TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Finding that lead emissions from aircraft engines contribute to air pollution

450 点作者 Metacelsus超过 1 年前

25 条评论

DigiDigiorno超过 1 年前
The uphill battle of unleaded avgas leaves both the main players in the industry and the regulators themselves looking bad—but in a banal kinda way.<p>I enjoy AVWeb on YT for AV news (really, I just enjoy the humor&#x2F;personality of Paul Bertorelli lol), here are a few insightful videos that summarize the story:<p>The Long, Twisted And Slightly Ridiculous Story of Avgas Part 1 (14:22) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=9F-WngVMJBQ">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=9F-WngVMJBQ</a><p>Part 2 (15:15) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Mvse4Xhzwuk">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Mvse4Xhzwuk</a><p>and<p>G100UL Approved Now What? (When the FAA approved the first unleaded 100-octane avgas a year ago) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ibIkuyBL9i8">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ibIkuyBL9i8</a>
JanSolo超过 1 年前
Didn&#x27;t they just legalize unleaded avgas very recently? After a multi-decade regulatory review process? Seems odd that they were so hesitant to legalize it and now that they did, it becomes the only option!
评论 #38039507 未加载
评论 #38039702 未加载
评论 #38040023 未加载
评论 #38039718 未加载
评论 #38042260 未加载
评论 #38039419 未加载
评论 #38041247 未加载
评论 #38041401 未加载
评论 #38042199 未加载
评论 #38042075 未加载
some_random超过 1 年前
Glad to hear, it should have been phased out a long time ago. Assuming there aren&#x27;t any issues with the only very recently legalized unleaded avgas I don&#x27;t think there are any downsides.
oldbbsnickname超过 1 年前
TEL is incredibly bad stuff*, but it&#x27;s rarely used in commercial flight operations as they predominantly use jet aircraft. Leaded avgas is completely unnecessary as non-TEL fuel formulations have been created and certified. The problem is they&#x27;re not available anywhere, while leaded avgas is everywhere in GA. Municipalities should do like they did for leaded automotive gasoline: supersede commercial interests with public health regulatory ones and ban it. (The EPA only banned leaded automotive gasoline nationwide in 1996 after allowing <i>25 years</i> for the phaseout.)<p>* In the same category of human harm as nerve agents, dioxin, and methylmercury.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.aopa.org&#x2F;news-and-media&#x2F;all-news&#x2F;2021&#x2F;july&#x2F;27&#x2F;gami-receives-unleaded-avgas-stc" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.aopa.org&#x2F;news-and-media&#x2F;all-news&#x2F;2021&#x2F;july&#x2F;27&#x2F;ga...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.epa.gov&#x2F;archive&#x2F;epa&#x2F;aboutepa&#x2F;epa-takes-final-step-phaseout-leaded-gasoline.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.epa.gov&#x2F;archive&#x2F;epa&#x2F;aboutepa&#x2F;epa-takes-final-ste...</a>
评论 #38045684 未加载
dlandis超过 1 年前
Could someone please summarize what the expected timeframe would be? How long until leaded avgas is not used?
评论 #38039710 未加载
kortex超过 1 年前
Why are diesels so uncommon among piston aircraft, it&#x27;s almost always avgas? Is it just &quot;because that&#x27;s how it&#x27;s always been&quot; or are there actual engineering reasons diesel are inferior? Cursory searching suggests it&#x27;s mostly this inertia.<p>It&#x27;d be especially useful if they could run on regular jet fuel, then turboprops&#x2F;jets and pistons could use the same fuel infra.
评论 #38041237 未加载
评论 #38043148 未加载
评论 #38042610 未加载
评论 #38041267 未加载
评论 #38041232 未加载
评论 #38053828 未加载
tombert超过 1 年前
So I know absolutely nothing about chemistry, so can someone explain to me why lead was added to gasoline in the first place? Disregarding its toxicity, what benefit does lead buy you?
