I invite Ms. Seagrist to join us at the table. Good morning. Good morning. I'm back in. Thank you for having me. Good morning. Happy Friday. Happy Friday. The day before break. We have three weeks off. I don't know, barely. Well, shoot. I want to stay with you guys then. All right. Thank you for having me for the record here in Seagrist with the Vermont Retail and Grocery Association. Just a little overview on VRGA. VRGA represents over 450 members across the state. Our membership is inclusive of a variety of business types and models, including general retail grocery stores, convenience stores, distributors, food producers, and business services. So I'm here to testify on S113. Plastic bags and other single-use disposable items are used by almost every Vermont resident in business. We must consider the impact of new policies, not only on the environment, but also the human condition as it is now. And consider education and a phased approach to eliminating these plastics. While VRGA has not taken a position on straws, I would like to address the other two pieces of S113. So first of all, I'd like to talk about single-use carry-up bags. S113 only acknowledges single-use plastic bags. The straight ban of only one of two options often presented at a grocery store will result in consumers taking the alternative that is still available for free. And while consumption of single-use plastic will decrease, consumption of free paper will increase. Paper bags are heavier than plastic. They require more space for storage and require up to seven times the number of truck loads in order to transport the same amount of plastic bags. Allowing disposable paper bags but not single-use plastic bags will also cost retailers up to six times the cost of plastic bags. So to address the environmental, natural resources, and financial effects of single-use bags, I ask the committee to consider a phased-in program to discourage the use of both single-use plastic and single-use carry-up paper bags before banning all single-use carry-up plastic bags. This is why the VRGA is supporting the bill that came out in the house yesterday, H506, with maybe a couple of tweaks. The bill would impose a 5-cent fee on paper and plastic, beginning, I believe, the date for the bill is September 1st, 2019. Did that come out of a committee, or is it off? It was just introduced. Oh, it was introduced, okay. So it hasn't been passed today. So it would impose a 5-cent fee on paper and plastic single-use carry-up bags. And one year later, it would ban single-use plastic bags while continuing the 5-cent fee on paper. The fee would stay with the retailer to offset the cost of the bags. We must allow time to educate consumers about this change, deter them from the expectation of a free, disposable paper bag, and allow retailers to eliminate their inventory of those plastics. By no means do we believe that this will make a significant impact in the amount of plastics in our environment, but we have no interest and we do not support a patchwork of bands or fees across the state. So I'll stop there and answer any questions on the plastic bag piece, if you'd like. Do you have a per bag cost on paper and plastic, what they actually cost the stores, just a ballpark? So our members range from very small independent retailers to the large chain grocery stores. So depending on how many you're purchasing, what the sizes are, I've had some, the larger retailers are probably paying closer to four or five cents for a paper bag, where if you're a small retailer, you might be paying 25 cents for a paper bag. As far as plastic, those are probably closer to two or three cents for the plastic bags. At a large retailer, they're probably a little more expensive for the smaller retailers. Okay, so you think plastic bags are still costing them that much? I would have thought if they're buying large volume, they'd have got them down to. Those are the reports that I've heard from members, but again, I haven't heard from them. So it's a little cheaper than paper, but where they save the money is in trucking and storage and all that. Because it's so much more condensed. Okay, thank you. Would you remind me the house number of the bill? H506. I was going to print off copies, but I'm just kidding. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I was thinking if those figures four or five cents, whatever, per bag for a figure of profits, that would seem to include the cost of trucking already, right? I think they're going to cost, but they're not as compact, so I get that in place. I suppose, well, just a test, it makes me think we used to always get paper, so somehow, I'm not talking about the cost. Somehow it was a manageable way of doing things. I don't know if it's changed in terms of, I can see that you can get many plastic bags and a tiny space at the end of a checkout counter. I think it all goes down. It all comes down to convenience, right? Whether it's convenience for the consumer or convenience for the retailer. Regardless of who we're thinking of, it, you know, VRGA doesn't have an interest in having a patchwork. So, you know, we would prefer that, you know, if some towns are going to consider bands or fees, then we should do it statewide, and, you know, we should all be on the same page, whether we're talking retailers or consumers. I just want to reiterate, too, sorry, Senator, that we're coming out in support of a bill. You know, this is a first for VRGA in a number of years. So, we're supportive of this. Any bill? Well, no, no, no. Like a ban or a fee. Yes, yes. I will share with you that I've worked rather closely with members for several months to try to get all sizes of members to some consensus. You know, we've got large retailers and small retailers.  Well, I think I told the committee when we were in Hawaii they didn't have plastic bags available at some stores and they charged 15 cents for a big heavy-duty paper bag with handles that was a nice reusable bag. And, you know, because we were traveling, we didn't have our cloth shopping bags that we use around here. Was it strong enough where you could reuse it? Oh, yeah, it was a big strong bag and it was paper and I didn't mind paying the 15 cents for it. So I think, you know, that's a good way to get people started is start charging them, make them cover the cost of what the bag actually costs. Right now they're getting them free. Yeah, by simply banning plastic, you're not changing a practice because, you know, if you're going to the grocery store, there's paper there. So you have a free alternative still. So, you know, it's just shifting their practice from plastic to paper. Well, I think that a calculator for a given population, if you use single-use plastic bags, what are the impacts? Well, and so, assuming that Vermont just behaved like the Massachusetts folks that put together the spreadsheet, we used something in the order of $332 million for single-use plastic bags a year. That's amazing. In Vermont. In Vermont. Just in Vermont. So it's surprisingly big, because the average person gets 562 of them or something a year. I mean, who knows. Well, but the other thing is you know a single-use. I mean, responsible people reuse them and recycle them. The problem is they're irresponsible. People who let them blow in the wind and go down the street. And the cost of those was estimated at $13.2 million. So they seem free, but they're just baked into the price right now. So maybe people see what they're planning for some time to help them. Well, even if you use them again, they do end up in a landfill. What happens when they do decompose? Well, our recycling facility recycles them. Right. I don't know what happens to them. So you can...  