Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Deposit return scheme (recycling)

Options
18182848687200

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 68,583 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Subsidy comes from re-turn's funds; not the state. That comes from the producers, unclaimed deposits and materials value - the producers carrying the can if the other two run seriously low (which would require a huge return rate and a crash in the value of aluminium).

    Also, 6k wouldn't cover the full cost of purchase, install and operation over the 3 year period so it isn't an automatic money maker - you still need people to use the machine to make any money from it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 789 ✭✭✭bog master


    A subsidy indicates the business/enterprise cannot exist as is and needs that income to survive. And, ultimately the consumer will pay.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,290 ✭✭✭con747


    So, they get a subsidy of 6k if they don't reach 250,000 but reach 249,999. Then they get 2.2 cents or more per item if manual returns are involved. A lot of the machines mentioned here cost approx 11k so do the maths on that. Not that they would use the first year to play the system or anything, big supermarkets wouldn't do that now. Would they 🤔

    Don't expect anything from life, just be grateful to be alive.





  • Money which they probably made back selling the aluminium no?



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,583 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Its 3k in the first year, 2k in the second, 1k in the first - 6k in total.

    Anywhere taking 250k returns is getting 5500 in payments anyway.

    No retailer is going to risk having their ability to take returns (if under the floor size limit) taken off them; or be prosecuted for not fulfilling their requirements to make 3k (minus whatever returns they lose in the time they deliberately turn the machine off).



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,583 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    No, they were giving far, far more out than the value of the aluminium.

    The value of the aluminium will cover, probably, the cost of running the machines and emptying them / bringing the cans to a metal recycler.

    There is basically no value to PET - you'll get a small amount for a massive volume, wouldn't cover the cost of moving it.





  • i still have to imagine it’s feasible to have a automated means to trade cans for the few cent each they’d be worth like what homeless people in the states for example do.

    Regardless I feel this scheme is lacking a powerful motivator. Agree with it or not there’s plenty who won’t participate for whatever reason because they see it as being collectively punished for the inaction of a minority— had the scheme focused more on a perceived “reward” for participating a much larger number of people would have immediately been on board.

    It’s gone the route of arm twisting people into it. Frankly even sans any reward it should have been deposit free for the first while with them being phased in once people were more used to it and the teething problems addressed.

    What we got instead was people getting charged deposits on containers that can’t be returned for whatever reason, machines broken with no idea when they’ll be fixed and a lot of people who are left with a very sour taste. The implementation of the scheme has been absolutely shocking.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,583 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Those schemes in the states are deposit returns. They've had them since the 70s in some cases.

    Not every state has them, but the two - California and New York - that make most of the US TV and movies we see have them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,290 ✭✭✭con747


    Ok, so if they get 5.5k in the first year anyway if reaching the target and get 2.2c + per returned item chances are the machine is paid for in full at the end of year 1 so the rest is pure profit afterwards.

    Don't expect anything from life, just be grateful to be alive.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,583 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    5.5k is the 2.2c times 250,000.

    It will take two years at that rate to pay for the capital costs of the machine. After that, there are still running costs (electricity, some staff time to empty the storage compartment) so no, it isn't pure profit.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,290 ✭✭✭con747


    Maybe not pure profit but it will be a profitable exercise for them after 2 years so.

    Don't expect anything from life, just be grateful to be alive.





  • Fair enough, I still think it’s entirely possible to buy recyclable materials with a monetary value from consumers to encourage proper recycling.

    I would be hard pressed to believe the machines couldn’t scan the barcode, ah 330ml can of coke and that’s worth 10c or whatever.

    Some app or online account to credit to which you can deposit to your bank or whatever. That scheme would have been more effective imo but perhaps not feasible in reality. Irrespective I reckon if they’d left the deposit off initially it would have been better received especially by those who already recycled properly through their household recycling bin.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,583 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The monetary value of a can is under 2c. The monetary value of a PET bottle isn't calculable. As I said, Lidl were paying far, far more out from their marketing budget.

    Take running costs off that you and you'll be paying people a cent per few cans and charging them to take the PET.

    So to bring that up to 10c, someone has to pay you for it using your own money one way or another - tax or increased costs.





  • Okay so pay 2c then if that’s what they’re worth. The idea is not to make people feel obliged to follow a brand new system that’s still not well implemented at all and full of teething problems.

    At the moment the scheme just feels like a scam to a lot of people. Lidl managed to encourage people by offering money and Re-Turn could have easily done similar to being with.

    Get people in the habit first as opposed to turning them off from the get go. It didn’t have to even start by giving you money just go deposit free as I said while the scheme is ironed out and bugs sorted etc.

    It’s not on to charge people money they might never get back even in small amounts. The fact is the system is not properly operational but charging nevertheless.

    There’s no good reason I can think of it couldn’t have been deposit free to start tbh.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,583 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    It wouldn't even be 2c, though - that's my point. It might be 1c for three if you're covering the running costs of the scheme; and a negative value for bottles. Nobody would partake in that.

    The good reason is money - you haven't suggested where you think funding would come from, because it sure as hell is not going to come from the recycling value of the materials.

