Waterless urinals going mainstream

They will only catch the Main Stream if it's an Aimed Stream.

 

In Amsterdam, they have open air waterless urinals right on the sidewalks. It's like a 4-sided satelite where guys walk up, whip it out, and go. Looks like 4 guys pissing into a phone booth from all 4 sides.
I'd never seen anything like it. Then again, I saw a guy driving down the street in a moped, stop and get off, piss on a tree not 10 feet away from me, and then get back on and keep driving. It's just no big deal over there.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jun 21 2007, 06:59 AM) [snapback]465687[/snapback]</div>

And, they have added the open sewer to Continental flights coming to the US from Amsterdam as well:
http://www.blogowogo.com/blog_article.php?aid=813790&t=

 

Hah! That's nasty. People are such wussies. I like the "poo gyser". That would be pretty horrible but those quotes were just pathetic.

 

3 steps for saving water, use an outhouse

1. Stop
2. Drop (grab some leaves, no paper required)
3. Go (no soap or water)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jun 21 2007, 03:59 PM) [snapback]465687[/snapback]</div>

Those urinals are only there in the weekends and during festivities.

 

I've actually used these waterless units in probably 4 different restrooms. In all those restrooms it actually smelled more clean than most of the other bathrooms that I've used. I think these new waterless units are great and I hope to see more of them. Maybe some places don't have it setup right? In my opinion they work great.

-Peter B

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jun 19 2007, 05:48 PM) [snapback]464932[/snapback]</div>

As a PhD student in Environmental Engineering with six classes of water/wastewater treatment completed, I am full well aware of the chemicals used in water treatment - and yes, I don't like how much chlorine and softening chemicals are used in that process, but these pollutants are minor on impacting the environment compared to everything else we do wrong in this country. And again, a significant amount of water that is used is leaked out of the system and used for industrial processes, and a large part of household uses is lawn watering (which I think is wasteful), so limiting flushing amounts is sort of a drop in the bucket. I don't want to give the impression that conserving water is a futile action, using water efficient laundry waters, shower heads, and toilets are all good things to do to prevent wastage, but if a water saving device is problematic (such as making a bathroom smell worse), there is no reason to proceed in the pure interest of saving water. Saving water is good, but isn't something that should be a top priority such as conserving oil and gas and using less fossil fuel electricity. If protecting the local watershed is the concern, it would be far more beneficial to concentrate on using less bleach and cleaners (which are becoming less of an issue as companies such as P&G make safer cleaners), and most importantly use less fertilizer and less herbicides/pesticides which are both huge pollution issues.

As for wastewater treatment, the vast majority of wastewater is treated so fully that the water leaving the plant is most often several magnitudes cleaner than the recieving body of water in terms of BOD, pathogens, nitrogen, phosphorus (where regulated), and most other chemicals (though, several problems still exist in removing specific chemicals such as pharmaceuticals and nanoparticles). Where treatment quality is in question, saving water from flushing less will at the most concentrate the problem chemicals in the wastewater stream more, and will do absolutely nothing in terms of removing those chemicals from the environment. There are still some antiquated wastewater plants with combined flows and overflows, but using less water will hardly help that problem. Overflows are caused with larger rain events, using ten gallons less water each day in every household is a small amount of water compared to the volume of water that comes from a couple inches of rain that flooded the combined sewer. The best way to prevent overflows, other than complete construction of separate sewers (which all cities with such systems should work towards) is by redirecting the rainwater, which makes up the large bulk of the water stream in overflow events, to filtration basins and pervious surfaces, like you said.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Jun 25 2007, 12:39 PM) [snapback]467684[/snapback]</div>

This one is huge. An enormous amount of water is used by our various thermal power plants for electricity production. This link will give you some idea of how much water it takes to run a typical (in this case 4) coal fired power plant.

 

Everyone is going to need to conserve water if we're going to be growing all that corn to make ethanol.

I have no lawn and what plants I have are on a microsprinkler drip system that is on timers.

BTW I have a recycling washing machine. It's a Whirlpool water saver and I bought it....15-20 years ago? The water is stored in my laundry sink and can be sucked in to use for the next load. I usually do a load of hot , then reuse the water for a warm cycle. Saves both water and the gas for the hot water heater. Even though Consumer Reports reported that the second load was as clean as the first, somehow the washer never caught on, not even in the middle of those drought years in So. Cal.

Sanyo has come out with one now that it is marketing in Japan. It even has something like a dry cleaning cycle that only fluffs the clothes with hot air or something. I'm glad my washer is in top condition and I intend to repair it rather than replace it should anything happen to it. But if for any reason it's terminal I'll defininately get the Sanyo water saver.

Oil may be the issue now. But soon it will be natural gas. Then water.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 25 2007, 11:26 PM) [snapback]468082[/snapback]</div>

I grew up with one of those! My clothes were never worse for the wear either. My parents have since renovated their laundry room and no longer have this.

