Sincere Question - Straight Answer

It's worse than just plain ol' NIMBI ... and here's an example of what I mean. Take someone like Ted Kennedy who ostensibly really really wanted to support enviro-anti-global warming efforts. One of the windy-est spots (regularly blowing, at a decent mph rating) was off his back east / beach front property ... several miles off shore ... but still 'visible' from the shore line. BOOM it got shot down. That rational really sucks, when legislators want to do right, but cave, for 'other' reasons.

.

 

actually, Cape Wind ain't dead, though you're right that Teddy tried to kill it though, for exactly the reasons you mention.

 

All the efforts at reducing, becoming more energy efficient, etc. are great things to do. However, nobody should kid themselves. All of the collective efforts will very likely have no discernible impact on future global temperatures / climate.

For instance, Germany, which is the leading consumer of solar panels, will spend $156 billion on them by 2035, but that will only delay global warming by one hour by the end of the century.

So you can change the lightbulbs if you want to save on your electric bill, but you're not going to alter the climate.

 

I like this thread, interesting topic, sensible people

 

i'm continually amazed, for all our talk of environmental awareness and stewardship, that we urinate and defecate into our water supply without giving it a second thought

water, the lifeblood of our bodies and our planet, and look at what we do

until this changes, it's hard to take any of this talk seriously

that being said, i'm surprised how many "environmentally aware" dunces i encounter in a day are unaware that every time they plug something in, every time they flip a switch, they're burning coal

nice.

 

Are you referring to the release of treated effluent into waterways, or something else?

 

no ...


every day, just about every American urinates and defecates into water

fact

 

You're going to have to expand on that if you want to continue the discussion. I can't read your mind.

 

If I had to guess, the reference is to how much water is *used* during the process of urination and defecation. Eg: flushing toilets or urinals. In many areas, it can be the single biggest consumer of potable water

Now, whether that effluent is properly treated is another matter ...

 

Not only that, but we then add clean water to transport that waste, turning what was a small quantity of "black water" into a much large quantity. Add in grey water from showers/dishes etc and now you have a huge quantity of black water all from a small quantity of shit!

Grey water diversion (on site) makes great sense. Coming up with a better way to transport our shit would be a better system. Personnally I love my outhouse! No moving parts, no additional water pollution, nature does it's thing. (Assuming a well designed outhouse locating in a proper location!)

Icarus

 

no guys ... it has nothing to do with how much water is used

we actually CRAP into water, everyone, every day

water is the lifeblood of the planet, the majority of the planet, it's the majority of our body, the lifeblood of our body, of humanity and everything we need to survive

and we sh!t into it


you're telling me that Al Gore can jet around the planet curing global warming, becoming a billionaire, saving us all from ourselves

but we can't stop crapping into the water supply in two millennium?

like it's not important? like we haven't evolved beyond that?

like we're driving electric cars because it's sooooo damn important, but we CRAP into the water

c'mon, it's a joke

it's impossible for me to take conservation seriously while we're defecating into our water supply

we can do better

the planet deserves better, it's people deserve better

it's just plain wrong in every way

 

What if the water was extracted and used for agriculture and the solid waste was removed and used for fertiliser, even the gas removed and used to generate power. Would it be OK to sh!t in water then?
Wastewater Treatment Process - SA Water

 

Please describe a system you would use to treat sewage that does not involve discharge of sewage or effluent to surface or groundwaters or fouling of lands.

The idea that we cannot improve other areas because our wastewater treatment system is not perfect is quite silly.

 

The bulk of the population does not have the land available for an outhouse.

And after doing some reading I don't see much of anywhere that grey water diversion at home makes more sense than putting it to the sewer. I don't want to put untreated grey water with soap, detergents, grease, food particles, soiled runoff on my lawn or vegetable garden, nor do I want it fouling my toilets. Short of designing my own filtration bed for the grey water to make it near potable, I've got no place for it.

