9 ms·

Is residential water usage really a large problem? I assume that municipalities have a decent ability to reclaim and reuse much of the water flushed down the dr

Is residential water usage really a large problem? I assume that municipalities have a decent ability to reclaim and reuse much of the water flushed down the drain and toilet. I know at least for California residential water use makes up just 15%[0]. I know every little bit helps, but a toilet is an incredibly simple invention and it would be a shame to replace it with something so much more complicated. [0] http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media/images/water-fig1-lrg.jpg http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media/images/water-fig1-lrg....

ghshephard 11y ago
California has water that is next to free from the snowpacks. Water is so cheap that desalinated water, which costs about $0.45/1000 liters, is almost never seriously considered a major source of water (as compared to places like Dubai, or even Singapore, where it is a major source of water) - even given that vast portions of the population live right beside the ocean. Several iterations of this device might result in something very useful in areas far away from the ocean (which makes desalination difference), and lacking the major infrastructure for centralized water recycling.
maxerickson 11y ago
The idea with a waterless toilet is that it can be cheaper than installing a conventional toilet and plumbing. There are hundreds of millions of people that do not have plumbing.
DasIch 11y ago
There are areas in the world that don't have the necessary infrastructure for traditional toilets. Given the funding by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation the goal is probably deployment in those areas.
glibgil 11y ago
I wish you would read the article and watch the video. The target market and business model is well explained. Can you imagine a region in the world that does not have running water and sewers and may actually enter in the "first world" before those services do? Well then, that's what this toilet is for.
- roywiggins 11y ago
  Composting toilets don't need water either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composting_toilet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composting_toilet Alternatively, just try to divert urine so it never mixes in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine-diverting_dry_toilets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine-diverting_dry_toilets Both of these seem on first glance to be easier to maintain.
  - glibgil 11y ago
    Yeah, this toilet isn't for rural use. It is for places that should have sewers but don't and that probably never will get sewers. It is for dirty cities in the third world.
    - brianwawok 11y ago
      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. What am I missing?
      - cpayne 11y ago
        (I think!!!) it is a problem of scale. In 3rd world locations, you can be walking 3km every 2nd day to fill a jerrycan of water. If that's the case then you aren't going to use that to flush. And even if you do (using grey water after cleaning etc.), then you won't have the toilet inside the house.
        brianwawok 11y ago
        So how much does installing this super toilet cost, best case? How much to run a line of fresh water to the house? If <cost of toilet> is not less than <cost of fresh water line / 10>, it seems like not a win - as fresh water can solve both drinking and help with sanitation (though not get you all the way there).

ghshephard 11y ago

California has water that is next to free from the snowpacks. Water is so cheap that desalinated water, which costs about $0.45/1000 liters, is almost never seriously considered a major source of water (as compared to places like Dubai, or even Singapore, where it is a major source of water) - even given that vast portions of the population live right beside the ocean. Several iterations of this device might result in something very useful in areas far away from the ocean (which makes desalination difference), and lacking the major infrastructure for centralized water recycling.

maxerickson 11y ago

The idea with a waterless toilet is that it can be cheaper than installing a conventional toilet and plumbing. There are hundreds of millions of people that do not have plumbing.

DasIch 11y ago

There are areas in the world that don't have the necessary infrastructure for traditional toilets. Given the funding by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation the goal is probably deployment in those areas.

glibgil 11y ago

I wish you would read the article and watch the video. The target market and business model is well explained. Can you imagine a region in the world that does not have running water and sewers and may actually enter in the "first world" before those services do? Well then, that's what this toilet is for.

roywiggins 11y ago
Composting toilets don't need water either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composting_toilet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composting_toilet Alternatively, just try to divert urine so it never mixes in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine-diverting_dry_toilets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine-diverting_dry_toilets Both of these seem on first glance to be easier to maintain.
- glibgil 11y ago
  Yeah, this toilet isn't for rural use. It is for places that should have sewers but don't and that probably never will get sewers. It is for dirty cities in the third world.
  - brianwawok 11y ago
    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. What am I missing?
    - cpayne 11y ago
      (I think!!!) it is a problem of scale. In 3rd world locations, you can be walking 3km every 2nd day to fill a jerrycan of water. If that's the case then you aren't going to use that to flush. And even if you do (using grey water after cleaning etc.), then you won't have the toilet inside the house.
      - brianwawok 11y ago
        So how much does installing this super toilet cost, best case? How much to run a line of fresh water to the house? If <cost of toilet> is not less than <cost of fresh water line / 10>, it seems like not a win - as fresh water can solve both drinking and help with sanitation (though not get you all the way there).