California is a governor's signature away from banning 100LL in 2031

[JOhnH]

(E.g., "I can see Russia from my house!")

Said no one ever (except an actress on SNL)

 

[172andyou]

Chernobyl is about the only incident that destroyed a city. Fukushima caused temporary displacement, but didn't destroy anything officially (doesn't mean it wasn't near critical after the tsunami/earthquakes).

Fukushima: The Ghost Towns Behind The Gates

Fukushima was forever changed by one of the world’s biggest nuclear disasters nearly a decade ago. But what does recovery really mean?

apps.npr.org

There are no other widespread nuclear power incidents that destroyed cities. It isn't cherry-picking, it's a testament to the extreme operational controls that are followed in order to keep nuclear power safe.

Yes, the very, very expensive controls that make it the most expensive form of power.

Natural gas/coal-fired power plants are cheaper, but those have their own operating/disposal costs . . . which often aren't as easily seen as nuclear because the coal/NG disposal costs are on the extraction side, not the power plant responsibility. Increasing environmental controls are adding to the expenses though.

Agreed. If carbon sources had to be as responsible for the totality of their environmental costs as nuclear power is, the economics would change quite a bit.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It’s like the electric cars: I’m kinda OK with the fact that because they don’t pay taxes at the gas pump they’re not paying their share for the roads - to a point. There’s getting to be enough of them now that I think they need to pay their share.

In my state, and many others, I pay an additional fee at registration for having an EV. That fee is far higher than what I would pay in gas taxes if I was driving a gasser.

Will add EV cars and trucks generally weight more than a comparable ICE vehicle. As an example, the local transit added a few EV busses. Those busses use a different tire to accommodate the increased weight. So, what about the roads? Has anyone calculated the energy [or even done a study] needed to repair roads more often?

As with everything, there's a balance. We've been driving heavier vehicles for quite a while now, so this argument isn't solely an EV one, and I would guess that we've already updated construction techniques for roads to match. In addition, what about accounting for the number of gas-hauling semi trucks that *won't* be driving from the terminal to the gas station any more? I doubt this is a significant issue.

Retired wind turbine blades are primarily sent to one of a small number of landfills that accept them in Iowa, South Dakota, or Wyoming in the United States12. The blades are difficult to recycle or repurpose, so they are mostly buried in landfills when decommissioned34. Around 8,000 blades will be decommissioned in each of the next three years in the United States alone, and once they are buried in a landfill, they will remain there forever1. Experts predict that by 2050, the world will throw away two million tons of wind turbine blades each year3.

I think we're in the early days of wind turbine blades being decommissioned in large numbers, and we'll see more recycling efforts now that the source materials (decommissioned blades) for doing so are becoming more available. For example:

Can wind turbine blades be recycled? | What happens to old wind turbine blades? | National Grid Group

While wind power can generate clean, cheap, zero carbon electricity, what happens to old wind turbine blades and can they be recycled at the end of their operational lives?

www.nationalgrid.com

How can companies recycle wind turbine blades?

cen.acs.org

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I can only tell you what the issues were that people brought up earlier in the year here in Connecticut. Almost all of it was around charging, the electric grid, and cost to buy. If you can not charge your car where you live and there are not enough charging stations where most people work, driving and leaving your car somewhere else to charge for hours every day is not feasible for most people.

This is an easily solvable problem. Require new construction to build a certain amount of infrastructure for EVs, and put low-amp L2 chargers on light poles for people with only street parking options.

There were also many concerns over the electric grid. We are constantly being told to turn AC's off or down during hot summer days or face rolling blackouts because the power grid in the Northeast can't handle it. If the grid can't support the current populations use today how is it supposed to support every house installing and using car chargers?

It's all about when you charge the cars. Every EV and charger I'm aware of today offers the option to set the time window when your electricity is cheapest and automatically charge then. Bonus: You save money on charging.

Many chargers now offer smart grid features so that they can be turned down or off by the power company during peak demand times, which allows them to avoid rolling blackouts. Bonus: You save more money on charging. Better yet, if you have solar, you can set them to only charge off of your excess solar capacity. Bonus: You save money on charging.