    Lidl spent their own money for their own reasons; and all that's come of it is people thinking that cans and bottles are actually valuable. It was a very, very bad idea for them do that.

    Any deposit free system would need piles and piles of funding, which you'd be paying for one way or another. That's why it was never going to happen; and never will happen.

    And if it was done at the start, we'd still have moaning about when a deposit came in "why are you making me pay now, you gave me money free before" etc, etc. A very, very bad idea.

    Even more people would (inaccurately and baselessly) go around calling it a scam, be convinced the cans/bottles were innately valuable and piles of money would have been spent to just have even louder complains to Liveline.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,445 ✭✭✭✭MEGA BRO WOLF 5000


    Was fair nice of shops to charge an extra 15c on all my cans when they won't even accept returns on em.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,063 ✭✭✭BoardsBottler


    i made aldi empty one of their RVM's today


    They just want the quick easy money cash grab recyclables and to up their recycling stats at your expense.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,290 ✭✭✭con747


    I don't think we know the running costs to supermarkets running the scheme do we? We do know the scrap value of items though that are going through the scheme.

    Don't expect anything from life, just be grateful to be alive.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,583 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    We know they aren't zero. We also know they were losing money on every payment they made - because the scrap value was so, so much less than they were paying out - in the hope that it would bring customers to the shop; which isn't sustainable without putting shop prices up to cover it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,290 ✭✭✭con747


    I think you are referring to the Lidl scheme, I am referring to the present scheme unless I'm picking you up wrong?

    Don't expect anything from life, just be grateful to be alive.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,583 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    My entire post was about a notional get-a-return-for-nothing scheme like Lidl are running, so yes, you were picking me up wrong.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,709 ✭✭✭jj880


    Very nice.

    Give us a clue. Where you getting your recyclables? 😆



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,290 ✭✭✭con747


    Ok, but that doesn't negate the point of the cost of running the machines versus the profits made from them after 2 years providing the returns actually make it to being recycled and not sold off for incineration.

    Don't expect anything from life, just be grateful to be alive.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,583 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    What point?

    Some places might make a small amount of money off them, yes. Probably not as much as they'd make having actual products in that floor space. There is no further or deeper point to be made.

    At some point, the RVMs are going to need repair or replacement also - that is going to evaporate profits fairly quickly.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,290 ✭✭✭con747


    You don't think having to spend or redeem a voucher in a shop that is only accepted in that shop won't benefit shops? Yes, some chains have allowed vouchers to be used in other stores but most haven't so that in itself is a win win for certain chains. Most of these machines are in the lobby spaces or outside not on the shop floors that I encountered so not much selling space lost.

    It was mentioned pages back about a certain store restricting when you can get your voucher redeemed for cash but as usual even after posting a picture of the notice on the notice board people wanted more proof! That is one way to get footfall into your shop at slow times and capitalise on the scheme.

    Don't expect anything from life, just be grateful to be alive.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,583 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    That isn't a point about the potential to make a small profit off the returns though, is it? That is what you were trying to make, so this is just wandering away.

    And you can get cash for the voucher, you are not forced to make a purchase in that store.

    The shop with the restricted times is breaking the regulations of the scheme and indeed the law if they are large enough to be compelled to take returns.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,290 ✭✭✭con747


    I think I will leave you to it, because in your eyes this scheme is perfect and you won't even acknowledge most of the obvious flaws or possible benefits to supermarkets being pointed out.

    Don't expect anything from life, just be grateful to be alive.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,583 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Its far from perfect, but obsessing over the potential that a retailer might make a few grand isn't even vaguely a problem.

    The biggest issue with this scheme to date has been crap performance by certain producers and certain retailers. Poor advertising of the scheme in advance has been another significant problem which falls on re-turn itself.

    The "trials" convincing people they could get money for nothing are another problem; but there was nothing that could be done to stop that by anyone, let alone the operator.

    But despite some people on here wishing and hoping that nobody would use it and it would go away as a result the uptake is decent, 340k returned items on Sunday alone according to the Examiner yesterday.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭Phil.x


    1,333 cans @15c


    Do you work for waste collectors?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,019 ✭✭✭Genghis


    I was quite underwhelmed to hear how poor the ratio of return is, as disclosed by the re-turn CEO on Claire Byrne show.

    He mentioned that on Saturday 2 March 353,000 deposits were claimed back via RVM. With 5m in scope containers sold per day, that's a 7% return ratio. Seven per cent.

    Yes, there's still old stock selling through, but it's reducing in volume all the time and old stock is nowhere near 93% of what's being sold.

    Remember: This was the 5th Saturday since launch, the biggest shopping day of the week and yet only 175 items were returned per machine location on average across Ireland.

    People evidently are *not* bringing returns back with them yet when they do their weekend shop. Why?

    If you listen back you will hear the CEO claiming 353k returns as some kind of huge number / sign of success, no doubt thinking that most people would not be able to put it into a % context, or divide it by 2000 locations (Claire Byrne sadly didn't probe).

    He also said already over 2m items had been returned in Feb again though, out of 150m items sold in Feb, 2m is not very exciting, is it?

    I remain worried that this scheme is not going to meet our 90% goal.


    Source: Go to 1hr mark at this link:




This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement