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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Money which they probably made back selling the aluminium no?
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 🤔
A subsidy indicates the business/enterprise cannot exist as is and needs that income to survive. And, ultimately the consumer will pay.
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.
When I hear subsidies especially related to private business because of a government programme, my ears prick up.
Prices were hiked on day one in many cases cited here; so they were not doing it based on the volume of returns.
I'd expect they're covering running costs already in most stores; covering capital costs is going to take time. There's up to 6k back per retailer for the capital if they have "low" volumes (under a quarter of a million containers a year is considered low)
Lidl was spending their own money on that, as a marketing stunt. Who do you propose funds that long-term?
It'll be your own money whatever the answer is - if you expect the Government to pay for it, it'll be from tax revenue. Retailers and producers would just put it on to prices.
I can only speak for myself. I have been green and an advocate for recycling all my life and reared that way. From milk bottles, keeping jam jars etc for further various uses, newspaper for the fire or cleaning windows, dress clothes moved down the line to work or play clothes and then to rags. I paid well over the odds for three years as local dairy's moved to tetrapacks and I changed to keep the milk in the bottle. I was further indoctrinated in the early 80's when I spent some time in America and began the use of proper/modern style recycling.
I object to this ill thought out scheme which rather encouraging the general public to properly and recycle more, it punishes them as their standard waste charges go up, it appears some retailers and or manufacturers are raising prices, and the whole process is inconvenient and appears in many cases a shambles.
why do we have to pay a deposit actually? Like could they not have done what Lidl was doing originally and giving you money to recycle cans and bottles?
At least then you might argue there’s a benefit to the scheme but as was just said this is just charging you unless you recycle with the machine. it’s almost insulting.
“well we don’t trust you to use the bin so we’re charging ye unless you bring it back here and PROVE you recycled it”
Would it be fair to say "cover their own costs eventually"?
Given we're in the early stages of this scheme and theres still old stock to shift but it would be interesting to see some numbers on containers making it into RVMs and manual returns as it seems (to me) this determines the retailer's return on significant up front costs.
The longer these teething problems persist and with reports of not many people using the RVMs the number of containers making it back into these machines must be lower than expected. Its only logical retailers dont like how the numbers are looking and are increasing prices to compensate.
No, I thought you were referring to the amount producers pay to place a can which is about the same. The price rises so far all seem to be on the producer side. Misinterpreted what you were asking.
Retailers get that 2.2c, or ~3.2c for manual returns. Manual will never pay its way but the RVMs should at least cover their own costs.
with that being said, there are also alot of people on this thread who actually want it to work as intended, and are annoyed at the simple functions not even working. We're also annoyed that we have to pay a deposit upfront, and having no real reward for taking part in the scheme other than our own money back. its like we're being coerced into recycling at this point, something thats meant to be a voluntary.
we don't like being forced to pay a deposit tax on choosing to recycle at home, and we don't like having to help ireland meet targets they were given due to mismanaging/not properly recycling our recycles for the past many years. we should'nt have to pay for their mismanagement and failures. we should be rewarded for helping ireland meet goals not punished for not helping.
Is this income streams to the retailers?
I was under the impression retailers get 2.2c for each container that actually makes it into the RVM.
There are a lot of people on this thread who so, so dearly want this to fail and go away but that isn't going to happen.
The bulk of the issues people are reporting here are not widespread and are teething problems. Most are the fault of manufacturers or retailers (machines off or full, items being charged that aren't in scope, stuff with logos that isn't scanning anywhere); some are either possibly (barcodes not scanning in some places - could be database distribution issues) or entirely (RVMs not on the map) Re-Turns fault though.
Why do I have visions of e-voting machines and fire sales?
There's also the aluminium value of the cans plus the % of people who aren't claiming. The figures for the income streams were gone over extensively many tens of pages ago.
Local Tesco today. Small store.
A few people coming in with their bag of bottles & cans.
Machine not working. They were standing around as staff peered into the machine unable to do anything.
I will continue to put my plastic bottles and Al cans into my recycle bin at home. I wish i could elect to give my bottles and cans to charity to collect the refund.
Agreed. Its no coincidence prices have jumped up. Gouging as you say but extra staff and admin are needed for this caper also. Is 2.2c per container (22 euro per 1000) going to cover it. A fanciful notion at best.
Look up 2 of the top lads running it Ciaran Foley and Tony Keohane, both old school Tesco and a platter of other directorships including the FAI, and because afaik it's registered as a CLG company they can make a complete balls of it and walk away with no liabilities so nothing new there.
... surely ...
No you're just a guy.
I'm not going to humour your weird requests.
And anyway, you'd dismiss them out of hand if I did lower myself.
Rare win, got an 8 pack of Carlsberg the other day in SuperValu not charged a deposit on them but they have the return barcode on them. Machine accepted them all so saved myself €1.20
An absolute scam of a system. I generally laugh at people who scream 'scam!' at anything that annoys them, but this system is just that.
'Not for Profit' is bollox
(i) The people working for them need to get paid, and the more systems they sell, the more money they get, so there's obviously a motive for them to push these whatever way they can
(ii) The obvious hop on the train of shrinkflation and rip-off charging by manufacturers and shops taking advantage of this, branding pack design changes as 'new' for a way to charge a higher price
The Government here have been sold an absolute pup. I don't care about what other countries are doing and if it's working well there etc. I care about my own country, and it's absolute bollox.
It doesn't have to have a logo to get your deposit back. Check the barcode on the return website.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/925678a10b2fdb0546d802550390a10f.svg)