Finally, V2L/V2G technology can allow all of these large rolling batteries to help stabilize the grid. Bonus: The power company pays you. My brother has a few PowerWalls and is signed up for a program where the power company can draw from them to power other houses in his neighborhood at the worst peak demand times. It has been quite lucrative for him so far... And he charges them off a large solar array.

You can buy a cheap electric car in china as long as you are good with giving up all the safety and creature comforts that the US market demands. Eliminate any tax incentives in the US for electric car ownership and the numbers don't work for the average person. The cheapest Tesla you can buy right now is $38,990. A Toyota Corolla base mode is $22,050 and a Honda Civic is $25,345. Both get right around 40mpg on the highway. At $3.25 a gallon you need to drive over 208,000 miles before you save a single dime on gas buying a tesla over a corolla.

You can buy a cheap electric car in the US as well - The Nissan Leaf starts at $28,140. Using your methodology, it's paid for in 34,400 miles vs the Civic or 75,000 miles vs the Corolla.

Electric cars need to be able to become functionally and financially feasible on their own first without using tax incentives or penalties to try and force the market in a direction that may not be in the best interest of everyone.

They already are for numerous use cases (including mine). I don't think the market should be *forced* somewhere, but I do think government incentives are appropriate to help new tech become feasible. Otherwise, you have the "chicken and egg" problem - Nobody buys EVs because the charging infrastructure isn't there, and nobody builds charging infrastructure because there aren't any EVs to use it.

If I want to go to a Walmart (which I never want to, but being married and all) it’s 45 miles of desolate rural iowa roads, in the winter time it yearly hits -20F, with dawn coming late and sunset coming early, and snow.. so if I’m trying to keep the windows defrosted, the headlights on, the car warm, and pushing through 4” deep snow in -20 degree ambient temperature conditions what’s my range? Then when the snow really starts coming down and I either get stuck or have to pull over until it passes so I can see past the hood what is my “idle time” of keeping it none death conditions inside without extreme measures?

Keeping the cabin heated has the greatest effect on range. In conditions like you describe, my Tesla might drop by up to 40% at highway speeds in the thick air, but that's still north of 150 miles... The "idling" portion, it'll do just fine. 48+ hours.

 

[kmacht]

This is an easily solvable problem. Require new construction to build a certain amount of infrastructure for EVs, and put low-amp L2 chargers on light poles for people with only street parking options.

It's all about when you charge the cars. Every EV and charger I'm aware of today offers the option to set the time window when your electricity is cheapest and automatically charge then. Bonus: You save money on charging.

Many chargers now offer smart grid features so that they can be turned down or off by the power company during peak demand times, which allows them to avoid rolling blackouts. Bonus: You save more money on charging. Better yet, if you have solar, you can set them to only charge off of your excess solar capacity. Bonus: You save money on charging.

Finally, V2L/V2G technology can allow all of these large rolling batteries to help stabilize the grid. Bonus: The power company pays you. My brother has a few PowerWalls and is signed up for a program where the power company can draw from them to power other houses in his neighborhood at the worst peak demand times. It has been quite lucrative for him so far... And he charges them off a large solar array.

You can buy a cheap electric car in the US as well - The Nissan Leaf starts at $28,140. Using your methodology, it's paid for in 34,400 miles vs the Civic or 75,000 miles vs the Corolla.

They already are for numerous use cases (including mine). I don't think the market should be *forced* somewhere, but I do think government incentives are appropriate to help new tech become feasible. Otherwise, you have the "chicken and egg" problem - Nobody buys EVs because the charging infrastructure isn't there, and nobody builds charging infrastructure because there aren't any EVs to use it.

Keeping the cabin heated has the greatest effect on range. In conditions like you describe, my Tesla might drop by up to 40% at highway speeds in the thick air, but that's still north of 150 miles... The "idling" portion, it'll do just fine. 48+ hours.

So start charging EV buyers a yearly tax/fee to support building the infrastructure needed and stop giving tax incentives for buying electric cars. Gas powered car owners already pay their share through gas taxes and many people who live in cities don’t drive at all. Why should any of them subsidize people who want to drive only electric cars?

