RECYCLING CONTAINER

New Infrastructure Development Proposal

Abstract

This is a report for municipalities, governments and stakeholders to analyze the

effects of introducing a new ‘recycling container’ that would financially reward
households per kilogram of separated; packaged or food waste.

2017
cocreations.space 1
Table of contents

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………..…............P 3

Established EPR regulation …………………………………………………..………….............P 4

EPR rewards ………………………………………………………….……………………….............P 4
EPR taxes …………………………………………………………….…………….………….............P 6

The recycling container ……………………………………………………….………..…...........P 9

‘Waste pays’ ………………………………………………………….……………………..…...........P 9
The recycling containers compatibility ……………………………..………………...............P 10
The x-ray inspection system ………………………………………………………..…...............P 1 0
Detecting anomalies: metal beverage can, mixed with plastics ..………..….................P 12
Recycling container trademarked bags …………………………………..………..................P 12

Recycling container manufacturer …………………………………………..……................P 13

Recycling containers estimated manufacturing price ……………….……..….................P 14

Financing the recycling container ………………………………………….……..................P 15

Municipal ownership ………………………………………………………..……..…................P 15
Private ownership …………………………………………………….……..……..….................P 15

Recycling container return of investment …………………………………….................P 16

Numerical concept analysis………………………………………….……..……..……...............P 16
Marketing …………………………………………………………….……..……..…….................P 20
Transport collection ……………………………………………….……..……..……..................P 21
Initial ‘final recycling’ in the Netherland …………………………..……..……..…................P 22

Pilot project …………………………………………………………………...……..……............... P 23

Proof of concept …………………………………………………..........…….......…….................P 23
Steps to pilot project initiation …………………………………………………………................P 24
Work packages ………………………………………………………………………………................P 24

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………….................P 26

2
Introduction

The recycling container would solve the ‘information

asymmetry’ for source-separated municipal waste,
by removing ‘quality uncertainty’; using a inspecting
and rewarding mechanism, that enables an higher
market price for a ‘peach’ rather than an uncertain
averaged ‘lemon’ price – ‘Akerlof 1’. The ‘recycling
containers’, inspect contents for ‘lemons’, in orderto
secure a high return on investment from ‘peaches’,
by receiving: the existing EPR rewards 2, the resale
value of contents and a proposed portion of the
transition fund in the short term.

The purpose of this circular economy ‘innovation

action’ 3 is to enable citizens to participate
in the transition to recycle the majority complex
municipal waste stream into circular raw
materials, by upgrading ‘collection technologies’
for packaged household waste. The ‘recycling
container’ should be able to properly inspect
disposed municipal waste contents and provide
sufficient financial incentivize for households to
accurately separate obsolete municipal waste
per category of plastic, food, glass, metal, paper,
drink cartons and small electronics.

The disposer will be financially rewarded 4 when the disposed separated municipal waste only contains
one material category; verified by the machines weight scale and x-ray baggage scanning
inspection system.

1
“Paper ‘The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism" by George Akerlof.
removing quality uncertainty for source separated municipal waste
2
https://www.nedvang.nl/uploads/20170411_Vergoedingen_sheet.pdf
3
‘innovation action' means an action primarily consisting of activities directly aimed at producing plans and arrangements or designs for new, altered or
improved products, processes or services. For this purpose they may include prototyping, testing, demonstrating, piloting, large-scale product validation and market
replication;
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/wp/2016_2017/annexes/h2020-wp1617- annex-d- ia_en.pdf

4
Behavioral studies show money matters and extrinsic rewards like money actually increase motivation.
Performance of recycling = ability to separate and inspect >< motivation of households to separate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reward_management 3
In order to validate the ‘transition fund’s’ and ‘recycling container’s’ proposal, first a pilot project should
be undertaken to test the projects potential in terms of: citizen’s acceptance/usage, augmented

recycling rate, economic revenues and costs,

governments cost and gains and environmental
impact. In the selected municipality for the
project, one to five ‘recycling containers’ 5 should
be placed near several local supermarkets.
Providing residents living in a diameter of 5 Km
with an access & balance account card and
various colored bin bags (70cm L x 45cm H x 34
cm W).

The residents access card, unlocks any of the recycling containers nearby,
where-in the separated household waste contents can be placed,
weighted, x-ray baggage scanned, transported internally and stored
on site for collection.

Established EPR Rewards

EPR Rewards

The financial return for the financier or municipality investing in the recycling container should arise in
part from existing ‘EPR rewards – extended producer responsibility rewards’: The EPR reward
mechanism has already been established in multiple countries, in the Netherlands the EPR reward
scheme is regulated by ‘Nedvang’ who allocates the EPR rewards to support municipalities in reaching
waste recycling rate targets 6, whom in turn pay recycling businesses in the region to sort non treated
‘household packaged waste’ into upgraded to be further recycled content. Nedvang provides financial
rewards, per 1000 K.G. or 1 ton of sorted household waste, ranging from 0.7 cents per K.g. to 76 cents
per k.g of recycled municipal waste: for Paper carton A - 46.78 Euros per ton, carton B – 7.31 Euros per
ton, Glass fur - 46.78 Euros per ton, Glass colour separated – 58.48 Euros per ton, plastics – 756 Euros
per ton, Metal packaging – 70.17 Euros per ton, drinking cartons - 398 Euros per ton.

