Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RScott

Well Known Member
And you thought 100LL was safe! It's not just an Oregon problem any more, Bucky.

A petition to the EPA by Friends of the Earth to limit lead emissions from aircraft:
Federal Register, Nov. 16.,

SUMMARY: Friends of the Earth has filed a petition with EPA, requesting
that EPA find pursuant to section 231 of the Clean Air Act that lead
emissions from general aviation aircraft cause or contribute to air
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare and that EPA propose emissions standards for lead from
general aviation aircraft. Alternatively, Friends of the Earth requests
that EPA commence a study and investigation of the health and
environmental impacts of lead emissions from general aviation aircraft,
if EPA believes that insufficient information exists to make such a
finding. The petition submitted by Friends of the Earth explains their
view that lead emissions from general aviation aircraft endanger the
public health and welfare, creating a duty for the EPA to propose
emission standards. EPA invites information and comments from all
interested parties on the issues raised by this petition.

See:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2007/November/Day-16/a22456.htm

You may think that Friends of the Earth are a bunch of crackpots, but they have enough support to have a bunch of lawyers working their side, and we can't just write them off as nut cases. These are serious folks we are dealing with.

Richard Scott
RV9A Fuselage
EAA Chapter 902
 
Last edited:
I don't see those two positions as being mutually exclusive - plenty of crackpots have money, and anyone with money can buy, er, hire a lawyer.

Interestingly, most GA engines can run just fine on ethanol (albeit with a shorter range). Flying on Ethanol. Cost is only around $2 / gallon not counting the GA fuel tax, although we'll all have to tote our own until the FBOs purge the 100LL tanks. Net-net we should be able to fly further for the same dollars, even accounting for higher fuel tax (more gallons times tax/gallon).

All we in the aviation community really need to do is stall these idiots a little longer, and the issues will become irrelevant.

Our best hope for a savior will come when the super-geniuses figure out energy storage better than gasoline in terms of weight and space.
Carbon Nanotube Capacitors may make electric aircraft not only practical but cheaper, simpler, and more reliable within the coming decade. Bye-bye turbochargers - hello 800 hp multi-engine Lancair IVP (etc.).


RScott said:
And you thought 100LL was safe! It's not just an Oregon problem any more, Bucky.

A petition to the EPA by Friends of the Earth to limit lead emissions from aircraft:
Federal Register, Nov. 16.,

SUMMARY: Friends of the Earth has filed a petition with EPA, requesting
that EPA find pursuant to section 231 of the Clean Air Act that lead
emissions from general aviation aircraft cause or contribute to air
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare and that EPA propose emissions standards for lead from
general aviation aircraft. Alternatively, Friends of the Earth requests
that EPA commence a study and investigation of the health and
environmental impacts of lead emissions from general aviation aircraft,
if EPA believes that insufficient information exists to make such a
finding. The petition submitted by Friends of the Earth explains their
view that lead emissions from general aviation aircraft endanger the
public health and welfare, creating a duty for the EPA to propose
emission standards. EPA invites information and comments from all
interested parties on the issues raised by this petition.

See:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2007/November/Day-16/a22456.htm

You may think that Friends of the Earth are a bunch of crackpots, but they have enough support to have a bunch of lawyers working their side, and we can't just write them off as nut cases. These are serious folks we are dealing with.

Richard Scott
RV9A Fuselage
EAA Chapter 902
Click to expand...
 
Ron Lee said:
When those people live in shelters they build themselves or live in caves, walk or ride bikes everywhere and grow their own food then they may be able to say something. Until then I am tired of hearing about "climate change" and other nonsense.

Maybe we can transport those folks back about 13,000 years to the northern US and see if they want "climate change."
Click to expand...

Ron, maybe you should actually read the post. What does the petition have to do with climate change? It's about airborne lead emissions, not global warming. The petition doesn't say "we want GA to stop burning fuel." It says they want the EPA to look into how much lead is being put into the air.
 