 

[SFDukie]

We subside fossil fuels, to a massive extent. The external costs of coal are huge, (not to mention gasoline, too) Coal kills thousands every year- nuclear, arguably none.
Nuclear is expensive primarily because of the capital costs- which are “artificially” increased by the decades it takes to get a plant approved, from a regulatory standpoint.
All of our energy is subsidized- all of it.
Oil? Aside from the external costs, we keep a carrier group ready for the strait of Hormuz, 24/7/365

 

[kmacht]

We subside fossil fuels, to a massive extent. The external costs of coal are huge, (not to mention gasoline, too) Coal kills thousands every year- nuclear, arguably none.
Nuclear is expensive primarily because of the capital costs- which are “artificially” increased by the decades it takes to get a plant approved, from a regulatory standpoint.
All of our energy is subsidized- all of it.
Oil? Aside from the external costs, we keep a carrier group ready for the strait of Hormuz, 24/7/365

Cars aren’t run on coal and nobody is pushing to eliminate all electrical production except by coal. It’s a false equivalency other than the fact that subsidies do exist in the world. Let us know when you find gas stations being subsidized for the cost of their gas pumps or people being told they can’t buy new homes that are heated by gas or oil, only electric heat. That’s the equivalent of what is being done with electric cars.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Back to the OP topic -

What's the real underlying objection to running unleaded fuel?

We know that it exists and can be produced.
We know that it can be safely run in every GA piston plane in the US.
We know that it runs cleaner than 100LL, and likely reduces maintenance costs and plug fouling.
We know that it allows the use of more advanced closed-loop engine control systems.

Aside from the legitimate question over state government mandates vs. federal, what's the real problem?

 

[bflynn]

How does this interact with the FAA reauthorizations, which says airports cannot ban the sale of avgas while there is not an approved alternative?

For me, this is a non-starter because federal supremacy overrides kalifornia law.

 

[StraightnLevel]

How does this interact with the FAA reauthorizations, which says airports cannot ban the sale of avgas while there is not an approved alternative?

There is an approved alternative. The STC is available today for any and all FAA-certified piston aircraft.

 

[AV8R_87]

It seems (to me) that refiners and distributors don't want to go with GAMI's formula, or even Swift's. Is it that they don't want to pay their licensing fees, or is it that the profit margins are lower? No idea.

Also, the end user will always look at the price he pays at the pump. There is an airport that I fly to every now and then which has 100LL and 94UL available. 94UL needs an STC and is more expensive. I change my oil, clean my plugs and lean properly, so lead deposits aren't a big issue. Why should I pay more?

 

[Domenick]

...Until then, the green alternative is solar/wind/hydro, all of which are in production and, happily, making some of the cheapest power out there.

Name one new major hydro electrical project in the US. The hay-day of hydroelectric projects was in the 1930s through 1960s. Today, no major US hydroelectric plant would get past the EPA and the meanie-greenies.

 

[StraightnLevel]

It seems (to me) that refiners and distributors don't want to go with GAMI's formula, or even Swift's. Is it that they don't want to pay their licensing fees, or is it that the profit margins are lower? No idea.

Margin seems like a self-correcting problem. If 100LL is banned, price of UL will adjust to restore margin.

The same is true for licensing fees; if 100LL is banned, any fees will get rolled into the price to even out the margin.

If any of the fees are truly excessive, then a different supplier will develop a product to fill the market need at a lower price. If nobody else can do it, it's hard to make a case that the licensing fees are excessive.

What's left here is the retail price delta, right? If government wants to mandate a more expensive - but supposedly safer - product, then they can subsidize the price differential. I'd love to see some data on the relative price differential vs. the tax being charged on the fuel.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Name one new major hydro electrical project in the US. The hay-day of hydroelectric projects was in the 1930s through 1960s. Today, no major US hydroelectric plant would get past the EPA and the meanie-greenies.

A few years ago a friend of mine (former colleague) who is an environmental scientist showed me the environmental study comparison between a new natural gas turbine plant and a hydroelectric dam project. The hydro project created emissions and environmental damage that was roughly double that of the natural gas plant. Putting large land masses underwater kills off a lot of plant life, and all of it decays and emits pollutants.

