Leaded gas and the EPA...here it comes

Palmpilot said:
How about us renters? (We may be the majority of GA pilots, based on the number of pilots vs the number of aircraft.)
Click to expand...

Elitist aircraft renters. The Eloi of society. Rich enough to rent expensive toys on a whim. That'll probably cover it from the media's perspective.
 
kyleb said:
Elitist aircraft renters. The Eloi of society. Rich enough to rent expensive toys on a whim. That'll probably cover it from the media's perspective.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I don't recall ever hearing that perspective in the news media.
 
Snowmass said:
If TEL were in short supply the how is that I have never been unable to but 100LL? Seems like plenty of TEL based on my purchases.
Click to expand...

Perhaps "short supply" was the wrong term. There is, I believe, only one company on the planet that still produces it (at least legally). If they decide it's not profitable enough, they could stop production at any time.
 
wsuffa said:
Maybe anothe government subsidy? :eek::devil:
Click to expand...

Well, they did grease the skids for ADS-B with a few bucks. It isn't a horrible idea. Maybe a 1-year moratorium on Federal taxes on G100UL when it is rolled out? It's only $0.20/gal fed tax.
 
Joe_B1 said:
Baloney, I scrimped and saved most of my life to afford owning my own plane. I am 62 years old and drive a 19 year old truck. I am not rich!
Click to expand...

I said “statistically.”

So you’re at one end of the statistical curve. You’re one data point, not the entire curve.
 
Snowmass said:
If TEL were in short supply the how is that I have never been unable to but 100LL? Seems like plenty of TEL based on my purchases.
Click to expand...

If TEL is in short supply and so expensive, why is an unleaded alternative more expensive?
 
Salty said:
If TEL is in short supply and so expensive, why is an unleaded alternative more expensive?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that economies of scale will not become a factor until the unleaded fuels are produced and distributed in quantity.
 
Half Fast said:
I said “statistically.”

So you’re at one end of the statistical curve. You’re one data point, not the entire curve.
Click to expand...
I would argue that I am one data point more towards the middle of the curve. Not everyone flys a TBM.
 
I heard that there is a lead mine in Missouri that is highly contaminated with lead underground. The new administration's EPA is considering it to be designated a superfund clean up site.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Median would probably be a better measure of the population.
Click to expand...

You gonna explain that to the journalists? Especially the ones trying to create controversy or who have an axe to grind, 'cause they don't like airplane noise.
 
kyleb said:
You gonna explain that to the journalists?
Click to expand...
I doubt most journalists would cite it even if you effectively explained how it was a more useful metric when discussing such matters. They don't want data to conflict with the headline they wrote a story to fit, lol.
 
Tetraethyllead is horribly nasty stuff in concentrated form. TBH, I can't believe anyone will take on the liability to make it anymore, both for their workers, or for the downstream users. There is only one worldwide supplier left. It will be a good thing to be rid of it if there is a 100UL substitute. It's probably more of a hazard to pilots and line crew, and groundwater around the airport, than it is to the general public. There is little convincing evidence that airport operations significantly contribute to blood lead levels of nearby inhabitants. (The Reid Hillview "study" is a scientific and statistical mess.) However, for the safety of those that handle aircraft fuel, to protect groundwater, and to secure a supply of 100 octane avgas in the face of potentially disappearing suppliers of TEL, I'm all for a UL substitute. I would NOT be happy if 100LL is discontinued without a 100UL replacement, as it would render my engine inoperable, as it would for many other aircraft owners.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Even more meaningless is that I don't recall giving them such information, so the sample size is of some concern as well.
Click to expand...


You weren’t home when they called you, so I gave them your income and net worth info, as well as your bank account numbers. Didn’t think you’d mind.
 
Half Fast said:
You weren’t home when they called you, so I gave them your income and net worth info, as well as your bank account numbers. Didn’t think you’d mind.
Click to expand...
I hope you made me a millionaire. Nothing too outrageous like Bill Gates numbers, but something like a former US Senator who still pulls in a few hundred thousand per year for doing nothing in perpetuity. It helps AOPAs cause.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I hope you made me a millionaire. Nothing too outrageous like Bill Gates numbers, but something like a former US Senator who still pulls in a few hundred thousand per year for doing nothing in perpetuity. It helps AOPAs cause.
Click to expand...


I told them a net worth of $165M, mostly offshore, but taxable income of only 38 cents. Did I get that right?
 
