[newt]

You should also factor in the costs associated with detrimental health effects as a result of prolonged lead exposure, whether that's through increased health insurance premiums, taxes, etc. These effects are well known and can affect all persons that come in contact with lead, not just to residents living near airports. You'd be fooling yourself to believe that the price of lead is only measured in terms of $ per gallon, or that it's a decision that only affects you.

Any detrimental health effects as a result of prolonged lead exposure are eclipsed by the detrimental health effects of prolonged CO exposure. If you keep exhaust gasses out of the cockpit, you won't have to worry about either of them.

For all the supposedly well known effects inflicted on residents living near airports, the airports which have actually measured it can't seem to find any. The blood lead levels of people living near RHV when they investigated were actually lower than the blood lead levels of people in the wider community.

(How much extra do you think you're paying in insurance due to lead?)

I'll switch to unleaded avgas as soon as it's available. I know it'll cost more. Fear-mongering about health and taxes doesn't weigh on the issue at all.

A lot of this discussion is based on woolly-headed thinking about the continued viability of 100LL when unleaded avgas becomes available. The piston aviation market isn't large enough for petroleum companies to want to spend money to service us twice, so there won't be a situation where the airport offers leaded + unleaded and gives you a choice. It'll just be "avgas," and if it costs more when it's unleaded you'll either pay the bill or get out of general aviation.

Innospec is the only tetraethyl lead manufacturer in the entire world. And their only market for it is piston engine GA, because TEL is illegal in any other application. What do you think will happen to the supply chain as soon as petroleum companies know they don't have to buy that product anymore? I'm being completely speculative, but I doubt 100LL has a future past the at-scale introduction of unleaded avgas.

(while we're talking about R&D costs making unleaded avgas more expensive, does anyone have an estimate for how much TEL costs per gram, and what savings we'd expect from blending avgas without it? It seems there should be some kind of offset here that nobody is talking about)

- mark

 

[stigaro]

Any detrimental health effects as a result of prolonged lead exposure are eclipsed by the detrimental health effects of prolonged CO exposure. If you keep exhaust gasses out of the cockpit, you won't have to worry about either of them.

For all the supposedly well known effects inflicted on residents living near airports, the airports which have actually measured it can't seem to find any. The blood lead levels of people living near RHV when they investigated were actually lower than the blood lead levels of people in the wider community.

(How much extra do you think you're paying in insurance due to lead?)

I'll switch to unleaded avgas as soon as it's available. I know it'll cost more. Fear-mongering about health and taxes doesn't weigh on the issue at all.

A lot of this discussion is based on woolly-headed thinking about the continued viability of 100LL when unleaded avgas becomes available. The piston aviation market isn't large enough for petroleum companies to want to spend money to service us twice, so there won't be a situation where the airport offers leaded + unleaded and gives you a choice. It'll just be "avgas," and if it costs more when it's unleaded you'll either pay the bill or get out of general aviation.

Innospec is the only tetraethyl lead manufacturer in the entire world. And their only market for it is piston engine GA, because TEL is illegal in any other application. What do you think will happen to the supply chain as soon as petroleum companies know they don't have to buy that product anymore? I'm being completely speculative, but I doubt 100LL has a future past the at-scale introduction of unleaded avgas.

(while we're talking about R&D costs making unleaded avgas more expensive, does anyone have an estimate for how much TEL costs per gram, and what savings we'd expect from blending avgas without it? It seems there should be some kind of offset here that nobody is talking about)

- mark

I'm not trying to fear monger here, I'm simply trying to explain that the effects of adding lead to fuel is not limited to the effects of lead on your engine. There are other, real costs associated with the effects of long-term lead exposure. Mental deficiency, osteoporosis, lung cancer have all been directly linked to lead exposure. A single course of treatment for lung cancer for a lead smelter worker can cost more than $100,000. I live in Canada where we have universal healthcare. We pay for these treatments out of our income taxes. Hence, increased taxes to pay for the effects of lead exposure. In the US, if you are fortunate enough to have health insurance, a portion of what you pay is for treating others for the effects of prolonged lead exposure.These costs are real and have been quantified by health economists. If you think the only cost of lead is the price of a gallon of gas, you're fooling yourself. I'm not suggesting that if we do away with lead in aviation fuel that all of a sudden you will pay less in health insurance premiums (that's not how the world generally works), but certainly there will be a quantifiable reduction in health care effects. It's was the same way with smoking. A reduction in the number of people smoking has led to a reduction in death due to lung cancer.