Getting the lead out.

tim.randles said:
Ron, maybe you should actually read the post. What does the petition have to do with climate change? It's about airborne lead emissions, not global warming. The petition doesn't say "we want GA to stop burning fuel." It says they want the EPA to look into how much lead is being put into the air.
Click to expand...

It is interesting that the 99 point something percent of the gasoline consumed in the US is now without lead. When lead removal was proposed for auto fuel there was lot of hand wringing and name calling too. But now people forget that those changes are why their cars need much less attention. Never mind what it did for air quality. I find it difficult to get upset over a push to finish the job. A petition to the EPA is a rational way to have the issue considered. Guess that makes me a "kook." So be it.

John Clark, ATP CFI
Environmental Kook
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Don't just write these people off as kooks, they know what they are doing and how to work the system.

This is serious.

I used to manage the timber on the Bull Run watershed, which supplies water for the City of Portland. "Kooks" rallied their troops and scared the common folks about logging in the watershed and the Forest Service put forth a wimpy defense even though 30+ years of monitoring water quality showed no impact of logging. That's right, zero impact. But intuitively it would seem there should be an impact. The "Kooks" and "tree huggers" won even though they presented no evidence of a problem, and there is now no more logging of timber in the Bull Run, the most productive forest in the Oregon Cascades, where we could produce spotted owl habitat in 80, not 200 years. The area is closed to public access, so you can't go there to fish, hunt, camp. Roads, which were maintained by logging, have gone to pot, so if a fire gets started, firefighters will have poor access and they will have to dump thousands of gallons of retardant from the air.

Logic and good sense doesn't always win out. These folks are organized & have money behind them--think movie stars.

Aviation needs to get it's act together.

Richard Scott
RV-9A Fuselage
 
Our act...

RScott said:
Aviation needs to get it's act together.

Richard Scott
RV-9A Fuselage
Click to expand...

Exactly. The petition to the EPA may prove to be what we needed to get out of the 1930s mind set and find some answers. I'm sure that this is going to cause some heartburn, but if we present a unified front while staying open-minded it could be a win-win conclusion. Did everyone pay their AOPA dues?

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
It happens to be a fact that tetraethyl lead is one of the most toxic compounds around; the handwriting has been on the wall for years now. :(

If I had a carburetted air cooled engine, Id also be very concerned about sky-high VOC and NOX emissions... and that related catalytic converter and annual testing requirements are probably in our future. :eek:
 
So what it boils down to is making the engine purchase before all these rules go into effect so they can be grandfathered in. Change is inevitable, but not necessarily bad, and with organizations like AOPA and EAA acting to unite our voices in opposition, we won't get completely left out in the cold.

I have no problem flying over vast untouched acres of wilderness and natural majesty. It's much more pleasant than feedlots, strip malls, and warehouses, and for a lot of that, we have the treehuggers to thank. But maybe my opinion of treehuggers is a little biased; I married one.
 
John Clark said:
It is interesting that the 99 point something percent of the gasoline consumed in the US is now without lead. When lead removal was proposed for auto fuel there was lot of hand wringing and name calling too. But now people forget that those changes are why their cars need much less attention. Never mind what it did for air quality.
Click to expand...
Since the FOE petition only addressed lead, I'll leave the global warming debate to Al Gore and others.

Our burning leaded avgas has impacts on the environment and individual people. Air emissions, more than wastewater or solid waste, impacts other people and cannot be controlled once released. If we are one of the major sources of lead emissions, we will get scrutiny. Since the news of the petition first came out a week ago, I've been trying to figure out where we sit in terms of lead emissions.

Consider that 100LL has an average of about 1 g per gallon (2 g/gal is the max spec for 100LL). In 2006, US DOE estimates 235,790,000 gal of Avgas were sold, vs over 600 times that volume in on-road car gasoline. That 235.8 million gallons contained 520,500 lb (260 ton) of lead.