评论 #38039497 未加载
评论 #38039511 未加载
评论 #38039510 未加载
评论 #38039857 未加载
评论 #38039522 未加载
评论 #38039506 未加载
评论 #38039575 未加载
评论 #38043220 未加载
trhway超过 1 年前
Waiting for the Tesla of the aviation as that lead vs. unleaded feel like something ancient.<p>Lets look at numbers as of today:<p>Cesna 172 - 75kw engine, on 50kw power makes 1000km as 200km&#x2F;hr. Engine plus fuel weight 350kg. The engine costs $26K.<p>Today&#x27;s lithium batteries like ones used by Tesla is 280wh&#x2F;kg. At retail similar batteries cost $400&#x2F;kwh.<p>So, we can have 75kw electric engine and 100kwh battery at the same weight as ICE engine plus fuel on Cesna 172 and at a retail cost of $50K and have 2 hr flight of 400km. That isn&#x27;t a worse starting point than what Tesla had 15 years ago against ICE cars.
评论 #38045731 未加载
donbatman超过 1 年前
Any aircraft mechanics care to comment on this? I know lots of small privately owned aircraft are really really old. Like 50s or 60s or older. Is this going to screw up their fuel system gaskets and seals?
briandear超过 1 年前
Perhaps the FAA could remove the requirement to buy an STC to use unleaded fuel? If they want wider adoption, removing the STC requirement would help.
评论 #38042653 未加载
hollerith超过 1 年前
It&#x27;s about time!
__MatrixMan__超过 1 年前
Oh, this is fuel we&#x27;re talking about. I was imagining lead somehow involved in lifting gas, like a leaded zeppelin or somesuch.
blahyawnblah超过 1 年前
Do aviation engines required hardened valve seats like automotive engines did for the changeover?
评论 #38042277 未加载
评论 #38042635 未加载
archsurface超过 1 年前
&quot;Finding that pollutions from aircraft engines contribute to air pollution&quot;.
ouiouibaguette超过 1 年前
I live near a lake that sees a lot of floatplane takeoffs. I wonder how many IQ points were lost among the rich folks with lakefront properties.
Robotbeat超过 1 年前
Good
coding123超过 1 年前
thumbs up.
strangemonad超过 1 年前
Gee if only the FAA could have certified unleaded gas some time in the last 3 decades. It’s not like us GA enthusiasts enjoy depending on an expensive leaded gas.
评论 #38040055 未加载
评论 #38039690 未加载
评论 #38039979 未加载
评论 #38040478 未加载
评论 #38039923 未加载
评论 #38040411 未加载
评论 #38043295 未加载
评论 #38041052 未加载
clbrmbr超过 1 年前
Wait, wasn’t leaded gas banned in the 70s?<p>Are you telling me all these aircraft that fly over my house are filling the air with lead?<p>How much environmental lead contamination are we talking here?
评论 #38039546 未加载
评论 #38039445 未加载
评论 #38039486 未加载
评论 #38039547 未加载
评论 #38039642 未加载
评论 #38039451 未加载
评论 #38039566 未加载
评论 #38039466 未加载
评论 #38039567 未加载
评论 #38040956 未加载
评论 #38039749 未加载
评论 #38039752 未加载
评论 #38041047 未加载
评论 #38040063 未加载
评论 #38040634 未加载
评论 #38041058 未加载
mattmaroon超过 1 年前
I’ve never met a group more resistant to change than GA enthusiasts. They think they have a God-given right to fly the same way they did in the 1940’s.<p>I was getting into it right as the ADS-B rules were coming into play. It is a cheap and easy (by aviation standards anyway) technology designed to prevent mid air collisions, and you’d have thought the FAA was requiring them to murder their children.
评论 #38041447 未加载
评论 #38041060 未加载
评论 #38041935 未加载
评论 #38041557 未加载
评论 #38041256 未加载
londons_explore超过 1 年前
How many IQ points did the nation lose because of this delay?
