MILES PER GALLON (EQUIVALENT GALLON) 2 14 MILES PER GALLON SAWTELLE PROJECT RESULTS 12 10 0 S-SEDAN SSS PU PU PU CA IT 1/2 1/2 12T SLIDE 11 I might add at this point, we really expect dramatic reductions in the field of repairs-in oil changes, spark plug changes and tuneups. This has been the experience of the Los Angeles Gas Co. We have no reason to expect that we won't have a similar experience. It will be necessary to operate the vehicles for a year to test what we believe will be the result, which will be one oil change a year. In sum, what we hope to achieve in using this system is (1) Carbon monoxide-80 percent reduction. (2) Hydrocarbons-90 percent reduction. (3) Oxides of nitrogen-70 percent reduction. Essentially what we are doing is demonstrating in commercial conditions that natural gas can be used economically for fleet operations to the benefit of the fleet operator, at the same time achieving a substantial reduction in air pollution for the benefit of the public. I might add for the committee to put this in perspective, this is a fleet operation system. It, almost by definition, has to be operated on a fleet system. The immediate advantage that could be achieved is illustrated by the situation in Los Angeles where, we are told, about 10 percent of the vehicle population is responsible for some 35 percent of the vehicle air pollution in the area. These 10 percent of the vehicles are the vehicles of our fleet operators, mail trucks, milk trucks, buses, and others, those vehicles that operate around the clock and not just in rush hour periods. Senator CANNON. Did the California Legislature stimulate Pacific Lighting and cause them to perfect this system, or go into this system to meet the low-emission goals? Mr. O'MAHONEY. I'm not so sure it was so much legislation as the interest of a few very dedicated gentlemen in the Los Angeles area. The man who is primarily responsible for the design of the system is an aeronautical engineer, and he got together with some Pacific Lighting people. It was probably self interest in his own environment as much as anything else. Senator CANNON. What percentage of air pollution is caused by fleet vehicles? Mr. O'MAHONEY. There are no exact figures on this. As I said, it has been estimated, and this is only an estimate, it really probably is not possible to know exactly, but they estimate that in Los Angeles 35 percent of the pollution in Los Angeles is caused by fleet or fleettype operations-delivery trucks, taxicabs, and the like. Senator CANNON. Is the Pacific Co. converting more of their vehicles over now? Mr. O'MAHONEY. They plan to convert a very large additional number of vehicles. I think in the neighborhood of 900 or 1,000 in the next year or so. Senator CANNON. Based on the cost that you indicated if this legislation became law, wouldn't incentives provided in this legislation permit the acquisition of vehicles? Mr. CHAPMAN. I didn't quite get that question, Senator. Senator CANNON. We have provided in here 125 percent to GSA for the purpose of acquisition of vehicles. What I am saying is, based on your cost experience at this time, would that be an adequate amount to authorize the conversion or the procurement of these vehicles? Mr. CHAPMAN. Yes. It authorizes an additional 25 percent over our present limitation. That limitation is now $1,650 for a sedan or station wagon. Twenty five percent would give us an additional $400 or so, and this equipment costs in the neighborhood of $350. Mr. O'MAHONEY. I might add, Senator, that we hope to bring the cost down. The cost we are paying now is the initial cost in fairly low volume procurement. Most of the equipment you saw in that system is on the shelf, existing devices, and the only thing in it that is unique or new is the dual-fuel mixer which costs about $65. The rest of the equipment can be procured, we think, at lower prices. Senator CANNON. Do you think that 25-percent premium in the legislation would preclude any systems other than, for example, this one? Would it preclude electric or steam type systems, or do you have any facts on which to base that? Mr. CHAPMAN. I don't have any information on those types; no, sir. Senator CANNON. What pollution levels do you think can be reached by this type of vehicle, this type of compressed natural gas construction? Mr. O'MAHONEY. Using rather round figures, Senator, and I wouldn't want the ecologists and the specialists in this area to bring me up short, we are talking about bringing pollutants down to somewhere between 10 or 15 percent. We are talking about reductions on a scale of 85 to 90 percent of that pollution produced by vehicles which meet the 1969 Federal standards. Whether or not this in fact will be true, we will have to await the results of our tests in March, and the other tests later in the year. Our results may not be that good. Senator CANNON. Do you think that the premium we have provided here should be on the suggested retail price, or should be on the statutory price limitation? I'm thinking now as a practical matter, as to whether or not we can provide an incentive within that area. Mr. CHAPMAN. I've got some figures which may or may not be helpful to the committee relative to the approximate amount of our annual procurements-we procure about 20,000 sedans and station wagons annually, and they are the ones which have the present $1,650 limitation. Until recently, as you know, it was $1,500. We procure annually about 80,000 trucks of all sizes. Our annual procurement of these vehicles-and this, of course is not just for GSA, it is for all of Government-runs in the neighborhood of $140 million. If this bill were to apply to all vehicles, it would cost an additional $56 million annually. If it applies just to station wagons and sedans, it would cost an additional $8 million, and I confess that there is some confusion at least in my own mind as to whether the intent of the bill, when it refers to "primarily passenger-carrying vehicles" is in fact limited to sedans and vehicles, as some of us think, or does it apply to trucks also? Senator CANNON. I think the position of the committee would be that it does apply to trucks also. Mr. CHAPMAN. It uses the words "primarily passenger-carrying vehicles." That is the language we find in the bill. Perhaps the committee might want to clarify that. Senator CANNON. The committee may give some further consideration to that, but I think that was the intent. Mr. CHAPMAN. The difference is, if it includes all vehicles, under our current procurement level it would increase our costs by about $56 million; if it were just the station wagons and sedans, about $8 million. Senator CANNON. Senator Baker? 