EPA reports emissions data in the "Toxic Release Inventory" or TRI, and is applicable only to larger point sources like smelters - smaller "non-point" sources like aircraft are not included. The 2002 - 2004 TRIs reported about 800,000 lb of lead and lead compounds to the atmosphere, per year. The 2005 TRI has 4.24 million poinds of lead going to the atmosphere, but I suspect this is a data error - it's quite a jump from previous years and due entirely to a single source (an electronics product manufacturing company; presumably this is lead solder).

So, if we believe the 2002-4 data, aviation emits more than half the amount emitted by industrial activity in the US. This suggests that we are a significant source of total US lead emissions to the atmosphere. As heavy manufacturing continues to migrate away from the US, point-source emissions will decrease. Thus, GA's share of total US lead emissions to air will increase.

It is a public decision as to whether this is important or not in terms of health impacts, but we clearly are a large fraction of the country's lead emissions.

TODR
 
rtry9a said:
It happens to be a fact that tetraethyl lead is one of the most toxic compounds around; the handwriting has been on the wall for years now. :(

If I had a carburetted air cooled engine, Id also be very concerned about sky-high VOC and NOX emissions... and that related catalytic converter and annual testing requirements are probably in our future. :eek:
Click to expand...
First, TEL is converted into lead and lead oxide in the combustion process. The concerns about TEL are all upstream of our aircraft, and there are plenty of lovely items in gasoline besides TEL (ummm, benzene...)

The second is a great point. As the US (and other countries) require more and more controls and apply them to smaller and smaller sources to reduce emissions (e.g., gas powered leaf blowers), our uncontrolled aircraft will stand out. Industrial sources pay big bucks to retrofit emission controls, and as they all get controlled, the attention starts to get paid to smaller and smaller sources. This will, one day, include piston aircraft emissions.

TODR
 
A spec already exists for 91/96 U/L and as another said, it is available in Sweden. See: http://www.aviationfuel.org/avgas/avgas_specs.asp

I suggested to EAA & AOPA last week before I knew about the EPA petition that we needed to take the initiative on this. I suggested we might be able to go with the 91/96U/L and that when cars switched over to U/L, you could go to an auto parts store & buy a lead additive and that might be a solution for those who needed the lead or higher octane. I also pointed out that there were many planes for which 100LL doesn't work well. Here is what AOPA said:

Thank you for your additional email. We are certainly interested and looking into all possibilities, and we are very familiar with the fuel produced in Sweden mainly by Hjelmco Oil. However, our concerns are the same on this front. We need to work hard to make sure that fuel is available for ALL of our members and that no actions are taken that will make it even more expensive or add any additional problems. A very large number of aircraft with engines that would not function on a 91/96UL exist. I am not aware of any proposals/current standards that would allow for the addition of a lead additive. As for the more scientific aspects of what this entails, we leave that to the chemical and fuel engineers. We are very actively involved in all of these committees (comprised largely of engineers), and we would certainly be supportive of a standard that would allow the additive if it met the needs of the fleet.

EAA, being more supportive of grass roots aviation, had a more positive response and is working on something, but so far I don't know where they are going.

Richard Scott
RV-9A Fuselage
 
Talk about penny wise and pound foolish.

Don't get me wrong, while I believe environmental protection is important, I think these folks are barking up the wrong tree (more on that later). While the EPA goes about it's business obliterating 100LL, China and India will continue desimating their side of the pond and selling your children leaded Barbies. The pollution being generated on that side of the world will make whatever emmissions are being generated by 100LL look like child's play (pun intended).

Now, regading barking up the wrong tree: I'm a recent transplant out of California. For about a year now, a band of (quite literally) tree huggers have been living atop trees in Berkeley to prevent the university from cutting them down to make room for a sports complex. Just the other day they gathered around one of the trees and sang happy birthday to it. Now, I'm not saying that's kooky ... actually, I am. I know it's a stereotype, but then again we live in a world where it's all about perception.

Anyway, rant over. Long live 100LL ... or not.
 
If I had a carburetted air cooled engine, Id also be very concerned about sky-high VOC and NOX emissions... and that related catalytic converter and annual testing requirements are probably in our future.

