-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft
[mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of Bill Bradburry
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:17
PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL
in California
You can find non-ethanol
gas at boat docks that you can get to with your car if you are willing to pay
more for it. I get about 3 MPG improvement without ethanol so 12-13 %
more would be breakeven.
Bill B
From: Rotary
motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Michael McMahon
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 6:25
PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL
in California
Wouldn’t
it be cool if you had a choice of ethanol-enhanced and non-ethanol at gas
stations? They could charge more for non-ethanol if you like, but reserve
at least one pump per station for non-ethanol gas. Would that be
difficult? Perhaps it could even be done on a station by station basis,
just through personal contact, at least starting with the independent station
owners.
mike
From: Rotary
motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011
12:35 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL
in California
You could be right on that. It surely won't hurt
to put a little pressure on the FAA to find/approve an alternative aviation
fuel. Personally, I would be happy if they would make premium auto fuel
ethanol free.
On another note, with the time it takes for things to
work their way through the court system, it will be years before this gets
resolved. The oil companies can afford to hire the
best attorneys.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net> wrote:
This may not be all
bad. It could cause Swift fuel and that stuff GAMI is making to be
approved. Swift fuel costs about $2/gal and will not go up and down in
price like Avgas. You could pay more for it since it is about 8% more
fuel efficient.
Bill B
From: Rotary
motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 2:30
PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] FW: 100LL in California
In case any of you missed this... who's next?
|
California Suit Targets 100LL
 A California environmental
group has served notice it will sue more than 40 suppliers of avgas in the
state to force them to stop selling it. TheCenter for Environmental Healthhas
given a legally-required 60 days of notice to all the major oil companies
that sell 100LL and the FBOs that pump it at 25 airports to stop. "The
oil and aviation industries need to know Californians will not tolerate lead
pollution that threatens our health and healthy environments," Michael
Green, executive director of CEH, said in a statement. "We expect the
industries to take immediate action to eliminate pollution that endangers
children and families who live, work and play near airports across the
state." CEH cites a 2008 EPA reports that show avgas is
polluting the air and in some cases groundwater around airports with piston
traffic.
CEH notes
that Van Nuys Airport, one of the busiest GA airports in the U.S., shows the
highest level of lead pollution of more than 3,000 airports covered in the
report. As we've reported and commented on extensively, the EPA is now
considering its options in dealing with 100LL in response to a petition from
Friends of the Earth. The CEH route is a little more direct. It alleges
violations of the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act.
Protesters recently staged a small rally outside Santa Monica Airport
complaining about lead pollution.
|