5
Recycling machinery that will “maximize the separation and recycling of produced waste.” P7
Uitvoeringsprogramma VANG - Huishoudelijk Afval

6
https://www.nedvang.nl/uploads/20170411_Vergoedingen_sheet.pdf 4
 https://www.nedvang.nl/uploads/20170411_Vergoedingen_sheet.pdf

A large quantity of household waste consists of obsolete plastic packaging, in different hard and
mainly soft polymer types. Even when plastic packaging is collected solely as a separate source, the
different types of plastic waste still need to be sorted into the various types of polymers categories to
become a further recyclable market product, this is done through optical sorting and costs around
200- 300 Euros per ton – against the EPR revenues of 756 Euros per ton received by the municipality.

5
Other recyclable materials like paper – 47 E and metal – 70 E, provide lower EPR rewards, they
however shouldn’t need sorting first and should provide a higher resale value of around 100 E per
ton, based fluctuating recycling market prices.

EPR taxes

The established EPR rewards are financed by an EPR tax charged to producers of household packaged
products. In the Netherlands “Afvalfonds verpakkingen” charges the EPR fees to producers for bringing
household packaged product onto the national marketplace, they charge producers the following: glass
- 56 Euros per ton, paper - 22 Euros per ton, plastics - 640 Euros per ton, biodegradable plastics - 20
Euros per ton, aluminium - 20 Euros per ton, other metals 20 Euros per ton, wood 20 euros per ton,
average tariff – 770 Euros per ton, drinking cartons - 180 Euros per ton, deposit bottles - 20 Euros per
ton, plastics without deposit – 750 Euros per ton, expressed in Euros per kilogram:

https://afvalfondsverpakkingen.nl/verpakkingen/alle-tarieven

6
Similar EPR scheme regulators present in other EU countries are; DSD Duales system
Deutschland 7- Germany, Fost plus - Belgium and others 8 , these organizations manage national EPR
regulations and are members of EXPRA 9 - an international organization that deals with producers of
household packaged items. A household packaging producer that “signs a contract with an EXPRA
member becomes exempt from its own responsibility to take back and/or recycle used packaging
material within the scope of the functioning of the programme” 12 and gets to place a recycling "Green
Dot" 11 trademark logo on their packaging. The producers of packaged waste do however pay EPR
taxes to members of EXPRA such as Nedvang, who in turn would “ensure the recovery and recycling of
packaging waste is done in the most economically efficient and ecologically sound manner 12.”

Existing EPR taxes and rewards, have been in place for while and have increased household recycling
rates considerably, however a large portion 56% 13 of the complex household waste stream, is still
being incinerated and landfilled:
The recycling container would improve the European industry for the ‘final recycling’ industries, since
advanced inspecting recycling containers can increase the supply of ‘peaches’ - high quality, low cost
sorted municipal waste, on the domestic processing market.

The ‘recycling container’ would make it cheaper to sort household municipal waste for businesses in the
optical sorting industry, since its contamination stream would be minimal, thereby increasing accuracy
and reducing the complexity of the optical sorting system. With existing EPR rewards it could be
economically feasible to operate the recycling container and financially rewards a group of
environmentally conscious households.

7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oylK48Y1xDc
8
The current members of EXPRA are Fost Plus (Belgium), Ecopack (Bulgaria), Green Dot Cyprus, EKO-KOM (Czech Republic), Valorlux (Luxembourg),
Greenpak (Malta), CONAI (Italy), Eco-Rom Ambalaje (Romania), ENVI-PAK (Slovakia), EcoEmbes (Spain), Nedvang (the Netherlands), Green Dot Norway, Öko
Pannon (Hungary), TMIR (Israel), CEVKO (Turkey), Herrco (Greece) and PAKOMAK (Macedonia).
http://www.expra.eu/en/about/faqs
9
https://www.expra.eu
10
http://www.expra.eu/en/about/faqs
The payment of EPR taxes enables producers to evade “Verpakkingenbesluit” that makes companies responsible for the collection of their produced
packaging. Sinds 1 januari 2006 is het Besluit Beheer Verpakkingen en Papier en Karton (het ‘Verpakkingenbesluit’) van kracht. Dit besluit maakt bedrijven
verantwoordelijk voor de organisatie en kosten van de inzameling en recycling van hun verpakkingsafval. Hiertoe is Stichting Nedvang opgericht.
11
"Green Dot" trademark and focuses its work on the protection and promotion of this symbol.
12
http://www.expra.eu/en/about/faqs
13
“only a limited share (43%) of the municipal waste generated in the Union was recycled, with the rest being landfilled (31%) or incinerated (26%).”
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52015PC0595&from=EN 7
1 Households in the region will be given an access card with a credit account on that unlocks the
‘recycling container’. The recycling container inspects and determines the value through a weight
scale measurement and x-ray baggage anomies scan, where-after the inspected contents is
allocated to the adequate material category and the disposer is rewarded based on weight by the
transition fund on the cards account..

