Alltrade Recycling: The Plastic Plant, The Battery Project And The Tin Line, How Much Of The CAPEX Is Already Backed And How Much Still Needs Proof
The real question in Alltrade's buildout is no longer just whether there is enough money to start, but which project can genuinely earn back the capital. The plastic plant, the battery project and the tin line each carry very different levels of funding support, operating visibility and proof.
Not All CAPEX Carries The Same Weight
The main Alltrade article argued that growth is no longer theoretical, but execution still has to catch up. That becomes even clearer when the buildout pipeline is isolated. The plastic plant, the battery project and the tin line all sit under the same growth story, but they are in very different places on the spectrum between funding, operating readiness and proof of value.
That matters because a first read can easily lump the three projects together. That would be a mistake. The plastic plant is a heavy industrial investment with about NIS 48 million of CAPEX, money already spent and a disclosed start target. The battery project carries the deepest public support, but it still reads more like an industrial plan than a near-term operating site. The tin line is the smallest in capital, roughly NIS 3 million in the annual report or EUR 600 thousand to EUR 800 thousand in the presentation, but it is also the project where the technological proof point is still incomplete.
If the disclosed investment frames are added together, the pipeline is already above NIS 100 million. Against that, the approved grants explicitly anchored in the filings amount to NIS 18.3 million: a shared NIS 4 million approval for plastic and batteries, plus NIS 14.3 million for the battery project under the Jerusalem circular-economy program. That is meaningful support, but it still covers less than a fifth of the stated buildout pipeline. In other words, funding visibility has improved materially, while economic proof is still the missing layer.
The chart above uses the headline project frames. In the battery project, however, the filings themselves already show why the number should not be read too mechanically: the business description and presentation use roughly NIS 50 million, while the post-balance-sheet note refers to an investment envelope of roughly NIS 54 million. The analytical takeaway is simple: even when the strategic story is the same, the budget is not yet fully settled into one final number.
| Project | Disclosed investment frame | What is already backed | What is still open |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plastic plant | About NIS 48 million | About NIS 7 million had already been invested by year-end 2025, and the company now points to a 2027 start target | Most of the CAPEX still lies ahead, and the project disclosures still do not provide offtake contracts, product pricing or margin targets |
| Battery project | About NIS 50 million in the business section and presentation, and about NIS 54 million in the support application note | NIS 14.3 million of approved grant support for equipment, plus part of a shared NIS 4 million approval | The project disclosures still do not provide a full operating timetable, expected throughput or detailed plant economics |
| Tin line | About NIS 3 million, or EUR 600 thousand to EUR 800 thousand for the prototype | Prototype targeted for the third quarter of 2026, an EUR 800 thousand prototype order already included in ARPE backlog, and the patent has advanced in Israel | Industrial success is still unproven, so commercialization value remains conditional |
What Is Already Backed On Paper
The first issue to clean up is the grant framing. The January 5, 2025 approval is not NIS 4 million for each project separately. It covers plans totaling about NIS 20 million for the plastic and battery plants together. So the number matters, but it should not be counted twice. It is real money, not double money.
The second, and more important, layer is the battery project. Here the support depth clearly increased. In January 2026 the company received approval for a NIS 30 million equipment investment plan within an overall investment frame of about NIS 54 million, with approved grant support of about NIS 14.3 million. In industrial financing terms, this is no longer symbolic. It meaningfully lowers the cost of entering the project.
The plastic plant has also moved beyond the concept stage. By December 31, 2025 the company had already invested about NIS 7 million, and the presentation adds both a 2027 start target and annual capacity of about 15 thousand tons. This is the only project where investors already get CAPEX, capacity and timing in one package. Precisely because of that, it is also the first project that will have to prove value per ton rather than just strategic logic.
The tin line is backed in a different way. The upfront capital is much smaller, but several concrete markers are already in place: the company talks about a first prototype line at EUR 600 thousand to EUR 800 thousand, ARPE backlog already includes an EUR 800 thousand order for that prototype, and in February 2026 the company and ARPE signed a patent-use agreement under which the company receives 5% royalties on machine sales. In other words, there is already a commercial skeleton here, not just an engineering idea.
There is also a separate layer of support that does not come from grants but from the balance sheet. In February 2026 the company raised about NIS 150 million gross, and the report states that it has already repaid about NIS 24.7 million of bank debt out of the proceeds. The credit note further says that by March 1, 2026 the company had repaid all of its own bank loans and had approached the banks to cancel financial covenants and pledges. That does not prove return on capital, but it does remove a meaningful financing overhang just before the CAPEX phase.
