Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaded gas was a known poison the day it was invented (2016)

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 428 posts

Re: Leaded gas was a known poison the day it was invented (2016)

#11

Post by foob »

air7 wrote: post #6

> The most compelling option was actually ethanol. But from the perspective of GM, Kitman wrote, ethanol wasn’t an option. It couldn’t be patented and GM couldn’t control its production. And oil companies like Du Pont "hated it," he wrote, perceiving it to be a threat to their control of the internal combustion engine. I'm generally an avid beliver in free markets as an agent for positive change, so these types of "r…

Intellectual property reform could be a solution. It sounds like they might have gone with ethanol if they weren't motivated by patents so that they could prevent free market competition. We see the same thing with pharmaceuticals and in many other industries. I'm not particularly convinced that intellectual property laws are anywhere close to a net positive for consumers or society at large.

Re: Leaded gas was a known poison the day it was invented (2016)

#12

Post by G3rn0ti »

air7 wrote: post #6

> The most compelling option was actually ethanol. But from the perspective of GM, Kitman wrote, ethanol wasn’t an option. It couldn’t be patented and GM couldn’t control its production. And oil companies like Du Pont "hated it," he wrote, perceiving it to be a threat to their control of the internal combustion engine. I'm generally an avid beliver in free markets as an agent for positive change, so these types of "r…

If ethanol was so effective as an anti-knocking agent why didn’t gas stations just mix ethanol with petrol and sold that fuel with profit? Ethanol is cheaper and much safer to manufacture then tetraethyllead. But they didn’t…

I am not an expert on combustion engines but the biggest problem with ethanol in the early days was it polluted the engine with water that it absorbed as a water soluble organic compound. Those days engines were not made from Aluminium but iron so it destroyed motors over time due to the formation of rust. Furthermore, production of tetraethyllead got much cheaper once its synthesis was automated. Knocking itself is bad for motors so people actually wanted to use anti-knocking additives to improve the longevity of their cars (aside of better fuel economy).

So in the end tetraethyllead prevailed as an anti-knocking agent because of its technical and economical advantages and not because of a conspiracy of oil companies as the article suggests.

Re: Leaded gas was a known poison the day it was invented (2016)

#13

Post by AmVess »

G3rn0ti wrote: post #12
air7 wrote: post #6

> The most compelling option was actually ethanol. But from the perspective of GM, Kitman wrote, ethanol wasn’t an option. It couldn’t be patented and GM couldn’t control its production. And oil companies like Du Pont "hated it," he wrote, perceiving it to be a threat to their control of the internal combustion engine. I'm generally an avid beliver in free markets as an agent for positive change, so these types of "r…

If ethanol was so effective as an anti-knocking agent why didn’t gas stations just mix ethanol with petrol and sold that fuel with profit? Ethanol is cheaper and much safer to manufacture then tetraethyllead. But they didn’t… I am not an expert on combustion engines but the biggest problem with ethanol in the early days was it polluted the engine with water that it absorbed as a water soluble organic compound. Those…

Read more on how hard and long GM tried to suppress opposition to leaded gas, it was no conspiracy.

Re: Leaded gas was a known poison the day it was invented (2016)

#14

Post by Aloha »

air7 wrote: post #6

> The most compelling option was actually ethanol. But from the perspective of GM, Kitman wrote, ethanol wasn’t an option. It couldn’t be patented and GM couldn’t control its production. And oil companies like Du Pont "hated it," he wrote, perceiving it to be a threat to their control of the internal combustion engine. I'm generally an avid beliver in free markets as an agent for positive change, so these types of "r…

TEL (tetraethyl lead) had and has other advantages over ethanol beyond patentability -

Unlike TEL, ethanol is hydrophilic, which makes gasoline blended with it more apt to be contaminated with water, and other water containing contaminants, this is particularly relevant for aviation uses and also reducing incidences of vapor lock.

TEL is also (more) rubber and seal friendly, other than the (very) high risk of lead toxicity, TEL blended gasoline is easier to work with and process than Ethanol blended gasoline.

TEL also acts as a natural lubricant of its own, the lead acting as lubricant, particularly on valve and other top end engine components.