Once it's in place, though, hydro is fairly innocuous.

 

[172andyou]

Name one new major hydro electrical project in the US. The hay-day of hydroelectric projects was in the 1930s through 1960s. Today, no major US hydroelectric plant would get past the EPA and the meanie-greenies.

There are definitely environmental costs to dams. But it's also true that during the heyday you point out, the vast majority of the sites best suited to making reservoirs were used. There isn't a major river in California that doesn't have at least one dam. So, yeah, there is an environmental cost, but the other side of the equation is that the environmental cost is harder to swallow given the high economic costs of the remaining unbuilt sites and their far more limited production capabilities.

 

[geezer]

Cap'n Jack said:
Don't forget the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Someone else will mention it.

I believe the earthquake and tsunami destroyed the city and killed people, the nuke plant was mostly a temporary problem. The temporary shutdowns of other reactors to asses if they might have a similar meltdown problem, and reprogram responses to earthquakes was a wise move.

Recall the bumper stickers from the days of Three Mile Island, "More people died in Kennedy's car than TMI". Nuclear is amazingly safe.

 

[172andyou]

Cap'n Jack said:
Don't forget the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Someone else will mention it.

I believe the earthquake and tsunami destroyed the city and killed people, the nuke plant was mostly a temporary problem.

The reason so much of it hasn't been rebuilt is due to the contamination. See my link on this above for a description of the current state and the estimated $700B and 40 years that it will take to recover from the meltdown.

Nuclear is amazingly safe.

Except when it melts down and destroys cities. Yes. And the only reason that doesn't happen more often is because of a firehose of money being sprayed at it. Which does prevent most disasters from ever happening, but also makes it the most expensive power out there. Or, said another way, it's not really amazing at all. It's just that if you spend enough money you can make it mostly safe enough.

Amazing, in a more true sense of the word, is that solar power is both safe *and* the cheapest form of energy out there.

 

[EdFred]

"That fee is far higher than what I would pay in gas taxes if I was driving a gasser."

Then you aren't driving very much. The gas tax I pay on this side of the lake is well into 4 figures a year. And that's on top of the 4 figures I'm paying for yearly registration.

 

[ateamer]

Back to the OP topic -

What's the real underlying objection to running unleaded fuel?

We know that it exists and can be produced.
We know that it can be safely run in every GA piston plane in the US.
We know that it runs cleaner than 100LL, and likely reduces maintenance costs and plug fouling.
We know that It allows the use of more advanced closed-loop engine control systems.

Aside from the legitimate question over state government mandates vs. federal, what's the real problem?

Violation of tradition.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So start charging EV buyers a yearly tax/fee to support building the infrastructure needed

You need to read more carefully. Like I said, I already pay an extra fee.

Also, I didn't say any of the chargers needed to be free. Those can pay for themselves quite easily.

and stop giving tax incentives for buying electric cars.

Stop giving subsidies to oil companies too, and then we'll have a conversation.

Gas powered car owners already pay their share through gas taxes and many people who live in cities don’t drive at all. Why should any of them subsidize people who want to drive only electric cars?

They shouldn't have to subsidize people who drive gas cars either.

But then you start to get into the ultra-libertarian point of view - Why should people live in cities and don't drive pay anything for roads? Why should people who live in the country pay for subways? Why should people who don't fly pay for airports? Why should people without kids pay for schools?

The answer is, to have a functioning society. The person who lives in the city gets all of the things they buy from trains and trucks, for example. That's why they need to pay for roads.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The gas tax I pay on this side of the lake is well into 4 figures a year. And that's on top of the 4 figures I'm paying for yearly registration.

You must be some kind of special case. I just looked up on your state's web site what it would cost to register my car there - $172 if it burned gas, plus $155 for being electric.

Seems it's a much more complicated formula over there, though... And your state gas taxes are about 50% higher than ours. And you pay 6% sales tax on gas (we don't have any). And your roads are still terrible because of all the overweight trucks permitted there to support the auto industry beating them to a pulp.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There is an approved alternative. The STC is available today for any and all FAA-certified piston aircraft.

But... It's an STC, and it costs money. It's not just a drop-in replacement.

The other issue is that you can't get the stuff right now... See below.