And I understand they don't. There's a small portion of consumers do. But, you know, we have a box at home and we just shove all the plastic, any type of plastic. We clean it out, shove it in the box, and we take it back to the grocery store. You know, if we could, if there was some way that we could encourage consumers to bring them back to the grocery store and have them recycled, but I understand, you know, there needs to be a consequence for your actions. I get it. So this is why we say it needs to... If you want to change practices, you have to charge a fee. Yeah. Well, and also, if people have to charge... If people have to pay a fee and do the math, the cloth bags aren't that expensive. It's just a change of habit to start bringing your own bags.  Right. Right. And you had mentioned at the beginning outreach and education. Yes. And I don't know if you were in the Zoom or in Bridalboro, sent a representative to talk to us about something. And he was saying that was one of the most important things, because they had a long phase in time. And while they were phasing in on the vendor side, and they were lining up for the replacements, how do you make the transition smooth for shops and customers? But they did a lot of outreach to help people know it was happening. So it was that they actually had to be very smooth transition, smoother than they ever thought. But it was improved at first. A lot of work to get people ready. Right. And that's also something I'm, you know, VRJA is happy to assist in creating some type of outreach. You know, whether it's just creating a sign and sending it out to members and saying, post this on your counter, letting members know where your customers know that this is coming. You know, that's why we did say let's impose a five cent fee. You know, there's potentially a three or four month lead up to say this is coming. You know, we can put those signs out saying you will be charged. And then you get another year to get out of that practice of purchasing a bag and get into a practice of bringing your own. And there's opportunity to educate the public that way as well. If any service is going to hit and sit before we start charging a bag, and you will call ready. There's several stores around the state. Several of the small retailers here in Montpelier actually for years have been collecting five cent fees or five cents. You know, if you don't take a bag, they take five cents out of their register, put it in a donation jar, and at the end of the month they donate to a charity.  You know, if you don't take the bag, we'll give five cents to a charity. And towns around the state have been doing that for years. Yeah. They're still in business? Yes. Yes, they're still in business. Thank you. So the second piece that Bill gets into, other forms, something like that? Yes. Yeah. So, my understanding is we're talking about expanded polystyrene. Yeah. So, as the landscape continues to rapidly change, whether we're talking about online shopping, increasing, or increased consumer demand for more environmentally friendly carry-up products and packaging, we are encouraging the committee to establish a comprehensive plastic pollution management task force with balanced representation to study ways to efficiently and cost-effectively reduce plastic waste, including expanded polystyrene. And just so you know, one of the things folks, you know, ordering breaks to get back is to look at if we captured this bill was based on a major scale. So that was the first cut at what was in and out. But I think we're probably not identifying all the categories of plastic that we want. And I think the clear Right. the clear things that a lot of food comes in aren't designed to get polystyrene. It isn't. But that's where I got caught up because I thought it was all polystyrene and then I re-read the whole time. So it's expanded polystyrene. So it's a very it's a very narrow definition. Let me get our specs to that. Yeah. So regardless, we would ask that you establish a task force similar to other states, including New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York and Connecticut. They've all created some type of task force or study committee to identify those plastics and how to effectively eliminate those from the waste room. Yes, I can I'm happy to put a list together and send it back to you. Yes. The overall timeline is to be aiming for July of next year, 2020 to have made the full transition. Does that seem about the right time for you? I know you're talking about any in-step charging for bags. But are you looking at that sort of roughly 15 month rollout for the whole thing? Meaning the plastic bag ban and the task force. 15 month rollout for plastic bag ban would essentially We're looking for everything and we're trying to do it once and be more comprehensive. Right. The fundamental problem we need to address is the plastics are in this forever. We just don't be going to natural cycles and they just get into smaller, smaller pieces. We're looking at reasonable products. So I think the 15 month timeline reflects what we had supported in H506. So I don't anticipate that we would push back on that. Yeah. I will I'll send you my testimony. There are other points about the task force but just to keep it short we would ask you to consider a task force. I will send you a list of those who I would like to be a part of that discussion and I can send other suggestions as well. Thank you. I'm not recharging groceries but I mean our first list of natural things that are assessing the critical role. Yes. Right. Right. Yeah. Jefferson Airplane over there. I'm missing the exact direction. I don't know the 1960 plastic pen test look. I thought he was headed down as well before my time. So all right. Thank you for your time. This year. Well that's a perfect segue to this table. Good morning. Good morning. That's right. Um, Jen Duggan conservation law foundation. Um, conservation law foundation one of priority programs is our zero waste project and that project aims to reduce waste and protect communities from unsafe waste disposal practices and protect against plastic pollution. So one of the top goals of that project is to ban single-use plastics that can't be recycled. And so we strongly support this bill. I wanted to start before talking about the specifics of the bill just to take a step back and talk about the life cycle cost associated with plastic pollution. I think did Juna think provide the committee with a copy of the hidden cost of plastic pollution? Did she? Okay great so I just great yeah no that's fine. So I think I just want to call your attention to this and I'm happy to if it hasn't been sent to you just to make sure that you all get it but this is a really comprehensive report. So this report does an excellent job of walking through the different costs associated with plastic throughout the whole life cycle. And I have a page that I'll just hand you while I'm talking. We have another witness. Thank you. I like diagrams. Agree. I think that when you are tackling really complex systems problems like plastic pollution or toxic chemicals you really have to look at the big picture. And plastics in particular I think it's incredibly important. So you know we I think we're all familiar with those very overwhelming and emotional images of plastic pollution in the ocean. The big swaths of plastic the the marine life has been impacted by plastic. And you know we know you know folks have estimated that there's gonna be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050. But that really is just the tip of the iceberg and this report really walks you through that. So plastics are you know we start from what plastics are made of. They're made using petroleum products and it's often sourced from fracked gas. And so that extraction process releases toxic substances into the air and