Okay rotary 9...had to go there.....

The rotary is a FILTHY engine, it is nataurally so inneficient at converting combustion to energy that it litterally PUKES unburned and partialy burned hydrocarbons into the air.

A little cleaner with a turbo...but the carbed/aircooled engine has nothing to do with it.

Although you have given an excellent example of the danger of enthusiastic, ill informed, and ignorant partisantship, and its ability to side track just about any discussion.
 
Conversion?

If the auto industry converted to unleaded 20 years ago, why can't the aviation industry? As I understand it, lead has 2 desirable effects. Firstly, it is anti-knock and allows higher compression ratios. Secondly it acts as a lubricant for the valves. Unleaded engines just need lower compression ratios and harder valve seats. Since there are engines out there running Mogas, it can't be beyond the wit of Lycoming et al to come up with the necessary mods on new engines. Older engines will have an issue but could probably be modded at the next overhaul.

As for China and India, just be careful criticizing countries who are trying to drag themselves into the 21st century. Their per capita energy use is still a fraction of the US. 200 years ago, Europe and the US were decimating forests and wiping out buffalo........... There are limited supplies of fossil fuels and we do not have the God-given right to them.
 
rtry9a said:
If I had a carburetted air cooled engine, Id also be very concerned about sky-high VOC and NOX emissions... and that related catalytic converter and annual testing requirements are probably in our future. :eek:
Click to expand...

I'm going to petition the EPA, and even the FAA; to not allow those noisy high revving Mazda's over my house. :D (kind of a private joke :))

L.Adamson --- under the pattern at U42
 
My guess is that there will be an electric powered RV flying with in 6 years, probably sooner. By 2020, IMHO, there will be over 1000 electric power experimentals flying. With advancements in battery technology I think fossil powered vehicles will be reduced significantly. I think we should use nuke power to power these batteries.
The advanced battery will change airplane design. The weight of the batteries can be displaced all over the plane. When you burn electrical energy the mass of the batteries doesn't change keeping you C.G. identical to the way you took off. This is the future. Just think how quiet a trip will be on electrical power.
 
Use the tree-huggers

The LAST thing anyone would call me is a tree hugger.

But leaded gas is a whole other thing. Do you realize that today, 30 years AFTER they took the lead out of car gas, any child born in America starts out with 350 times more lead in their system than a child born in the 20's? The problem with lead is that our bodies have no mechanism for removing it. You have more lead in your system now than you did the day the last drop of Ethyl was pumped.

Lead is a powerful neurotoxin. It makes humans stupid and mean. Is it a complete coincidencee that American society in general has become so much stupider and meaner in the last 50 years?

To bring the argument back to our own hangars, unless you fly a race plane, you're paying about $1/gallon more for an additive that's actually detrimental to your engine (and your brain!). Lead fouls our plugs, sticks our valves, and forces 25-hour $5/qt oil changes. The only reason it's still there is because in the 70's when 100LL was created, a large number of piston-powered commercial operations were still in service that needed it. Today those guys are all flying turbines, and we now pay an extra buck a gallon so the occasional million-dollar warbird or Piper Malibu won't be inconvenienced.

Much as I detest the socialist agenda of the "green" movement, I'll use the tree-huggers if that's what it takes to get an unleaded alternative to 100LL.
 
Ironflight said:
.....I am not interested in having my 100LL go away, and frankly, I am still reading the scientific evidence on climate change so that I can form an educated opinion.....
Click to expand...

Paul,

I bought this course from the Teach Company a while back -

http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=1219&pc=Science and Mathematics

At the moment it is out on loan to a friend. When it comes back, I would be happy to send it to you for a couple weeks. I thought it was excellent.
 
David-aviator said:
Paul,

I bought this course from the Teach Company a while back -

http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=1219&pc=Science and Mathematics

At the moment it is out on loan to a friend. When it comes back, I would be happy to send it to you for a couple weeks. I thought it was excellent.
Click to expand...

