UN hails end of poisonous leaded gas use in cars worldwide

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

tspear

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
1,014
Location
Outside Boston
@ttf

Many people still do not want an EV; so separate desire from requirements.

You are very wrong on who EVs fit in terms of mission. The number of people who cannot find an EV to handle their normal life is a small minority, mostly around those who currently need a pickup to actually do work, not just as a driver to a work location.


Tim
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,752
Location
Orange County, California
Someone needs to start a thread discussing the alternatives, both existing and near term, for replacing 100LL with a liquid fuel that is practical and cost effective for the average general aviation owner.

Moderator Note: Yes, and this thread was supposed to be about that. Guys, if you've nothing left to talk about with regards to leaded aviation fuels and getting rid of them, let's wrap this thread up and move on. This is homebuiltairplanes.com, not a generalized EV or electric car forum.
 

jazzenjohn

Active Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
29
Location
Milan, Mi. U.S.A.
"I think if you closely examine the reports, they were almost certainly commissioned by people that wanted to close the airport and the conclusion was predetermined by the people who paid for it. I think if you closely examine them, they will also completely fail to take into account all the different lead sources and differentiate them, they will fail to provide any definitive evidence of the separate effect of airport fuel. and they will fail to prove that closing the airport will make the substantive differences they claim."

Did you closely examine the reports?

You are making rather strong assertions.
If you look at the cdc data on lead in children in Illinois at 72 months old, there were 30,000 children tested above 10 ug/dl . None were even alive when leaded gas was being used. by 2014 it had dropped to 1600. Good, but it doesn't track with less use of aviation fuel AT ALL. Obviously there is a far more important factor at play. During that whole time lead paints had been banned for many decades, so what could possibly explain those numbers? The answer is repair and replacement of leaded pipes in drinking water since children absorb as much as 50% of the lead in drinking water. The 20 times reduction doesn't track with aviation fuel use. I think my explanation fits the CDC numbers better.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
9,723
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
There was once upon a time an antiquated, obsolete, and long-forgotten concept called reasonableness. My history teacher used to talk about this all the time. I'd like to open it's dusty, creaking vampire coffin and see if it's still there:

There are X number of reciprocating gasoline powered cars on the road, and something like .00001X private reciprocating gasoline airplanes in the air. Someone here can quantify it exactly if they want, but it's a very small fraction.

For whatever reason, justified or otherwise, the majority of the engines in this tiny little group are using old technology, and run more safely and reliably using leaded gasoline. Burning or belching lead is bad for people and the planet. But engine failure in an airplane engine is also bad for people and the planet too.

The use of leaded fuel in small airplanes does 1000X LESS harm to people and the planet than the trillions of tons of diesel soot, trillions of gallons of industrial chemical waste, cubic miles of toxic tobacco smoke our children are encouraged to inhale, and a hundred other things that can and should be "controlled", "banned", "regulated" or "taxed out of existence".

Reasonableness dictates that we can and should be working to develop an alternative to leaded gasoline... AFTER the world bans and outlaws and demonizes the things that do a thousand times more harm. Allowing the do-gooders' "conversation" to be focused on the problems of airplane gas, while industrial waste and opioid crises and poisoning children with sugar and tobacco and what-not are just swept under the rug.... that is what the aviation community should push back down the throats of the eco-comrades.
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,752
Location
Orange County, California
There was once upon a time an antiquated, obsolete, and long-forgotten concept called reasonableness. My history teacher used to talk about this all the time. I'd like to open it's dusty, creaking vampire coffin and see if it's still there:

There are X number of reciprocating gasoline powered cars on the road, and something like .00001X private reciprocating gasoline airplanes in the air. Someone here can quantify it exactly if they want, but it's a very small fraction.

For whatever reason, justified or otherwise, the majority of the engines in this tiny little group are using old technology, and run more safely and reliably using leaded gasoline. Burning or belching lead is bad for people and the planet. But engine failure in an airplane engine is also bad for people and the planet too.

The use of leaded fuel in small airplanes does 1000X LESS harm to people and the planet than the trillions of tons of diesel soot, trillions of gallons of industrial chemical waste, cubic miles of toxic tobacco smoke our children are encouraged to inhale, and a hundred other things that can and should be "controlled", "banned", "regulated" or "taxed out of existence".

