
Is the world ready for the waterless urinal? - TrevorBurnham
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/06/ff_waterless_urinal/
======
TrevorBurnham
Normally I wouldn't post something about urinals to HN just because it's in
Wired, but this is actually a fascinating article about a new technology's
introduction being delayed by resistance from trade unions (in this case,
plumbers).

~~~
_delirium
Although I thought the insistence on running pipes was a waste, it turned out
at my university to be a good thing they installed the pipes (capped off
initially) even though they were installing waterfree urinals, because after
they kept clogging up and cost way more in maintenance costs than they were
saving in water, they switched back to low-flush urinals. If they hadn't run
the capped-off pipes initially, they would've been stuck.

~~~
warfangle
It seems as though if they're properly (and regularly) maintained, they don't
clog. Sounds like your university's periodic (compared to acute - think
janitor) maintenance workers were improperly trained on how to care for them.
The second page of the article explains this.

(edit: on second thought, it _was_ a university. Knowing what university
students tend to put in urinals, I'm not surprised they clogged even with
proper maintenance)

~~~
_delirium
I agree it's probably possible to maintain them well, but it seems it's still
a cost. If nothing else, you have to pay for better maintenance workers, or
more oversight of them.

~~~
brianpan
I've seen these toilets in action and from my few encounters, they work as
advertised.

But after reading about how they work, I have reservations on the design.
Depending on maintenance for keeping sewer gases from escaping seems failure
prone. Humans err (and get lazy). I'd much rather depend on plumbing codes
that have been tested over decades and work "automatically" than depending on
changing a cartridge.

What happens if a bathroom with a waterless toilet is abandoned or isn't
maintained regularly?

~~~
inferno0069
The traditional U-trap can fail if abandoned or isn't used regularly too. The
water eventually evaporates.

~~~
eru
Happened to me regularly when returning from summer holidays.

~~~
ars
To prevent it, put a small amount of mineral oil (baby oil) in the trap.

It will float on top and prevent the water from evaporating.

~~~
eru
I guess vegetable oil should also work? By the way, I heard of the same trick
for keeping water in your vases.

~~~
ars
Vegetable oil will oxidize and turn into a sticky mess.

~~~
eru
OK, thanks.

------
eston
One of my last undergraduate reports as an economics student at the University
of Michigan in 2007 was on the "true cost" of watered urinals vs. waterless
urinals for the campus. The waterless ones were primarily used in the Dana
(Environmental Sciences) building, which even had expensive composting
toilets- basically large, windy abysses which you defecated into.

We spent nearly a month doing research on vendors for waterless urinals as
well as attempting to model the cost of negative externalities from the water
use (sewer system upgrades, water treatment) and the waterless ones
(manufacturing and disposal of cartridges, smell and hygiene.)

Whilst I can't locate a PDF of the report anymore, the evidence came out
overwhelmingly in favour of the watered urinals. The cost of the waterless
filters and hardware, even if all of the waterless urinals were installed new,
was still over 2x the cost of running watered urinals at the University,
externalities included (I think it was nearly 6x IIRC.)

I can't imagine these being useful for many municipalities – including the
more water-scarce ones — unless costs have _really_ dropped.

~~~
nostromo
I think the cost they are trying to solve for is the environmental cost, not
the cost in dollars.

~~~
eston
Three things:

1\. There are a bunch of environmental costs that still make them largely
impractical:

\- the environmental cost of making the filters (plastic injection molding,
etc.) \- the environmental cost of disposing of the filters \- the
environmental cost of waste produced by installing new waterless urinals in
place of the old watered ones

These costs are surprisingly high for something trying to be "green". You can
model these positive externalities as such in a "dollar amount" by taking into
account things such as offset taxes toward pollution (from manufacturing,)
costs of disposal over the decomposition life of the object, etc.

2\. Unfortunately, the environmental cost is almost never the one that wins in
any real-world scenario unless the personal utility of the person owning said
waterless urinal is greater than the cost of running the watered one — i.e.,
the person that installed the waterless urinal enjoys the waterless one enough
to compensate for the extra costs involved in running it over a watered one.
They are more expensive right now, and will be for quite some time if we're
talking about replacing the watered ones with waterless ones. Dollars are the
bottom line, especially when negative externalities are not offset in the
costs of the watered product.