 

[Toobuilder]

If you think the only cost of lead is the price of a gallon of gas, you're fooling yourself.

Few will debate this. Lead is bad. But the question still on the table is “how” bad? Reminder that paying more money than economically viable for a gas is also solidly in the “bad” category. Quantifiable values are required to do a proper cost/benefit trade study for this engineer. Lead is bad, artificially inflated a gas prices are bad…. Need data to find the optimum value proposition.

 

[plehrke]

Lead is bad, artificially inflated a gas prices are bad…. Need data to find the optimum value proposition.

Bad and irrelevant data is very bad. Emotion is the absolute worse.

 

[12vaitor]

Where did you see it published that the "PAFI fuel will NOT be compatible with all piston engines"? I do not believe this is true. The stated goal of the PAFI program is fleet wide approval, and the current PAFI fuel has passed all the FAA testing to date. No other fuel has passed this FAA testing.

That is from a FAA Press Briefing, check the story in AVWEB: https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/eagle-projects-approval-for-pafi-unleaded-fuel-in-2025/

John Salak
RV12 N896HS

 

[stigaro]

Few will debate this. Lead is bad. But the question still on the table is “how” bad? Reminder that paying more money than economically viable for a gas is also solidly in the “bad” category. Quantifiable values are required to do a proper cost/benefit trade study for this engineer. Lead is bad, artificially inflated a gas prices are bad…. Need data to find the optimum value proposition.

I read a paper recently that estimated the health care costs as a result of adding lead to gasoline at $1000 per gram. There is 0.56g/liter in 100LL so that's 53 grams in a 25 gallon tank, or nearly a 1/4 lb in a typical RV-14 (for example). While $1000/g seems far-fetched, it was nevertheless an attempt to provide a quantitative estimate of the additional healthcare costs as a result of adding lead to fuel. Even if we assume this number is overestimated by 1000x, it still points out that the health effects cost an extra $2/gallon. So it seems that maybe paying an extra $2/gallon for UL fuel is a reasonable number in order to save that amount on additional health care expenditures for everyone?

 

[mstrauss]

Innospec is the only tetraethyl lead manufacturer in the entire world. And their only market for it is piston engine GA, because TEL is illegal in any other application. What do you think will happen to the supply chain as soon as petroleum companies know they don't have to buy that product anymore? I'm being completely speculative, but I doubt 100LL has a future past the at-scale introduction of unleaded avgas.

(while we're talking about R&D costs making unleaded avgas more expensive, does anyone have an estimate for how much TEL costs per gram, and what savings we'd expect from blending avgas without it? It seems there should be some kind of offset here that nobody is talking about)

- mark

It was always my understanding that one of the potential benefits of UL avgas, is the introduction of new players in the production side. Not having to deal with lead, allows petroleum producers to use the same equipment for blending as they do for other like fuels. More players, means more competition, which...

The theory as I understand it; the markup for avgas is considerable, compared to mogas. The volume is not there, but with lead out of the picture, other players may look at the margin and try for a slice of the pie.

 

[Toobuilder]

In the US, if you are fortunate enough to have health insurance, a portion of what you pay is for treating others for the effects of prolonged lead exposure

Cause and effect in action. In my state, many people have to make the choice between paying $5.50 per gallon for gas for their car “OR” paying for health insurance. Many choose to buy the gas…. $10 bucks at a time. Of course they ALSO forgo liability insurance for the POS car they are driving, or registration, or their license renewal… and they just lost their job because the new, increased minimum wage has driven their employer into an unfavorable “value proposition” and it no longer makes economic sense to stay in business…

lots of opportunity to wax poetic about being socially responsible, but this forum, fortunately, focuses on the nuts and bolts of a value proposition or trade study. It’s a cold, heartless analysis, and I find comfort in that. I’ve been breathing Avgas fumes for more than 50 years and while I’ll never proclaim to be well adjusted, it’s going to take a very compelling argument to convince me that exposure is the “end of the world” the instant unleaded a gas starts to bubble up as a viable alternative.

