What I learned about California bottle recycling CRV (tax) today

[JJ]

Here's what I learned about California bottle recycling CRV (tax) today
and I'm not sure what newsgroup to tell about this.

You pay for 5 things when you buy a bottle of "whatever":
1. The contents (e.g., carbonated water)
2. The tax on the contents
3. The material (metal or plastic or glass material)
4. The CRV fee (5 or 10 cents depending on <24 ounces)
5. The tax on the CRV (yes, the CRV is taxed!)

When you return the container for your CRV, you only get back:
4. The CRV fee (5 or 10 cents depending on <24 ounces)

Some recyclers (not many) will also give you the scrap value,
but usually only for the Aluminum (and not the glass or plastic).

Every store that sells more than 2 million dollars "should" have
a recycling center within 1/2 mile, but if they don't the store
itself can accept the CRV containers (counted, not weighed), or
they can pay an "in lieu" fee of $100 per day instead of accepting
CRV returns.

Every store (above $2M in gross revenue) MUST have a sign telling
you this information (where the nearest center is, for example)
which is provided by the government and must be near the door.

If you bring your containers to a recycling center, they must
allow you to get paid for the first 50 containers of each type
in the per-unit fee of 5 cents and 10 cents (depending on whether
the container was less or more than 24 ounces), but the rest of
your load (you can only have one "load" per day) would then be
weighed.

The minimum price they have to pay you is set twice a year, in
January 1 and July 1, and is currently:
1. Aluminum cans $1.58 per pound <=== you can get $2/pound if you shop around
2. Glass is $0.11 per pound
3. PET1 is $1.17 per pound

They assume the weight is based on the "whole" bottle as you
bought it, which means that includes the cap and the label,
so, you're being cheated if you remove the caps & labels.

If you're gonna give 'em 50 of each type, always give them
the SMALL bottles (or the water bottles) first. Save the
gator aid bottles for last, and the heavy bottles (like the
heavy Lipton Iced Tea with the handle).

However, you're better off (in some cases) having them
all weighed (because of the funky way they determine weight
as "comingled" bottles of all shapes and sizes.

For example, today they weighed fifty of my 2 liter coke bottles
at 5.6 pounds, which would be $6.55 by weight, but only $5.00 by
10 cent CRV. But the math depends on the mix since they only give
you $1.17/pound for PET1 no matter what mix it contains.

REFERENCES: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/Notices/2015/2015ComRates.htm
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/Notices/2015/ComRate15At1.pdf

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 06:40:50 +0000 (UTC), JJ <jj4p...@vfemail.net>
wrote:

This is simply an example of the government run amok. The ONLY
recyclable with any value at all is the aluminum can. The rest are
simply trash that we are spending way to much money and environmental
cost processing.

[Uncle Monster]

There is a great cable TV series done by "Penn and Teller" called "Bullshit" where they discuss various things people believe that are complete bullshit.
Season 2 episode 5 is about recycling. The full episode is available at sites like Amazon (free for Prime members) and Hulu (for subscribers). There are also some pirate sites where the full video can be found. I only came across a few excerpts of the episode on YouTube but I'm an Amazon Prime member and I watched it there some time ago. I'd recommend watching the full episode if you can because it explains how most recycling is "Bullshit". ＼（〇_ｏ）／

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czKngCUASM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC3CZBDz7Wg

[8~{} Uncle Recycled Monster

[Ed Pawlowski]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 02:05:25 -0500, gfre...@aol.com wrote:



>>For example, today they weighed fifty of my 2 liter coke bottles
>>at 5.6 pounds, which would be $6.55 by weight, but only $5.00 by
>>10 cent CRV. But the math depends on the mix since they only give
>>you $1.17/pound for PET1 no matter what mix it contains.
>>
>>REFERENCES: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/
>>http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/Notices/2015/2015ComRates.htm
>>http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/Notices/2015/ComRate15At1.pdf
>
>
>This is simply an example of the government run amok. The ONLY
>recyclable with any value at all is the aluminum can. The rest are
>simply trash that we are spending way to much money and environmental
>cost processing.

Why can't they be recycled? If they are paying, there must be some
value.

Glass makers like adding old glass to new glass so there is some value
to them. Plastic can be reused various ways. The problem that I see
is the cost of hauling and sorting.

We accept and use a particular plastic where I work. It gets reused,
mixed in with new material. The cost of processing it is about 1/3
the cost of new material. The problem is, people will drop off two
pounds of scrap valued at 50¢ and bring it in from 10 miles away in
the 11 MPG truck.

