Summary table.-Government research contracts on batteries and fuel cells through fiscal year 1965, $20,165,553 during fiscal year 1966, $8,029,754; in progress, fiscal year 1967, $683,896-Continued Investigation of battery active nickel oxides. High-energy density primary batteries.. High-capacity nonaqueous secondary battery.. Separators for silver oxide zinc and silver oxide cadmium cells for spacecraft application. Ampere-hour heat sterilizable silver-zinc cell.. Primary zinc-oxygen battery Inorganic separator for a high-temperature silver-zinc battery. Secondary zinc oxygen cell development. Zinc electrode improvement.. Gulton Industries.. .do.... General Electric.. $99.052 Unknown. National Bureau of Stand- $20,000 $20,000 General Electric... $72,000 Unknown. do-- $24, 840 Martin-Marietta Corp.. $439,000 0 General Electric.. New New $49,000 New. New $40,000 Douglas Aircraft G. & W. H. Corson, Inc.. Eagle-Picher Co. P. R. Mallory & Co. Leesona Moos Laboratories.. Summary table.—Government research contracts on batteries and fuel cells through fiscal year 1965, $20,165,553 during fiscal year 1966, $8,029,754; in progress, fiscal year 1967, $683,896-Continued DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: This supplements our communications of March 7 and March 10, 1967, responding to your request of February 25, 1967. Mr. Charles L. Poor, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (R. & D.), has supplied us with a table showing the distribution of funds in the Army's Energy Conversion Research and Development Program for Fiscal Years 1966 and 1967. A copy of Mr. Poor's letter, dated March 15, 1967, is enclosed. Sincerely, LEE C. WHITE, Chairman. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, Mr. F. STEWART BROWN, Chief, Bureau of Power, Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BROWN: The following table shows, in thousands, to the nearest hundred thousand dollars, the distribution of funds in the Army's Energy Conversion Research and Development Program. 1. Batteries. Both secondary batteries and metal air batteries have potential application as "rechargeable" energy sources. 2. Fuel cells. 3. Electrically powered vehicles and transmissions.. 4. Solid-state rectifiers and controls.. 5. Engine generators.. 1,000 6. Other energy conversions R. & D. (thermionics, photovoltaic, MHD, etc). 1,100 1,200 900 The first four categories are directly concerned with or closely related to electric propulsion. The last two are only generally related to electric propulsion. I hope this information will be of use to you in preparing for your Congressional Testimony. Sincerely, CHARLES L. POOR, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (R. & D.). Senator BAKER. Our next witness is Dr. J. Herbert Hollomon, Acting Under Secretary, Department of Commerce. Dr. Hollomon, we welcome you to the committee. As acting chairman, I understand that you and your staff might be agreeable to returning at a later date for formal presentation and questions and answers. Dr. HOLLOMON. We would be delighted to come back to the committee and try to answer not only the questions posed to me, but some of the questions that have been referred to me earlier in the testimony this morning. Senator BAKER. We look forward to that, Dr. Hollomon. We are in receipt of letters from Senator Case and Representative McCarthy; the letters will be included in the record at this point. (The letters follow:) Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committec. Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., March 7, 1967. Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMEN MAGNUSON AND MUSKIE: I am glad to join in support of the bills you have introduced to provide for a program to develop an electric car or other alternatives to the internal combustion engine. I am especially happy to support what I take to be the main purpose of these bills, namely, to deal with the air pollution problem caused by motor vehicles—a problem that is already bad and threatens to get worse. Congress, in 1965, authorized a program to control exhaust emissions from automobiles, beginning with the 1968 models. But, even before this program goes into effect, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare has warned that the anticipated heavy growth in the automobile population in the next 15 years "threatens to wipe out" any progress that may be made under the new system of controls. It is clear, I believe, that we will need to develop alternative sources of automotive power with less potential, and eventually with no potential at all, for fouling the air. The necessary research ought to be started quickly, for every day of delay means greater danger to the health of our people. Battery propulsion, fuel cells and any other means of power that reduces or eliminates air pollution should be looked into. There seems to be growing support for the electric car which had its origin in the last century and was a popular predecessor of the internal combustion machine. In a recent study, the Federal Power Commission said sufficient technology presently exists for widespread production of electrically powered cars, trucks and buses. The FPC pointed out, however, that these vehicles would be of limited speed and driving range-two of the most frequently heard arguments against the electric