3\. I'm a general skeptic of many of these types of green things due to #2 -
it's the "Prius syndrome" in effect. Many of these types of things have little
real-world environmental impact when the full cost of ownership is taken into
account. Once you add up all of the costs involved:

(manufacturing costs of old watered urinal) + (disposal costs of old watered
urinal) + (opportunity cost of purchasing waterless urinal and installing
waterless urinal) + (cost of new waterless urinal) + (cost of filters) *
((uses / single filter life) * (life of waterless urinal product))

When all is said and done, the overall real cost - even environmentally - of
many of these "green" products ends up being far greater than just using the
old product. People don't buy many of these types of things for anything other
than their own psychological benefit of _feeling_ greener, such as is the case
with the Prius - I read somewhere if you _actually_ wanted to maximise for
environmental cost, you'd buy a used Toyota Echo.

------
ratsbane
An office building I used to work in tried this a few years ago. Within a few
months they replaced them with flush urinals because the men's room was
starting to smell like downtown San Francisco. Oddly enough, when I was in SF
last month I noted that the outdoor smell of stale urine has largely been
replaced by the smell of burning marijuana. It really is an improvement.

~~~
someperson
I've heard urine is sterile, the smell occurs because of bacteria that grows
after it has been passed.

The urinal cake in waterless urinals (and you'd think even in the flushing
variety) kill the odour causing bacteria and should stop any odours.

I'm mot sure if this is true though.

~~~
encoderer
Agree that urinal cakes are the answer -- isn't the smell just chemical?
Ammonia, etc?

We have these at the office space my employer just built-out. Does have a
slight stale-urine smell all the time.

------
mturmon
There's a lot of them (dozens) at various office buildings where I work.
They're good for an office setting, where people get used to the quirks, which
are mainly: nothing but urine in the urinal (in particular, no saliva, which
can clog the one-way-flow mechanism). At an airport, it would be asking for
trouble.

~~~
tjr
We have them in the building I work in. People seem to fairly routinely
continue to spit into them, which frankly, I don't understand at all. Maybe my
physical makeup is just different, but I don't feel a pressing need to spit
throughout the day, and if I did, it would almost certainly not occur to me to
spit into a urinal, waterless or otherwise.

~~~
rdl
People who smoke (or use chewing tobacco) are much more likely to spit.

------
nrj
They have these in the Adobe offices. They are all about being "green".
Anyways, something never set quite right with me about them... something about
the piss just sitting there, not being washed away. Not that regular urinals
are clean either.

------
wolfhumble
_"Falcon recommends pouring a bucket of hot water into its urinals to flush
out deposits before putting in a new cartridge."_
(<http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/06/ff_waterless_urinal/2/>)

Maybe it would make sense to make a hybrid version option that flushes with
water every x days. Attacks the idea of pure "waterless", but maybe more
practical?

------
pinko
I remember when these were deployed in Terminal G at O'Hare a few years back,
with lots of signage hoopla in the bathroom about it. Then they disappeared
with no public explanation. Interesting to hear the reason was pipe clogs.

Given that they did cause clogs, I'm not sure I think the plumbers' skepticism
is as unreasonable or necessarily self-interested as the OP implies.

~~~
jws
_Chicago City Hall and O’Hare International Airport have also removed their
waterless urinals, citing clogged pipes._

Apparently that design calls for hot water to be dumped down the urinal when
the cartridge is changed to control an oily substance that builds up in pipes.
The speculation is that not all janitorial staffs embrace this extra task.

------
petercooper
The world might not be, but the United Kingdom seems to be. I've seen a few of
these over the last year. I must admit, it didn't stand out as anything
particularly revolutionary or interesting at the time, but I guess it must be.

~~~
sqrt17
Agreed. Where I went to college (Germany), they also had waterless urinals.
The biggest problem seemed to be that people would throw cigarettes and stuff
into them.

~~~
jufemaiz
One of the biggest problems for sewerage systems in general is people putting
things down there that aren't meant to be there.

~~~
roel_v
Well yeah, but how do you communicate what is meant to be there and what not?
Diapers, well it's obvious that that shouldn't be there. But ground up
biological waste actually improves the functioning of water treatment stations
(depending on the technology used). So now is a tea bag OK to grind up and
flush? What if it's one of those newfangled plastic tea bags? Those are not OK
but it's not obvious that they aren't (I wouldn't have known if one hadn't got
stuck in my grinder...).

