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

StraightnLevel said:
The automotive approach won't work for GA, because the useful life of a plane is an order of magnitude longer than a car's life.

They could require that all new planes use only UL, and in about 40 years we'd still have more than half of the fleet running LL.
Click to expand...
That's only because of the cost of replacement is so eye-wateringly high.

Think of it like Cuba in the 80's. The streets were filled with 1950's US automobiles -- not because the whole country were classic car fans, but because they could not get US-sourced vehicles to replace their existing stock at a time when the US dominated the car market worldwide. So, when something on their existing car broke, they repaired it because replacement wasn't a real option. That's how you keep an older vehicle running -- you fix whatever breaks on it.
 
Catalytic converters weren't legally mandated by the 1970 clean air act, cars that could meet emissions requirements without them could, and did, burn leaded gas. I realize folks have written that catalytic converters were “mandated”, but that’s incorrect.
Millions of Honda cvcc engined accords, civics etc burned leaded gasoline through the 1981 models, I think. IMG_5577.png
 
PaulMillner said:
Hmmm. Vitol already made 1.3 million gallons. And majors are in discussions to make more.
Click to expand...
Where can I buy it?

And "discussions" are meaningless when they all lead to the result that they can't come to an agreement.

I really do hope that GAMI succeeds, gets to full production, and maybe makes that STC ultra-cheap (like $100) or free, maybe in cooperation with EAA and/or AOPA, and makes their money off the fuel instead. Ending the whole leaded fuel nonsense would take an arrow out of the quiver of GA airport opponents, as well as get rid of lead.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Where can I buy it?

And "discussions" are meaningless when they all lead to the result that they can't come to an agreement.

I really do hope that GAMI succeeds, gets to full production, and maybe makes that STC ultra-cheap (like $100) or free, maybe in cooperation with EAA and/or AOPA, and makes their money off the fuel instead. Ending the whole leaded fuel nonsense would take an arrow out of the quiver of GA airport opponents, as well as get rid of lead.
Click to expand...
Maybe the puppet masters don't want to get rid of lead. Just let the EPA sunset it, and erode a bit more of the freedoms we are afforded.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Where can I buy it?
Click to expand...
At Vitol's blend plant in Baton Rouge, 10,000 gallon quantities. For local sourcing, ask the four distributors why they're collaborating to resist distribution... note they are collectively (!) litigating in California to prevent distribution. This hasn't escaped the notice of antitrust watchdogs... more to come.
flyingcheesehead said:
And "discussions" are meaningless when they all lead to the result that they can't come to an agreement.
Click to expand...
That is not my information. But product rollout by major corporations is a painstaking process...

Paul
 
fast99 said:
A generalization, another forced change similar to battery cars. If unleaded is the best thing for aviation engines there would be no reason for the law. Everyone would buy it. Leaded fuel would be gone. The industry and individual owners should decide. After all its their life and money. Not some political hack that knows next to nothing on the subject.
Click to expand...

Yup. It's amazing that people with no skin in the game try to tell those who do what to do.

Domenick said:
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.
Click to expand...

I worked on Lower Granite Lock and Dam (the last dam in the chain that Lewiston Idaho a seaport) when I was an undergraduate student at Washington State University in the summer of 1974 and spring of 1975. Even then we figured that with the price the Bonneville Power Administration was charging for electricity that with the 6 generators running at full capacity year round (which the river flow would NOT support) it would take decades for the dam to pay for itself. Of course, they charge a bit more for the electricity that the dam generates now, but it has been almost 50 years, so...
 
Domenick said:
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.
Click to expand...

As much as some of us are quite willing to blame NIMBY pukes and enviro-nazies, it's my understanding that a big reason for no new major hydo-electric projects is that all the easy ones have already been done.
 
fast99 said:
A generalization, another forced change similar to battery cars. If unleaded is the best thing for aviation engines there would be no reason for the law. Everyone would buy it. Leaded fuel would be gone. The industry and individual owners should decide. After all its their life and money. Not some political hack that knows next to nothing on the subject.
Click to expand...
Ghery said:
Yup. It's amazing that people with no skin in the game try to tell those who do what to do.
Click to expand...
When it comes to lead, any creature on earth has some skin in the game.

But @fast99 I think it's a bit naive to think that the industry and individual owners would go anywhere with unleaded if the FAA weren't throwing money and airport opponents weren't screaming about us still putting lead in the air when everyone else quit nearly 40 years ago. 100LL is a boutique fuel sold to a tiny market and the oil industry couldn't care less if we were gone. They wouldn't even notice. They're certainly not going to fund a huge R&D effort to create a viable unleaded fuel that works for all of us without getting a push of some sort (regulations, money, or both). We can say stuff about "market forces" all we want, but the market is too small to create much force, and creating a fuel that has the right properties to be able to work not only at sea level in an O-200 but also at FL250 in a TSIO-550, R-3350, or an R-4360 with an OAT of -100. It's not an easy problem to solve, and the ROI just isn't there for market forces to change much of anything in aviation for the better.

Frankly, I'd buy unleaded in a heartbeat, if I could get it. I can't burn 94UL in my 550, and G100UL is unobtanium. That doesn't mean I don't want it.

I'd also bet that the vast majority of the pilots based at C29 would favor switching their tanks over to G100UL just to give the local town supervisor who hates the airport one less thing to talk about.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
They're certainly not going to fund a huge R&D effort to create a viable unleaded fuel that works for all of us without getting a push of some sort (regulations, money, or both). We can say stuff about "market forces" all we want, but the market is too small to create much force, and creating a fuel that has the right properties to be able to work not only at sea level in an O-200 but also at FL250 in a TSIO-550, R-3350, or an R-4360 with an OAT of -100. It's not an easy problem to solve, and the ROI just isn't there for market forces to change much of anything in aviation for the better.
Click to expand...

How fortunate, then, that the problem has already been solved! All they have to do is produce it and sell it; no further R&D required.
 
GeorgeC said:
It's easier to get lead out of avgas than out of water pipes and public housing.
Click to expand...

Well I'll be... In landmark move, EPA requires removal of all U.S. lead pipes in a decade
 
GeorgeC said:
Well I'll be... In landmark move, EPA requires removal of all U.S. lead pipes in a decade
Click to expand...
Who is paying for this?

I ask as a taxpayer who owns a farm where we pay for our own well and septic systems.

a real landmark move would have been a sweeping mandate that comes with sufficient funding.
Click to expand...

Funding from whom? People (taxpayers) who have already paid to have their own plumbing replaced?
 
asicer said:
I don't suppose there's a Borge Graley from General Household Modifications Inc. that has developed a drop-in lead-free pipe replacement, is there?
Click to expand...
There is, but although it has been approved for use it is not ASTM compliant, because the ASTM standard requires a certain amount of lead content in water pipes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top