car. Since most family cars must serve for long distance as well as for commuter travel, these are serious drawbacks. They not only limit the applicability but also the marketability of the pure "electric," ruling it out as an immediate factor of importance in meeting our worsening air pollution problem. If we want quickly—and surely we do—a relatively pollution-free vehicle more acceptable to the public, a logical step would be to develop a "hybrid" system while research on more sophisticated batteries or fuel cells proceeds. Mr. Morton L. Kaganowich, formerly a New Jersey resident and now a mechanical engineer in Johnson City, N.Y., has suggested one possibility. In a recent letter to a national magazine (Time), Mr. Kaganowich proposed a vehicle having both a conventional internal combustion engine and an electric engine with batteries. According to Mr. Kaganowich, it would operate this way: "In the country the car could be propelled by the internal combustion engine and at the same time charge up the batteries. At points on the highways approaching metropolitan areas, signs would warn the driver to switch to electric propulsion. He would then have enough electric power to carry him in and around the metropolitan area." Such an approach, if it were technologically and economically feasible, might overcome the speed and distance problems which seem to militate, at least at present, against any substantial use of the wholly electric car. A combination engine system would, of course, continue to cause air pollution problems in the countryside and this would be a drawback. But as an interim system, pending development of better sources of electric power, it would seem to hold the promise of assuring greater use of electric vehicles than could reasonably be expected in the present state of the art. This would be a fortunate development for our metropolitan areas where air pollution caused by motor vehicles is at its worst and needs to be dealt with quickly and effectively. I urge, therefore, that in your forthcoming hearings on the electric car serious consideration be given to developing a combination engine system as a first step toward providing our people with pollution-free transportation. I ask that the text both of my letter and of Mr. Kaganowich's letter to Time magazine be incorporated in the record of the hearings you are holding next week. Sincerely, CLIFFORD P. CASE, U.S. Senator. [From Time magazine, Feb. 3, 1967] SIR: As an engineer involved with curbing industrial air pollution, I have become increasingly convinced that a great deal of our pollution is caused by cars and trucks. Your story confirms my suspicions. One answer would be a vehicle combining a conventional internal combustion engine and an electric engine with batteries. In the country the car could be propelled by the internal combustion engine and at the same time charge up the batteries. At points on the highways approaching metropolitan areas, signs would warn the driver to switch to electric propulsion. He would then have enough electric power to carry him in and around the metropolitan area. The unfortunate ones living in the smog area would have to rely on the home battery charger. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I would like to take the occasion of the Senate Commerce Committee hearings on electric auto legislation to re-state my views in this area. I feel that we must begin to think in terms of electric transportation- mainly because of the expanding problems of air and noise pollution, city traffic congestion and mass transportation. The idea of electric vehicles is not novel: Electric transportation has been used successfully in Germany, and in England as long as 27 years ago. We know that heavy concentrations of vehicles powered by internal combustion engines contribute to air pollution in a manner that is dangerous to health, causes discomfort to citizens and damage to their property and is costly to curtail On Jan. 31 of this year, I supported legislation calling for a program of research, development and demonstration of electrically powered vehicles. I am very anxious to see this carried out for a multitude of other reasons as well as the alleviation of a major pollution problem: Electric vehicles would cost less to buy and less to operate. They would have a longer life expectancy and would require no oil changes, antifreeze or water. They would be easy to operate and would start with no problem in cold weather. Repairs would be easier to get and motors themselves would be virtually silent. Speed would be controlled and electric vehicles would be smaller and easier to park. They would be safer in design and fire risks would be lower. I hope that in the light of these overwhelming advantages that your hearings will favor the idea of legislation calling for accelerated research on electric automobiles. My view is that-in time-they would be used largely in our congested urban areas and that vehicles with internal combustion engines would continue to be used in the wide-open spaces. Thank you. Sincerely yours, RICHARD D. MCCARTHY, Senator BAKER. With that, unless there is further business, the committee will stand in adjournment until 9:30 tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the committees recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 15, 1967.) |