Enviromentalist suit against 100LL

Unbelievable and disturbing but not surprising! Drag strips, NASCAR and snowmobile racing are next. Perhaps the FBOs should counter sue this group for expelling CO2 and hot air contributing to climate change.:mad:
 
Michael I haven't read all 84 pages of the report and don't know how any particular law would apply but IMHO there are going to be some issues or at least challenges should be raised with regard to the Commerce Clause. It will be a cluster fart what ever happens.
 
I thought Federal Law was that leaded gasoline may not be used by vehicles operated on highways. At least that's what the placards on the few 100LL pumps I've seen as gas stations have said. (They sell it there for the snowmobiles.)

Yup, I was correct.

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lead/02.htm

Effective January 1, 1996, the Clean Air Act banned the sale of the small amount of leaded fuel that was still available in some parts of the country for use in on-road vehicles. EPA said fuel containing lead may continue to be sold for off-road uses, including aircraft, racing cars, farm equipment, and marine engines.
 
Last edited:
As far as I know, use of leaded gasoline is illegal in any vehicle in the CONUS and Hawaii. The days of 100LL have been numbered since I started flying. I think the EPA has been ignoring the law for expediency, the way the FAA has been ignoring the whole photo ID thing until recently.

I imagine that disregarding the law was done for Alaska. I doubt anyone in the Fed gives a **** about us. But there are few roads in Alaska, they need GA to make the place work.
 
As far as I know, use of leaded gasoline is illegal in any vehicle in the CONUS and Hawaii. The days of 100LL have been numbered since I started flying. I think the EPA has been ignoring the law for expediency, the way the FAA has been ignoring the whole photo ID thing until recently.

I imagine that disregarding the law was done for Alaska. I doubt anyone in the Fed gives a **** about us. But there are few roads in Alaska, they need GA to make the place work.

See my edited post. It's only for on-road vehicles.
 
Unbelievable and disturbing but not surprising! Drag strips, NASCAR and snowmobile racing are next. Perhaps the FBOs should counter sue this group for expelling CO2 and hot air contributing to climate change.:mad:

Actually NASCAR, AMA, NHRA and most racing sactioning bodies already run unleaded fuel.. NASCAR started the trend 4-5 years ago.

Ben.
 
Awesome. Lead is bad, green is good. Past time for all the Green stuff to finish off freedom. When you can't fuel your plane remember you allowed this crap because you thought it fine to force someone else to be green.
 
CA does some funny things with vehicles, air pollutants, etc. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) HATES Diesel. They created emission requirements that basically halted the sale of Diesel vehicles in this country. They get away with that because the car market in CA is so huge it tends to drive the de facto standards for the rest of the USA. CA is like the 5th largest economy in the world so they get to inflict a lot of their ideas onto other states and countries.

VW worked hard to get a 50 state Diesel emission system. It took them a couple of years and did it. Within one year of getting that system out CARB decided to increase the emission requirements even further and would effectively push VW out of the CA market. CARB has been trying to kill Diesel out right. It would not be outside of their modus operandi if they went after 100LL.
 
Unbelievable and disturbing but not surprising! Drag strips, NASCAR and snowmobile racing are next. Perhaps the FBOs should counter sue this group for expelling CO2 and hot air contributing to climate change.:mad:

I guess you could plead that under a negligence theory. Maybe an intentional tort. :)
 
I've read that levels of lead in human tissues have fallen dramatically since its exclusion from gasoline, though I am not confident in the source. I doubt there is any harm from 100LL, there isn't enough of it burned. But that just isn't how laws work.
 
Actually NASCAR, AMA, NHRA and most racing sactioning bodies already run unleaded fuel.. NASCAR started the trend 4-5 years ago.

Ben.


Actually IndyCar was one of the first to run unleaded....they got off gasoline after the '68 indy 500 and went to methanol. I can tell you that after working with that crap for 15 years it is truly bad and ethanol is no better....other than the fact that it doesn't smell as bad when burnt. (methanol makes formaldahyde when burned). Overcoming the unleaded gas problem is not going to be nearly as bad as trying to keep alcohol out of our gas.
kommifornia is a hotbed of money aimed at destroying the american way of life. That sounds corny but its unfortunately true.

