The central cleaning loop's per-cycle cost is unproven

The problem

The closed-loop swap solution (deliver full, collect empty, clean and refill centrally) does not eliminate the reverse-logistics cost — it relocates it to the operator. The operator now runs collection, industrial sanitation and refilling. This sub-problem is about whether that loop actually pencils out.

Why it is the load-bearing problem

Every claim that the broader system is "more profitable than single-use plastic" ultimately rests on the per-cycle cost of cleaning. If that number is too high, the model is merely greener-but-costlier, which the durability sub-issue (#19) identifies as fragile and non-permanent.

The specific cost components

• Water and energy consumed sanitising each returned container.
• Detergent / sanitising agents and their own footprint.
• Inspection and reject rate — containers too worn or contaminated to reuse must be pulled and recycled.
• Container wear — each container has a finite cycle life; capital cost is amortised across cycles.
• Break-even threshold — a durable/glass container typically needs ~20+ cycles to beat single-use plastic on footprint; the cost version of this needs the same kind of threshold analysis.

What a resolution needs to establish

A credible, measured cost-per-cycle and cycle-count break-even, ideally from real deployment data — not an assumption. Until that number is known and favourable, the profitability of the whole approach is unproven.

Note

Lighter, smaller containers (e.g. when paired with concentrate) and standardised container designs both push this cost down — but the open question is the actual measured number.