I live in a two-storey terraced house, it seems pretty simple to add a buffer tank to gravity feed the toilet cistern from the roof gutter. Presumably it's not cost effective or countries with nationalised water would be doing that already? Maybe they are??
In some parts of the UK water is unlimited - you only pay a yearly fee for access, but you can literally use as much as you like - it's not metered. So flushing your neighbour's toilet would be at most amusing,but not costly.
There's many designs that are used all over. I like my cabin's privy and going to do some upgrades to make it odourless: solar powered exhaust fan.
In the desert where the water table is hundreds of feet below you (and getting lower!), groundwater contamination isn't exactly an issue.
But there's also composting toilets and incinerating toilets that exist. A fancy incinerating toilet costs like $5k (Cinderalla toilet, I'm looking at you!), but I'm sure they'll cost a fraction of that in time. But there is an electricity cost to each 'flush' then.
Interesting. How is this different from a composting toilet? Those are already an available option for people with limited access to water and sewage infrastructure.
That's interesting and you do wonder why these countries don't have better standards its not like work hasn't been done on this.
I used to work in hydrodynamics R&D (BHRA / BHR Group) and I shared an office with an engineer who had a project to analyse the UK's toilet designs and come up with design guidance for more efficient designs.
It was interesting to listen in on the call to the plumbing supplies company when he wanted to buy a couple of hundred toilets but instead of 200 of one type he wanted 2 of every model they had.
I did look at Computer vison / ML for this project, to measure flushing efficieny - but it was to expensive
There are plenty of places around the world with western style toilets but flushed with rainwater or recycled washing machine/shower water instead. That seems like a fairly sustainable solution that already works?
It is already super cheap and transported automatically. We just need to catch more of it. Rainwater capture will be the next big thing. Right now our idea of rainwater capture is letting it go back into the ground. That's fine, it kinda worked but not really. Now we need to capture more. Finally, yes, maybe everyone should get an RV style toilet, have no dishwasher and get their pressure reduced to 30 PSI.
Cool design, but it seems like something that should be done on a municipal level...
A simpler and more compact design that should get a big bang for your buck would be to use excess shower water for toilet flushes. A very simple filter (chemicals from soap/shampoo can stay in, but just get the muck/foam out) and a tank that can handle 4 flushes should make a pretty big improvement. I wonder what my shower:flush ratio is...
Ideally, though, all toilets & landscaping should be using low-grade reclaimed water on a municipal level.
One of the widely available $20 garden watering timers that flushes water down the toilet.
I bet Melbourne already has entrepreneurs selling the installation of this "water surveillance solution" at value pricing: a fraction of the saved occupancy tax!
I'm currently on a simple compost system; not such a big fan of septic.
I dislike the current compost systems that are out there for under $5,000 - the toilets all are so flimsy. So, I've been designing one that uses a no-flush, wall-hung stainless-steel toilet. Because it's custom, I don't expect that to be done until at least Christmas with all the other building going on. I'm debating on a waterless urinal installation as well, but quite Frankly, peeing around the perimeter (as a male) keeps most of the larger animals away. Except cows.
Also, because I'm weary of introducing compost smells into the new house (in case I mess up the mix), I've designated a small walkway between the house and the 6x6 louvre room. The shower still sits inside the main unit, though.
Will the cost of these toilets ever make sense for that?
When I see things like "Turn a 2L bottle into a light" for a really poor area - I think awesome, something they already have laying around can make their lives way better.
When I see things like "Nano-polmer super toilet for those without running water" I just kind of shrug. Seems to cost more than adding running water, while still not providing a clean place to drink.
It seems strange to bother trying this with sit-down toilets first.
This could cheaply be applied to the urinals at a facility of sufficient size, e.g. a baseball stadium. You could install a collection system by the end of the month. If the material is worth collecting then the stadium owner will have an extra revenue stream.
If not, the cost of retrofitting millions of homes and public sit-down toilets certainly won't be worth it.
I can't wait for (nicer) incinerating toilets to cost less than $5k. Going to put a real damper in septic tank builds in areas that allow simple graywater systems.
Yes, those are better solutions, however still not really sustainable, and without incentives to build the accompanied infrastructure, it's never going to be sustainable; whereas solutions like the composting toilets are fairly easy to implement - FWIW ~ that's what we had before water flush toilets, isn't it?
Any good kits for this in the UK?
reply