Thanks David, but I've already got access to more data than I have time to look at....being engaged to a scientist who's curretnly working climate change issues for her government agency....;)

Paul
 
Global Warming or Climate Change

Ironflight said:
Thanks David, but I've already got access to more data than I have time to look at....being engaged to a scientist who's curretnly working climate change issues for her government agency....;)

Paul
Click to expand...

Interesting Paul. It would be interesting to get Louis's take on the folowing article. It is somewhat of a long read but makes me think and more than anything, it raises several questions. Not trying to stir the pot or convince anybody of my views, just thought I'd throw this out.

Here's a link http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/070313goodprint.html
 
I have been flying for over five years on 87 octane pump gas that has no ethanol. Conventional wisdom is my engine should have grenaded a couple hundred hours ago. Reality proves otherwise! Since July I have only filled up once with 100LL. Recently changed my oil and the filter was the cleanest I've ever seen it and my oil analysis has come back just normal.

Personally I welcome the day when TEL becomes a thing of the past. We currently have way, way, way too much lead in 100LL. Its poisonous. It adds expense to our fuel.

For a little background on the old wives tales regarding lead, read John Deakin's article: http://www.warmkessel.com/jr/flying/td/jd/55.jsp
 
paul330 said:
As for China and India, just be careful criticizing countries who are trying to drag themselves into the 21st century. Their per capita energy use is still a fraction of the US. 200 years ago, Europe and the US were decimating forests and wiping out buffalo........... There are limited supplies of fossil fuels and we do not have the God-given right to them.
Click to expand...

All probably true and irrelevant. It doesn't negate my original point that people are focusing on the minow and ignoring the 2000 pound shark that's about to bite their a$$. General aviation could do everything right from here on out and it's still going to be but a pimple on a flea's butt compared to the other sources of polution.

By the way, I'm not enamored of 100LL. It could disapear tomorrow for all I care. In fact, the sooner the better that way I can buy the next best engine instead of a very expensive paper weight.

There is something curious to the way you phrase that though: on a per-capita basis they may be consuming less energy, the problem is that there are way more capitas.
 
wasnt lead an additive back in the day before free floating or rotating valves as we have today . As far as treehuggers go,they threw a fit when our power utility was trying to trim trees away from power lines this summer. The huggers claim it was terrible to cut trees because of interference with powerlines. The city council stopped the trimming. Now as I am running a GAS generator for the 4th day because the ice storm brought down trees on power lines you can guess where I stand
 
Now we get to the meat of it

"This may hurt, but do we really have to fly around behind a 200+ HP engine when 180 or less would do? Do we really have to make as much noise as we do operating without mufflers? Do we really need 100LL fuel to enjoy flight? All this stuff is ammunition for extremists who would end what we do forever is they could." (David's comments)

The idea that someone will tell me that 200 HP is too much and I should get by with 180 HP or 150 HP is unAmerican. Pure and simple. Too many people want to butt in where they don't belong. Let them crawl under a rock and then they can be self-righteous about how great they are. Or they could do the right thing and reduce their carbon footprint (laughable concept) 100%.

If someone comes up with an alternative to 100LL that costs me nothing to use and does not harm my engine I will use it.

As for "climate change" it has done it since the beginning of time. When I was in high school there were laments or global cooling and an ice age. Did not happen. It is all quack science folks.

Now I am planning to increase my carbon footprint and go fly somewhere fun. Guess what? ZERO guilt.
 
michwilkers said:
..... hopefully you can get a ride on the ski equipped C-130, it's a great experience and burns plenty of jet fuel).
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your experience as research scientist on Greenland. That place is interesting.

I once had a chance to hop a ride in a C-130 supply run to the radar sites on top of the snow pack. As I recall, the landing site was some 7-8 thousand feet above sea level. Do you know if those radar sites are still operational and being supplied with 130's today?
 
He mentions solar events in one lecture but I think the idea has not received much attention because it does not have broad peer acceptance. OK, one can go off and accept an idea as important but overall data suggests it is not a prime mover in what is happening today.