2 When one of the categorized separate containers is full or when the collection truck is nearby, the
contents will be collected and transported to a nearby processing centre. The processing centres
registers the delivery on ‘Nedvangs’ wastetool and the existing EPR reward can be claimed by the
recycling container owner.

3 The funds reward, similar to helicopter money makes it possible to pursue a circular economy,
starting “at the very beginning of a product's life”. Nearby processing centres can be supplied high
quality inspected non food contaminated packaged waste material, often directly processable into
a new valuable raw material.

8
The recycling container

The ‘recycling container’ is a machine that weights and

inspects separated household waste for accuracy in
separation, allocates disposed content to the according
container, stores the content and arranges collection
destined for recycling. The recycling container would be
an automated self-service technology; replacing an high
uneconomical amount of labour hours that would be
needed to administrate, inspect and measure the
payments for the all the routine disposed sorted
municipal waste.

‘Waste pays’

Entrepreneur van Rijn 14 rewards environmental and

economical households per kilo for most of their
separated waste and sells it for more as an free market
business: van Rijn’s action program ‘Afval loont’ system
started as a joint project with the municipality of
Hoogvliet. Now ‘Afval loont’ has established six
“Afval-waste shops’: in various towns that function as a
store front where an labour subsidized operator in the
store or mobile truck inspects, weighs and digitally
registers the reward disposed contents.
‘Afval loont’ pays out yearly amounts of
20-30 Euros to households, with a quarter
of the supplying residents15 taking the
household rubbish from other residents.15
Without extra subsidies waste pays’ /‘waste
shops’

are able to pay separating household waste disposers: 4 cents per kilogram of paper, 7 cents per
kilogram for drinking cartons, 10 cents for textiles, 5 cents per kilogram for small electronic items, 10
cents per kilogram for frying fat, 5 cents per kilogram for drink cartons. 16

14
https://www.afvalloont.nl/over-afval-loont/
15
https://www.trouw.nl/home/afval-inleveren-is-geld-verdienen~afb6ade7/
16
https://www.afvalloont.nl/vragen/geld-sparen/ 9
The recycling containers compatibility

The recycling container would instigate higher

recycling rates in the digital economy 17,
automating the registration, statistics, inspection,
weighing, sorting and logistics process. The
recycling container would be very compatible with
the recycling technologies on the market today,
that have been in part already been funded by
municipal EPR rewards. Recycling technologies
that have increased recycling rates have mainly
composed of optical sorting systems: Optical sorting systems can separate two
streams of waste per machine often with several
optical sorting machines connected in series, the
separate contents through air blow technologies
and can operate fast, however are relatively
expensive 18, use a high amounts of electricity
and are not fully accurate with highly mixed
streams. The optical sorting operations could be
improved by a complementary recycling
container since optical sorting machines can
rapidly and accurately remove any minimal
anomalies in single content waste streams and
are especially great for separating mixed plastic
sources.
‘Final recycling’ 19
processors set contamination limits, staying within those limits signifies direct
processing, increasing processing centre output.

The x-ray inspection system

In the complex municipal waste stream, it is sometimes not possible to recycle the contents, when its
contaminated with food. “Today, only around 40% of the waste produced by EU households is recycled.”20
Household sourced-separated inspected waste has a high market value 21, due to there

17
support of research and innovation will be a major factor in encouraging the transition; it will also contribute to the competitiveness
and modernisation of EU industry.”
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0614
18
around 200,000 Euros per machine
19
Contamination level acceptance depends on material that is being recycling and processing technology.
“real recycling rates at the input to the final recycling process. To truly drive circularity in Europe, it is essential that material is only considered recycled once it
enters the final production process and is actually reprocessed.”
https://www.euractiv.com/section/sustainable-dev/news/meps-bolster-eu-recycling-and-landfill-targets/
20
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0614 (COM/2015/0614)
21
regenerative source of raw materials. The value of the raw material will be obtained by disposers, consumers, municipalities and businesses. 10
being a routine demand to routinely supply bulk municipal waste as a routine basic need, enabling
investment in long term capital. In order to upcycle municipal waste, one way to secure the right
supply would be to weigh and inspect its content, and reward the disposer at the source.

The only inspection system capable of seeing what is inside a bag or scanned object is an security
cabinet x-ray system that is cheaper and emits much lower radiation than an medical x-ray scan-
ner 22. The shielded cabinet 23 is made of lead and thus prevents most of the x-ray
radiation from escaping, in addition to second metal wall of the recycling container. The use of
baggage x-ray scanners in public areas is safe and has been certified by EU bodies listed in the
appendix 24.

The cabinet x-ray machine produces a

coloured x-ray image 25 based on the atomic
number of the materials scanned.
Separated household waste, if accurately
separated in terms of only plastic, metal,
glass, paper or organic should display a
single colour; if 3-10% other colours are
displayed in a separated source scan, it
would be transported internally to the
mixed waste container for incineration,
with a potential penalty for the disposer.
It is the intend to use or to build an
automated software that can match the
image with pre-set characteristics.