[Zak W]

JJ <jj4p...@vfemail.net> wrote in news:n33l5e$jd9$1...@news.albasani.net:

> Subject: What I learned about California bottle recycling CRV (tax) today
> From: JJ <jj4p...@vfemail.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.home.repair,

>
> Here's what I learned about California bottle recycling CRV (tax) today
> and I'm not sure what newsgroup to tell about this.
>
>

Fuck California.

[Don Y]

On 11/25/2015 5:54 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 02:05:25 -0500, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>> For example, today they weighed fifty of my 2 liter coke bottles
>>> at 5.6 pounds, which would be $6.55 by weight, but only $5.00 by
>>> 10 cent CRV. But the math depends on the mix since they only give
>>> you $1.17/pound for PET1 no matter what mix it contains.
>>>
>>> REFERENCES: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/
>>> http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/Notices/2015/2015ComRates.htm
>>> http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/Notices/2015/ComRate15At1.pdf
>>
>> This is simply an example of the government run amok. The ONLY
>> recyclable with any value at all is the aluminum can. The rest are
>> simply trash that we are spending way to much money and environmental
>> cost processing.
>
> Why can't they be recycled? If they are paying, there must be some
> value.
>
> Glass makers like adding old glass to new glass so there is some value
> to them. Plastic can be reused various ways. The problem that I see
> is the cost of hauling and sorting.

Glass also finds use in roadways (surfaces).

There are also "extraction" costs for some items.

You can get a couple of dollars per pound for motherboards -- there
are lots of precious metals there but it takes effort to reclaim them.
OTOH, it also takes effort to extract them from the Earth and transport
them across the globe.

The (ever crapier quality) "tin" cases for PC's are a penny a pound.
No value for plastics (here). Paper (books, etc.) are recycled (here)
by a firm that turns them into TP. Batteries are recycled to reclaim
the lead plates.

Recycling really only works when labor costs are (essentially) zero.

As a kid, our small town started recycling newspaper, glass and aluminum
(cans, foil, etc.). An unmanned facility was set up in the center of
town so it was "on the way to everywhere" -- the most trivial amount
of "planning" and you'd never need to make a "special trip" (except
down the length of the driveway to the facility).

Most larger businesses, here, purchase balers to package their
cardboard box "discards" and sell the endless supply of cardboard
to recyclers.

[Of course, as with other commodities, the prices/values vary so it's
risky to make big investment decisions regarding them]

> We accept and use a particular plastic where I work. It gets reused,
> mixed in with new material. The cost of processing it is about 1/3
> the cost of new material. The problem is, people will drop off two
> pounds of scrap valued at 50¢ and bring it in from 10 miles away in
> the 11 MPG truck.

Yup. The same truck that never is used to really *haul* anything
anywhere! But, makes 'em feel good that they paid full price for
half a car... :-/

Americans tend to get a hard-on about recycling. As if they are
"making a difference"; as if the act itself justifies their other
wasteful actions.

Reuse is the ultimate form of recycling -- don't discard it in the first
place! But, folks ALWAYS want to "upgrade" for whatever reason.

I volunteered at a facility that accepted "donated items" and tried
to repurpose/reuse/recycle them. Both to keep them out of the
landfills (our municipal drinking water is well sourced) and to
"recirculate" them to folks who otherwise "didn't have" (e.g.,
we would restore thousands of PC's annually and deliver them to
needy families, school districts, etc. -- instead of handing them
over to the materials recyclers for ~$5).

It is depressing how much stuff Americans (speaking only for the folks
that dropped off stuff at our facility -- to the tune of 20K pounds/week!)
discard because they've grown tired of it or some reason (though it
still *works*!)

Ah, but they can feel like they're "making a difference" by dropping it
off instead of throwing it away! :-/

<shrug>

[gfre...@aol.com]

That is the problem. Unless you are very close to the actual plant
that reuses the plastic, glass or paper, new is cheaper, with a lower
environmental cost.
Most plastic is a byproduct of petroleum fuel, paper is a farmed
product and glass is just sand.
The best use I have seen of the former 2 is burning them in a waste to
energy incinerator because we are pretty far away from any plants that
do anything more useful with this trash. In the case of the plastics
it is 1000 miles.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 11/25/2015 11:33 AM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

>
> That is the problem. Unless you are very close to the actual plant
> that reuses the plastic, glass or paper, new is cheaper, with a lower
> environmental cost.
> Most plastic is a byproduct of petroleum fuel, paper is a farmed
> product and glass is just sand.
> The best use I have seen of the former 2 is burning them in a waste to
> energy incinerator because we are pretty far away from any plants that
> do anything more useful with this trash. In the case of the plastics
> it is 1000 miles.
>

I'm in favor of trash to energy. Typical pound of plastic contains
18,000 BTU of energy and it is possible to burn stuff cleanly. The ash
takes much less landfill space too.