There is no medical evidence on the effects of lead on health
\nto oppose the view that the orderly gradual lead phase-out in
\nIndonesia, which is already underway, should continue.<\/p>\n
;JP;
\nANPAk..r..<\/p>\n
Gasoline lead phase-out? The time's still not right
\nJP\/6\/BOB<\/p>\n
Gasoline lead phase-out? The time's still not right<\/p>\n
Bob Larbey
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
In 2003, Indonesia's government expressed its intention to ban
\nleaded gasoline in 2005. This would mean the entire gasoline-
\npowered vehicle fleet, ie cars, taxis, motor cycles, mopeds and
\nbajas will next year be running on unleaded fuel. One of the
\nurgent issues that need to be addressed by President Susilo
\nBambang Yudhoyono and his cabinet is a review of this policy.
\nThey should be asking themselves the question, is the time and
\neconomic climate right for gasoline lead phase-out next year? In
\nmy opinion the answer will be a firm \"no\".<\/p>\n
At a time when the price of crude oil has dramatically
\nescalated it makes sound economic sense to delay lead phase-out
\n-- which will be exceedingly costly and consume more energy --
\nuntil oil supplies and prices stabilize, and ideally fall.<\/p>\n
Given that producing only unleaded gasoline would be extremely
\ncostly, are there paramount environmental arguments in favor of a
\nrapid lead phase-out, regardless of the expense? In my opinion,
\nno. I contend that there is no medical evidence on the effects of
\nlead on health to oppose the view that the orderly gradual lead
\nphase-out in Indonesia, which is already underway, should
\ncontinue.<\/p>\n
However, there are always some residential and industrial
\nenvironments where unsafe lead levels can be found. But focusing
\nsolely on gasoline lead removal to achieve perceived improvements
\nruns the risk of deflecting attention away from other sources of
\nlead which might warrant urgent investigation and remedial
\naction.<\/p>\n
Extra energy consumption in the refinery to produce unleaded
\nfuel is in the form of crude oil. It results from the need for
\nmore severe refining to produce gasoline components, such as
\naromatics from catalytic reformers, which are employed to replace
\nthe octane numbers lost by lead's elimination. The exact figures
\ninvolved depend largely upon the octane quality of both the
\nleaded and unleaded gasolines marketed, as well as the current
\nrefinery configurations.<\/p>\n
Huge investment demands arise from the essential requirement
\nfor expensive imports of \"hi-tech\" refinery equipment. Catalytic
\nreforming, isomerisation and alkylation units are commonly
\nemployed to produce high octane gasoline components.<\/p>\n
Plants can also be installed to manufacture the so-called
\n\"oxygenate\" compounds of which MTBE and ethanol are the most
\nwidely used. However, extra energy consumption and high
\ninvestment costs are involved here, too. At the moment Indonesia
\nimports expensive High octane gasoline blending components(HOBC)
\nfrom Singapore to provide octane numbers lost by lead's
\nelimination from gasoline in Jakarta.<\/p>\n
Despite concern in some quarters over the health risks
\nassociated with gasoline lead, there is environmental
\njustification to support the retention of leaded fuel for a
\nlonger period. The gasoline components necessary to replace
\nlead's octane numbers can themselves contribute to harmful
\nexhaust emissions.<\/p>\n
Aromatics, which include benzene, together with oxygenates
\nsuch as alcohols, are by far the most popular octane enhancers
\nemployed worldwide. But these gasoline components increase the
\ncancer inducing, smog-forming, lung irritant potential and the
\nacid rain content of exhaust gas from \"non-cat\" vehicles.<\/p>\n
There is an important technical facet to the gasoline lead
\nremoval debate. Lead possesses a lubricating property that
\nprevents exhaust valve seat recession (vsr) in older cars fitted
\nwith cast iron engines.<\/p>\n
It's a fact that most of the world's leading industrialized
\nnations have already completed the transition to totally unleaded
\ngasoline. Interestingly, the U.S. and Europe took some 20 years
\nor so to phase lead out.<\/p>\n
Why was unleaded introduced in the first place? Initially
\nlead-free fuel was needed for catalyst-equipped cars introduced
\ninto the U.S. and Japan markets in the mid-1970s. In the U.S.,
\ncatalysts were fitted so that the car manufacturers could meet
\nthe U.S. government's exhaust emissions limits mandated at that
\ntime to improve air quality, as required by the 1970 Clean Air
\nAct.<\/p>\n
At a worrying time of high and still rising crude oil prices
\nit would be prudent for Indonesia to delay the high capital
\ninvestment and imports of even more HOBC involved in making all
\ngasoline unleaded. This policy would not in any way compromise
\nthe country's commitment to complete gasoline lead phase-out as
\nsoon as the economic climate improves.<\/p>\n
Historically, because they are very costly measures, the
\nwealthiest countries such as the U.S., Canada, Germany and
\nSwitzerland were among the first to reduce lead contents of
\ngasoline and then phase out lead altogether. Other nations
\nfollowed suit as and when they could accept the high cost
\nimplications.<\/p>\n
During my visits to Indonesia in the 1990s, it became
\nabundantly clear that urban air quality urgently needed
\nimproving. But I believe that the pollutants of greatest concern
\nand which were and still are causing the greatest human health
\nproblems are particulates, mainly originating from 2-stroke and
\ndiesel-powered vehicles, carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons
\nand oxides of nitrogen.<\/p>\n
Because they are poorly maintained and serviced, the majority
\nof vehicles are fuel inefficient and gross emitters. Significant
\nimprovements in air quality would accrue from attention to this
\naspect of vehicle ownership. An inspection and maintenance
\nprogram would help greatly. To make matters worse, car engines
\nare designed or tuned to run on a lower octane grade of gasoline,
\nwhich makes them fuel inefficient.<\/p>\n
Superficially, the lead phase-out issue appears to be a
\nrelatively simple one of comparing the lead and health risk with
\nthe cost of refinery conversion and extra energy consumption. But
\nthe issue has further facets of some importance. As already
\nmentioned, consideration needs to be given to the health and
\nenvironmental risks associated with increased usage of certain
\noctane enhancing components.<\/p>\n
Doubtless, Indonesia's new government will be reminded that
\nthe \"Blue Sky\" initiative of 1996 targeted 2000 as the lead
\nphase-out date. Also it will be told that a regeneration of \"Blue
\nSky\" in July 1999 aimed at January 2003 for leaded gasoline
\nremoval. However, to be fair to the authorities in control at
\nthat time there were good economic reasons for these delays.<\/p>\n
The burden of huge extra costs and subsidies just could not be
\ntolerated. Furthermore, there were other more pressing priorities
\nfor the country's limited budget. If anything, there is now even
\ngreater justification for delaying the completion of the
\ntransition to unleaded fuel. Jakarta going totally unleaded in
\n2003 was a significant, if costly, achievement.<\/p>\n
The writer is a UK-based international consultant on fuels,
\nengines and emissions. Until the early 1990s he was first
\nsecretary and then chairman of the European Oil Industry's Co-
\noperative Octane Requirement Committee.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/there-is-no-medical-evidence-on-the-effects-of-lead-on-health-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}