Shell Announces Unleaded 100-Octane Fuel

[pacerpilot]

Five years ago demand was way down (The Great Recession?) and there was a supply glut; pricing followed. As the economy picked up, demand went up, prices followed. Five-year gasoline price trends before and after that nadir are nearly identical. This doesn't appear to have to much to do with federal regulation, and nothing to do with "new" gas. Seems more like regular supply and demand. Here's a link with summary data and discussion: http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/201...prices-is.html

My health insurance prices have steadily gone up, as they have ever since I've had insurance, but nothing like yours. Have you had a chance to shop around? Regardless, I don't see the connection to a discussion on new fuels for general aviation.

As to the effects of Tier 4 (in part, mandated use of diesel exhaust fluid, or DEF), I haven't been able to find anything that indicates that anyone agrees with the claim that tens of thousands of trucks will be junked. In fact, from what I've found from industry sites (trucking sites, farm sites, and smaller truck sites), there's lots of agreement that the cleaner running is a good thing. There also appears to be increased fuel efficiency in DEF-equipped vehicles; 5-9% better mileage and lower oil consumption. Of course, all this is taken with a grain of salt; it appears that there's lots of reasons efficiencies have gotten better. One site that discusses some of this is:
http://www.dieselpowermag.com/news/1...ncy_standards/

The one web source I could find that decried the new EPA regulations was a rebuttal from a guy running for Congress who, while documenting the upfront costs to his trucking business, completely ignored medium and long term savings from efficiencies. I'm not saying he's not right or wrong about the upfront costs, but the unwillingness to discuss what everyone else in the industry appears to be recognizing suggests that ideology is trumping facts when it comes to this guy's business decisions.

I haven't been able to find anything about how the EPA regulations have led to increased consumer goods prices. I've found plenty of politically-oriented sites that predict dire outcomes, but none that shows a connection. Since we're several years into the Tier system, there should be some data on this. I'm sure someone will provide us hard data on this since so many people are convinced it must've happened. Seems to me that the whole ethanol imbroglio would be more to blame, if indeed blame was to go to some fuel-related factor in consumer prices.

As to what all this has to do with a new fuel for general aviation, it's an interesting hypothesis that you're proposing, to wit, "that this "new" gas is nothing more than a ploy to steal more money from the citizenry under the guise of "environmental conscience"." I guess Big Oil could be making out like bandits on this issue. That industry generally calls the tune and is, after all, the most profitable endeavor in the history of mankind. But, I'm not seeing how getting rid of lead in avgas is a ploy to steal more money from us. It just doesn't seem like there's enough market here to make it worth their while. However, I certainly agree with the sentiment that if there is a way for Big Oil to screw the little guy, it'll happen or it is already happening.

Your stance also suggests that you don't think the lead in avgas is any big deal. I'm not convinced either way, yet. I'd like to see some numbers on this from EPA and industry that take into account not just what is exhausted in to the air, but rather what is the total "lead impact" (for want of a better phrase) of producing and using 100LL. The most recent study I'm aware of indicates that kids who live near general aviation airports actually do have higher levels of lead in their blood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?...ldren+aviation

That of course begs the question: what level is acceptable? The answer may be "none": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19344860

Well, it appears you've convinced yourself.

[jethro99]

Sure thing, Hal. Just trying to make it a teachable moment.


As to increased mileage, best thing I've found so far is replacing my Stromberg with a Marvel-Schebler with effective mixture control. I'm seeing under 3 gal/hr at 2100 rpm for puttering in the Piet on the C-85. I can actually get around 2 g/h if I really push the lean (I have CHT probes on all 4 cylinders) and keep rpm set such that I'm barely maintaining altitude. However, replacing the Stromberg with the M-S was done to address other issues with the Stromberg and I got a deal on the M-S.

The Shell fuel is intriguing if it's based on their racing fuel. I don't know a thing about the chemistry, but the claim is that the anti-detonation properties are not due simply to slowing the flame wavefront by increasing octane number. Slowing the burn decreases the probability of detonation, but apparently lowers potential torque output of an engine that doesn't need the higher octane. If all of this is true, then the Shell fuel, which would work for higher compression engines, also could be used in the smaller Continentals and Lycomings without a torque penalty. Win-win!

Do you have any links to official oil company/gasoline suppliers data that substantiates that a slower burn rate decreases the probability of detonation?

[Jeff Boatright]

Well, it appears you've convinced yourself.

I guess I went overboard trying to figure out your post. Personal medical insurance costs? Tens of thousands of trucks taken off the highway?

Wouldn't have given a flip except so many of your other posts seem to me to be on-point and comprehensible; I assumed you had a point this time, too. So yes, I've convinced myself... See? We agree again!

[Jeff Boatright]

Do you have any links to official oil company/gasoline suppliers data that substantiates that a slower burn rate decreases the probability of detonation?

I don't have a link to an official oil company/gasoline supplier data, I'm just going by what one of the bloggers posted from his interview with a racing fuels guy:

http://forums.stlmustangs.com/index....ded-race-fuel/

As I mentioned, I have no idea about the chemistry myself, so if my statements are wrong, please correct me.

[Aaron Novak]

Jeff,
A fuels "burn rate" and its ability to "resist detonation" are independent of eath other. Detonation is not "too fast" of a burn, but rather a spontaneous global ignition of a large percentage of the fuel mass ( i.e. it all goes at once), vs normal combustion which is like a "wall of fire" that travels from the ignition point to the far reaches of the chamber over a period of time.

[Joe LaMantia]

I noticed the remark that the general aviation community is so small the 100 oct no-lead fuel would not warrant a big outlay.
I wonder if maybe other markets might also be interested in that fuel? Boating comes to mind as does every small-engine activity-- IF alcohol is omitted, that is.

If my memory serves me, there is only one refinery that actually produces 100LL and that it isn't totally dedicated to AV gas as it's output. It would be great if this new formula works in other market segments to broaden the market and reduce costs. The are two issues, first off we have to find a lead free fuel that actually works in the current GA fleet, and then we need to make sure it is affordable. The recent information from Shell is that they think they've found a lead free formula that works, no information on cost at this time. Given what we're seeing at the auto gas pumps, prices are generally falling from the $4 level to the $3 level per gallon that's 25%. This is due in part to lower demand, more efficient cars and slower economy, but also an increase in supply thanks to new drilling technology. If we could get a 25% reduction in AV gas we'd be paying $4.50/Gal instead of $6! That would put more aircraft in the air and more dollars flowing down to grass roots aviation.

Joe