Reasonableness dictates that we can and should be working to develop an alternative to leaded gasoline... AFTER the world bans and outlaws and demonizes the things that do a thousand times more harm. Allowing the do-gooders' "conversation" to be focused on the problems of airplane gas, while industrial waste and opioid crises and poisoning children with sugar and tobacco and what-not are just swept under the rug.... that is what the aviation community should push back down the throats of the eco-comrades.
Getting rid of lead in avgas is a flat-out good. We should be working for that regardless if there are other, worse, problems in the world. But the principle of "reaonableness" is absolutely applicable here, too. It's not reasonable to ground an entire fleet of aircraft because we can't yet come up with a viable alternative to leaded gasoline for them that's widely distributed and doesn't damage them. That solution will come. It's just going to take a little time and, given the tiny impact genav has on the "lead situation" in the world, it's reasonable to allow that time to pass.
 

aeromomentum

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
172
Location
Stuart, FL USA
While lead in 100LL may be 1000 times less bad than many things we need to keep in mind that GA is about 141,000 piston aircraft in the USA. There are about 276,000,000 automobiles in the USA. So there is a ratio of about 2000 to one. Plus a GA aircraft is still using just as bad as other vehicles due to other than lead issues if the lead is removed. So per vehicle, a GA aircraft is at least three times as bad. So reasonableness would dictate that we need to eliminate lead first.

I would also contend that the original "other things are 1000 times as bad" is a massive over estimate. Modern ICE cars are much cleaner than they were 40 years ago and even so they are getting cleaner and are being replaced. GA piston aircraft are not.

WE need to do something so that our sport/hobby/transportation/recreation can continue to exist and the first thing we need to do is get our head out of the sand and stop trying to shift the blame. If we do not clean up our act, others will do it for us and it will be be pretty. ALL of us and our groups need to start pushing hard for a solution. Maybe a starting point is a web site that shows where unleaded fuel is available. Then the EAA, AOPA, etc need to only promote airports, FBOs, fly-ins, etc at airports with unleaded fuel available.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
9,749
Location
USA.
Clearly the swapping batteries capabilities that Tesla was for government grants to keep the business a float. Good at applying for grants for just about any free money.
Also with this new technology, there is plenty of lobbying that the auto makers are doing to prevent any one other than them to do maintenance. They want to hold the keys. Plenty of YouTube videos of packs being fixed on technical totals because of battery cost. There is a slow aftermarket coming around to try and address it. But what the auto makers want is for it to be like medical equipment. X-Ray machine was the first big purchase a doc would make. In 20 years, after it was payed off he was making money on it. Today you can’t own a new one. Or MRI or Lasix. Count the uses and you are billed for them by the equipment companies. That is what auto makers want. Lease only. That way no one can Hi Jack technology. Electric airplanes will be easier to lock down.
EVs make sense it in town and for old people. We don’t have the infrastructure for it really to go all the way without a big tax to get everything up to speed. Be prepared for that to catch up with your pocket. Right now EV is like the early internet where they could not figure out how to monetize it. It will catch up with EV sooner than later. Old people who go to church on Sunday and drive to the grocery and bridge game once a week, it’s perfect as long as they don’t forget to plug it in. They don’t want to gas up. They don’t go far. Old people s not a specific age, it’s when you get to that point.
Glad you said "Old people s not a specific age, it when you get to that point ". I was about to give you a piece of my mind and invite you into the ring and may the youngest come out alive.
:) :)
 

mm4440

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
288
Location
LA area, CA
UL94 is available now from Swift Fuels. IT will work in ~60% of the fleet, SwiftFuels ; check it out. Second airport in Cal now has it. Airport is threatened with CLOSURE for poisoning poor people. The electric Cool-Aid is science fiction and investor scams. We need to deal with todays problems. Where are the gen 4 nuclear reactors to charge all this electric stuff?
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,352
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
.

I am a retired auto tech and give this a lot of thought.

The most practical way to do it is have battery stations at the gas stations where your car battery could be popped out and a fully charged one installed in a few minutes.

I operated industrial electric forklifts for years and as soon as power was low we rolled one battery out of the machine and a fresh one in .... took about 3 minutes ... these were several thousand pound batteries.

To work in the car industry it would require standardization of battery sizes and connections .... small car would use a standardized battery .... larger cars same battery but two or three or 4 of them side by side etc.

Would require good planning , cars would have to be designed for quick battery changes , we standardized gasoline delivery worldwide so electrics could be too.

Much better to have a fresh battery available down the road than have to hope for a charger and then park for hours to get topped up.

Would also take pressure off the electrical grid ... the batteries could be charged at a lower rate and overnight etc.

Drive car into an open ended building .... attendant in a pit removes floor pan and dead battery ... installs fresh one ... floor pan back on ... customer drives out the other end.

You could drive across the country worry free.

.
How do you buy $5 worth of juice ?
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,352
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
A long trip means filling a tank several times, like swapping batteries.

