This pretty much confirms what seems to have become the general consensus here. Fazit, 100LL will be available, at least in the US, for the foreseeable future. We‘ll see what the market decides.
It would be strange if Europe were to take a different path, although the EU can sometimes make unpredictable decisions. More likely in Europe is that Avgas availability drives owners to power plant change at overhaul time as options become increasingly available over time.
Not that I would like it to be different from what some of you are predicting, I would consider your key assumptions delusions of an affected group.
A) the US is (for better or worse) no precedence or guidance or even orientation for European lawmakers for most regulatory subjects
B) harming (part of the) private GA w.r.t. numbers, economic effect or political fall-out should represent no problem at all
C) under the health claim of lead-elimination, politicians could solve a noise and an emissions and a safety “problem” at the same time. Does not sound like a communication problem to me
D) one could always point to the “many” alternatives that already exist
E) if there ever were a technical issue at the TEL producing facilities, grave enough to require a new build facility, the permitting would be between nightmare and the longest you have seen.
Hence…
The Environmental Protection Agency is suggesting it won’t necessarily hold the FAA to its self-determined target of 2030 to get rid of lead emissions from light aircraft. In a statement to AvBrief, the EPA said “the 2030 date is a goal that the FAA has articulated” and suggested we ask the FAA about any deviations to that plan (we have). In the meantime it appears content to follow the FAA’s lead and ensuring a smooth process to a replacement fuel. Here’s the full statement:
In the UK this is known as “kicking the issue into tall grass” 
My money is on 100LL outlasting nearly all of us TEL is toxic but no more than hundreds of chemicals in routine production. 2K paint system, anyone?
If the EU banned TEL then Cirrus would be dealing with mayhem here in Europe, for a start. I wonder what they would do?
@ch.ess wrote:
E) if there ever were a technical issue at the TEL producing facilities, grave enough to require a new build facility, the permitting would be between nightmare and the longest you have seen.
The Chinese produce TEL – they would be delighted to step in.
just make the use of 94UL (or whatever the name of the unleaded 100LL is)
91UL
then this issue will soon resolve itself.
The main outcome would be no more SR22 sales in Europe. Whether this affects you depends on whether you are interested in an SR22. The values of the existing ones will be well supported
With new SR22s going for around 1.2M € plus VAT, depending on options, it won’t affect many people. Quite a lot of new SR22 buyers keep the plane for only a year or two and then buy another new one (the long term cost of that is about 100k a year in depreciation) so there will be plenty of nearly new ones available, for a good while.
What Europe does will have no effect on the US market, and the rest of the world, which will carry on as before.
This is some guy from Swift Fuels talking about their “100UL”
So now you can devote 1hr 25 mins of your life to watching yet another “five words where one would do” Mike Busch video He does know his stuff though – unlike 95.44% of youtube which is junk clickbait.
@Peter wrote:
This is some guy from Swift Fuels talking about their “100UL”
Almost through the podcast. The YT comments are more interesting than the interview, IMHO.