water. There are over a hundred and seventy different fracking chemicals that have known human health impacts. Cancer neurotoxicity reproductive and development toxicity. So this the process of just extracting the petroleum to make the plastic is dangerous. The refineries and the plastic manufacturing process itself releases carcinogenic carcinogenic and other highly toxic substances into the air. These facilities are often located in low income or minority communities. So there are equity issues associated with the production of plastic. They break down into dangerous micro plastics that can cause real harm to both humans and wildlife if they're ingested or inhaled. If they don't end up in the environment they go into a landfill or an incinerator again other sources of really dangerous pollution and also again more likely to be cited in a community in an environmental justice community. And there is a real climate connection here with the production of plastic. We use fossil fuels to make plastic. The manufacturers emit greenhouse gas emissions. There are greenhouse gas emissions associated with transport of the raw product finished product. And we now know that plastic that sits in the oceans and landfills emit methane and ethylene as they degrade and those are greenhouse gases. So I just you know want to I think it's important to kind of hold these life cycle costs of plastics when we're talking about this this bill. You know we can't recycle our way out of this problem. We need to recycle as much as possible but it's not enough. Many plastics can't be recycled due to their chemical makeup. We know that plastic bags and some other plastics cause contamination of the recycling stream so it impairs our ability to actually do the recycling that we can do. And life cycle costs are not eliminated with recycling. So even if we reuse a single use plastic bag or we recycle something all the costs associated with making you know that product are still there for you know for society in those communities. So the diagram I passed out kind of walks through some of the public health impacts you know for direct exposure. But this doesn't even talk about the impact to wildlife the impact to the environment or the climate change connection. This is really just looking at even a sliver of what we're talking about is the public health impacts from direct exposure. So the bill itself I think that single use plastic bags straws and the poly styrene foam are really some of the most important plastics to tackle first. You know even though technically we can recycle single use plastic bags they don't get recycled. I think you know we folks have different figures for this but recycling rates are about 7 percent. They are one of the top sources of contamination in curbside recycling programs. They tangle and sorting equipment. They slow lines. They increase costs. They are a major litter problem. They're one of the top types of trash that are found at beach and land based litter cleanups. They cause harm to wildlife. They can be flushed into sewer systems. Claw catch basins cause problems for cities and towns and their municipal infrastructure. And they aren't free. I mean retailers pay for the bags and that cost is passed on to consumers. You know I would just note that we agree with Ms. Seagrest about the need for a fee for paper bags. You know we believe that we should move forward with a ban on single on the single use plastic bags but also charge a fee on the paper bags so that we're really incentivizing that shift in behavior to truly reusable bags. So that's one thing that we would we would recommend. With respect to polystyrene it's one of the most dangerous plastics that are sold on the market. You know it breaks down into small particles that can be dispersed pretty quickly into the environment. I want to for an example that the polystyrene is that like like the food containers like the styrofoam expanded foam. It's the this the bill looks at the foam the polystyrene foam. Okay so it's like the white styrofoam container. Yes. You have to know the clear plastic ones. Do you know what they are? I don't know but I can get that answer for you. So it can break down quickly which is part of even though it can technically be recycled this is one of the challenges. It can't be recycled if there are if it's not clean and so if you're using it for food you've you've contaminated it. It also crumbles really quickly and so you know it has no value as a raw material so if you think about what we're recycling glass you know things that are most valuable you know that has a value as a raw material this this does not and it's very energy intensive recycling foam this particular type of foam. So effectively it really is not recyclable. It also you know part of the process in building this type of foam uses benzene and that's released during the manufacturer an incineration of this if it does end up an incinerator or in the environment it also has dangerous toxics in this product as well. And then the last thing I'll you know touch on is the is the straws you know these are also in the top of every beach cleanup. They pose a serious danger to wildlife. They break down into microplastics they're too small really for recycling equipment and so they mostly end up in landfills and the incinerator and the environment and really the vast majority of straws you know except for you know where there's a medical condition or disability they're just unnecessary. They're in there are lots of alternatives that are widely available metal straws so I think that I mean we're kind of talking about a pretty simple concept you know if a product that you know causes harm to public health uses a lot of toxic products and it's not going to degrade and it should never really be used for a purpose that is for a matter of seconds and so you know this is a pretty simple concept. My five-year-old daughter understands this you know we had a conversation and we about straws she is always want you know always wanted a straw always ask for straw didn't really understand why we don't have straws in our house or why we didn't get one when we went to the restaurant so we had a conversation and we talked through what it takes to create this what it does where it ends up in the environment and she said why would why would we ever use this like she got it it's a pretty simple concept so so I think that you know looking at it's not just about this isn't just about litter you know you are yes we are reducing waste but we are addressing social inequities in the waste and how we dispose of waste you're reducing upstream impacts you're actually improving the recycling system because you're dealing with things that contaminate recycling streams and you know there are there are cost savings associated with getting these out you know of our of our system there are some numbers from California California was the first state to enact it's the only state that has a as a statewide bag then and just in and beach and cleanups alone it's saving them millions of dollars every year so there's you know there is a cost savings so it's a direct economic cost savings in addition to all of the benefits associated with reducing upstream impacts as well so the other thing I'll just I'll flag is that states and towns are moving towards addressing single use plastic and it's really evident when you look at sort of the state of play with receptive bag bands across the US and in New England and so you know California is the only statewide ban they've had that in place since 2016 but senator you mentioned Hawaii every county has they've done it they've basically done a statewide ban through their county bands every county has banned bags New York New Jersey and Washington they their leadership has all said we