I do however believe we can minimize the amount of water it takes to do all of these things, but central treatment of our wastes makes a lot more sense than spreading it out all over the landscape and back into the groundwater...often untreated.

 

hardly, i'm not advocating against responsible stewardship, conservation efforts and improving our world

i'm firm in that it's impossible to take the movement seriously when the entire world defiles the water supply

it's not a wastewater treatment issue

i'm finding it hard to understand that y'all are finding it so hard to understand

maybe you're just not taking water seriously? please, this isn't an insult. but it's not a wastewater or effluent issue. it's time for science and technology to take mankind beyond crapping into the water supply.

and simply finding a way to filter, treat, and apply chemicals to foul waste in order to reintroduce it is NOT the solution

 

Believe me, I am not advocating outhouses or on site treatment with as large a population as large as we have. That said, I do think that grey water diversion is practicable. Use of proper soaps, limiting grease in the water discharge through proper traps etc. is a good idea.
Personally I have no problem watering my apple trees with my bath water.

Like many solutions, they won't see the light of day because either they cost money, or they take some minimal effort by the user or both. In short, we are cheap, and we are lazy!

Icarus

 

If wastewater or effluent treatment is not acceptable and filtering, treating or chemical treatment is not acceptable, just what are you suggesting???

 

It can be composted to feed algae and other microbes to produce biofuels or even for a food source. The majority couldn't do this on-site, and using water to transport it to a treatment facility is simpler, cleaner, and more efficient than having a truck picking it up curbside.

 

yeah, of course

 

Ok, I finally see where you are coming from: since Roman times, the only way we have found to transport feces and urine is by using water as the transport medium

This reflects on a very old and simple belief: "Dilution is the solution"

As a chemical engineer, I used to provide consulting to the water/wastewater industry, until I realized what a crock of s*** - pardon the pun - it really was

See, almost all water and wastewater facilities are owned by the municipality, city, county, etc. One would think this public ownership would result in novel and appropriate solutions. Right?

WRONG

Instead, these facilities are almost always run by political appointee hacks who know nothing about what they are managing. The appointee only proves the old saying: "it's not WHAT you know, but WHO you blow"

There are many innovative long-term solutions envisioned to deal with feces and urine. Some involve very-low-friction surfaces that only exist under lab conditions, at present time. In other words, the surface is so slippery, approaching the fictional "frictionless" surface, that the waste matter just whooshes along.

A lot of folks don't realize that the average feces is over 50% water, usually 65% water. The rest is bacteria and typically <15% is actual digested food.

Other approaches involve in situ treatment, or microtreatment. Using technologies like MBR's (Membrane Bio Reactor), the water is only used to transport the waste as far as the MBR, which may be located in the basement or outside, like a septic tank.

A novel microtreatment system would employ MBR's and other techniques, such as additive enzymes, to rapidly break down the waste, resulting in water "clean" enough to reuse in a toilet or for irrigation, and with minor treatment to become potable. The remaining "untreatable" effluent would be a minuscule fraction of what is currently generated

Of course, what I just discussed would be astronomically expensive to develop, perfect, and implement. It's simply a matter of priority. We as a society are far more willing to spend money on pro sports stadiums, artsy-fartsy exhibits, and bail outs

Only a teeny fraction of research money necessary is available. If we applied a "moon landing" sort of research program, a dramatic reduction in water consumption and sewage generated would be easily achievable in a decade

The problem is a political one. No politician wants to discuss sewage, or do something about it. Our current "state of the art" sewage systems are based on +50 year old technology. In many ways, we still employ techniques the Romans perfected.

Our water and wastewater infrastructure is in dire need of replacement. The physical piping is literally falling apart, corroding out. The physical plant most visible to the public is based on techniques that were in the lab before WW I. Although the visible physical plant may look modern, inside it is also in dire need of replacement

Although you have brought up a good point, don't expect anybody to do anything about it. Politicians very literally do not give a s***, no matter what side of the aisle they sit on