21
regenerative source of raw materials. The value of the raw material will be obtained by disposers, consumers, municipalities and businesses.
22
“medical X-rays are considered more dangerous because of their longer exposure times”
23
Cabinet X-ray Systems: Contain an X-ray tube installed within a shielded enclosure. The enclosure is made up of a material, usually lead, that prevents
most of the X-ray radiation from escaping the cabinet.
d is actually reprocessed.”
24
P
25
by radiating ions that generate backscattering x-rays. 11
 Detecting anomalies: metal beverage can, mixed with

X-Ray
X-Ray Paper
Maetal Paper
Maetal

X-Ray
X-Ray Electronic
Glass Electronic
Glass

X-Ray Food
Electronic waste

X-Ray
Plastic Electronic

Recycling container trademarked bags

In some EU countries, bags marked grey for recycling are more expensive than standard black
bags.
The recycling container would function optimally if full bags with an approximate dimension of
approx. 70 cm L X 45cm W X 34 cm H were placed inside.

12
We intend to provide these standard size bags for free to actively participating households or at a low
cost per bag, we also intend to collaborate with local supermarkets to make the plastic bin bags
available.

Recycling container manufacturer

The manufacturer for the recycling container is based in the Netherlands, whom defines itself to be an
added value supplier and partner for businesses in the entire product lifecycle, operating in high
precision metal and mechatronic solutions. The manufacturer is a system supplier and integrator,
from draft to prototype, from project to series production, from onsite assembly to full maintenance.
They have built machines for ASML, automated post selection machine’s and the projects below:

13
When the funding is provided, the manufacturer will study the final submitted designs, make
improvements in the digital design, procure selected electronic components and can build various
versions of the recycling container for the pilot project.

Recycling container concept estimated manufacturing price

Order quantity Rough estimates manufacturer

price per unit, Euros

1 400,000

5 120,000

10 100,000

100 70,000

1000 50,000

14
Financing the recycling container

Municipal ownership

One of the core municipal governance tasks, is the collection of municipal waste 26, normally
municipalities own the bins and contract businesses to do the collection, further processing or
regional sorting. Governments and transnational governments set recycling rates and provide
rewards, subsidies or incentives for municipalities to attain those rates.

In some regions municipalities provide citizens access to underground disposal bins with an opening
card that charges households 9 Euros to dispose 30 bin bags 27. Citizens might feel discouraged to
supply; non food contaminated 28, cleaned, separated, household waste, due to the high charge and
non inspection of contents. Small levels of contamination on separate sources of municipal waste
generate ‘lemons’ and require costly cleaning and sorting first before being able to be processed into
new raw materials.

Inspecting the contents at the source would certify the quality of material by meeting certain pollution
levels that processing centres have and would directly place value on the disposed contents, saving
considerable costs.

Private ownership
In the case that municipalities or national policies would want to shift ownership and handling of
municipal waste from public ownership to private ownership, municipalities could provide standard
installation license applications 29 and make EPR reward schemes funds available to entrepreneurs,
local citizens and businesses.

There should a relatively high private investment demand to invest in ‘recycling container’ as ‘van Rijn’
“Waste shops”, received an 90,000 Euros crowd investment 30 within 8 days, to fund several reserve
vending storefronts that pay households for their sorted waste.

26
“costs for disposal are charged to pay for collection services, investment in underground containers and to make use of environmental stations.”
“Deze Afvalstoffenheffing gebruiken wij om de kosten te betalen van het ophalen van afval, het legen van de ondergrondse containers, verbranden van
afval en voor het gebruik van de milieustations.”
http://www.afvalstoffendienst.nl/page/kosten
27
“U betaalt voor de prepaidpas € 9,00 voor 30 stortingen.”
http://www.afvalstoffendienst.nl/page/kosten
28
In addition bio-waste should be collected separately to contribute to an increase in preparing for re- use and recycling rates and the prevention of
contamination of dry recyclable materials.
29
leveraging on a collection businesses logistics and fixed capital.
30
“Waste Shops, borrow money at an 8 % interest rate for four years, next investment is in planning stage”
“Van Rijn wil uitbreiden, en dat doet hij onder meer door de introductie van crowdfinance, een alternatief voor
crowdfunding. Hij heeft in acht dagen tijd bij vijftig investeerders 90.000 euro opgehaald die dit bedrag tegen een rente van
8 procent voor vier jaar aan hem lenen. Een volgende financieringsactie staat op stapel.”
https://www.trouw.nl/home/afval-inleveren- is-geld- verdienen~afb6ade7/ 15
Recycling container return of investment

van Rijn’s crowd finance strategy shows there is a relative large crowd of investors interested in
financing a store front version of the recycling container. It has also been shown that municipalities
have committed their efforts at attaining targets by upgrading infrastructure through underground
containers 31 and by building underground tunnels 32. Whether private investors or municipalities will
invest in the proposed recycling container will depend on the rates of return for the investment.