Where Proof Is Still Missing
The Plastic Plant
The plastic plant is the most tangible project, and also the heaviest one. The company presents it as what it believes will be the first facility of its kind in Israel for mixed plastic sourced from electronic waste, including plastic that contains flame retardants. The presentation gives not only the NIS 48 million investment frame, but also annual capacity of about 15 thousand tons and a 2027 operating target. That is a much more advanced disclosure package than what investors get on the other two projects.
But this is exactly where the key proof test sits. The evidence set gives a credible entry picture: feedstock from the company's SDA and LDA facilities, the ability to take in plastic from other treatment sites and from the automotive industry, and CAPEX that has already started to land. What is still missing is the economic close: the project disclosures still do not provide product pricing, offtake structure, expected utilization or target margin. So the right question for the plastic plant is not whether it exists. It is whether NIS 48 million will actually translate into industrial value per ton.
Put sharply, the plastic plant is no longer a funding story. It is a ramp story. The money is already moving, the date is already on paper and capacity has already been disclosed. What still has to be proven is whether the buildout stays on time and whether the plant can actually produce clean enough, profitable enough output to justify the capital burden.
The Battery Project
The battery project is almost the mirror image. Here the public support is deeper, while the operating visibility is thinner. The company describes a lithium-ion recycling plant with about NIS 50 million of investment, while the post-balance-sheet note already moves the frame to about NIS 54 million, mostly machinery and equipment. It is also the only project with a standalone approved grant of NIS 14.3 million on a NIS 30 million equipment program. On the funding side, this is the most heavily backed of the three projects.
And yet that does not resolve the main question. The project disclosures still do not provide an operating start date, plant capacity or detailed plant economics. The company does present a hydrometallurgical process intended to recover lithium, nickel, cobalt and copper, but public readers are still getting the subsidy story long before they are getting the operating story. The grant lowers the tuition bill. It does not prove the student has passed the exam.
That is the key point for investors reading this as Alltrade's next growth leg. Because the state is already backing part of the equipment burden, it is tempting to treat the story as largely de-risked. In reality, it only means the cost of the industrial experiment has come down. Until there is a clearer build schedule, ordered and installed equipment, and a better throughput picture, the project is still moving from proof of intent toward proof of execution.
The Tin Line
The tin line is the most interesting case because it is small in capital and large in narrative upside. The company describes a patent for extracting tin from electronic boards, says the application was accepted in Israel in October 2025 and published for opposition, and later states in the notes that registration approval in Israel was received on January 2, 2026. At the same time, ARPE is already in advanced stages toward building the prototype, which is expected to be completed in the third quarter of 2026.
The presentation pushes the upside further: EUR 600 thousand to EUR 800 thousand for the first line, around half a million dollars of revenue potential per end unit sold, and annual revenue above one million dollars per unit in operation. Those are the numbers that make the line visually attractive. But in the same report the company also says explicitly that success has not yet been proven in actual tin recovery from electronic waste. That is why the gap between narrative and proof is sharpest here.
The important point is that the tin line cannot be read like the plastic plant. It is not just a CAPEX-versus-capacity project. It is a lab-to-industry translation story that depends on whether the prototype works consistently, safely and at industrial conditions, and whether it can be commercialized beyond internal use. That also explains why the tin line can become either the fastest positive trigger or the fastest disappointment. The capital is not especially heavy. The validation burden is.
What Will Decide The Next Chapter
All three of Alltrade's projects should not be assigned the same multiple, or even the same kind of patience. The plastic plant is an execution-and-ramp test. The battery project is a test of whether public subsidy turns into an operating asset. The tin line is a test of whether a technological pilot turns into a commercial industrial product.
That is also the answer to how much of the CAPEX is already backed. On the financing side, the picture has improved materially: approved grants, money already spent on the plastic plant, a prototype order in the tin line, and an IPO that reduced bank pressure. On the value-creation side, the story is much less settled. Most of the CAPEX still has to prove that it lifts value per unit processed, rather than simply expanding the asset base.
The bottom line: Alltrade already has enough on paper to hold investor attention. What it still has to show is which of the three projects can actually earn back capital. If the plastic plant holds its 2027 target, if the battery project moves from grant approval to an operating build schedule, and if the tin prototype proves commercial extraction in the third quarter of 2026, the market will have good reason to assign more value to the pipeline. Until then, the cleaner reading is that the CAPEX is partly backed, but only marginally proven.
Disclosure: Deep TASE analyses are general informational, research, and commentary content only. They do not constitute investment advice, investment marketing, a recommendation, or an offer to buy, sell, or hold any security, and are not tailored to any reader's personal circumstances.
The author, site owner, or related parties may hold, buy, sell, or otherwise trade securities or financial instruments related to the companies discussed, before or after publication, without prior notice and without any obligation to update the analysis. Publication of an analysis should not be read as a statement that any position does or does not exist.
The analysis may contain errors, omissions, or information that changes after publication. Readers should review official filings and primary sources before making decisions.