References in periodicals archive ?
Thus, in a community with dual systems, the household consumer of beverages is paying for curbside collection and recycling (about $80/ton less $41/ton revenue) and for BCDL recycling (about $421/ton net of revenues).
The GAO (1990) found three studies of the costs of dual BCDL and other recycling systems.
As the amount of material diverted through recycling or BCDL increases, average cost of disposal can increase.
Results for recycling were then adjusted for the case of a concurrent BCDL system.
The Tellus model credits an avoided cost to recycling and BCDL of the average solid waste management fee ($50/ton in the base case).
If the full tip fee is credited to the BCDL system as an avoided cost, as the Tellus analysis does, this would have to be through payment by the community to the BCDL system (e.g., to retailers or distributors).
(This makes the cost-savings per household comparable to the discussion of the Tellus results.) The costs are for recycling programs only, not for other costs associated with BCDL. Figure 3 examines criticism of the capture by showing the changes in the cost per ton of material recycled for different multiples of the amount of material recycled.
The sensitivity (slope) of the recycling cost is higher for no BCDL, where net cost relies more on revenues than does the BCDL case.
Given the high cost of recycling through BCDL (more than $420/ton net of revenues), avoided cost of disposal (marginal cost saving) would have to exceed this figure, which is far from likely.
BCDL diverts from disposal the amount of materials multiplied by the participation in the deposit system.
Recycling and BCDL programs operating concurrently could divert more material than either alone if BCDL participation is about 85 percent and the recycling capture is greater than about 20 percent, which is far below expectation.
In neighborhoods with low participation or no recycling program, BCDL diverts more material from disposal.
Acronyms browser ?
Full browser ?
- BCDL syndrome