Is unleaded avgas a better path? Maybe. But I need to be convinced that it is quantifiably better before I’m willing to pay more for the fuel. And that means a dollar value on top of the current market norms. If you can improve or sustain the current value proposition I’m interested in the data. If someone only has “…but think of the CHILDREN….”as an argument, not interested.

Show me the numbers.

 

[Toobuilder]

I read a paper recently that estimated…

Good start, but I can dig up a paper that shows that smoking is BENEFICIAL to your heath. Need data.

 

[stigaro]

Show me the numbers.

Well, I tried to give you a number on the true cost of added lead in 100LL, but I think the only number you'll accept is $0. You are only seeing the cost on what you are paying at the pump. I'm trying to explain that you are paying more for lead in other costs that are not reflected in the cost at the pump. Hidden in one of your monthly expenses, you are paying more than $2/gallon for the effects of adding lead to your aviation fuel.

Look, I honestly don't have a dog in this race. I don't want to pay more for fuel either, but I'm also willing to concede that if the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists say that lead should be removed from aviation fuel because of the deleterious effects of lead, who am I to dispute this? And if means having to pay a little more for UL fuel as a result, then so be it. It's no different than the engineers at Van's that say their LCP's are safe to use. I have to accept that as I'm not qualified to make that determination myself.

BTW - I'd love to see that peer-reviewed paper on how cigarette smoking is beneficial to your health.

 

[Steve Iacoviello]

That is from a FAA Press Briefing, check the story in AVWEB: https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/eagle-projects-approval-for-pafi-unleaded-fuel-in-2025/

John Salak
RV12 N896HS

Thanks for the reply. The article said “may” not not be compatible, a bit different from “will”.

 

[Toobuilder]

Well, I tried to give you a number on the true cost of added lead in 100LL, but I think the only number you'll accept is $0.

Nope. I will accept a verified, scientifically correct number, but that is in very short supply these days. I also suspect you are “right”, but there is no way to sift through the radically biased views, hyperbole, propaganda and pure unfettered emotion from subjects like this to create any meaningful data. Might as well argue the nature of God. The only hope for us Neanderthal pilots/engineers is to look at discrete operating costs (fuel economy, plugs, oil change interval, TBO, etc) and determine the value proposition from that.

Social costs are WAY outside the scope of this forum (with good reason) , and essentially unverifiable.

 

[Toobuilder]

BTW - I'd love to see that peer-reviewed paper on how cigarette smoking is beneficial to your health.

My reference was in jest. You are aware that smoking was promoted (and accepted) as a “health benefit” at one point in our history, right? Same with Cocaine usage, and PCP, and Herion…

Point is, it is very easy to find “credible” papers, estimates, projections, or studies to support or disprove ANY argument - but those are rarely “data”.

 

[Toobuilder]

if the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists say that lead should be removed from aviation fuel because of the deleterious effects of lead, who am I to dispute this?

Not sure who you are, but I consider myself a reasonably intelligent, highly cynical, and accomplished critical thinker. My first thought when presented with data like this is “what is their angle?”

you are willing to pay ”a little” more for unleaded to reap the benefits. Me too. But I need to see the math that defines the discrete amount of “a little” and compare it to the discrete amount of “the benefit”. Like on an accountants balance sheet, if I can show a positive value, I’m in. If the balance is negative, I’m not.

 

[stigaro]

My reference was in jest. You are aware that smoking was promoted (and accepted) as a “health benefit” at one point in our history, right? Same with Cocaine usage, and PCP, and Herion…

Point is, it is very easy to find “credible” papers, estimates, projections, or studies to support or disprove ANY argument - but those are rarely “data”.

I'm relieved to hear you say this

I am a scientist (PhD physicist) that works in healthcare. I see people every day that suffer from health problems as a result of poor decisions that were made either by them or others. I work alongside many, many scientists that study these outcomes and associate them with a quantifiable cost, no different than what engineers do with cold, hard objects. At the end of the day, it's statistics and can be quantified.

 

[Toobuilder]

I am a scientist (PhD physicist) that works in healthcare.

Then you are in a unique position to isolate the effects of 100ll use from all the other toxins in our world and convert that to a discrete cost that the average knuckle dragger pilot can understand, and therefore create a compelling value proposition that will smooth the transition to paying more for UL avgas. I eagerly await the data with checkbook in hand.