are going to do this we're moving towards getting this done in Vermont there are multiple towns that are moving forward to ban bags Brattleboro you know I thought it was really great to hear that he he basically the gentleman from Brattleboro testified that they were surprised at how smoothly it actually went like this is not was not a big deal to actually implement this there are and all of the other New England states statewide legislation has been proposed in Massachusetts almost 40% of the population is lives in a town that has a bag band main about 20% of main communities live in a town that have a bag band Rhode Island about 25% of towns have already passed back Connecticut seven towns with 17 more working towards a band so this is really sort of the movement to eliminate single-use plastic starting you know with tackling some of these the most serious problems but also pretty low-hanging fruit also so the two the the two sort of suggestions that we would have with respect to the bill would be to require a fee for paper bags as I mentioned before to incentivize really the shift to reusable bags and then the one other thing I would call your attention to is the language related to straws in section D on page 4 line 1 through 4 I think that we would have a concern that this we would not want to create a system where an individual that needed access to a straw for medical reasons or disability would be required to prove that they have a medical disability in order to get a straw and so we would recommend a slight amendment to section D to basically say that no food service establishment shall seller provide a plastic straw to a customer except that in order to provide accessibility options for persons with disabilities and medical requirements a food service establishment shall provide a single-use plastic straw to a person upon request and so I'm happy to send that specific suggested amendment I think we just want to avoid a situation where an individual has to where an establishment might require proof before handing out a straw yeah the goal was to make sure that there wasn't a liability in the part of the establishment right that's right the inclusion of that second to a new disability or medical issues is how to get the requester, only to a requester that was for that reason, but how in two behaviors, so we'll have to be careful. Absolutely.  We appreciate the work of this committee on tackling this important issue and we would, we strongly support the bill. Thank you very much for your presentation, thank you very much, and thank you for everything. The goal is, by the way, just so people know, that when we have a week to talk about the fact, and we'll finish the work up still, and we'll go on. Great. Thank you again. I'd like to invite Mr. Cove to the table. Good morning, thank you, sir, and committee members. If you could just identify yourself, the record was yourself. Yeah, yeah, I slipped and fell when I got out of the car and hit my head on the ice, so if I am a little dizzy, I apologize. My name's Paul Poe Peely, I'm with Dark Container Corporation. We're based in Michigan. We're one of the largest manufacturers of food service products in the world. We make around 2,000 products, everything from a foam cup to red cello cups, paper products that are, if you get a hot cup at Starbucks, that's 10% plastic if aligned with polyethylene because it would leak otherwise, and we make compostable and all our products are recyclable. I do appreciate the opportunity to address Senate Bill 113, and I did submit my written testimony to the clerk, so if you don't have it, I hope you get it. If you don't, I will provide it to you in due time. Thank you for the electronic submission. Does that way we post it, and people aren't here, and also don't believe it? Yeah, and I appreciate that as well because I can post it instead of bringing 20 copies or whatever and wasting paper, but Senate Bill 113 is not dissimilar to a few bills in the Northeast. I cover government affairs and environment. I'm a chemical engineer and lawyer for Dart. I do government affairs. I cover Maine to Virginia, over to Ohio, and 113 isn't dissimilar from some bills we've seen before where it's pretty top heavy. It's plastic bags, EPS, expanded polystyrene, and straws, and the opinion that I would put forth is that when you have a bill that has this many products, one or another, to not rise or fall on the merits of the other. If you want to address plastic bags, address plastic bags. If you want to address polystyrene, address polystyrene. Straws, address polystyrene, or straws. So it's our position, and I've got a lot more to say, and I want you guys to let me talk until you're tired of hearing me, but it's my opinion, and we don't make plastic bags. We make expanded polystyrene foam service, and we can talk about the other EPS that's in the market. If you buy a TV or a computer, it comes in those blocks, and those tend to be the beads that will break apart when you pull a TV or something out. If you have a Starbucks coffee cup, or a Dunkin' coffee cup, and you squeeze it, it's not going to break down. And a lot of people conflate two things. One, I heard earlier today, microbeads. Microbeads were something that had been banned, and they were in personal hygiene products. For skin, scrubbing your face, and stuff like that. Polystyrene does not break down into microbeads, and that's a new word that people are using to conflate. So I don't think, I think we've been talking about microplastics, not microbeads, in your general opinion. Okay, well, I thought I heard microbeads. Like I said, I slipped and fell earlier, so who knows what happened. But I just want to say microbeads are not in expanded polystyrene. When we make expanded polystyrene food service, it comes in two forms, extruded, which is in the bill, and expanded. Expanded, there are beads that are put into molds, there's a blowing agent, that's not a CFC, not a chlorofluorocarbonate, to make it. And the other is just a sheet of plastic that comes out and then is cut and molded into like a paper plate. So there are no beads that come off that. It's the difference between what comes around a TV, and a food service product is a degree of temperature and pressure, and so we make our products with higher pressure, higher temperature. The things that come around TVs are just quickly made, and so when you pull that thing out, the little beads get everywhere, and those are not food service products. We recycle all of those things, and it's all expanded polystyrene, and as I said, we make 2,000 different products for food service. One of those is red solo cups, and you know red solo cups. The material that goes into a solo cup is the exact same material that goes into a foam dunk and donut coffee cup. Number six, if you look on the bottom, you'll see six in running arrows, and people often confuse that for a recycling symbol, but it's just an industry symbol for six is polystyrene. Five is polypropylene, and PET, HDPE, all the plastics have their own number, so that's not to be confused. And that's not to say that polystyrene isn't recyclable because it is. And so we're trying to stop it from being created. And it's not created here in Vermont. I understand. And neither is a hot paper cup recyclable in Vermont. I know you're recycling coordinator very well, and Chittenden County, she came up from Providence. You don't know who that is. Jen. Holiday. Holiday. And we have a progressive recycling program in Providence, which is the only statewide recycling program in the country for polystyrene, including expanded polystyrene. So, and I'll get on to a few other things. I don't want to get bogged down into too many details. Absolutely. So we know in nature, technology, whatever. So what's an example of extruded polystyrene? Okay, expanded is when you have beads, they're put into a mold, and you have a blowing agent that inserts air. A foam cup is 95% air.  