3 ms·

There is currently a strong effort to move away from leaded fuels, and multiple producers have been selected by the FAA to formulate and sell fuel blends that p

There is currently a strong effort to move away from leaded fuels, and multiple producers have been selected by the FAA to formulate and sell fuel blends that present the desired octane ratings and are proven safe. The fist certifications of such fuels is expected this year: https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/where_we_are_now/nextgen_update/general_aviation/fuel_technology/ https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/where_we_are_now/nextgen_update/...

ethbro 9y ago
From the linked article, it's nice to see they moderated to a "fuel formulation change + limited engine modifications" approach. It seems unwise, chemically speaking, to expect we'll be able to find a drop in replacement that's less toxic (vs creating something that we find out is toxic in another 50 years).
- jabl 9y ago
  Seems fatalistic to assume that getting rid of TEL will automatically mean it'll be replaced with something equally nasty, or even worse. I don't think it's out of the question that improvements in refining technology has made it possible and economical enough to create a fuel with a high enough octane rating without resorting to TEL or other metal-organic additives. E.g. the Shell stuff that is being investigated by the FAA PAFI project is rumored to be based on super-alkylate + aromatics.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I should moderate my comment a bit. I'm not expecting the replacement to be equally or more toxic, but I have skepticism that it's going to be non-toxic. Presumably you're tangential to the chemical-synthesis industry? It seems like there's a disturbingly low bar for "We found a compound that will do a thing! Okay, as long as it isn't food / a drug / incorporates already banned substances... put it into production!" (20 years pass) Substantial toxicity found.
    - jabl 9y ago
      Well, sure it's going to be toxic. Drink enough gasoline and you'll die, whether it's aviation gasoline or not. And aromatics are carcinogenic etc. (then again, aromatics are present in many other fuels such as regular gasoline and kerosine). I think the best one can hope for is that the 100LL replacement won't be significantly nastier than regular car gasoline. But already that would IMHO be a significant step forward compared to the status quo. And no, I don't work for the chemical industry, or anything related to that really. But yes, I've heard of such cases where the replacement for some banned product turns out to be even worse. I do think one should be very careful about trusting environmental statements by the chemical industry, or any industry for that matter. Just like one shouldn't trust them blindly, I don't think a blanket dismissal of anything new they are doing is warranted either.

ethbro 9y ago

From the linked article, it's nice to see they moderated to a "fuel formulation change + limited engine modifications" approach. It seems unwise, chemically speaking, to expect we'll be able to find a drop in replacement that's less toxic (vs creating something that we find out is toxic in another 50 years).

jabl 9y ago
Seems fatalistic to assume that getting rid of TEL will automatically mean it'll be replaced with something equally nasty, or even worse. I don't think it's out of the question that improvements in refining technology has made it possible and economical enough to create a fuel with a high enough octane rating without resorting to TEL or other metal-organic additives. E.g. the Shell stuff that is being investigated by the FAA PAFI project is rumored to be based on super-alkylate + aromatics.
- ethbro 9y ago
  I should moderate my comment a bit. I'm not expecting the replacement to be equally or more toxic, but I have skepticism that it's going to be non-toxic. Presumably you're tangential to the chemical-synthesis industry? It seems like there's a disturbingly low bar for "We found a compound that will do a thing! Okay, as long as it isn't food / a drug / incorporates already banned substances... put it into production!" (20 years pass) Substantial toxicity found.
  - jabl 9y ago
    Well, sure it's going to be toxic. Drink enough gasoline and you'll die, whether it's aviation gasoline or not. And aromatics are carcinogenic etc. (then again, aromatics are present in many other fuels such as regular gasoline and kerosine). I think the best one can hope for is that the 100LL replacement won't be significantly nastier than regular car gasoline. But already that would IMHO be a significant step forward compared to the status quo. And no, I don't work for the chemical industry, or anything related to that really. But yes, I've heard of such cases where the replacement for some banned product turns out to be even worse. I do think one should be very careful about trusting environmental statements by the chemical industry, or any industry for that matter. Just like one shouldn't trust them blindly, I don't think a blanket dismissal of anything new they are doing is warranted either.