The new recycling system

Businesses are doing it because they're legally mandated to do it. If it is as lucrative as you're implying, why did 70% of shops opt out? Why didn't Lidl roll out more RVMs on their scheme if it was so lucrative?

I would imagine it is because it wasn't mandatory then to return the items for a refund you can only use in that one store whereas now it is so you have no choice but go back to that store or another store to get your refund which you can only spend in that store now. So it kind of is lucrative if you only have a limited number of stores near you. I have 2 within my shopping area in the area I live in the country 6 miles away so I have no choice but return to them if I want my refund back.

Do you think the Lidl support and implementation of the unofficial trial were most likely mandated from Germany ?

Both Lidl and Aldi had a head start because they already had extensive experience with RVMs.

It is a numbers game. You need to be selling a very large number of cans and bottles to pay back the costs of the RVM and annual maintenance (and account for loss of usable space cos of the machine). The shops get I think it is 2c (?) per returned item. So, once you get to a certain point, the cans and bottles and bringing in revenue to the store. That's purely based on operating the scheme without consideration as to whether having the RVM will drive business to your store.

Smaller stores won't get to that point. Some smaller stores wouldn't have space for an RVM and storing the bottles etc would be logistically tricky. I do think the exemption size was set too high though, it should have only been for very small shops. I think the lack of manual returns and high number of exemptions is a flaw in the scheme, given it is has a very high target of 90%.

Aldi objected to the scheme.

I've no idea why Lidl rolled out their own RVMs. I don't think it was for profit.

Why do you think Aldi, Lidl, Dunnes, Tesco, and Supervalu are in it for the money by installing RVMs for this Thursday?

No deposit without the logo.

The logo identifies a bottle /can as one on which a deposit is paid so the deposit can be refunded.

I thought that was unusual, the two companies with most knowledge of the system adopting completely different approaches.

Then what exactly are you disagreeing with me on?

That they're not doing for the good of mother nature, and that big business never engages with these sort of schemes out of the good of their heart. And then something about green tax.

Just on the numbers.

There are c. 1800 locations with RVMs, and they are expected to process c. 1.8bn containers (90% success). Those 1.8bn items will generate €39.6m in retailer commission (2.2c per item). (I am assuming negligible manual returns, which I think is consensus).

On average then, each machine will process 1m items annually and therefore generate €22,000 annually.

Of course, bell curves will apply, some machine locations will be way under 1m items, others will be far above 1m (250,000 items p.a. per machine is considered the level at which certain government supports become available, so under that volume the machine is considered unviable at 2.2c per item alone).

Convenience and local retail will likely have an average somewhere below 1m, with Large retail tending to be somewhere above 1m average - meaning that even though they may have a higher spec / volume machine, large retail will have their investment paid for in as little as 1-2 years.

A point I made earlier is that large grocery retail typically makes just 1-3% net profit. So that 4 pack of Coke Zero cans that sells in Dunnes for €4.90 (before DRS) probably makes them 10c profit on sale. The four cans returned to a Dunnes RVM earns them 8.8c - about as much as the sale. This 'double dip' is even more stark on larger multi-packs, such as 24 bottles of water for €6. €0.15 or so profit on the sale, but €0.53 on the returned bottles. (I am aware that I am comparing operating profits on sales with gross commission on returns, absolutely a cost is required for local RVM maintenance, etc).

It's interesting to speculate but I suppose it's really only a sideshow, the main event starts on Thursday.

"They" can be anyone, but in the context of this discussion. The "they" i was reffering to in you last reply (because law was making them) was the the businuess getting the machines put in, rather than leave the country and take their buisnuess elsewhere, they decided to comply on those merits. And not out of the kindness of their heart, or compassion for mother nature.

Entirely business related reasons. The loss of business in ireland is more expensive to them business wise than the cost of having these machines installed.

As myself and others have already stated, its all a numbers game and virtue signalling. There's no true desire to save mother nature behind this, otherwise all cans would be accepted and a bunch of other stuff too

i don't disagree that this is a green initiative at an EU level, it looks more like a case of ireland having to pull their socks up and reach good numbers like other countries are doing and already have done.

I think a large business packing up and leaving over this would be wild. They're staying because Ireland is profitable for sure. I think they'd prefer this scheme doesn't exist (Lidl aside).

I think the longer term plan is to build a recycling plant. Recycle the material. Sell it back to industry.

Germany has a 93.5% recycling rate for these materials. We don't.

I think we disagree on very little then. The current scheme is setup solely based on collection only.

I read the repak ireland recycling rates 2022. Makes very interesting reading. While focused heavily on business, as they are, they do mention :

Household recycling: 2022 saw an unsurpassed performance in the increase of recycling from the household (consumers) sector. This evidence proves that the re-introduction of all plastics in the household mixed dry recyclables (MDR) bin was the correct and indeed necessary decision to drive recycling.

Yet apparently now, undoing part of the M in MDR somewhat is a good thing because... Hmmm. The M im thinking of is aluminum, not plastic.

It goes on to recognize that plastic bottles are a known problem where we are failing, but also states with that exception, we are well ahead of all eu targets for 2025 in various waste stream %. Significantly in some areas.

So why were aluminum cans included in this when the rates on those are actually good as it is?

The amount of effort the people have made in Ireland to totally change habits for the better over the past 20-30 years really is commendable and this is a kick in the teeth to everybody who has endeavoured to do the right thing for years. All wrapped up in a green fluffy blanket in the hope nobody will argue.

Its also a kick in the teeth to the waste companies who have provided a vital service ever since the councils werent arsed anymore. A thankless, smelly job, but as the repak rates show, one done quite well. Except for bottles. So why are cans included in this? Proper waste companies have made substantial investments in machinery and personnel to quite adequately deal with this. We all know, we pay annual bills to them for this service.

And as for anybody who is disabled, without transport, shops online, doesnt have space or ability to store amd/or carry pristine cans, already pays for this service with a local waste company, anyone who has always done the right thing, which is actually still the right thing, anyone who never littered, or anybody who might grab something on the go and cant carry the container around, yeah well these things cant suit 100% of people so suck it up.

But convenient for everybody.