Extruded is a form of polystyrene that comes out in like a sheet. And then that sheet is put on molds, like for expanded polystyrene plates, that sheet comes out, it goes onto a mold, and it's cut in the form of a sheet. So the underlying material's the same, but the process to make a factor of variance. Yes, and the same with rigid polystyrene, like a red solo cup, exact same material that comes out and then it's formed into the cup. So, but they are all the same number six polystyrene. So, so again, this bill attacks, not attacks, but it addresses plastic bags, polystyrene, and straws. And like I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, they should all stand or fall on their own merits. You know, if you don't like plastic bags, polystyrene or straw shouldn't fail. If you don't like straws, the other two, and all the way through, it's our position that, and we make everything but the plastic bags, we do not make plastic bags. And as was mentioned just prior to when I testified for incinerator, all that is in expanded polystyrene or any polystyrene, it's an organic chemical. It's C8H8, they're only carbon and hydrogen molecules that are in that. And if it's incinerated at optimal, you know, levels, you're only going to get water and carbon dioxide. There's nothing else that should come out of that. There shouldn't be. If we pass this, is this negatively impacting your business? Is that why you're here? I'm just trying to understand why, I mean it's not negatively impacting your business. Did you fly from here from Michigan? No, I live in New Hampshire. All right, so you came here from New Hampshire. You just, this is just, it's good bits. It's a conversation that I want to have today. Oh, okay. And like I said, we make, we make. Do you have a representative in the building? Do you have a lobbying organization that you, that represents you? And, and... Immobiliator. No. Okay, so you're just down here? Okay. Yeah. So it's negatively impacting your business, not negatively impacting your business at all if we take this step? It could, yeah, it could. But, but I'm here. Just to have a conversation. And we don't, and if you ban these products, we have other products we could sell, but I, and I want to get into the life cycle analysis because I think there were some things that were not exactly the way we, the way science sees them. The person before me had mentioned and I do want to get into that. You see the difference in science sees them. No, we, our science, the science behind them, it takes less energy, less natural resources, less water, and less transportation costs to make a foam cup because it's 95% air. It does, it is made of a hydrocarbon. I won't, you know, there's no denying that. But because it weighs less, takes less energy, less water, does not admit as much greenhouse gases in the production of a product, which was said prior to my, taking to my, this position at the table. That, that needs. I'm not gonna understand what you're saying, but I'm asking. Less than what? So we, so we make foam cups and we make paper cups. And I'm not here to derive either one because, you know, that paper cup you have right there is 10% plastic, it's lined with polyethylene. If it weren't, when you put a hot beverage in there, it would seep out immediately. That takes more natural resources, more energy, more water and a higher transportation cost and higher greenhouse gas to produce. And often it's double cup, so that's double. And so when it goes into the waste stream, it's, if you have one cup, it's two and a half times by weight and volume going into a landfill. And if you don't recycle, which most folks, most recycling programs do not recycle a paper cup, it takes it, there's a double cost because say a foam cup is a penny, that's three or four pennies for a cup. The lid is another double that. I'll take the lid off. So on the front end, if you buy a dollar, let's just make these easy numbers. If you buy a cup of coffee for a dollar and a penny cup, a dollar, that same dollar cup of coffee and a paper cup would be a dollar five. Someone on the consumer end is going to have to pay the extra cost, whether it's the retailer or it's the consumer. So if your landfill or your mirf or your recycler cannot handle that paper cup, it's going to go into the landfill stream. And so because it's two and a half times by one to one comparison, you're going, the municipality that has to get rid of that cup, if they don't recycle it or if they don't burn it, it's going to have a higher tipping fee. Weight and volume going into a landfill. So there's a higher cost to the consumer retailer on the front end, higher cost to the municipality on the back end if you don't recycle it. And if you mandate or you want people to use, compostable products instead, those products which we sell, again, come from China, so that would be an imported product. And compostable products, most if not all the composting facilities in Vermont do food service, food, waste food or yard waste. Not food service products. So if you're going to mandate or require something to be alternative, recyclable or compostable, I would suggest that before you do that, you're able to compost food service or you're recycling food service that eliminates a product. I think what we've heard generally, I mean, thank you for bringing in composting services. What we've generally heard so far and I've heard in other years is that most compostable things in real-world conditions there, they don't decompose. The conditions aren't right. You want to keep cold and aerobic and stuff like that. I'm going to also break down the microplastics depending on what they're made of. They may compost, but they may compost enough so that you can't see them, but they're still there. So if you choose not to compost or try to put food service wear into composting facilities, is that what you're saying? Because they will break down and we agree that microplastics is not the issue here. Are microbeads or? Not microbeads, yeah. Tiny pieces of plastic, they call microplastics, but some of the compostable stuff only partially breaks down and once it's into the soil, it doesn't continue to break down at a state. It remains there as a microplastic, a tiny particle of plastic. Okay, now are we talking about trying to compost it or just as litter? Either way. Okay, so as litter, the city of San Francisco, they did ban foam food service wear. And one of the only cities in the U.S. that did a follow-up study, they did a one-to-one litter survey. And it all breaks down to consumer behavior and they found as much litter from paperware or compostable wear on the street as they did from foam wear before the ban went into effect. So unless you change consumer behavior, that's still going to be a problem. And I don't disagree with you. As far as landfills go, they are pretty much, not pretty much, they're legally required to be hermetically sealed. And for any anaerobic digestion, you need air, you need heat, and you need some kind of movement. In modern day landfills, a foam cup, paper cup, a newspaper, a banana peel, if you open it up in 100 years, they'll still be there. So the foam cup is 95% air. Paper cup is two and a half times more weight and volume by itself. So it's going to take more space and volume in a landfill if you have modern landfills. So that's just one issue. Can you explain the volume thing? I don't know how this cup compared to a long cup would get different volume on this one. Because that has no air in its body. A foam cup is 95% air and only 5% resource. That is 100% cellulose from a paper product and 10% polyethylene