Imagine simply driving over a ramp that automated the swap in 15 seconds, and a similar pit in a garage that did the same thing at home.
Why replace bad with slightly less bad ?
If you have an electric vehicle with a 200 mile range you don’t really need a 15 minute swap at the neighborhood station you can recharge home it’s when you’re far away from home recharging becomes a hassle.
Why not build recharging ability into the highway?
You wouldn’t have to have re-charge on the entire route system either. It would make sense to put recharging grids into the highway on major grades and other locations about 150 miles apart.
This would work good for scaling up too.
One simple powering grid just outside of Los Angeles on I-15 puts Vegas in range.
Another on interstate 5 on the grapevine puts most of the central valley in range. Etc
 
Last edited:

Saville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2014
Messages
287
Location
Boston Ma
Reasonableness dictates that we can and should be working to develop an alternative to leaded gasoline... AFTER the world bans and outlaws and demonizes the things that do a thousand times more harm. Allowing the do-gooders' "conversation" to be focused on the problems of airplane gas, while industrial waste and opioid crises and poisoning children with sugar and tobacco and what-not are just swept under the rug.... that is what the aviation community should push back down the throats of the eco-comrades.
The problem is the banning world wants some of those other things or are bought off. And private aircraft ownership at our level is looked upon as a luxury and easy pickings...low hanging fruit.

When I say "private aircraft ownership" I mean at the middle class level. The Elites must have their jets and they will have them.
 

Saville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2014
Messages
287
Location
Boston Ma
While lead in 100LL may be 1000 times less bad than many things we need to keep in mind that GA is about 141,000 piston aircraft in the USA. There are about 276,000,000 automobiles in the USA. So there is a ratio of about 2000 to one. Plus a GA aircraft is still using just as bad as other vehicles due to other than lead issues if the lead is removed. So per vehicle, a GA aircraft is at least three times as bad. So reasonableness would dictate that we need to eliminate lead first.

I would also contend that the original "other things are 1000 times as bad" is a massive over estimate. Modern ICE cars are much cleaner than they were 40 years ago and even so they are getting cleaner and are being replaced. GA piston aircraft are not.

WE need to do something so that our sport/hobby/transportation/recreation can continue to exist and the first thing we need to do is get our head out of the sand and stop trying to shift the blame. If we do not clean up our act, others will do it for us and it will be be pretty. ALL of us and our groups need to start pushing hard for a solution. Maybe a starting point is a web site that shows where unleaded fuel is available. Then the EAA, AOPA, etc need to only promote airports, FBOs, fly-ins, etc at airports with unleaded fuel available.

If the people who want to close down activities because of pollution really wanted to make a difference, they'd go after the mega-polluters like China. Or do something in the 3rd world countries that produce most of the plastic debris in the ocean.

But going after China is likely to get you a gun butt to the head as you are being dragged off to jail. So while they want to make a difference, they won't go where the need for difference-making is greatest - where there would be some actual impact - because it's not safe for their pink little bodies.

So they will scream and rage and pester where it's safer and try to squeeze out tiny improvements within a system that has so vastly improved the pollution situation that any additional improvement would be a tiny increment.
 
Last edited:

Aesquire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
2,979
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
Insert here Rant on Electric Fad By Demand. Imagine it's ban-worthy. That I insulted multiple idiots. Was very rude and blunt. Enjoy yourself.

Tetraethyl Lead is a major subject in a book I'm currently in the middle of.


If you are a serious gear head, I recommend it. The blocks to more power are many, as any engine guy will tell you. The weakest link always breaks, then you find the next one, and the next.

Tetraethyl Lead ( TEL ) is a demon's brew. It fouls plugs, valves, eats bearings, and makes people dumb.

Insert here rant on human intelligence post WW2. Imagine me being firebombed for my views on any American Campus. Enjoy.

But TEL also allowed higher boost and therefor more power in an era where gasoline was still under development.

IMHO we are well rid of it, just like the excellent Lead Based paint went away. The replacement to do an equiv. job costs more. Duh!

I'll avoid a rant on how this is all a "First World Problem", because if you aren't a complete idiot about human history you already know that things like pollution controls, social programs, and other nice things all depend on your society being very rich and successful. If you are poor and a failure, you don't give a **** about "the people" or "the environment" as you are too busy not starving to death or staying in power as the peasants starve. I'll point out to the historically ignorant, that that attitude actually makes you a poor failure, unless you can steal from others. Unfortunately, this isn't a "oh, that was a long time ago" issue. I'll carefully not mention any countries with Glorious Leaders that are fat while their peasants starve, or have people erased from reality if they compare him to a cartoon character. Not relevant to home built planes.

I hope the replacement for 100LL is more available for the few that have old engines that actually need it. It would be a real pity not to see a Corsair ever fly again, or for owners of the legacy high performance GA planes to replace them, which I doubt many could afford.

For us, just don't use an engine that needs that fuel. If you can.
 

mm4440

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
288
Location
LA area, CA
I mentioned at a forum at Oshkosh that if a drop in 100UL is not possible that Swift UL 94 that is available today can used with water/ADI to keep most of the aircraft that need 100LL flying. It would take a lot of engineering and STCs but would be better than than grounding. Also, water is cheaper than fuel cooling with avgas.
 
Top