评论 #38040877 未加载
评论 #38042121 未加载
评论 #38040404 未加载
评论 #38042223 未加载
评论 #38039786 未加载
bradley13超过 1 年前
Huh? Leaded fuel or recently produced engines? Honestly, that&#x27;s shockng. Zero excuse, should have been outlawed decades ago.
评论 #38042211 未加载
w10-1超过 1 年前
It&#x27;s complicated. Overall it&#x27;s better to do most anything to protect kids&#x27; development, but doing so is tough.<p>Leaded avgas mainly benefits turbines, which are a minority of GA planes but the majority of avgas users, because they&#x27;re the always-running commercial subset.<p>The benefit is in time between overhauls. Every replacement fuel has resulted in more engine deposits and more maintenance -- essentially requiring $20K overhauls at 1,500 hours instead of 3K. For non-turbine GA, typically age catches up to the engine before hours, but for commercial turbines it can be a make-or-break decision, since a company might own only one or two.<p>Reid-Hillview airport in San Jose is an example of an airport closed over leaded fuel concerns, because they reportedly found an increase in lead in children&#x27;s blood in a few who lived right next to the airport. That increase was minimal compared to elevated levels found in Oakland and elsewhere due to ingestion of 60+-year-old leaded paint, but it&#x27;s essential to remove whatever sources there are.<p>The EPA has often complained, but the FAA has persisted. This particular move is noise before the next election (timed for the just-approved FAA appointee). It&#x27;s unclear if it will result in anything faster than the decades-delayed process already in play, but it does give communities huge leverage in their lawsuits.<p>Local airports often have a lot of land being used for essentially nothing. When local communities take federal money to develop or maintain airports, they legally agree that the airport is to remain in near-perpetuity. It can take decades of refusing federal money to get out from those obligations. The redevelopment opportunity presented by closing an airport in San Jose or Santa Monica is in the billions of dollars. So there are strong economic interests supporting anything that turns a community against the local airport. And since few people want to have planes overhead, those neighborhoods are typically lower-income and often under-represented politically, raising environmental justice concerns and making for concealed politics as monied interests fund advocacy campaigns and scientific research.<p>Commercial turbine operators, GA owners, and local businesses using general aviation typically have fixed assets that commit them to protecting the airport.<p>The price of avgas runs 50-150% over automotive fuel. For refiners, it&#x27;s a production shift and a run that lasts 1-2 weeks per year (and hence some storage costs as well). They also have fixed assets, though distribution networks have in some cases been outsourced in anticipation of moving in or out of the avgas market. They do it mostly to keep people happy, since it&#x27;s not a big profit maker.<p>A big issue is ethanol. It&#x27;s seasonally mixed into automotive fuel almost everywhere, but it attacks most of the current fuel systems. With engine re-certification for avgas, there are only 1-3 manufacturers running a few engines through time on test beds and some pilot programs. That&#x27;s much, much easier than retrofitting fuel systems of many, many models of planes. In most cases, the manufacturer is no longer in operation, or they would love to see the old planes die so they can sell new ones (often having bought minimal name and assets out of bankruptcy).<p>Electric is unlikely to replace turbine ICE unless the energy density improves in ways that would transform the entire world. It&#x27;s more likely smaller jet engines could replace them, but it&#x27;s not clear who would do that engineering for a relatively small market.<p>So a pessimistic prediction is that this might help some local land grabs, but is not likely to help a lot of kids. Let&#x27;s hope for more than that.
评论 #38040927 未加载
评论 #38041229 未加载
lawlessone超过 1 年前
Damn. The chemtrails people were right. For all the wrong reasons.
评论 #38039881 未加载
dadjoker超过 1 年前
Shorter EPA: &quot;Look, here&#x27;s one more way we can cripple our economy! Yea!&quot;
评论 #38041828 未加载
评论 #38042134 未加载