Half Fast said:
I told them a net worth of $165M, mostly offshore, but taxable income of only 38 cents. Did I get that right?
Click to expand...
My Cayman Islands bank accounts can neither confirm nor deny your numbers, but I believe they fit the image I want to portray to AOPA. I can be like the Clintons and consider myself to be "dead broke" with my low level of taxable income!
 
chemgeek said:
I would NOT be happy if 100LL is discontinued without a 100UL replacement, as it would render my engine inoperable, as it would for many other aircraft owners.
Click to expand...

Breathe. That's the fallacious canard fostered by that those with a political axe to grind wrt the politics of environmental regulation, want you to worry about. 100UL may end up more expensive than 100LL; it may end up the same cost. But they won't shut down commerce (piston-dependent **flight training) over it. Which is where **our moribund (that's you and me) subset of the participant membership belongs to.

See, you gotta look at the macro picture. This ultimately goes back to airlines and ab initio. As long as the airlines have the labor market supply-side captured (i.e. subrogated, piston flight training financed by personally indebted, optimism-biased aspirants), your ability to put fuel into your politically irrelevant slow-flying lawnmower will continue to exist. We're mere coattail riders of that seedy-on-its-own-right part 61/141 puppy mill industry, good bad or indifferent. Heck, some of us own literal examples of lawnmowers built for-purpose for that industry in the first place (to include paying for the sins of the regulations imposed on its for-revenue counterparts, but I'll digress on that), as our way to buy into the hobby.

You want to talk about making that spam can of yours an actual lawn ornament? Let the US approve MPL for the airlines. Then watch physical piston flight training vanish like a fart in the wind. At that point we're hosed by lack of airframe vendor support (OEM, and aftermarket especially, alike), not by lack of fuel like you fear. Both 100 UL OR LL would be Eurozone+ priced by lack of economies of scale nationally at that point, but that's moot. Good night irene for most of the people on here, except for those of us able/willing to pivot to EAB and scoff the fuel toting issue, or content with flying ultralights (I don't belong to the latter, but do the former).

TEL is a red herring.
 
kyleb said:
Who's gonna fund that? The petro companies, distributors, and retailers are all for-profit enterprises.
Click to expand...

Half Fast said:
They won’t make UL cheaper, they’ll make LL more expensive.
Click to expand...

Wind turbines are very expensive for the energy they deliver over their lifespan, yet they have been erected all over the country, (making it harder to scud run at times! lol) yet somehow private business can't put them up fast enough. How does that work? Those are heavily subsidized, because it has been deemed very important by many environmentalists (and others.) Make those same people believe that 100ul is needed to save the environment and take profits away from big oil companies and you might have one solution. It doesn't even have to be true in today's environment.
(Just spit balling here)
 
SoonerAviator said:
I doubt most journalists would cite it even if you effectively explained how it was a more useful metric when discussing such matters. They don't want data to conflict with the headline they wrote a story to fit, lol.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but on the other side of the coin, I doubt most journalists would have the financial interest in the subject that some of the local politician might have.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Even more meaningless is that I don't recall giving them such information, so the sample size is of some concern as well.
Click to expand...
Maybe they did a survey that sampled a portion of the membership. Whether they followed scientific standards for proper sampling is another question.
 
chemgeek said:
Tetraethyllead is horribly nasty stuff in concentrated form. TBH, I can't believe anyone will take on the liability to make it anymore, both for their workers, or for the downstream users. There is only one worldwide supplier left. It will be a good thing to be rid of it if there is a 100UL substitute. It's probably more of a hazard to pilots and line crew, and groundwater around the airport, than it is to the general public. There is little convincing evidence that airport operations significantly contribute to blood lead levels of nearby inhabitants. (The Reid Hillview "study" is a scientific and statistical mess.) However, for the safety of those that handle aircraft fuel, to protect groundwater, and to secure a supply of 100 octane avgas in the face of potentially disappearing suppliers of TEL, I'm all for a UL substitute. I would NOT be happy if 100LL is discontinued without a 100UL replacement, as it would render my engine inoperable, as it would for many other aircraft owners.
Click to expand...
But that would make the price of my C150 go skyrocketing as it loves to burn MOGAS. Bring it on. And the uncrowded clear skies.
 
I'm still back at the step where they EPA wants to connect leaded fuel from airplanes to the poor kids that are suffering from it. What are those kids doing, grazing on the grass around the airports?
 
bflynn said:
I'm still back at the step where they EPA wants to connect leaded fuel from airplanes to the poor kids that are suffering from it. What are those kids doing, grazing on the grass around the airports?
Click to expand...


More likely siphoning gas from planes instead of cars....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top