The new recycling system

How does me saying the scheme is designed for 90+% of people equate to 1 in 10 cans not being returned?

It was an entirely seperate discussion with Kippy and I picked a figure he wouldn't argue with. It came from 3% of grocery shopping being done online so i took a lower figure to not get caught in a tit for tat with him.

Manual looking at as not seen any info as receiving them at a counter with a HUMAN

I'm not missing any point. You're contradicting yourself. That 90% is an entirely fictitious number used in an entirely different context.

I don't know what you're arguing but you seem to just want to debate nothing.

Look, i'll try make this more simple. The goal for ireland is to reach 90% recycled units of soda/beer cans and plastic bottles, yes?

Is this number more likely to be reached if damaged cans are allowed, or if only non-damaged are allowed?

if non damaged cans only are allowed then this is hoping/assuming that no more than every 1 in 10 cans will be damaged/unreturned. Entirely unrealistic goal. my point is that the goal can be much more possible to reach and more realistic if they were not being so fussy and allowed damaged cans.

no, he said jump of the bus on the way home to get what he needs, seems like light shopping from a corner shop or something without an RVM located in it, as he followed up in the same post with saying "I’ll now need to either drag my rubbish into work with me or get the bus home from work, then get a bus back to my closest village and back home again to return my rubbish. That inconvenience."

At the very best, all this shop can do is point him in the direction of the next nearest rvm. unless the shop is willing to take the cans over-the-counter. but still involves going out of his way and dragging around rubbish etc. either way he said villiage, assuming thats where the supermarkets and rvm's are. which requires getting ANOTHER/different bus into the villiage AFTER coming home. in other words an extra journey to a villiage and back just to get deposit money of a couple of cents, even for a euro or 2 its not worth it. bus money is pricey, and when someone comes home from work for the day, more work is the last thing they want to do. especially when the trade off is normally x amount per house at work vs 1 or 2 euro deposits from going into the villiage just to deposit, and then come back, which is over an hour.

They still require shape recognition.

Barcodes on the base are one of the impediments, not all of them. The discussion was siloed by this. No idea explained how shape recognition can be overcome. You persisted with barcodes on the base, i was just trying to explain one aspect of that.

Do you often crush your cans vertically? I never do, just squeeze them. The barcode can be read on them, the won't be accepted by the scheme. Does barcodes in the base resolve this? No.

Do tbe majority crush their cans vertically?

The idea in general of scanning the bottom of a can being crushed does'nt require shape recognition, this is why i had suggested some sort of metal detection thing would need to be implemented in response to your "scam with scrap metal thing with a barcode thing shoved on it." thing you said. or a magnetic feature suggestion.

Also i then pointed out a flaw in shape recognition, as with bottles anyone can easily put the label of a bottle rejected due to shape, on a good condition bottle that is not scheme eligable. as aslong as the shape is the same as what the other bottle would have been in if not damaged. in other words a simple label switcheroo.

your explanation of a barcode base was only things like "its not doable" or "would cost too much", which i had disregarded as a manufacturing cost.

"Do you often crush your cans vertically? I never do, just squeeze them." i neither crush nor squeeze them, i wash them out and then let them drip dry, and then put them into the recycling bin once fully dried out. But this is'nt the point. Most people that dispose of their cans as waste, or discard them in the streets do not leave the can undamaged.

"Do tbe majority crush their cans vertically?" as far as i know, the majority who love crushing their cans step on them from above, its a habbit and they like to think it saves/makes space. there are even can crushers people can buy and pull the lever down on them.

"Do you often crush your cans vertically? I never do, just squeeze them. The barcode can be read on them, the won't be accepted by the scheme. Does barcodes in the base resolve this? No." YES! barcodes on the base resolves this entirely! allowing damaged cans to still have their barcodes scanned and recognised. and giving people the chance to get a deposit even after the can is damaged, aslong as the base is okay theres nothing to worry about. and = more cans recycled. its a win-win. more recycled units and less lost deposits due to can damage, see?

Based on ones I've used before - vaguely can or bottle shaped and the barcode intact = fine

Crushed by mistake cause you forgot you're not back in Ireland (when I was abroad) / back in January (from Thursday) = no

You should usually be able to make a PET bottle go back bottle shaped but cans would be a mess

These will be the same machines as used everywhere else; and this isn't an issue people get worked up over elsewhere.

No the shape recognition thing is also to detect if can is damaged or not, if its damaged they don't have to give you back the deposit = more profit for them. The going rates for aluminium are currently 56-70 cans per kilogram = 1€ euro, essentially less than 2 cent per can.

They won't do this because its not in their best interests financially, and because they only care about their own best interests and reaching their goal their own way (no consideration for the best interests of the people, and the 90% inconvinced by this scheme by design)

Regarding "rife for fraud" thats why i explained some sort of metal detection or magnetic feature in the machine over shape recognition can make this possible. Also how could one possibly do fraud if barcodes are at the bottom of the tin? there's weight recognition in the machines. other metals are magnetic, while aluminium is'nt. its doable and can be done, they just refuse to because they don't want to give back deposits on damaged cans. That simple.

they can reach their target goal faster if they allowed damaged cans is all i'm saying. not sure how anyone can disagree with that

as i already explained, for crushed cans to be accepted/barcode on base, there are other anti-fraud methods they can implement but clearly choose not to, as it would directly affect them being able to keep people's deposits alot less.

the 2 methods being magnetic, or metal test based. No fraud possible!

also machines already weigh what has been put into it, and can tell if your container is'nt empty

Everything comes back to the non-profit making profit with yourself.

The anti fraud methods you describe would be incredibly weak.

How do i profit from crushed cans? i already explained to you that i do not crush my own cans. Are you saying i'm saying this so i can profit, or are you saying that im saying non-profit organization is profitting? the way you worded that is confusing.

Also the anti-fraud methods i described are bare bones basic ideas, if they wanted to they could implement those ways in a much better way. i'm not a mechanic and its not my problem to figure out. They were only basic suggestions or alternative methods that don't require non-damaged cans.

i don't think its fair that a person who travels down/up to their nearest RVM has risk of losing out on some deposits due to damage that occured in transit. its also unfair that people who are housebound are no essentially being psuedo-taxed with this if they don't find a way to partake in the RVM return scheme. There's no talking around this. it is what it is.

i would also like to know an answer to that question "'The proposed system is a bad fit for us because we already have a fully functioning recycling system for these materials.'?"

but i would'nt hold my breath if i were you. If there's no answer then we've basically won. its pretty much checkmate

are you saying that this scheme is only made for the purpose of being able to produce figures to the EU then?