Live data from Hacker News

Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

attheu.utah.edu

251–260 of 352 posts

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#251
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be uncontroversial that introducing shit into an environment where it doesn't belong is a bad idea, yet many people remain unconvinced that dumping tons of carbon dioxide a year into the atmosphere or tons of fertilizer by-products into the oceans is a bad idea.

It's less that but rather the hypocrisy of promoting burdensome regulations and bans implemented in one county (e.g. Germany) which hurts domestic industry and raises costs for its citizens, all while being silent on countries like China and India continuing to massively build more and more coal fired power plants

We saw this happen with the Montreal Protocol over CFCs/greehouse gases when everyone went mad and banned just about every fluorocarbon known to science.

This was a case of zealotry and overregulation egged on by puritanical ideologs without full consideration of the consequences.

We correctly banned fluorocarbons as refrigerants in systems where they would not be properly recycled, such as domestic refrigerators, air-conditioning systems incuding those in vehicles, and like. This made for good regulation, and it made sense.

The volume of CFCs with other specislist applications was miniscule by comparison, and for most of these recovery, capture and recycle systems along with protocols for use could have been implemented.

Instead, we stupidy put an outright ban on just about every CFC in sight, many of which have no direct equivalents that are anywhere near as effective as CFCs, and many are dangerous and inflammable and form explosive mixtures with air.

Right, in one fell swoop we banned many of the most useful chemicals ever invented. Little wonder these's now a backlash to overregulation. If Montreal were to be repeated today the zealots would have to take more of a backseat.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point -- the point is that gasoline companies KNEW ABOUT alternative lead-free substitutes for anti-knock (such as ethanol) and chose lead because they perceived it was less profitable. [1] Specifically because ethanol wasn't patentable and TEL was, and ultimately it WAS patented. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-...

Ethanol has a propensity to suck up ambient moisture and is more demanding of rubbers and happily attacks aluminum. In an age of natural rubber components, poorly sealed fuel systems with steel tanks and aluminum carburetors pretty much anything other than ethanol is the "right choice". And once they ruled out ethanol they settled on lead because it was cheap/profitable. Obviously they chose wrong, they should've pic…

>Ethanol has a propensity to suck up ambient moisture and is more demanding of rubbers and happily attacks aluminum.

Actually, moisture problems are from using things like homemade alcohol or alcohol from unknown sources, where the likelihood of it already containing a sizable percentage of water has been a problem since the Model T days.

And if that water has a bit of an aggressive pH, it can have an effect on aluminum components.

This is just not a problem with gasoline-alcohol blends from reputable suppliers unless there is serious failure in the supply chain after that, where any fuel would have been contaminated by water regardless. The fuel-grade alcohol is tested before it is added, then the finished gasoline fully analyzed afterward.

Neither moisture nor corrosion is a problem with fuel ethanol or methanol, and when you see convincing information to the contrary (like from a pro mechanic) it often originates from misguided sources, "old wives' tales" for which actual evidence existed without being well-understood. But sometimes the most professional are the ones who don't take any chances, whether "common knowledge" is factual or not, if it doesn't hurt, no big deal.

Miscellaneous polymer compounds were the real question for cars that were not originally made for modern alcohol mixtures.

Ethanol just doesn't absorb moisture into your fuel tank by itself, even from a very humid environment.

Not any more than plain hydrocarbon fuel. In old ventilated fuel tanks, extreme temperature cycling under very humid conditions draws moist air into the tank when the fuel shrinks or is consumed. Kilos of cold fuel and cold metal can continue to condense moisture from the air, when the dew point is greater than the temperature of the tank. After a while you can get grams or ounces of water rolling around in the bottom of the tank. This could build up and stall out the vehicle or keep it from starting.

If it was only an ounce or two of water at the bottom of the tank full of all hydrocarbons, it would actually help to add a gallon of plain (good) alcohol to help dissolve the separated water into the gasoline so it can pass through harmlessly like it always has since gasoline has always had trace amounts of water anyway. Condensation is about as clean as rainwater so it's nothing the engine hasn't seen.