Numerical concept analysis

In order to determine approximate returns on investment, herein is calculated approximate revenues

and costs for an recycling container. Official statistics show Individuals throw’s away between 135-245
kilogram a year 33, van Rijn waste shops however suggest this is around 40 k.g. but doesn’t include some
contents or categories 34.

In this example an example is used where 500 grams of municipal waste generated per person
everyday 35. To provide an ungrounded intuitive example of numbered percentages for each material
category for recyclable packaged household waste, we will assume: 25 % plastic, 20% metal, 15% paper,
15% food, 15% glass, 1% electronic waste and the rest consisting of larger and other content. Based on
approximate 200 kilograms municipal person, this would provide: 50 kilograms of plastic

Each recycling container intends to target 250-2500 individuals who recycle their daily municipal waste
contents. Since there are no established EPR rewards for recycling organic household waste, we intend
to assume a municipal reward of 20 cents per kilo, due to the high portion of municipal organic waste
that can be economically composted. the recycling containers could potentially be owned by market
parties if the number of active participants were relatively large: - around a 1000 participants per recy-
cling container, actively recycling all contents, could provide a yearly gross return of 36,750 Euros –
signifying a fast return on investment.

31
Subject to Article 10(2), by 2015 separate collection shall be set up for at least the following: paper, metal,
plastic and glass.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1450190084649&uri=CELEX:02008L0098-20150731
32
http://www.stream-environment.com/how-does-stream-work
33
“the amount of household residual waste is around 240 – 250 kilogram per habitant per year” P11,
Uitvoeringsprogramma VANG - Huishoudelijk Afval
https://nos.nl/artikel/2128685-we-blijven-veel-voedsel-weggooien-135-kilo-per-persoon.html
34
“De hoogbouwwijk kent op dit moment 2.700 'spaarders', die in vijftien maanden tijd samen zo'n 780.000 kilo afval inleverden. Papier scoort het
hoogst, gevolgd door plastic en textiel.” 16
Initially it could be possible to reach a larger number of users per ‘recycling container’ if a niche of
actively recycling sensitive persons can be attracted and the ‘recycling container’ can be established
near supermarkets with easy car access. In the example numbers model hereafter, an active user
recycling all their waste can be rewarded around 18 Euros a year, based on the current free
market analysis.
It is also assumed in this model that municipalities will pay for the standard transport collection costs
and pay five cents per kilogram extra for increasing regional recycling rates, in addition to the
municipality paying the full national government provided Nedvang EPR rewards for recycling, to the
recycling container operator.

With municipalities owning the recycling containers they would pay for the collection and processing
costs therefore - reducing the 5 cents per kilogram reward fee. With a 1000 active participants using
the recycling container, the municipality would have a an gross financial return of around 24,150
Euros a year 35 , would contribute 36,770 Euros a year in resale value in terms of new raw materials
supply, receive 46,750 Euros a year in EPR reward from the national government and redistribute
15,820 Euros a year in income as a reward for its accurately sorting participants.

184 K.g. annual EPR reward Resale Municipal collection Reward Operational Profit per

waste disposal for value payment transport deposer cost disposed

per person municipality quantity

assumed

75,6 cents -20 cents 25 cents 20 cents 20 cents 2 cent per 39 cents per
Plastic
per K.g. sorting per k.g.. per k.g. per k.g. k.g. k.g..
1 k.g.,
cost per

K.g..

50 k.g. 37.8 E y/pp -10E y/pp 12.5 E y/pp 10 E y/pp 10 E y/pp 1 E y/pp 19.5 E y/pp

(value 40

E y/pp)

35
50.82 Municipal payment - 38.22 collection cost= 12.6 E difference with the 5 cents (however this is re-
earned though increased output) – profit 36.75= 24.15 E profit x 1000users = 24150 Euro 17
Metal 1 k.g., 7 cents per 10 cents 25 cents 20 cents 7 cents per 2 cent per 16 cents per

k.g. per k.g. per k.g. per k.g. k.g. k.g. k.g.

40 k.g. 2.8 E y/pp 4 E y/pp 10 E y/pp 8 E y/pp 2.8 E y/pp 0.8 E y/pp 6.4 E y/pp

Paper 1 k.g., 5 cents per 5 cent 25 cents 20 cents 5 cents per 2 cents per 10 cents per

k.g. for paper resale per k.g. per k.g. k.g. k.g. k.g.

value per
1.05 E y/pp
k.g.

40 cents per 1.05 E 7.5 E y/pp 6 E y/pp 1.05 E y/pp 0.6 E y/pp 21 k.g. - 2.1 E

k.g. for y/pp y/pp

drinking

cartons

recycling 10 cents 15 cents per

cost per k.g. k.g.
(Estimate
d 15 cents
per k.g.)
(resale
value 10
cents)

30 k.g. 3.6 E y/pp -1.05 E 0.9 E y/pp 9 k.g. -

y/pp 1.35 E y/pp

(2 storage
containers
30% of paper
is drinking
cartons)

30% of paper is

drinking

cartons)

food waste 1 Unknown/0 Compost 45 cents per k.g. 25 cents per k.g. 3 cents per k.g. 2 cent per k.g. 16 cents per k.g.

k.g., unknown: 2

cents per k.g.

