What is the market share of competing systems and how will RWF compete with them on price, environmental impact, and customer service?
Large composting systems are relatively new to our economy, therefore it is very difficult if not impossible to determine the actual market share of each different system. There are however, many different systems, which include static piles, windrow, and digesters. The RWF method is superior to all three in time energy and economics. The static pile system is technically cheaper in initial cost than the RWF method, but requires 100% harvest which increases the total cost and lowers the piles efficiency. The windrow method because of its specialized equipment, turners, is only second in price to the digesters, turners start at $300,000. Windrow is also inferior to the RWF method in that it can only handle 7,000 cubic yards an acre as opposed to 40,000 cubic yards. Digesters are by far the most expensive method of composting. They require large buildings, specialized equipment, computers, and constant monitoring. Digesters require high maintenance and produce an inferior product.
Related Questions
- What is the market share of competing systems and how will RWF compete with them on price, environmental impact, and customer service?
- What is the ideal mix of quality, customer service and price that will drive loyalty and market share?
- How does a capital gain distribution impact the share price of a mutual fund?