It seems (to me) that refiners and distributors don't want to go with GAMI's formula, or even Swift's. Is it that they don't want to pay their licensing fees, or is it that the profit margins are lower? No idea.

I don't think Swift has a 100-octane solution yet, do they? Their released fuel was 94.

The issue is not just one of fees. As I understand it, GAMI is being very cagey about their formula and they're trying to get traditional fuel companies to agree to a deal without showing what all goes into it. There isn't an ASTM standard for GAMI's fuel yet, and there isn't likely to be one unless they open up about it, and the traditional fuel companies want a standard.

So, you just can't get the GAMI fuel yet, and it's not clear when or if that will happen.

Also, the end user will always look at the price he pays at the pump. There is an airport that I fly to every now and then which has 100LL and 94UL available. 94UL needs an STC and is more expensive. I change my oil, clean my plugs and lean properly, so lead deposits aren't a big issue. Why should I pay more?

The other thing California is missing is that if you can't get 100LL in California, everyone is going to have to fly to AZ/NV/OR to get fuel, which means much MORE leaded fuel will be burned in California's skies as a result.

 

[PaulMillner]

Maybe you're too young to remember, but way back in 1975 catalytic converters were legally mandated on all new US cars as part of the 1970 Clean Air Act. Those cars required unleaded gas. That was 49.7 years ago......

I do recall... but introduction of unleaded was NOT a ban on leaded fuel... there was a 20 year difference between those dates.

Paul

 

[Domenick]

...Why should people live in cities and don't drive pay anything for roads?

Because their very lives depend on the food and other products that are delivered by road and other transportation modes?

 

[PaulMillner]

Maybe you know - is the legislative action a compromise given the inclination of several communities to seek immediate bans?

Yes, it's a compromise. The initial bill banned leaded avgas in communities over ~300,000 people starting in a couple years. The 2031 date was considered harmonization with EPA/FAA's 2030 target.

Paul

 

[PaulMillner]

GAMI is being very cagey about their formula

Their specification is on their website... that's not very cagey...

they're trying to get traditional fuel companies to agree to a deal without showing what all goes into it.

That's not accurate. Most of the avgas producers have read the spec and had discussions with GAMI.

There isn't an ASTM standard for GAMI's fuel yet

Nor is one required, both per FAA and federal regulation.

you just can't get the GAMI fuel yet, and it's not clear when or if that will happen.

Yes, that was a surprise, despite contractual agreements. Public interest litigation is in progress as a result of that restraint of trade. And an independent supply chain is being assembled. Fingers crossed for 2024.

Paul

 

[SoonerAviator]

You need to read more carefully. Like I said, I already pay an extra fee.

Also, I didn't say any of the chargers needed to be free. Those can pay for themselves quite easily.

Stop giving subsidies to oil companies too, and then we'll have a conversation.

They shouldn't have to subsidize people who drive gas cars either.

But then you start to get into the ultra-libertarian point of view - Why should people live in cities and don't drive pay anything for roads? Why should people who live in the country pay for subways? Why should people who don't fly pay for airports? Why should people without kids pay for schools?

The answer is, to have a functioning society. The person who lives in the city gets all of the things they buy from trains and trucks, for example. That's why they need to pay for roads.

Just for reference, what O&G subsidies are we talking about?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Just for reference, what O&G subsidies are we talking about?

I suppose he is referring to those mentioned in this web site:

Fact Sheet | Proposals to Reduce Fossil Fuel Subsidies (January 2024) | White Papers | EESI

This fact sheet discusses attempts to alter fossil fuel subsidies, including measures in the Biden-Harris Administration’s FY 2024 budget request.

www.eesi.org

The link above mentioned 3 billion in explicit subsidies, but it could be as high as 50 billion:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/biden-budget-target-us-fossil-fuel-subsidies-2023-03-09/

 

[SoonerAviator]

I suppose he is referring to those mentioned in this web site:

Fact Sheet | Proposals to Reduce Fossil Fuel Subsidies (January 2024) | White Papers | EESI

This fact sheet discusses attempts to alter fossil fuel subsidies, including measures in the Biden-Harris Administration’s FY 2024 budget request.