The water use practices of industry and manufacturing can have a huge impact on the potential water conservation to be recognized. Coca Cola has been under enormous scrutiny for their water practices and they now have a plan that should be implemented by 2008. They'll incorporate reducing, recycling and replenishing in their process which should significantly reduce their water waste from the current 75% position.

http://www.cokefacts.com/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 25 2007, 09:26 PM) [snapback]468082[/snapback]</div>

We had one when I was a kid... I learned to do laundry with it.
Oh, it was a wringer washer.
You put hot water in it, and filled one of the sinks with cold rinse water.
Start the washer, let it run for 10 minutes, and then you fed the clothes through the wringer, and into the rinse sink. Swished them around a bit, then ran them back through the wringer, shook them out, and then walked over and hung them on the line.
When the clothes were all rinsed and hung, you went and got the next load, threw it into the wash water, and did the cycle again.
Lather, rinse, repeat until all the clothes were run through the washer... Worked well to start with the stuff with the least amount of dirt, and then do the really greasy clothes last.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 26 2007, 12:26 AM) [snapback]468082[/snapback]</div>

What happens to the rinse water?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(morpheusx @ Jun 28 2007, 09:07 PM) [snapback]469786[/snapback]</div>

It's discarded. I don't know why the wash water is recycled instead of the rinse water. After the wash water is resused it is also discarded. This takes a bit more attention so on Laundry day I'm home all day and running out to the garage every 30 min. or so, depending on how I've set the machine. I only do laundry once or twice a month and consolidate the loads so they are full loads.

We're not a gray water friendly city but no one around me is going to say anything. I've got my eye on some nice water barrels but they're pretty expensive and I haven't had the money to date. I have no gutters on the house but would like to install some after the PV goes up and get a water barrel for roof runoff. Another one for the gray water.

I don't compost. I do take all of my yard waste to the land fill where I can basically trade it for mulch and compost. They do the composting.

I'm not perfect but I'm trying. If I improve a little every year I can stay ahead of the average.

(How often do you flush? If it's yellow it's mellow, if it's brown it's down.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 28 2007, 09:36 PM) [snapback]469798[/snapback]</div>

'In these times of drought and sun, we don't flush for number one!"
(from the mid-70's dry spell)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Jun 25 2007, 02:39 PM) [snapback]467684[/snapback]</div>

Yes, for those of you who desire, take a trip to Europe, Asia, South America etc and ask to see the wastewater treatment plant. In many (perhaps most) cases you may be suprised at the answer.

 

We need male and female waterless urinals. When properly manufactured, installed and maintained, there is no odor. The bottom line here is efficiency. We tend to substitute oil and water for knowledge and the time is long overdue to apply the knowledge.

Global climatic change indicates arid areas will become more arid while humid areas may become more humid. Regardless, even when water is unlimited, it takes energy to move potable and used water. Smart communities meter both fresh and used water and thereby encourage efficiency.

 

I will add my perspective to those that have seen these things work out. I have only seen them in two locations, a nearby community college and our public library. In both settings they seem just fine. I did notice that the library has added one of those little white disks to the the urinal, I suppose because there was some odor problem sometime or another.

 

Saving water is one thing...however, are we, because of perhaps cultural sensibilities, overlooking a very practical solution which will improve water quality, reduce oil dependence and assist in the production of food.

OK....the waterless urinal. Appears to be a point separation technique that could provide fertilizer for domestic food consumption. Ick. OK enough with the ick factor.

Why in the world would we want to use human urine for fertilizer? Well...in 2003/4 we used an estimated 24 million tons of fertilizer for food production. As you may know inorganic fertilizer is a fossil fuel based product. According to one source it takes between 1.4 and 1.8 liters of diesel fuel equivalent to produce 2.2Kg of fertilizer. Ladies and Gentlemen start your calculators.

So, if one really wants to conserve water, reduce CO2 emissions, reduce water pollution, etc then utilizing human urine as a fertilizer should be considered as a possible option for reducing fossil fuel consumption. Google "urine for fertilizer" for more info. Need empirical data...please note green spots in yard.

Switching gears. Since we are talking fertilizer...so to speak...why would our current administration embrace the production of corn for ethanol? Think about it.

*********
A few sources.

Chart from The Fertilizer Institute (lobbying group) http://www.tfi.org/index.cfm on US fertilizer volumes 1960 - 2003/4 http://www.tfi.org/factsandstats/consumption.pdf

A Danish Study: The use of human urine is of particular interest within organic farming, where there is a demand for fast acting fertilizers. A new project indicates that there is a potential to develop urine separation toilets and that from the agricultural point of view, urine can be compared with liquid manure. The project was carried out at Svanholm Gods organic farming collective. Urine from the 100 inhabitants was investigated for nutrients, pharmaceutical residues, and artificial and natural female sex hormones, etc. in order to determine its agricultural and environmental suitability as a fertilizer.
source: http://glwww.mst.dk/publica/projects/2001/87-7944-396-6.htm

According to the USDA the US used nearly 25 million tons of nitrogen fertilizers in 2005
source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/Tables/Table4.xls

From Article "Eating Fossil Fuels" To give the reader an idea of the energy intensiveness of modern agriculture, production of one kilogram of nitrogen for fertilizer requires the energy equivalent of from 1.4 to 1.8 liters of diesel fuel. This is not considering the natural gas feedstock."

In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994).7 Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:

• 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer

• 19% for the operation of field machinery

• 16% for transportation

• 13% for irrigation

• 08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)

• 05% for crop drying

• 05% for pesticide production

• 08% miscellaneous8

source: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...eating_oil.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rae Vynn @ Jun 19 2007, 11:18 PM) [snapback]465041[/snapback]</div>

A photo of GWB would make a nice target!