to something else, it would put a damper on the sheer size of the IED problem. Yes, over time they could switch, and we'll follow suit and limit the availability of that chemical next. But we're not going to throw our hands up and do nothing because there are "way too many household chemicals."

Re: Useless ....

[ShanghaiBill]

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: Useless ....

[hairyfeet]

Unless you are gonna stick a gun to their head and force them to switch why should they? Knowing this stuff will end up being more expensive so you expect them to waste millions, possibly billions, because some of their product is used to blow up soldiers of a country the majority there isn't fond of anyway? Not bloody likely.

So the only way you'll get them to switch is bribe them or bomb them, otherwise they have absolutely zero reason to care. Fertilizer is a billion dollar business and even raising the cost a dime could shift who gets these huge contracts so unless you believe the American taxpayer should yet again foot the bill so that it costs them nothing or is more profitable to use the new stuff i just don't see most of the third world switching. After all all it will do for them is raise costs, IEDs aren't really that high on the radar from their point of view.

Re: Useless ....

[oodaloop]

Thanks for demonstrating you know nothing whatsoever about the problem. We have in fact asked the major suppliers of AN to adjust their practices to minimize how much AN is stolen or siphoned off for IEDs, and they've been very sooperative. They don't like having their name connected with terrorism on the international news every day. And the price of AN has gone from about $4.00 per 40lbs bag early in the war to over $100 per bag recently due to various efforts to curtail its use in IEDs. But thanks for playing.

Re: Useless ....

[Anonymous Coward]

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: Useless ....

[nametaken]

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: Useless ....

[oodaloop]

We can try to limit the size and scale of the IED problem. Our vehicles are getting hit with 700lbs+ IEDs. That's not something you whip up with stuff sitting around the basement. There's a huge supply chain of materials streaming into Afghanistan, and we're trying to limit their ability to employ IEDs not only against us but against local nationals, Afghan police, and Afghan military.

Re: Useless ....

[oodaloop]

Newsflash, AN is illegal in Afghanistan in any shape or form, for fertilizer, explosive, or otherwise. So the fertilizer firms have quite a bit of incentive to make a kind of fertilizer that can't be used in explosives (something they're actively doing if you haven't been paying attention, despite your claims that it doesn't make sense to do so), so they can legally do business in Afghanistan, price be damned. I'm not referring to the whole rest of the world where IEDs aren't a problem.

Re: Useless ....

[Anonymous Coward]

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 chain of precursors that it becomes ludicrous. The starting products in the making of
    Ammonium Nitrate, for example, are AIR and WATER. Granted, you need a big iron pressure-vessel to do the conversion, but if you don't care about
    the rate at which you turn out "product", it doesn't need to be very big.

Re: Useless ....

[flimflammer]

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 ....

[oodaloop]

That's true, but it adds several steps and makes it harder for them. That's why they're trying to replace both AN and CAN with a fertilizer that can't be turned into an explosive.

Fertilizer that can't be used in a bomb?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I call bullshit! (Literally. Unless you want to be really nasty, that is.)

Questions

[puddingebola]

1. Ammonium nitrate can be synthesized with Nitric acid and Ammonia. Are these that hard to come by in Afghanistan or Pakistan? 2. Purification would probably just require you finding something that is soluble with Ammonium Nitrate and not Iron Sulfate, or vice versa. Maybe that would be harder than I'm thinking it would be. Maybe some other method would be possible (magnetic?). 3. Any long term environmental consequences to building up Iron compounds in soils over generations of use? Is there an ecologist or an agronomist in the house?

Acidifies soils

[bill_mcgonigle]

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

[xquercus]

Yes, the soil acidification would be a downside. Alternatives to ammonium nitrate already exist, but they all have downsides. Ammonium sulphate is one example. One downside of ammonium sulphate is that it's inappropriate to use on crops which don't tolerate acid soil -- the same downside as the formula referenced in the article. We aren't all growing acid loving rhododendrons. Urea is another common alternative. It's an organic fertilizer which requires microbial action (in situ) before becoming bio-available. It's slow release which can be desirable for some management techniques but often farmers fertilize just weeks before planting. Quick release ammonium nitrate is generally preferable in that situation. Finally anhydrous ammonia is available. While not practical for the homeowner and subject to significant regulation due to its high potential for diversion for the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, it's hardly ideal. Ammonium nitrate really is the silver bullet when it comes to quick release and cheap nitrogen for agricultural use. It would be great if farmers were concerned about the long term quality of their soils and we adopted farming techniques which reflected this. Unfortunately, this isn't the way it works, and for a farmer who needs nitrogen NOW for THIS YEAR'S crop, ammonium nitrate is an excellent solution.

Why buy this?

[guevera]

Why would I buy this stuff?
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: Did you read the summary???

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

all the tanks are intact; not a BLEVE

[SuperBanana]

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.)

Why Is Terrorism Worse?

[Bob9113]

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.