When most mechanics see something like this it has already gotten way out of hand, and there have been waves of anti-alcohol propaganda disseminated through time which reinforce the superstitious component.

Another problem from the '80's was when you do first start using alcohol-containing gasoline in an older car, it can break up varnish that has built up in the tank for years which never would come off until some alcohol came along. This could be a few grams, end up clogging the fuel filter, and the car stalls out no different than from water in the fuel line. Direct cause-and-effect relationship undeniably due to the use of alcohol, with many independent observations. Not a water problem, but who's keeping score.

Just not any more of a problem in the 21st century, similar conditions are so rarely encountered now.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you think workhorse aircraft today can run on batteries ?

I know a Velis Electro can fly for an hour, that's plenty of time for flight school. I'm sure there's better options now too. If something needs to take longer than that and is worth doing, then do it with a turboprop. That's besides the fact that there are genuine certified unleaded alternative fuels for piston aircraft now. Fucking "we oh can't do it" lead apologists smh.

"One hour is plenty of time for flight school" is not doing you any favours in coming across as knowing what you're talking about lol. Good freaking luck completing cross-country flights for an instrument rating with that endurance, never mind your certainty that there are "better options" as if the laws of physics have changed dramatically between 2020 and today.

And I mentioned workhorse aircraft for a reason, considering that the Velis Electro has a payload of...172 kilograms. Turboprops (gas turbines in general) are far more expensive and far less fuel efficient at low altitudes than their piston engine counterparts, which is precisely why piston engines still exist.

The fact that alternative fuels now exist for piston engines does not make the blatantly wrong nonsense you've been throwing out any more correct, such as your suggestion that you can "just run" piston engines on Jet-A. That is something that anyone who actually knows anything about internal combustion engines can tell you for free causes regular piston engines to detonate/knock. Your assertion that piston-engine aircraft have virtually no vital role was similarly ignorant.

And that's besides the fact that black-and-white "if you don't agree with whatever half-assed or plainly incorrect crap I say in support of The Cause™ you're an apologist" nonsense lost its efficacy years ago; you might want to find a better soapboxing tactic for 2026.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#254
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Piston aircraft are vital to training new pilots. Without the piston fleet, you wouldn't have anybody flying anything larger. Not to mention they're frequently used for air ambulance flights, survey work, and law enforcement. The "satellite" view on most online mapping tools is recorded from a piston aircraft. Also, the current proposed plan is to migrate off of leaded gasoline for most of the country by 2030, which…

They can run in regular gas reliably enough for training, they can run on jet-a, they can run on batteries. Anything vital can run on jet-a without any barriers. Excuses are made because it requires retiring or refitting old aircraft, and people need to be forced to do it. Simple as. I will die on this hill. > The "satellite" view on most online mapping tools is recorded from a piston aircraft. It is not. You're thin…

No, piston aircraft cannot run on Jet-A. That would cause detonation and the engine would quite literally self-destruct within minutes - likely during takeoff when the engine is at highest power.

There's been some trials of battery-powered trainer aircraft. The last I checked, they still don't have enough range to do the "long" cross country that's legally required.

And I assure you it's not because of old aircraft. Some flights schools have fleets of brand new 2025/26 models - all of them still run on leaded avgas.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#255
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that environmental regulations that impede building modern nuclear power plants to replace coal power plants are net harmful. Nuclear power safety has advanced a lot since Chernobyl.

The closest I've gotten to somebody finding environmental regulations that were driving up the cost of nuclear was with some of the latest stuff with people trying to get rid of the LNT model of how radiation affects people. Getting rid of LNT would allow higher doses to workers, and the way it makes nuclear cheaper is by having less shielding around the reactor. But if you look at how recent reactors like the AP1000…

The £700M (960M USD) spent on fish protection measures at Hinkley Point C would be a topical example [1]. It's expected to save an average of a few hundred twaite shad, six river lamprey, and eighteen allis shad per year, plus one salmon every twelve years, and a trout every thirty-six years.

https://www.salmonbusiness.com/nuclear-plants-new-700-millio...

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"greater good" is arguably the most broad statement with a large history of hurting many people based on the "greater good".