Frank
 
Is there a single shred of evidence of harm from 100LL emissions?


Anyone? Anyone?


Would be nice to be able to give a nice clear YES/NO to that question, but evaluating risk from lead or 100LL specifically isn't quite that cut and dried. There is no question that lead CAN be quite neurotoxic, particulary to the young of both humans and animals. So, the problem is that there are shreds of evidence that the emissions from the use of 100LL MAY be a bad thing, but it can't be tied in directly.

Gary
 
Would be nice to be able to give a nice clear YES/NO to that question, but evaluating risk from lead or 100LL specifically isn't quite that cut and dried. There is no question that lead CAN be quite neurotoxic, particulary to the young of both humans and animals. So, the problem is that there are shreds of evidence that the emissions from the use of 100LL MAY be a bad thing, but it can't be tied in directly.

Gary

At what concentrations?

Without that shred of data we may as well challenge H2O.
 
The funny thing is that banning 100LL wouldn't really do anything practical for the environment. These groups are trying to score moral victories, and we're going to end up taking the hit so they can feel better about themselves.
I loath these people very intensely. I find these agendas to be disgusting, largely because of their pointlessness and naked malice.
 
The funny thing is that banning 100LL wouldn't really do anything practical for the environment. These groups are trying to score moral victories, and we're going to end up taking the hit so they can feel better about themselves.
I loath these people very intensely. I find these agendas to be disgusting, largely because of their pointlessness and naked malice.

I like people like that. They keep me employed and well paid.
 
well i'm pretty sure the towplane will run on auto gas. otherwise i'll just have to get a winch-able glider.
 
I wonder....if we 'got the lead out' could we save a pound per gallon?
 
Awesome. Lead is bad, green is good. Past time for all the Green stuff to finish off freedom. When you can't fuel your plane remember you allowed this crap because you thought it fine to force someone else to be green.

To be honest though, and I'm not supporting them in this, did anyone think lead was going to be here forever? For heaven's sake, it's been banned in new cars since the '80s! There is only ONE maker (according to the AOPA) of TEL (assuming they continue to survive bankruptcy) left now, and that was the impetus for some to actually look, two decades later!

I'm sorry, this sucks, and I don't think it's right. Still, do we blame the greens alone, or do we blame ourselves and Lycoming/TCM for not pushing harder for a no lead solution as well? You have to be honest and say everyone. This didn't sneak up on anyone, decades have passed since lead was banned in cars.

TBH they will probably lose, as the FAA has "won" the right to regulate avgas in court before. Still, doesn't this make finding an unleaded solution even more urgent? I say this as a guy that's looking at a 300hp engine (IO-540) that has a better than even chance of being f*cked if avgas is made without lead before a "fix" is available.

Blame green all you want mate. I blame complacency just as much.
 
I thought the 540 could run on straight car gas (no ethanol) as long as it was 93 octane or so.
 
The funny thing is that banning 100LL wouldn't really do anything practical for the environment. These groups are trying to score moral victories, and we're going to end up taking the hit so they can feel better about themselves.
I loath these people very intensely. I find these agendas to be disgusting, largely because of their pointlessness and naked malice.

I like people like that. They keep me employed and well paid.

Please tell me you're a hitman:yes:

BEST POST OF THE THREAD!!!!! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Hum, he is from downriver DETROIT so it's not out the the realm of possibility.:D On second thought all the good hitmen in Detroit live in Gross Point.
 
I wonder....if we 'got the lead out' could we save a pound per gallon?

This is an older article (circa 2002) and it says TEL (lead) is pretty pricey stuff.