Just keep in mind that “better” does not justify “more” by itself. We need to compare “how much” better with “how much” more to be able to do the value proposition. If it costs me $5 bucks in fuel to save $4.99 in other costs, that’s still an unfavorable value proposition. Thats how Vegas works - not a good financial proposition for the consumer, but GREAT for the casinos!

 

[airguy]

Good start, but I can dig up a paper that shows that smoking is BENEFICIAL to your heath. Need data.

Published in the last 50 years? I think I would have to see that....

 

[Carl Froehlich]

I do not want to dip my toe into the health aspects of 100LL discussion. I do suggest we are missing details on the cost aspect.

I think we can all agree that running our engines on UL fuel is better for the engine. But consider:
- 100LL is a very small market so little incentive for competition.
- I agree with the other comments that once 100UL is available, the EPA/FAA will ban 100LL production. This will be regardless of fuel cost because the regulators do not worry about such things (even though federal law requires cost impact to be addressed). It not like it is the regulators’ money….
- 100LL has various regulations regarding shipping and storage. For example a tanker truck of 100LL cannot be use for UL fuel unless “decontaminated”.
- We have been told that 100UL can be produced by “any” fuel distributor.
- No where do I see analysis of the cost savings associated with no longer needing to meet the 100LL regulations.

What I don’t know is the true cost to produce 100UL and associated distribution other than the press releases that it will be well over $1 more than 100LL. We have also been told that “any” refinery can produce 100UL, so this eliminates the to clean up after leaded fuel or the need to have a 100LL only line, as well as provide competition between suppliers. It seems to me there is significant opportunity to reduce production cost and pass those saving on to the consumer (us) while still maintaining a good profit margin.

In other words I would like to see the data as to why 100UL will cost more than 100LL to the end user. From that we can make our own value determination.

We are already pricing many would be pilots out of GA. Driving up the cost more will only accelerate the GA death spiral.

Carl

 

[RV7A Flyer]

Thanks for the reply. The article said “may” not not be compatible, a bit different from “will”.

Yep...here's what the article actually says:

the vast majority of aircraft engines, including those made by Continental, Lycoming and Rotax, the transition will be seamless. But he said for some of the 143 other makes of engines making up 9% on the FAA registry there “may have to be modifications” to the engines or operating procedures.

 

[Jjackh10]

I read a paper recently that estimated the health care costs as a result of adding lead to gasoline at $1000 per gram. There is 0.56g/liter in 100LL so that's 53 grams in a 25 gallon tank, or nearly a 1/4 lb in a typical RV-14 (for example). While $1000/g seems far-fetched, it was nevertheless an attempt to provide a quantitative estimate of the additional healthcare costs as a result of adding lead to fuel. Even if we assume this number is overestimated by 1000x, it still points out that the health effects cost an extra $2/gallon. So it seems that maybe paying an extra $2/gallon for UL fuel is a reasonable number in order to save that amount on additional health care expenditures for everyone?

I'd love to know who wrote that paper. It doesn't take a ton of study to know those figures are completely made up. If they were correct it would show up in the testing done on residents near airports. Simple blood tests would show substantial differences in lead levels between aviators and the general public. As I stated before I've had years around aviation and leaded race fuels. I've also spent many years working in a precious metals smelter with very high levels of lead. That work included annual testing for heavy metals in my blood and that of all other co-workers. None of us showed any difference to the average person.

As an aside note if y'all don't like 100LL don't run it. For those of you not concerned with cost VP's C10 is non oxygenated and unleaded. With proper cooling and mixture control it will run fine. And at the bargain price of $23.40 a gallon. For the more budget conscious, make sure there's no rubber in your fuel system and drop your compression a bit and run pump gas. There are also options with EFI that fall somewhere in between as far as cost and performance. I really don't understand the fuss.

 

[N8DAV8R]

For all the supposedly well known effects inflicted on residents living near airports, the airports which have actually measured it can't seem to find any. The blood lead levels of people living near RHV when they investigated were actually lower than the blood lead levels of people in the wider community.

Hm. Not so sure about that.