This isn't really a defense of TEL - particularly not in road gas, while it was understood that exposure to large quantities of lead was toxic, toxicity of low dose exposure to environmental lead wasn't really fully understood until the 50's/60's, we also didn't really understood how long environmental lead lingered around until the 60's. Modern technologies have overcome much of the issues from ethanol in road gas, but there are reasons TEL is still used in AvGas.

TEL in AvGas was vital in reaching higher octane, and Ethanol is contraindicated in AvGas (at the last I looked into the topic) because of its hydrophilic nature - our ability (the allies) to produce high octane AvGas is one of the factors that won WW2, and use of TEL was a deciding factor in that.

Re: Leaded gas was a known poison the day it was invented (2016)

#15

Post by sudosysgen »

G3rn0ti wrote: post #12
air7 wrote: post #6

> The most compelling option was actually ethanol. But from the perspective of GM, Kitman wrote, ethanol wasn’t an option. It couldn’t be patented and GM couldn’t control its production. And oil companies like Du Pont "hated it," he wrote, perceiving it to be a threat to their control of the internal combustion engine. I'm generally an avid beliver in free markets as an agent for positive change, so these types of "r…

If ethanol was so effective as an anti-knocking agent why didn’t gas stations just mix ethanol with petrol and sold that fuel with profit? Ethanol is cheaper and much safer to manufacture then tetraethyllead. But they didn’t… I am not an expert on combustion engines but the biggest problem with ethanol in the early days was it polluted the engine with water that it absorbed as a water soluble organic compound. Those…

Actually mixing ethanol with petrol is a pretty common thing...

The main issue stations won't do it unless compelled is that it will reduce gas mileage slightly. You don't want to be the company selling gas that has a lower mileage. If they could sell it at a lower price that would be something.

The thing is that you need a lot more ethanol than tetraethyllead, so it actually does end up being more expensive, for the same energy.

And actually cast iron blocks are still being used nowadays.

Re: Leaded gas was a known poison the day it was invented (2016)

#17

Post by shucksley »

zionic wrote: post #10
air7 wrote: post #6

> The most compelling option was actually ethanol. But from the perspective of GM, Kitman wrote, ethanol wasn’t an option. It couldn’t be patented and GM couldn’t control its production. And oil companies like Du Pont "hated it," he wrote, perceiving it to be a threat to their control of the internal combustion engine. I'm generally an avid beliver in free markets as an agent for positive change, so these types of "r…

We could call it hybrid capitalism, mix the free market vs government run non profit.

Or we could just call it what it is - fascism.

Re: Leaded gas was a known poison the day it was invented (2016)

#18

Post by laurent92 »

foob wrote: post #11
air7 wrote: post #6

> The most compelling option was actually ethanol. But from the perspective of GM, Kitman wrote, ethanol wasn’t an option. It couldn’t be patented and GM couldn’t control its production. And oil companies like Du Pont "hated it," he wrote, perceiving it to be a threat to their control of the internal combustion engine. I'm generally an avid beliver in free markets as an agent for positive change, so these types of "r…

Intellectual property reform could be a solution. It sounds like they might have gone with ethanol if they weren't motivated by patents so that they could prevent free market competition. We see the same thing with pharmaceuticals and in many other industries. I'm not particularly convinced that intellectual property laws are anywhere close to a net positive for consumers or society at large.

Patents, but also copyright on software. We gain nothing by rewriting the software every time, OSS should be the default. Same for music. It’s more controversial but Spotify is monetizing convenience, not music, which itself is available for free on P2P.

Re: Leaded gas was a known poison the day it was invented (2016)

#19

Post by shucksley »

Symmetry wrote: post #3

I've got a sneaking suspicion we ought to go through everything else Thomas MIdgley Jr. invented and ban it, just to be sure. Leaded gas, CFCs, and the contraption he killed himself with is a worrying pattern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr .

The fact that commenters at HN resort to ad hominem is a worrying pattern.

Re: Leaded gas was a known poison the day it was invented (2016)

#20

Post by Biologist123 »

air7 wrote: post #6

> The most compelling option was actually ethanol. But from the perspective of GM, Kitman wrote, ethanol wasn’t an option. It couldn’t be patented and GM couldn’t control its production. And oil companies like Du Pont "hated it," he wrote, perceiving it to be a threat to their control of the internal combustion engine. I'm generally an avid beliver in free markets as an agent for positive change, so these types of "r…

There are a few organisations campaigning for directors and shareholders to take unlimited liability.
Post reply on HN