this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
84 points (100.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7578 readers
408 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What a weird thing to fight over. The Democrat policy seems reasonable.
That said, I don't know how many propeller aircraft we actually have so I don't know how much of an impact leaded fuel actually has, but i don't see a good reason to continue using it.
Well yeah that's pretty par for the course. Republicans don't have policy, they have "bull rampaging through a China shop screaming that it brought the ball, it owns it, and is taking its ball home, so nobody can play"
All thile yelling that's it's you who's destroying the China shop and about how you didn't stop them from destroying the China shop.
This is for personal aircraft, so there are thousands.
So probably minimal impact. It seems weird that it's so divisive then. How about no federal requirements or restrictions on leaded fuel for aircraft, but instead throw on a tax to encourage switching? That sounds pretty reasonable to me, and given that the environmental impact is pretty low, that's about all the government should need to do.
It was a problem for cars because of how many there were, but I'm not aware of any issues with the scale of these aircraft. But maybe I'm missing something.
It's enough to be a big deal for communities near airports. Probably half or more of lead exposure if you live under the low-altitude landing/take-off areas
I read this article about it, and it's a much bigger problem than I thought. Imo, given this, the Republican option is untenable, but the Democrat solution is probably not fair either.
The goal imo should be a dramatic reduction in leaded fuel use until an alternative is available, not a fixed time in years. So perhaps airports could be allocated certain amount of leaded fuel or leaded fuel takeoffs per day, and that amount would be set based on the population within a 1 mile radius of the airport.
To me that seems the most reasonable. I don't know if a fuel can be made available by 2030, I don't think banning all takeoffs is acceptable, and forcing airports to allow it is certainly unacceptable.
The thing about unleaded aviation gas is that its availability is regional right now. You can buy it in some parts of California, but not everywhere yet. Somebody needs to light a fire under the refiners to make them produce it, and a deadline is a good way to do that.
It's one way, another way to is reduce demand, either by taxing the crap out of leaded fuel or by restricting how much of it airports are allowed to sell.
Setting a deadline just delays the fight because refineries know they can postpone the drama for another few years. Let's say they already know how to make unleaded aviation fuel with enough octane for these older engines, but that it's more expensive to produce, why would they make it available before the deadline? Just keep producing the old fuel until the last possible moment.
The Senate version does one more thing besides setting a deadline: it requires airports to switch to unleaded fuel when it becomes available. For any location served by more than one refinery, that creates a powerful financial incentive to shift: if you don't, your competitors might, and take a market away from you.
I'd say it's well-designed
Maybe. I'd rather just see leaded fuel being penalized instead of threatening to ban it. That should have the same incentive, but with financial instead of legal pressure.
I'd rather not have a world where rich dudes can pay extra for the privilege of wafting lead into kids lungs, but I think we're going to just have to disagree on this.
Nobody wants lead in kids lungs. However, eliminating that completely eliminates a long standing privilege because there currently is no cleaner fuel. So we have three options:
Both Democrats and Republicans are proposing the second option, with Democrats switching to the first after a few years. I'm proposing the third.
Last year, the FAA approved the first unleaded fuel that works for all existing small piston-driven propeller aircraft.
It's available today on a regional basis. Taking it national is basically a matter of forcing refiners to produce it (or one of the equivalents currently in development)
Reduce flying until it's more widely available would be a great move too.
Cool, so I think we should tax the use of leaded gas a lot higher than unleaded to encourage ramping up production of the new fuel. If we follow the Democrat plan, there's no real reason to ramp up production quickly, they'll just take their time.
They doing rebates for gas stoves in Florida.
What does this have to do with leaded fuel in aircraft?
Tax incentive to switch the bad way.
It's also a solvable problem. Here's an example of a local flight school which was able to switch from leaded to a lead-free alternative this year.
Not all piston aircraft can run that fuel, but I err heavily on the side of not just accepting some level of lead exposure.
Propeller aircraft are overwhelmingly toys for the rich. Which is why the rightoids are trying to make sure that leaded fuel is always available, so that someone with a lot of money doesn't have to replace their aircraft engine early.
And no, aircraft engines aren't some super high-tech special engines, they are just engines that have passed the various tests to be certified, and many of those engines still use 1930s technology. You don't have to have electronic fuel injection and solid state ignition to run unleaded fuel, you need different valves, and you could easily put better valves in your super special Lycoming engine and be fine on unleaded* gas.
But it costs a rich person money, so no we don't want to do that.