Leaded aviation gasoline exposure risk and child blood lead levels

Abstract. Lead-formulated aviation gasoline (avgas) is the primary source of lead emissions in the United States today, consumed by over 170,000 piston-eng

academic.oup.com

 

[RV7A Flyer]

Hm. Not so sure about that.

Leaded aviation gasoline exposure risk and child blood lead levels

Abstract. Lead-formulated aviation gasoline (avgas) is the primary source of lead emissions in the United States today, consumed by over 170,000 piston-eng

academic.oup.com

Now you've done it. You're submitting actual science from the eggheads at the NAS. Tsk tsk. /s

 

[Clostermann]

The PAFI/EAGLE announcement that Lyondell/Basell/VP Racing 100UL is expected to be approved by the end of 2025 was interesting as that fuel will NOT be compatible with all piston engines in the fleet. Leave it to the government to fix a problem in the future with a less optimal solution than already exists. I expect the Titan guy is correct, this is a problem that will require a political fix (taxes, subsidies, laws, regs) at the end of the day.

John Salak
RV-12 N896HS

The real issue is that NO unleaded fuel is 100% "drop in" for the entire fleet since a portion of the engines, their operating manuals, or the aircraft POHs that use them were developed around 100/130 fuel and were not edited or modified for the lower octane of 100LL. Now, the unleaded fuels will likely be even lower in detonation resistance than FBO 100LL which is typically formulated to 104 MON, well above minimum D90 spec (99.6 MON). So modifications will be required regardless of what unleaded fuel is used. These mods may be mechanical (FADEC etc.) or edits to the operating manuals so the aircraft can safely fly the new fuel.

The problem with the STC'd fuels is that the ACOs rely on the manufacturer's data and have no idea what they don't know and no plan to work with OEMs to ensure their engines can handle the new fuel. PAFI is different in this regard, as it is a collaborative program between the fuel supplier, OEMS, FAA, and other stakeholders. In addition, the PAFi program requires an ASTM specifcation for the fuel, so there will be transparency about it performance and some compositional parameters relative to D910. This will guarantee that the fuel is produced to a consistent and industry approved, quality spec and that spec is proven to work in the fleet (with appropriate mods) and validated by the FAA. There is no such assurance from the ACOs.

The solution doesn't yet exist, only the illusion of a solution. This is why the distributors and other stakeholders are sitting on the fence, waiting for the other shoe to drop (i.e. PAFi to complete the evaulation). This has nothing to do with big government getting in the way of anyone. GAMI has had their STC for two years now. Vitol has produced developmental quantities of the fuel but no one has stepped forward to distribute it, despite Avfuel's initial interest. The reason is the liability risk and lack of transparency of the STC process.

 

[N8DAV8R]

Now you've done it. You're submitting actual science from the eggheads at the NAS. Tsk tsk. /s

I'm sure the problem with that data will be that it supports increased levels in children. We've already seen the comments here that they explicitly do not care about the children. They only care about comparing blood levels to those who have already been exposed for decades.

I can't really blame them, it's an expedient way to short circuit the conversation by dismissing the future population out of interest in the current costs to fly our toys.

 

[Toobuilder]

I'm sure the problem with that data will be that it supports increased levels in children.

The problem with the “data”, is that one can find equally compelling “data” that supports the polar opposite view. And after hearing that the next ice age, drought, melting polar ice, killer meteor, end of oil, or (insert world ending catastrophe here) is only “10 years away” for my entire life, I’ve grown a little suspicious of such “data”. It’s not that I refuse to believe because it doesn’t fit my particular narrative, it’s simply that the threshold for “proof” gets higher the longer that I live. It’s unfortunate that at the same time, the threshold for truth is dropping at a high rate among the various online sources.

Fortunately, VAF is a place where we can come to exchange information in a psuedo- scientific format and come away with a reasonable basis for decision making. Performance improvements, efficiency optimization, trade studies and cost/benefit analysis are the stuff that makes this a great forum. But claims need to be backed up with data, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary data. I also understand that there are plenty of people who act on instinct or “feelings” and will come to a clear decision without needing to analyze data. It takes all kinds. While I accept that reality, that’s simply not how I’m wired. I’d like to think there is room for all of us in this little world of experimental aviation.

 

[Sam Buchanan]

This thread has outlived its usefulness. Thread closed.