[aifooh7Keew6xoo]

My primary point here is that if you see an ammonia spill you're going to die whether or not it explodes.

I suppose it's worth noting in your second link, the fatalities were from the kinetics of the impact, which is a hazard that belongs to "things with velocity" rather than "things containing fuels".

We can assume that uncontained fire and explosion are categorical hazards with fuels.

Ammonia has significant risks that few other proposed fuels present and I believe it's worth considering whether this is something we want moving outside of hazmat routes between industrial zones.

[Retric]

Except the risk of fire / explosion is lower. NFPA 704 for gasoline is 1 Health, 3 fire, 0 Instability where Ammonia is 3 Health, 1 fire, 0 Instability

Major spills of either are dangerous but rare compared to how much is being created and transported. We’re only ~5x as much gasoline vs Ammonia today. Considering most cars would be EV’s I suspect the total amount of Ammonia produced even with widespread adoption isn’t going to change by that much. Say Long haul trucks, heavy equipment, aircraft etc.

PS: Which isn’t to say Ammonia is actually a good fuel, the only thing I can think that actually used the stuff was the X-15. So it would need significant economic advantages to end up adopted.