I understand that it has not recieved much attention, but that is because a POLICY CHOICE has been made not to fund the study of such influence. The policy decision was made by the IPCC. It seems backward to me because...well....the Sun is this big fireball nuclear fusion device thingy...that gives the earth all its heat. So, it seems to me that there is every reason, in any statistical study, to understand, and control for the influence of solar cycles. Again, if you want to turn correlation (more appropriately co-variance) into causation, you do so by testing and eliminating all other possible explanations.

As this thread has been going on, I have wondered to myself how much work and money it would be to pull my perfectly balanced 9 to 1 pistons ouot and have lycon whip up a set of 7.5 or 8 to ones, so that I could run a 91 octane zero lead fuel.

I am mainly irritated by knee jerk populist rhetoric. I do not dispute that with sufficient octane, our engines would run much longer and cleaner without lead. My previous activities of more than a decade were racing, and being a general car guy. The verdict is pretty much in that ethanol aside, the switch to zero lead fuels has been good for car engines in every maintenance respect. So, I am thinking that since I know man many O-320's will go 2500, 3000 hours on 100LL, what could I get out of my engine with zero lead fuel?

I also wonder if switching to a more universal fuel base would lower costs. I am opposed to ethanol, simply because it does hurt fuel economy, and I am worried about a myriad of fuel system related headaches. Plus, given current technology, we are using food sources to produce motor fuel, which seems unwise to me.
 
Yes, and the other thing the warmers don't want to talk about is the fact that water vapor is actually the chief gas responsible for earth's greenhouse. There is ten times as much H2O as CO2 in the atmosphere, and it is 2.5 times as potent a molecule. Any time someone (like Al Gore) feels the need to declare that "everybody knows" something, watch out. The consensus is nearly always wrong.

But what the heck does global warming have to do with lead in our Avgas? Is someone saying that I must be a "warmer" if I object to paying an extra $1/gallon for an additive that hurts my engine?

I say use the enviro-wackos, if that's what it takes to get rid of leaded avgas. They've got clout and money and their party is in power at the moment.

If the government mandates the removal of lead, it's a lot more likely that we will still wind up with some form of avgas. Because if something isn't done, eventually the oil companies will just quit making the stuff. They don't make any money from it. And they can't start making no-lead avgas on their own because of the certification issue. But if the government mandated a new fuel, that would prompt the engine manufacturers to certify their engines to use it, and preserve the market.
 
Place witty title here...

I just want to ride the ocean of air in my RV.

Greater men and women than I have purchased for me a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness with their service and in some cases their very lives.

The chemists have already figured this out guys. We can reduce, even eliminate lead from avgas. Follow the money trail. It's always part of the equation. The cost of transitioning is a big part of why the change has not occurred. It will be a win-win in the end. Pay your EAA or AOPA dues, that's part of what it's for. That way our voice will be heard and our interest protected. We're Americans! We can do this! ;)
 
There's a pretty good article in the June 2006 issue of Kitplanes about the whole 100LL conundrum. It's explains many of the obstacles to finding a replacement for 100LL. For example: We all hear that only 30% of the airplane fleet requires 100LL to safely operate, but here's the rub, that 30% of the fleet uses 70% of the 100LL supply. The article also explains the differences between mogas and avgas, the differences in how octane rating of the two fuels are determined, how the two are refined and blended, and a whole bunch of other very interesting stuff.

You can see this article on the Kitplanes website, but it requires an E-zine subscription to view it.

Click on: Avgas 2020: The Future Fuel
 
I may be part of that 30%

I know that I fly far more than the average pilot so I use a lot of fuel. Plus with 9.5:1 pistons I may need 100 octane. It sure would be nice to read that article.
 
I'm involved in the water and minerals exploration business. The only thing I'll add to this thread is that the use of lead is (after remaining flat for several years) actually increasing, not decreasing. According to global production and metals markets, the global market for lead (annual consumption) is currently expanding by more than 10% annually and prices are up for the metal. Global consumption of lead is led by China and India. Somebody's using it...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.