line. So if I compare the amount of polyethylene line with a paper cup to the amount of polystyrene in this, I don't think they'll have this cup, for instance. Do you know how those compare? I can get that for you, but I know that any paper cup that's served for a, they're cold service paper cups and hot service paper cups. That's a hot service. Any hot service is a minimum of 10% polyethylene. It's lined on the inside and the outside. So it won't leak. No, just, yes, for that, for a paper hot product, yeah. Pretty great place. When you crush that, I think mine, you need to like get that one to crush it. It's like a polymer. Yeah. They don't even crush to a smaller piece than that. Once you squeeze the air out of it. Once you squeeze the air out of it. Oh, can I have some show and tell? Do you mind if I go over here? I'll be quick. Yeah. One minute? Sure. We have another week set for this. There's a set. Okay. Yeah, so in terms of comparing, so I think we're going to learn about the thing, one of the things we want to do is make sure that we need not just analysis that we don't push people into something that is actually environmental negative or chemical negative. So our, let's say this is not an ideal substitute, what is a more benign substitute for an expanded policy that I mean? There isn't, there is no product made, whether it's a plate that can be washed or a foam cup or a paper product or a compostable product that does not have an environmental cost. Yeah, I meant, of course, they're all had environmental cost. They're something more environmentally friendly or public health friendly than politics does. I know you're saying this is not a good set, so can the product just have one? Stainless steel. Yes. But that product there, I have a bill in Maine right now where they prefer that if you go into a restaurant you bring that or you bring your own plate or whatever, but there are health, state health requirements because who knows what's on that plate if you have botulism, if you have flu or if you have what? Yeah, I wouldn't want people bringing their own cups into my restaurant. That's, and so that was a concern there and they realized that, but so. Okay, well we don't have that bill here, so. No, I know, but I'm just saying if you wanted to think about everybody bringing in their own food, if you want to bring your own Tupperware or whatever, and mixing my new Jersey and my new Hampshire accent, so I apologize, but. So what happened? This is, this right here is about a town. This is about 125 foam cups in densifiers. If your food services status, if your MRF has a densifier, they collect foam, they squeeze it, put a little heat on it, and it comes out in like these big logs, inkets, and they stack them on pallets, and then this is taken back and turned into these little beads, and you guys can look at these if you want. This is about one 16 ounce cup. Yeah, we prefer you not leave so better. All right, all right, nor do I, nor do I. That's not one in here for it. But this is, and then they take this, and the market is in Princeton, New Jersey, for example, they have a company called Princeton Molding, and if you've ever gone to Target or Walmart or any place like that and bought a picture frame, it's all recyclable polystyrene. It comes out like this, or quarter round crown molding. If you go to Lowe's or Home Depot and see the green crown molding, like that's probably real wood because it earns a lot, but if you buy that, it's green, it's all recycled polystyrene. So it has a better, and I'll end on this, it has a higher life cycle analysis for water, water, energy, and transportation costs. It's recyclable, and one other thing that's very important to know that if you have a business, you say to a restaurant. No, I don't have a restaurant.  Yeah, if you have a restaurant, and you know your market, prefers some kind of compostable, whether it's composted or not, but if you're trying to drive your food, service towards a certain market, you can use whatever you want. And they make that decision, even though it costs them more. But there are mom and pop stores, there are Bedegas, there are Korean delis, folks that have a very thin margin that have the ability to choose what service, food service packaging that they need to stay in business. And so there are those small businesses, and then you have your meals on wheels, you have your hospitals, you have your correctional facilities, you have other folks that make no money, but try to deliver a service with food to the lowest disadvantage. And for them to stay in business, a one cent product versus a 10 cent product can make all the difference. In terms of, you were talking about cost and energy use and stuff like that. I'm wondering if, always when we're measuring costs, it's always good to make sure we know what, how we're doing the math. I don't know if that, if you've seen this kind of chart, it goes from extraction, transport, you're trying to manufacture, and so you're using this management.  From birth, to cradle to grave, and I don't have that with me right now, but I will submit that to you and get it. It's not our study, it's an independent third party study where they just look at one-to-one comparisons, so I'll be happy to submit that to you. Okay, great, that would be very helpful. Any other questions for Mr. Cote? Yeah, thank you. Thank you. I had a safe trip back to your car and home, and...  Looks like you took a pretty good dump. Well, I really caught myself here before I really hit my head, so that was, I wore my fancy shoes instead of my, do you call them creepers here? Yeah. Yeah, so yeah. Practical shoes are important. Yeah, I wanted to look for, lights are the job. Thank you very much, and I'm happy to follow up with any questions, and I'll get you the LCA.


The previous speaker Mark Fernsande started his presentation with the first statement We are a global materials company In the same vein I can say Siemens is not a global materials company So of course the question is why bother about NMP topics? Why am I supposed to talk about this topic here? Why have we Siemens for instance chosen to become a member of this energy materials initiative? Association which Mark Fernsande just mentioned briefly in his presentation Why all that and I can I can tell the reason is very simple and the reason was stated very accurately by By mr. von Boze There's no party without materials and be sure we Siemens We also want to party and we also want to party in Europe So this is why I'm very happy that I have this opportunity here today to share some of our views on the NMP topics today, and I would like to kick this off with the inevitable slide on mega trends and Grand challenges and Rest assured this is the only slide I'm showing in this context And I'm only showing this because I would like to point out that the mega trends as we see them like urbanization demographic change climate change globalization are Nicely mapping into our four business sectors the urbanization is being dealt with in the infrastructure and city sector Which we found it just about nine months ago Demographic change is all these challenges are being addressed by the health care sector climate change is Mostly or significantly related to energy generation So this is the task of our energy sector and globalization is more or less related to industry When you take a close look at what you actually got to do in order to launch Innovations in all these domains it quickly turns out that there's a lot of material solutions required and the list speaks for itself, and I'm not going to address every single topic on this list here There's simply not enough time within 15 minutes But let me just look at a few examples which I will then explain a little bit more detail Later on in