An interesting problem - improving on a system that is so behind the scenes
that hardly anyone ever thinks about its functioning. To make changes to that,
you need large scale social engineering techniques to implement those changes
- a 'message of general interest' or two on TV isn't going to cut it.

------
10ren
> The US Army Corp of Engineers took notice and mandated in 2006 that the Army
> install only waterless urinals from 2010 onward.

That's what an ROI can do for you!

It's important to find the particular customers who can benefit from your
product, and have the power to act. Usually, the military is a hard market -
but in this case, their control of their own facilities helped.

Changing community attitudes - such as towards water usage - can benefit or
harm you. Here, the long-term trend was predictable (and predicted). _Skate to
where the puck is going to be._

This whole saga was purely adoption (ie marketing). The product was already
done.

They didn't give up.

------
mhd
It didn't quite surprise me that this was based on one German engineer's
ideas. We're really crazy about our toilets. (Ever seen the fabled "poo
shelf"?)

~~~
noonespecial
Yes! In all the years I spent in Germany, no one was able to adequately
explain to me the reasoning behind the "poo shelf". It was the biggest WTF
about my whole Deutsch experience.

It seemed like someone sat down and said to himself, "now how can I make this
toilet worse? I know!"

~~~
travem
I thought it was intended to make it easier to inspect for worms which, due to
the diet, were more common in Germany.

~~~
mhd
I really would like to know where that rumor came from. Yes, Germans tend to
eat lots of meat, but that's more a common Western trait, and I doubt that it
was this "bad" when the "Flachspüler" was first introduced. We do like our
sausages, but don't tell me that British meat pies and puddings are less
likely to cause worms and other parasites.

Inspection is one reason, so while the shelf toilet is getting less common,
doctors and hospitals still tend to have them. Maybe that was a craze at one
time, I don't really know a lot of people who inspect their stool -- or that
of others, to dispel those South Park rumors...

It does have one added benefit: Reduced splash-back for #2. US toilets are
really nasty in that regard, as the water level seems to be higher than in
Europe.

~~~
ars
You can change the water level by adjusting the fill tube. Clamp it lightly to
cause less water to flow into the bowl.

~~~
mhd
Of course it's not big technical issue, but one wonders why the average
setting seems to be that much higher. Probably because it saves some cleaning
(toilet brushes are also less common here), at the cost of more water wasted.

And as My First American Toilet(tm) was in a hotel, I didn't feel like going
all Super Mario on it anyway...

~~~
ars
Hotels don't count, especially the fancy ones.

Did you try out any home toilets? (Knock knock - can I look at your toilet
sir?)

I'm willing to put a ruler in mine, if you will.

~~~
mhd
Being caught measuring the water level of toilets would be something I'd never
be able to live down. As if Hasselhoff, Nazis and fecal porn aren't enough
food for stereotypes...

And no, it wasn't a fancy hotel, it was a Holiday Inn Express. Since then, I
staid in quite a few company apartments, been invited in a few homes etc. I
didn't measure any water levels in Germany (or England, Greece, Italy...),
either, so this isn't exactly scientific. But considering that I haven't seen
that many toilet brushes here in Jersey (and NYC), you probably _need_ a
higher water level.

I bet it's different in states where wasting water is worse. And if I remember
correctly, Dave Barry wrote quite a bit about water-saving toilets a couple of
years back.

~~~
ars
> seen that many toilet brushes

I don't think that's representative. All the houses I've been in had one. It's
possible people just put them where they are not very visible.

------
edanm
I'm always surprised when visiting the United States that there's a _lot_ more
water in every toilet than over here (Israel). One of those small things you
never think about, but when you visit another country you discover there are
other standards.

~~~
nostromo
As an American that has spent time in Israel, I have to say that the bowl may
be more empty, but the amount of water used to flush is quite a bit more.

In commercial toilets in the US you commonly get the pressurized toilets that
use a significant amount of air to flush, not just water. This cuts way down
on the amount of water used.

However, I do like the "little flush / big flush" buttons you see in Israel
and other places.

------
crististm
Never underestimate maintenance costs.

The traditional urinals have at least the advantage of self-maintenance. You
flush them - they clean-up. If you don't flush, someone eventually will. You
don't need someone to look them over or replace the liquid sealant for at
least three reasons I can think of right now.

It's similar to what you get when you replace intersection lights with LED to
save _electricity_. They don't get hot. In the winter they get covered with
ice and snow enough to not see them. You then go and clean them yourself and
realize that what you saved on electricity doesn't even match the cost of gas
and labor you used. Or you don't clean them and you have one or more
collisions and you're still no better.

How much water you say you save? It is peanuts compared to the water on the
toilets...