30 k.g. 1.5 E y/pp 13.5 E y/pp 7.5 E y/pp 0.9 E y/pp 0.6 E y/pp 4.8 E y/pp

Glass waste 5 cents per 1 cent per 25 cents 20 cents 3 cents per 2 cents per 6 cents per

1k.g., kilogram kilogram per k.g. per k.g. k.g. k.g. k.g.

30 k.g. 1.5 E y/pp 0.03 E y/pp 6.6 E y/pp 6 E y/pp 0.09 E y/pp 0.6 E y/pp 1.8 E y/pp

18
Electronic Unknown / 0 Resale 25 cents per k.g. 25 cents per k.g. 5 cents per k.g. 2 cents per 9 cents per

1k.g., unknown: k.g. k.g.

15 cents per k.g.

2 k.g., 0.07 E y/pp 0.12 E y/pp 0.12 E y/pp 0.1 E y/pp 0.04 E y/pp 0.05 E y/pp

Textiles Unknown / 0 Resale 20 cents per k.g. 20 cents per k.g. 5 cents per k.g. 2 cents per 23 cents per

1k.g., unknown: k.g. k.g.

30 cents per k.g.

3 k.g., 0.9 E y/pp 0.6 E y/pp 0.6 E y/pp 0.15 E y/pp 0.06 E y/pp 0.75 E y/pp

Total for 1 46.75 36.77 50.82 38.22 16.72 Euros 3.7 36.75
person Euros per year Euros per year Euros per year Euros per year per year Euros per year Euros per year
recycling all
184 k.g.

EPR rewards Resale value Municipal collection Reward Operational Profit per

for the payment transport deposer cost. disposed

municipality quantity.

Number of Profit per

people using transaction, per

container year/users

everyday

250 11,687.5 E 9,192.5E 12,705 E 9,555 E 3955 E 1000E 9,187.5 E

500 18,375 E

1000 36,750 E

1500 55,125 E

2500 116,875 E 91,925 E 127,050 E 95,550 E 39,500 E 10,000E 91,875 E

19
The numerical estimated analysis is dependent on how
much individuals throw away, if this is not 184 kilos but only
50 kilos, the revenue would shrink equally. The recycling
container should be able to process a bag every 20 seconds,
this would enable it to process maximum 2880 bags during
12 hours in the day 36. With bag dimensions being: 70cm L x
45cm H x 34 cm W, a bag should weigh between 2-8 kilos,
taking 4 kilos as average this would be able to 11520 kilos a
day 37 or 4201 tons a year. Even tough 2500 active users
would only dispose a capacity of, 460 tons a year 38.

Marketing

Whether the recycling is owned by municipalities or private businesses, the marketing and branding is
crucial to maintain a large number of active participants – enabling the maintenance of a high return
on investment in the short term and in the long term.
The right kind of marketing would inform disposers; what is made of their waste and where its
processed. Sourcing additional waste and collection from schools 39, street cleaners, environmental
groups, local catering, offices and special financial rewards for at home collection.
Upon installation everyone living in the radius of 2-3 kilometres of the new ‘recycling container’ will be
sent a brochure with information, recycling bags and an access card: with which they can open the
recycling container and on whom to accumulate financial rewards. Businesses in terms of restaurants,
offices and cafes will be provided with a business card, still receiving some reward from existing EPR
rewards.

36
night time it might not be made a lot of.

20 seconds a bag, is 4 times every one minute, 240 bags an hour times 12 hours is 2880 maximum.
37
4 kilos times 2880 bags processed would be 11520 kilos.
38
2500 active users throw away 184 kilos, equals 460,000 kilos or 460 tons
39
“Stimulating the youth to prevent waste and engage in separation of household waste” P60, Uitvoeringsprogramma VANG
- Huishoudelijk Afval
advertise for younger ones to collect recyclables for pocket money or for responsible individuals in the neighbourhood to
collect and dispose.
“challenging all citizens nearby to contribute to a cleaner environment and to earn some money ”
http://www.leeuwardernet.nl/18262/op-10- maart-zijn- plastic-flesjes- 010-cent- waard/ 20
Underground containers

Where space and construction allow it,

existing underground containers could
also be converted to inspecting rewarding
underground inspecting rewarding
recycling containers.