the presentation So for instance for power supply no matter whether it's renewable energy sources or whether it's the more traditional Fossil energy resources It's always you always need one or the other kind of a unique material solution Maybe coating solution whatever Same for efficient energy uses to usage for affordable and personalized health care We have some focus on novel radiation detectors, but also biomarkers for Gene sequencing or for highly efficient diagnostics in the lab Are of the essence for industrial production and service additive manufacturing? This is one of the examples where I will dwell a little bit on the link from material to efficient manufacturing Which is quite important and I will probably not be able to get into this simply due to the time constraints here so let me start with sustainable power supply and of course we would all be more than happy to Cover all of our power needs all of our energies with just renewable energies like wind solar thermal and photovoltaics However in reality, this may be possible when the winds really blow and the sun shines Eight or ten hours a day, but in reality we still need back up from more conventional power sources Like the coal fired power plants like hydro power plants and of course nuclear is a very controversial, so I don't take a further look at that and So this will furnish the low emissions base load hopefully low emissions as low as possible and Then of course we need a backup to cover mid and peak loads And this is typically being covered by a gas-fired combined cycle power plants We could reduce the need for the peak load coverage here if we would have more efficient energy storage It means for energy storage But this is I have to say still in the making and there's much more work to do in order to Be able to store all the excess power that is being generated Say here in Denmark, which is a typical example With massive installations of wind turbines the excess power that cannot be used How to store it that is another key challenge, which I'm not able to address here today so what we are really looking at is to increase the power output and the efficiency and cut the building cost to meet the cost targets and typical Numbers typical ballpark numbers that we have accomplished today is for the combined cycle, which is the best efficient topic of conversion that we have up to 63 percent, which is quite an accomplishment so Let me talk a little bit about the compensated mid-peak load Gas turbines. I think the key enabler is really the materials here simply because the Efficiency is directly related to the operating temperature the higher the operating temperature The higher the efficiency a very basic thermodynamic principle So there has been a relentless search for higher temperature materials on one hand, of course for the for the blades the blade material itself, which is usually a super alloy and Then of course in order to even increase the temperature resistance the blades are being covered by so-called thermal barrier coatings with very low heat conductivity and these are ceramic barrier coatings and This is very very important and significant USP that the various manufacturers of such gas turbines have the quality The lifetime the endurance of those barrier coatings and of course at the end of the day also the manufacturing cost I mean, of course with endless resources and No limits concerning cost you can accomplish almost everything but in order to Really aim for a reduction in operating expenses not an increase in operating expenses You have to use the most sophisticated methods to develop such coatings and also to develop the Processing and manufacturing methods for those coatings So much for the fossil then of course here in Denmark. I can't get away without making a quick comment about the wind Energy the wind turbines Here's the latest innovation that our wind power division, which is actually headquartered in the neighborhood here has launched This is a gearless six megawatt wind turbine with really impressive specifications here like the tower head mass 350 tons and the blade length in this configuration 75 meters Which is the longest the blade length that we have achieved so far and There's two key innovations that have enabled us to Launch this product here. One is the direct drive In the generator that means there's no gearbox necessary anymore in the nacelle which really reduces weight Significantly and the other one is a unique blade manufacturing technology which allows us to Manufacture the blades or to realize the blades with much lower weight than any other competing technology Depending on what you compare it with this 75 meters blade is 25 to 50 percent lighter than competing solutions and of course this has a massive impact on the total weight of the whole turbine of the whole product here and Less weight means simply less expensive nacelles less expensive towers less expensive bed blades bottom line much reduced cost and very very big step towards meeting the cost position of today's Fossil energy generation now that we have the energy we should make the most efficient use out of it and I'm looking at just one example in this context here and that is lighting and the reason being fairly simple According to a research done by the DOE a couple years ago 10% of all electricity generated in the US is being used for incandescent lighting so there's huge savings potential because the light bulb is known to be notoriously inefficient and solid-state lighting is on its way to change the whole situation and The first retrofits for light bulbs based on LEDs on luminescent diodes You can already buy them in the typical supermarket or home depot kind of store the next generation is going to be organic LEDs and the Operating principle is exactly the same as for the traditional LEDs. You have an anode you have a cathode you have electrons and tolls traveling from from the electrodes here and meeting somewhere in between Recombining and then light is being generated. The only difference is we are not talking about gallium arsenide or related materials here We're talking about organic materials So the basic principle being very simple the actual implementation already looks much more complex Especially if you want to generate nice warm white light like what you're being used to So we have typically seven Organic layers typical thickness less than 10 nanometers. How do you control the accuracy in that range? How do you make sure you really hit the optimum in terms of material usage in terms of efficiency and How to choose the material combinations? Who develops all those interesting materials? Certainly not we ourselves certainly only in collaboration with competent partners throughout Europe and That is the only way to Make sure that we can meet the requirements for typical key performance indicators like the efficiency like the lifetime Like the color rendering index and also color rendering intrigue stability over time You don't want a light source that changes its color As time goes by so we are just at the very beginning of Revolution to come we think right now the market entry has Happened and but of course This is not yet a competitive product price wise This is more like when you are buying a very fancy product like when you're buying say Rolls-Royce or so So it's really an emotional product and it has its niche market But this is not really what we are looking for on the mid or long term on the mid term I think for the next three to four years we will certainly build on Interesting features like flexible light sources bendable light sources transparent light sources and So which will pave the way for new applications and which will really Stir up the creativity of architects and the mass market the volume business We