When left to their own cigaret companies tell congress cigarettes are safe and non addictive. Left alone companies pay in scrip only usable at the company store. The 'greater good' has arguably PREVENTED much more hurt of people than it has ever hurt. Meanwhile companies have PROVEN time and time again that they WILL hurt people when left to their own devices. In environmental policies. In pay policies. In employment…

This is the extreme, and it shows how far some (most?) people would go. There are many examples, and more being minted, it can be a drag.

Yes, not just environmental, all kinds of money stuff. The more money can be how it gets on steroids.

But this says a lot here:

>not try to condense it down to something overly simplistic

With greed involved you can follow the money to an extent, you find lobbyists on both sides of every controversy, sometimes chalking up wins, other times losses. But they stay in business and grow by compromising the greater good with as little profit loss from those paying them the most.

They might switch roles when they lobby in favor of ordinary citizens one time, and squarely against in a future campaign. But they never actually switch sides, the least costly thing to compromise is the "greater good", which ideally from their point of view is intangible, versus actual money, which their clients are usually counting before they have earned any.

It's politics, all regulations are hard to pass, but as lobbying has increased, the difficulty of having good legislation in favor of the greater good is becoming less possible.

It just costs too much to have a seat at the table.

If people want to have good things, it might become completely dependent on older regulations which were in their favor before it got too expensive to do that any more.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you think workhorse aircraft today can run on batteries ?

I know a Velis Electro can fly for an hour, that's plenty of time for flight school. I'm sure there's better options now too. If something needs to take longer than that and is worth doing, then do it with a turboprop. That's besides the fact that there are genuine certified unleaded alternative fuels for piston aircraft now. Fucking "we oh can't do it" lead apologists smh.

One hour really isn't enough time. You can spend 30-40 minutes just getting in/out of busy terminal airspace, which would only leave 20-30 minutes for instruction - which is nothing. Most flight lessons are closer to 1.5 hours for a reason.

You're also legally required to maintain 30-45 minutes of emergency reserve, longer if you're flying IFR.

And again, this isn't even touching on the "long" cross-country flights that are legally required for training.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#258

Don’t worry, we can get our lead from spices and every food that includes them. Lead is cheaper to get than cinnamon and even cocoa, so it ends up being favored adulterant to increase weight at sale.

Considering what lead does to people, there should be jail time for everyone involved. Even store managers should do time if products on their shelves turn up positive.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#259
post #114

In my opinion it is obvious and should be uncontroversial that some environmental regulations work and are great and should if anything be reinforced, while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated. Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be force…

> while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated. Prove it.

I have proven it to my own satisfaction. It's a pretty trivial proof. I'm sure you could derive your own, if you tried.

How's this: if, at some point, it seems to me that your agreement would benefit me or advance something I care about, I promise I'll consider trying to convince you.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#260
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There definitely is urgency to phase out leaded aviation gasoline. The FAA is proposing that we phase it out by 2030 - just 4 years from now - even though we still haven't agreed on which of the 3 competing gas blends to standardize on, the pumping infrastructure only exists at a small number of airports, and even though there's still open concerns about them causing engine damage. They just published a draft version…

Leaded gasoline for cars started phasing out 52 years ago. It was fully banned 30 years ago. If there was any urgency behind getting rid of leaded avgas it would have been gone in that timeframe. The FAA started looking at it 14 years ago. They planned to finish phasing it out in 2023. Three years after that, leaded avgas remains ubiquitous, and there's a plan to finish phasing it out in six years. (The 2030 date exc…

Cars don't need high octane fuel, aircraft do. Outside of the absolute smallest aircraft, you can't get enough power out of automobile gasoline.

They started looking at it 14 years ago, but there's been tons of bureaucratic roadblocks that have impeded progress. (Depending on who you ask, the petroleum companies were responsible for some of these.)

Even today, there are reports that the new unleaded avgas formulations cause engine damage, and we don't entirely know why that's happening. So there's still technical issues to work out. (But it's important, so folks are trying to solve them as quickly as possible.)

Post reply on HN