41-711 0-70- 4 Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I would like to ask one or two questions about the fascinating concept of natural gas engines. With respect to those miles per gallon you showed on the chart, I noticed the vertical column at equivalent gallons. Is that based on a match-up of cost per B.t.u., gasoline versus natural gas? Mr. O'MAHONEY. It is the equivalent, Senator, of 100 cubic feet of natural gas per gallon of gasoline, which is a ratio arrived at by measuring B.t.u.'s. Senator BAKER. So it is an energy content equivalence comparison instead of a cost of equivalence? Mr. O'MAHONEY. It is, and it is a little on the conservative side. Senator BAKER. How does the cost equivalency compare? Mr. O'MAHONEY. About 25 percent less for natural gas. Senator BAKER. And the conversion of a typical production reciprocating engine, is there any experimentation or development on reciprocating engine or an external engine that would use natural gas to see what emission results you might get there, or what efficiencies you might get? Mr. O'MAHONEY. There has been some experimental work on natural gas powered aircraft engines by Pratt and Whitney in FloridaI believe West Palm Beach. I don't think it is active at this time. Senator BAKER. If you convert a standard gasoline-burning reciprocating engine to natural gas utilization, almost by mechanical axiom it can't be as efficient as if you designed the reciprocating engine to burn natural gas. I wonder if there was any exploration of this? Mr. O'MAHONEY. That is correct, there is some exploration. There is another system. You can use liquid natural gas, and we do have in the future plans to utilize liquid natural gas to give our vehicles a lot larger range. When this is done, there will have to be a conversion of the engine. It will not be a dual-fuel system, but a single-fuel system. Senator BAKER. Which ought to, intrinsically, be more efficient? Mr. O'MAHONEY. It ought to. We lose about 5 to 10 percent efficiency now with natural gas, over gasoline. Senator BAKER. You will probably have a penalty of costs, too, because there are certain aspects of the production of reciprocating engines that are designed for liquid fuels that you don't need to have in natural gas. Mr. O'MAHONEY. That's correct. But the fuel actually is 130 octane. We are not getting the octane out of the natural gas that we could get. But to do that, we would have to modify the engine, and we would have to modify it in such a way that it couldn't be used with gasoline. Senator BAKER. What do you do, put it at higher compression, higher combustion temperatures? Mr. O'MAHONEY. Higher compressions, recamming, spark adjust ments. Senator BAKER. Do you have a problem then with oxides of nitrogen from the higher compression and combustion temperature? Mr. O'MAHONEY. No; the oxides of nitrogen reductions still hold. There has been some question in the past about this, but it is true. Senator BAKER. Is this stripped natural gas, that is, the type that is ordinarily transmitted by mains and laterals to a home, or is it wet natural gas? Mr. O'MAHONEY. Absolutely, it comes right off the line. We take the gas in West Los Angeles right on the VA incoming line. Senator BAKER. Would it be better to use natural gas unstripped, wet gas? Mr. O'MAHONEY. I don't know the answer to that, Senator. Senator BAKER. What about the range of these vehicles? I saw your tank in the back of the pickup truck. How far can you go on a tank of that kind? Mr. O'MAHONEY. We have on each of the vehicles in California two tanks, which gives you a range of about 80 miles, and this is sufficient for their operation. This is a limiting factor. That is why it is a fleet situation, vehicles that operate within range of the refueling facility. Senator BAKER. Do you have any figures on what you could do rangewise with liquid natural gas? Mr. O'MAHONEY. We could get the same range that you get out of a normal tank of gasoline. Senator BAKER. Do you have any design penalties such as insulation to keep the gas cold? Mr. O'MAHONEY. There is loss of space due to the tanks in the sedans. It is about three times the size of the present gasoline tank. There is practically no loss in the larger vehicles because there is a lot of waste space. But in sedans it would almost require redesign of the sedan. Senator BAKER. It certainly wouldn't be impossible by any means, and some of us might welcome that design change. Let me ask this last question, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Would you give me, and I realize this is a highly subjective evaluation, but would you give me some judgment of the relative safety of the use of liquid gasoline as a motor vehicle fuel versus the use of liquid fuel natural gas as a compulsive fuel? Mr. O'MAHONEY. It is safer. That is more than a subjective judgment. It isn't by accident that my project director is a safety engineer. I was counsel to the National Highway Safety Bureau for 2 years before I took this job, and I am very conscious of safety. Senator, it is safer because it has a lower ignition point by a significant amount. In the event of a catastrophic accident where there would be rupture of the fuel lines, the fuel goes up, it escapes in the air. Were it to ignite, and it is less likely to ignite, it would just burn or blow itself out. It is not collected in a pool or pond. We are going to run some tests on this in conjunction with the Department of Transportation. Senator BAKER. What kind of tests? Mr. O'MAHONEY. Some barrier crash impact tests. Just take a system in a vehicle and crash it to verify what I just said. All the data indicates it is safer than gasoline. |