Transport collection

The collection’s truck attachment mechanism to connect to full compartments in underground

container is the same for the above the ground ‘recycling container’. Therefore, in municipalities
where underground containers are situated and collected,
those trucks could also be used to collect contents from the
recycling container. It could also be that
municipalities do not yet have underground containers but
are looking to invest in new
bins and upgrading collection
trucks. Municipalities could work
in joint ventures with the
collecting firm in the municipality
to purchase the new
truck whose price range from 70,000 second hand 40 to
200,000 new 41 . A collection truck is usually also equipped
with a presser and could probably collect the contents of two
to ten recycling containers in a sequence – depending on the
compartment size, collecting up to 9 tons per collection
round. The recycling container can lift containers up to
9.7 meters high and carry approximate
for 2 tons for that height. When
collecting separate streams, there would
be no landfill or incineration gate fee,
however the contents

may have to be transported to more distant processing locations. The price for collection
shouldn’t be higher than

40
https://cleanmat.eu/stock/daf-fan- 75-cf- 250-euro- 5-hiab- 21-ton- meter-kran- 6
https://cleanmat.eu/stock/volvo-fm- 11-330- euro-6- hiab-21- ton-meter- kran
https://cleanmat.eu/stock/mercedes-benz- econic-2633- euro-5- hiab-21- ton-meter- kran
41
cleanmat.eu sales representative 21
existing collection fees are, around 200 Euros per ton 42 , coming at lower costs when the market scales 43
and not considering processing fees.
The recycling collection businesses will be enabled to divert their collection flows to nearby
processing centres that are already registered by the municipality on ‘Waste tool’ 44 provided by

Initial ‘final recycling’ processing centre for the recycling container in the Netherlands

Treatment material Company Revenue/ cost per k.g. Circular product

200-300 Euros per ton for Redistributed to other

Soft Plastics Suez
separating recyclers for further
municipal plastics recycling

Metal Infra & Recycling Oldebroek 100 Euros per ton Exported to China by sea
container

Food waste In progress In progress In progress

Paper Infra & Recycling Oldebroek 50 Euros per ton Exported to China by sea
container

Glass Martha 10 Euros per ton Recycled back into glass

Electronics Aureus-france.fr / Recycling electronics for gold

42
“based on the kg costs of 22 cent per kg for waste bin collections”
http://www.barnarecycling.com/understanding-pay-by-weight-county-leitrim/
“Charges are £154 per tonn with a minimum charge of £79” 154£/1000 kg =0.15£ cents per k.g.
https://www.york.gov.uk/info/20090/commercial_waste/558/commercial_waste_disposal_sites
43
If many recycling containers were to be installed, there is also the option that the market develops a new collection service that solely
focuses on collecting and transporting contents where multiple different owners of recycling containers leverage on the fixed transport
infrastructure.
44
https://wastetool.nedvang.nl/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=%2F 22
Pilot project

The pilot projected is intended to be launched

in one municipality where five to ten recycling
containers can be placed near supermarkets. It
may be optimal to collaborate with the local
collection firm that already works with the
municipality and can lease a truck and driver
for the duration of the one to two-year project.
Otherwise a collection truck can be leased and
an operator hired for the duration of the pilot
project.

proof of concept

The pilot project will first research & develop certain automation solutions and overcome initial
learning costs. Once an economic ‘proof of concept’ can be implemented, the recycling container will
be offered to other municipalities. The pilot project should develop:

– X-ray scan software, that determines material, anomalies and suitability of material
– Develop anti fraud systems
– Optimize sales to local processing ‘final recycling’ centre’s technologies
– Optimize logistics transport
– Select optimal collection truck and collection speed
– Optimize recycling container design and functioning
– Optimize component suppliers and manufacturing procedure
– Optimize maintenance costs
– Optimize licensing and funding procedures
– Investigate the number of disposers per location
– Investigate the height of reward needed for the disposer
– Develop automated software for national financial reward to the card holder

23
Steps to pilot project initiation

1. Select municipality willing to participate in initial pilot project

2. With the municipality, select suitable locations to implement five or ten recycling containers
3. Select recycling container truck lease or purchase or established collector firm
4. Prepare budget, final application and consortium
5. Submit final application to funding body
6. If successful order recycling containers for manufacturing
7. Initiate digital x-ray testing prior to implementation
8. Implement recycling containers with x-ray inspection technology
9. Initiate pilot project marketing
10. Proof of concept and expansion to other municipalities

Work packages

Budget:
Organization:

Installation cost
Budget:
Organization:

Transition fund reward

Budget:
Organization:

Operational costs
Budget:
Organization:

Collection truck lease and staff

Budget:
Organization:

Software construction
Budget:
Organization:

45
The European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI)

any legal entity may participate in a Fast Track to Innovation ("FTI") action. Actions funded under FTI shall be innova-
tion actions. ERC frontier research and FET (Future and Emerging Technologies) 24
The pilot project can be initiated when funding is provided by the national government’s institute for
innovation, a municipal order, regional infrastructure investment 46 , EU Horizon 2020 subsidy
application or a private investment fund. With the initial funding, the first components and recycling
containers can be ordered and maintained by the specialized contractor manufacturer. The budget
should also encompass the costs of leasing or purchasing of the collection truck with personnel, the
R&D of the x-ray software the EPR rewarding budget for households.

The pilot project should determine if the drawbacks versus the benefits are worth it. The project will
investigate how the level of reward will affect number of active participants per recycling container, if
the number of users are low <250, the project is economically not worth proceeding with. If the
contents inspection system falters, there is no public support for the proposed mechanism, unforeseen
costs arise, the project could not be worth proceeding with.
If there are a large number of users per recycling container, the technology works well, there are low
logistics costs, returns are high, the inspection system is reliably automated, there is a lot of public
support and low economical production costs, then the project can be expanded to other
municipalities.