~~~
shard
Re: Intersection lights: So for cities with snow issues, heaters may need to
be installed for the heavy snow days, which will add to the cost but may still
yield long term savings. And for all other cities, it should be a fine
proposition.

It's okay, they released early, they can release often. Bugs will get sorted
out as user comments pour in.

------
viggity
I totally understand this in southwest states like Arizona and New Mexico,
where water conservation is really important. But the bulk of the country
essentially has infinite, cheap water. It doesn't make sense to me why you
would need this in Iowa.

~~~
thefool
Even where you have a lot of cheap water, sewage still has to be proccessed.

~~~
Tichy
What happens to the cardriges?

~~~
crististm
When people want to save water they think... I'll use water-less toilets! Now
they have two problems.

------
jufemaiz
Australia's also using them in a lot of places. No problems here to date.

But then, we've been conservative about water for a while with good reason to
be.

------
jaxn
They have these at the Owen Business School at Vanderbilt University. They
stink.

Literally.

They smell like urine. If we are going to use these on a wide scale then I
think that men need to drink the water that is saved so that they have less
pungent smelling piss.

~~~
billswift
The problem with that solution (dilution) is that then we would have to spend
more time going.

------
eru
Obligatory reference for our female geeks: "The Princess and the Pee"
(<http://www.ampnet.co.uk/femorabilia/pee_standing.html>).

------
michaelneale
In Australian buildings this is already very very common. In the recent
drought many urinals were converted (temporarily) but some are now back to
water.

When maintained it is ok, but it does smell more. Generally not popular.

------
stcredzero
They had these at the national parks in the desert parts of Colorado and Utah.
They do seem to smell like urine. I think a part of it is that the background
mildew/mustiness is gone from the environment, so one notices the urine smell
more. Also, nothing is washing the urine down the drain anymore except for
more urine, so there is more smell of dry urine on the urinals themselves.

If I do ever build my desert getaway, I'll be putting in Clivus Multrum
composting units and not one of these.

------
vl
No, world is not ready. I worked in the building with such urinals and they
stink. (And believe me, there is no need for smoke bomb to smell where the
stink comes from)

------
SolarUpNote
I laughed a little when I read that they reached a compromise with the
plumbers by continuing to require the plumbing to be in the walls (in case
they want to switch to standard urinals).

Smart compromise - not wasting water, and the plumbers keep their jobs.

~~~
ricree
Since they're running pipes anyways, I wonder whether it would be better to
have a urinal that auto flushes itself once a day or so. The water savings
would probably be comparable to a plain no-flush, but it seems like it might
save some of the maintenance issues the article talks about.

~~~
MartinCron
I was thinking the same thing, if you give up the idealistic goal of "no water
usage at all" you can possibly find a compromise of "very close to no water
usage".

------
jkahn
Waterless urinals are everywhere in Australia. Although water is a much more
precious resource in this big brown country than most other western nations.

------
Tichy
Why the cartridges, wouldn't it be easier to drain the urine down a pipe? Is
processing of the cartridges waterless?

~~~
kscaldef
The cartridge replaces a traditional trap, as the diagrams on the second page
explain. If you just have a straight pipe, sewer gases come out, which you
really don't want.

As far as I know, there is no "processing" of the cartridges; they are just
thrown out after they reach the end of their lifespan.

~~~
crististm
So instead of more water down the drain you fill the dumpster with the
cartridge... which you then recycle, of course.

------
ErrantX
_Those units have been in operation since 2004. So far, there have been no
urinal-related deaths._

Quote of the day. :)

------
jemfinch
Only if I can use the "pee on the inside edge" trick to prevent splashback.

------
jhuckestein
Is the world ready for the first wireless urinal?

------
ddelony
Bucky Fuller invented one in the '40s.

------
Devilboy
We have these in our office building too. They're fine but our building
management has them cleaned twice a day, otherwise they stink up the place.

------
mkramlich
Attempting to innovate is always good.