www.eesi.org

The link above mentioned 3 billion in explicit subsidies, but it could be as high as 50 billion:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/biden-budget-target-us-fossil-fuel-subsidies-2023-03-09/

Pretty much what I figured. The depletion/depreciation of wells that is applicable to all mining industries is being called an oil&gas "subsidy". It's not specific to oil & gas extraction at all, but it does work as a tax credit (reduction in taxable income) just like accelerated depreciation on fixed assets in manufacturing. That makes up the bulk of those claims of subsidies. The other numbers were mostly made-up nonsense with impact to the environment /population effect due to pollution, etc where they are applying random financial costs to it. Not exactly scientific in their methodology.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Pretty much what I figured. The depletion/depreciation of wells that is applicable to all mining industries is being called an oil&gas "subsidy". It's not specific to oil & gas extraction at all, but it does work as a tax credit (reduction in taxable income) just like accelerated depreciation on fixed assets in manufacturing. That makes up the bulk of those claims of subsidies. The other numbers were mostly made-up nonsense with impact to the environment /population effect due to pollution, etc where they are applying random financial costs to it. Not exactly scientific in their methodology.

I'm pretty sure there is more than that- see the second link. You picked an indirect subsidy which can be argued by politicians, but have no good numbers behind either side. That's why I posted that link- people for and against subsidies will make bogus claims. I'm ok with listing the 3 billion as direct subsidies. The second link probably makes more sense:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/biden-budget-target-us-fossil-fuel-subsidies-2023-03-09/

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Because their very lives depend on the food and other products that are delivered by road and other transportation modes?

Exactly!

(You did read my entire post, right?)

Their specification is on their website... that's not very cagey...


That's not accurate. Most of the avgas producers have read the spec and had discussions with GAMI.

Maybe I'm presenting it somewhat incorrectly, but this is based on a discussion with someone in the traditional aviation fuel business, and they said that with the way GAMI is trying to play the game, nobody is going to make their fuel.

 

[EdFred]

and they said that with the way GAMI is trying to play the game, nobody is going to make their fuel.

Not surprising. ******* company. Buys out Osborne for PA24/30 STC'd tip tanks, and then shelves them. Can't even get parts. Also where you would buy the tanks and get the STC for GW increase, at the same time and no extra cost from Osborne, now they **** you over by charging you for the STC separately. Always love it when a company asks how far up your ass would you like this cactus. If 100LL does go away and we are stuck with these ****ers, there's no way I'm paying for the STC. I hope the whole company dies in a fire.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Not surprising. ******* company. Buys out Osborne for PA24/30 STC'd tip tanks, and then shelves them. Can't even get parts. Also where you would buy the tanks and get the STC for GW increase, at the same time and no extra cost from Osborne, now they **** you over by charging you for the STC separately. Always love it when a company asks how far up your ass would you like this cactus. If 100LL does go away and we are stuck with these ****ers, there's no way I'm paying for the STC. I hope the whole company dies in a fire.

Well that does suck.

Maybe you should buy it back from 'em.

Wasn't there a second company that also could do tip tanks?

 

[MackMooney]

Well that does suck.

Maybe you should buy it back from 'em.

Wasn't there a second company that also could do tip tanks?

so unfortunately, this is exactly what will happen, private equity will give gami a few BILLION for the stc, then laugh and giggle while they stick it to us, "RICH", airplane flying shmucks.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

so unfortunately, this is exactly what will happen, private equity will give gami a few BILLION for the stc, then laugh and giggle while they stick it to us, "RICH", airplane flying shmucks.

Private equity ruins everything.

 

[PaulMillner]

nobody is going to make their fuel.

Hmmm. Vitol already made 1.3 million gallons. And majors are in discussions to make more.

Paul

 

[bflynn]

There is an approved alternative. The STC is available today for any and all FAA-certified piston aircraft.

That doesn't mean the fuel is available.

 

[bflynn]

There a difference between saying "new cars must have new equipment" and "gas stations can no longer sell gas".

 

[bflynn]

I'm not suggesting it's comparable, exactly the opposite. Comparing CC mandates to 100LL mandates are not the same.

 

[Witmo]