expect that not to happen before 2016 But in order to get there again, we need to master material development the device physics process development and upscaling I mean and This is a topic already also being addressed briefly I believe in the previous presentation pilot lines pilot lines of the essence pilot lines which can quickly Transfer the results from R&D into a first prototyping and then Hopefully upscaling mass production Okay Let's make a switch shift gears to health care But even then I have the opportunity to stay within this domain of organic electronics Now we are just doing the opposite. We are not generating light We are harvesting light and we are doing this for x-ray imaging Usually x-ray imaging or x-ray detection is being done in a two-step process First you convert the x-ray photon into a visible photon This is being done by the so-called scintillator here And then the visible photon is being detected in this case by an organic photodiode The more traditional the very traditional means of doing this is using an image intensifier This technology has been around for 30 years and is on its way out the state of the art technology is detecting the photon with amorphous silicon detectors and This is widespread now actually so-called flat run x-ray detectors flat panels and we think Replacing the amorphous silicon whether I have it amorphous silicon by organic photodiodes will Come with quite significant advantages simply because the whole structure is much much easier easier to manufacture the key Material here are bucky balls and this p3 ht polymer Because this the charge separation the electron hole separation happens here and the fuller range extremely Electro-negative they have a very high electron affinity So they immediately capture the electron and so the whole structure the soul as we call it The bulk hetero junction has a very very high efficiency in terms of a conversion rate now the advantage compared to the amorphous silicon is Much fewer processing steps only one step where lithography is involved, which is usually cumbersome and expensive there's easy depositing of organic layers just by spray coating and Higher throughput the only caveat is the OPD's typically have a higher dark current but they still may have sufficient and Acceptable specifications for what we call cost effective x-ray imaging Lower cost products and this is what a any example here of a of the phantom just of a phantom of a hand So basically it works. The question is again also now to us How can we transfer this into a real product innovation and we are working on that? industrial production and service Even more focusing on manufacturing. This is my last topic here additive manufacturing a very popular topic in some some circles I must say and The method of choice here, which we are pursuing is a so-called selective laser melting so what you effectively do is you have a Sort of powder bed and you have a scanning laser beam which scans across the surface in a defined pattern Wherever this laser beam has been the powder melts and solidifies and where it hasn't been it just stays as powder Then you put another layer of powder on it and by doing the step-by-step you can build up very complex structures either very hollow structures here like this one or these ducts here transition ducts which are used in some of our products and Why is this so interesting? Well, of course, it's really material efficient very material efficient It's much more material efficient than any subtract subtractive method like like milling and and cutting and dicing Because the powder that is not being used the powder that is not being solidified. You just Recollected recycle it and you can use it for for the next piece to manufacture You have much more freedom regarding the shapes that you can realize and Lightweight structures. I mean, this is really really very light structure and well Quite frankly a topic an opportunity that looks for an application Yeah, one application that we have in mind here is in the white goods industry. This is a tumble dryer here and there's a motor and this is The pedestal for the motor which which holds it the vibrations cause some some oscillations here And this is a part which once in a while breaks so the company has to keep a lot of spare parts in store and The idea here is to replace this not to keep the spare parts in store But rather to manufacture on demand when when a spare part is needed fire up your your laser melting machine your laser sintering machine and you manufacture one part and We have decided not just to make a one to one one replacement But also to in integrate an additional function because there's in the conventional design. There's a little rubber block which Dampens the oscillations obviously not sufficiently enough. Otherwise the whole thing wouldn't break but We have integrated that function into a more smart design of this pedestal Which looks like this so we have a mechanical damping feature rather than this rubber damping and so I think a very smart solution and We look forward to well trying this actually out in the field this whole concept By the way, this is the only example in my long list of examples where we were lucky to receive You can see it here from the logo funding from the fp7 and this again sort of Addresses the same issue that mark van zander already addressed from our point of view The fp7 simply is too much orientated too much focused on basic research rather than applied research like this one here Okay, so a few minutes for my conclusions Why? Play nano materials and production a role in the Zeeman strategy Well, of course, we are a system solution provider but nevertheless we need to have also the competency and the in-house competency to develop our own material innovations and either by ourselves or in collaboration with competent partners and This is simply because these innovations are so essential to generate USPs for our products We cannot leave this just to suppliers as I might say at least not for the complete value chain so When I look at the value chain, there's of course the the initial materials there's the materials engineering and Then there's the components as systems and the business and you see the various players the various stakeholders involved We have the external suppliers R&D partners For the whole value chain our Central organization the corporate technology is more or less involved but of course the further down it goes the Zeeman's business units come into play and Of course also customers customers are very important and there's no good No well organized funded project without a customer in the boat because the customer really has the best view on the most profitable applications so Last slide here the successful strategies. We have to Use system and application know how in order to really focus on the best opportunities We have we need the in-house expertise. I mentioned that We need to establish strategic partnership ships with Institute and companies and by the way with both Umi core Which was the first presentation as well as with materialized, which is the last presentation in the session here We do have Very well-defined collaborations in the context of funded projects. So Yeah, this is the funded projects topics and so at the end of the day. I think this gives us a great opportunity to Improve the important key performance indicators like you can read them here on the shortlist on the right-hand side and Since time is up. I just have a chance to Present my acknowledgements to both the BNBF and to the European Commission But needless to say we benefit much more from the BNBF most noticeably in the context of the wing program Which is known to some of you here in the room Then from the FP7 Thank you very much for your attention