Back to fuels. I do believe lead is bad stuff. It is toxic, known to be harmful to the environment, can cause fouling in an engine, and is expensive, adding a LOT to the cost of a gallon of fuel, especially when you factor in the transportation cost premium. Leaded fuels require dedicated trucks and pipelines for transportation to keep from contaminating unleaded car gas.

and

I'm not much of an environmentalist by modern standards, I guess. I think what the government and the environmental wackos have done to HALON is criminal. But the lead issue stops even me in my tracks, for it is definitely a poison, and known to be harmful. HOW harmful (in avgas), I don't know, but I think it's probably wise to be rid of it in all fuels. Oh, and by the way, if we don't get rid of it, the environmentalists will "help" us do so. I don't want that.

Whether wise or not, like it or not, lead will eventually disappear from avgas, and not just for environmental reasons. It is an expensive solution, and it is becoming ever more difficult to use it. The lead itself is now produced only in Britain and Russia, and only a small handful of refineries produce leaded fuel. The move is on to consolidate that production so that fewer and fewer refineries touch it.

Any tank, truck or pipeline that transports leaded fuel is automatically contaminated with lead, and cannot be used for anything else without a very expensive cleaning process.

There are obvious costs here, and some that are not so obvious. For example, if only one company makes 100LL, then transport costs to distant locations soar. 100LL needs dedicated transport, storage and pipelines, all of which push the price much higher for ALL fuels, not just the leaded fuels.

Now I'm no expert but lead was starting to be phased out in the 1970's and we're still talking about it today? I guess the inertia was against it...
 
I thought the 540 could run on straight car gas (no ethanol) as long as it was 93 octane or so.

Will it still be 300hp? Turbo's, and other "high performance" engines would be hurt by the removal of lead as anti-det. Still, I can't be sure until it happens. Would we be fine with 97NL? 100ULL? 95NL? Swift? :dunno:
 
The Center for Environmental Health is preparing to file a lawsuit in California to stop the sale of 100LL. Can other states be far behind? I wonder where they are getting the money to pursue the lawsuit.
It's possible the EPA is financing them. The finance a lot of other environmental wacko groups.
 
I don't think the problem is leaded gasoline, the problem is that not only are we still flying planes from the sixties and the seventies, we are still manufacturing planes with fifties and sixties technology.
 
I don't think the problem is leaded gasoline, the problem is that not only are we still flying planes from the sixties and the seventies, we are still manufacturing planes with fifties and sixties technology.

We have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Lycoming says their engines can run w/o lead, but they are taking a GA "solidarity" stance on the issue, which is why they believe that 100LL should stay.:dunno:
 
Will it still be 300hp? Turbo's, and other "high performance" engines would be hurt by the removal of lead as anti-det. Still, I can't be sure until it happens. Would we be fine with 97NL? 100ULL? 95NL? Swift? :dunno:

Who is "We"? If it is the entire piston aviation fleet then the key to getting lead out is to find a way to make 100 Octane fuel that doesn't need lead to get to 100 Octane. You can not refine 100 Octane fuel, the lead brings the Octane to 100.

If the Octane rating of AvGas drops below the 100 Octane mark, people like Andrew will have airplanes they can not fly.
 
Who is "We"? If it is the entire piston aviation fleet then the key to getting lead out is to find a way to make 100 Octane fuel that doesn't need lead to get to 100 Octane. You can not refine 100 Octane fuel, the lead brings the Octane to 100.

If the Octane rating of AvGas drops below the 100 Octane mark, people like Andrew will have airplanes they can not fly.

No, but they can get to 97 without additives like TEL. GAMI claims G100UL. Will these be viable? I'm not claiming special knowledge here, just a bit of concern. I'm betting those that have "high-performance" planes will end up needing STC's. Not ideal, but I think we'll get 100 octane without TEL. The cost :dunno: that's unknown right now. I'm hoping that GAMI or BP (or anyone) can come through with a drop-in, economical, fuel. I'm not exactly holding my breath :(

Too bad turbines aren't more economical.
 
I'm pulling for the swift fuel variant. I like the idea of a biomass based fuel.
 
Back
Top