Conclusion

The circular economy provides an alternative waste treatment to disposal methods such as
incineration and landfilling. Incineration pollutes the air and burns a valuable resource.
Incineration is only 65% efficient 47, in addition the incineration of residual waste costs around
15.6 cents per kilogram 48. Landfilling posses dangers to ground water and to the soil along with
yearly public landfill ownership and maintenance costs. Landfilling costs around 113E/tonne 50,
in the Netherlands in 2015 2,342 51 kilotons were landfilled thereby costing the private sector
264 Euros million approximately every year – while preventing circularity of resources and
generating future maintenance costs.

46
https://www.fi-compass.eu/esif/erdf
47
P3 potentially signifying that after burning 100% fuel energy only 65% of energy is left over. AEB Amsterdam has
suggested its 160% efficient, however this conflicts with other sources, if this were the case then it is strange processing
costs be around 150 Euros a ton. Experts should provide a clearer study of the efficiency when referring to 65% efficiency in
the following sources: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/pdf/guidance.pdf
48
P5http://www.incovo.be/assets/475
49
https://www.aiginsurance.nl/content/dam/aig/emea/netherlands/documents/brochure/schadevoorbeelden-brochure.pdf
50
http://www.competitiveness.ie/Publications/2016/Costs-of- Doing-Business- Press-Release.pdf P3
51
http://www.competitiveness.ie/Publications/2016/Costs-of- Doing-Business- Press-Release.pdf P3 25
An alternative to landfilling and incineration is much demanded by the public and can be initiated by
setting up regulations to follow up on initiatives that enable higher recycling rates and circularity.
Alternative options for increasing household recycling rates can be achieved by more expensive
unhygienic heavy work manual labour or futuristic costly waste separation by robotics. By setting up
the infrastructure to inspecting accurately and by being able to reward recyclers for their obsolete
disposed content, only then can disposers be incentivized to separate waste properly. 52
In the municipal waste flow a large portion of waste consists of low-cost one-way product plastic
packaging 53 . At present less than 25% of collected plastic waste is recycled 54 , about 50% goes to
landfill and in Germany 60% of plastic waste is incinerated (2013) 55 .

“Waste prevention should be the first priority of waste management” 56 , and perceived as a valuable
resource from the start. It is important for the “community as a whole to become self-sufficient in
waste disposal disposal installations” and ‘final recycling’ installations. European enterprises should
be guided technocratically to compete in the global market for eco-innovate ‘final recycling’
processing solutions, that can be duplicated across member states and exported overseas. Several pilot
projects for new plants are being carried out, such as melting plastics back to crude oil 57 or converting
PET plastics waste back into virgin materials 58 . With a growing modernizing population, packaged
waste is going to keep increasing, signifying sorting and processing technologies will play a vital
future industrial and environmental role.

52
https://www.trouw.nl/home/afval-inleveren- is-geld- verdienen~afb6ade7/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BOdmcVW9eU
53
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A52013DC0123
P5 “it is a challenge to collect plastic packaging” P33 Uitvoeringsprogramma VANG - Huishoudelijk Afval
54
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO- 15-6204_en.htm
55
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52013DC0123
56
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008L0098
57
http://www.fuenix.com
58
http://www.ioniqa.com 26
In order for the recycling container to maintain an informed loyal base it is necessary to advertise the
“best available technique’ for local processing in the nearest appropriate installation, by means of the
most appropriate methods and technologies. Where recycling containers are installed it could create
local geographical demand for regional services in specialized processing installations or enable
surrounding businesses to increase output in the ‘final recycling industry’, increasing the production
of recycled raw materials placed back onto the market. 59

2013 “the lack of stocks for creating recycled plastic is a global problem. In the UK particularly
there is a shortage of post consumer plastic to turn into recycled plastic for bottles because the
collection systems are so poor” 60 The chicken and egg problem with large complex recycling
facilities, is the supply of the contents and B2B resale markets are needed before long term
investments in ‘final recycling’ processing centres can be made.
“The municipality has the responsibility for the collection of household municipal waste” 61 , and “the
motivation of citizens, the creation of knowledge, facilities for waste separation, is an important task
for municipalities.” 62 The installation of recycling containers could increase output and profitability of
local final recycling processing centre or attract additional high employment processing businesses.
If private market entrepreneurs could bring the costs down and revenues up by developing new
innovative services 63 for processing municipal waste.

59
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&amp;f=ST%2013097%202011%20INIT P4
60
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/29/stop-exporting- plastic-waste- to-china- to-boost- recycling-at- home-
say-experts
61
P7 Uitvoeringsprogramma VANG - Huishoudelijk Afval
62
P15 Uitvoeringsprogramma VANG - Huishoudelijk Afval
63
increasing the marketing, sourcing of materials, lowering transport costs, optimizing processing, web B2B markets for
trading recycled materials. 27