Apollo 20 said:
This is an interesting topic.
TY.

For that, I'm answering you first.
Apollo 20 said:
I suspect that there would have been some very beneficial effects over time, but I'd really have to do some research to come up with anything I could back up. Lead is an incredibly toxic substance and its presence in gasoline probably had some serious negative health and social consequences.
What little I've read suggests about 3 IQ points off everybody exposed & there's an increased tendency to crime due to lack of ability to restrain behavior. The estimate I saw was something like US$10 billion a year spent on reducing lead would pay back at least $100 billion a year



in effects.
Apollo 20 said:
On the technological side, it would have forced engine manufacturers and the petroleum industries to work around the lack of lead in fuel earlier just as they did when lead was finally banned years later.
That's my thinking, too. I'm picturing the improved combustion chambers of late '80s cars, with more hemis (the Ardun, for a start), plus more dual-plugs (like the Roof {Root?}), likely earlier widespread acceptance of SOHC/DOHC & FI.
That said, in the immediate term, does this affect GP or Indy racing? Or were they using methanol? Would that be the first go-to, a wholesale switch? Or is a switch to propane or natural gas more probable?
Booster Gold said:
To be fair, man, it's kind of an obscure POD. Maybe you're not getting the responses you want because you're asking rather specific questions.
Maybe. It's no less discouraging for that. (With that nickname, I'd have thought the
J'onn J'onzz thread would get you...

{OK, also plug.

})
Booster Gold said:
But in the spirit of the universal brotherhood of man, I'll have a go.

TY. That's one reason I keep trying.
Booster Gold said:
If the guy somehow managed to get tetraethyllead removed from gasoline, it would cause a problem with lend lease as none of the put together equipment (trucks and such) we sent to Europe would be compatible with their petrol.
I'm less sure. AIUI, the U.S. was the world's #1 supplier of fuel at this time. (Or is that just crude oil?

)
Before WW2, I don't think it's an issue. During, the close Br-U.S. co-operation means whatever solutions the U.S. companies took are going to be shared with the Brits, & until the Brits are ready, U.S. companies will provide fuels, so no problem. (Maybe some local shortages...but maybe better protection of tankers as a result, so no, or reduced, "2d Happy Time"? Which means the "fuel crisis" of OTL doesn't happen, either? Or is earlier...)
Booster Gold said:
Might cause the Soviets more problems ...which mean more deaths on the Western Front.
I'm seeing that impact as small, but I know so little about L-L to the SU...
There are 2 approaches that might work, tho: build more diesels, or switch to LPG or CNG. (Also, AIUI, diesels will run on both of those, too.) This is better in some ways: propane has a natural octane of around 130, natgas about 120, IIRC; obvious downside is the weight of the tanks & their disturbing tendency to act like bombs.

(Which could mean early development of FAEs...

) Diesel simplifies the fuel supply issues somewhat (& works for LR maritime patrol a/c nicely

), but AIUI produces less energy
per gallon, so consumption will slightly be higher.
Syriac said:
I can't speak to the engineering aspects. I do think crime would have been reduced over the next couple of decades, and you'd probably have a slightly more efficient workforce.
That's the big one I saw, too--& not just immediately, but continuing.

With probable benefits into now.

(Not least, very probably, avoiding the prison-building boom



& maybe no 3-stikes laws.


)
The economic & social benefits of the country generally being smarter are pretty incalculable, but...more innovation?


(Can you feature the U.S. being
more innovative than OTL?

Canada, too, I imagine.

)
Syriac said:
I don't think it would substantially effect the moral panics of the 50s except via butterflies. The moral panics were driven by social factors more than any real problem ....the hearings about organized crime were attacking a real problem, but both were designed to get Estes Kefauver elected to high office. You could easily say something else gets a moral panic attached to it, although you'd have to find something that people weren't already freaking out over in the 50s.
All true. (I was trying to think of anything that might be fallout from crime, or affected by less crime.

)
I wonder if this impacts at all on Prohibition surviving, or if the associated crime there is affected at all? My sense is, the effect of lead is too long-term, so if it's gone in '24-'25, it won't be noticed before 1935-40 or so.
It also occurs to me: it lead in the air is seen as a problem, what about lead in paint? (IDK when it was removed.) Or cigarettes? Or asbestos? Does this at all affect recognition of those hazards?
marathag said:
72 is about as high as you can go for refining without additives. TEL was just used as it was cheap and had good storage characteristics.
True, which makes doing it harder...
marathag said:
72 With a War on, you sure there wouldn't be an Executive Order allowing TEL use for duration of the War?
That is depressingly likely.

It's also all too likely the "temporary" pass becomes permanent postwar.
OTOH, it does depend on how successful oil & chemical companies are at coming up with something better.
IDK enough about the chemistry, but two approaches occurred to me. One is adding (inventing) MME. The other is "remixing" gasoline with benzenes & other stuff, like Formula One teams did for awhile. I'm seeing both of these needing chemistry that's too sophisticated for the '30s or '40s, tho. Am I wrong? Is this in reach by WW2? By 1950?
I'm already glad I posted this one.



None of these had even crossed my mind.
