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).
I'd say that this is especially relevant to hackers in corporate environments because of this passage:
"Hansen heard a flood of complaints early on: The urinals stank. They were dirty. Where was the flush handle? In one building, the complaints were so vociferous that Hansen started an investigation. He found that the bathrooms did indeed stink, but the urinals appeared clean ....
... The urinals, however, emitted nothing. The cartridges were doing their job. Hansen moved the sewer vent and replaced the cracked toilet. The complaints stopped. Hansen concluded that the smell had always been there, but people didn’t have anything to blame it on until the new urinals arrived."
I've experienced this many times. I create/modify/install PROGRAM_X and immediately receive complaints that it's causing problems on the server where it's running. Investigation eventually reveals that these problems have been going on for some time, but now there's something to blame. I'm sure I'm not alone.
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.
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)
They should design a "self cleaning" model that actually uses the piping behind the urinal to flush once a week or so. It seems like this would resolve the need to rely on human maintenance, although the urinal wouldn't truly be waterless anymore.
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.
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?
It's not just the trade unions. Here's a quote from a similar story in the Washington Post:
"Users complain that high-efficiency toilets, which use less water than traditional models, require two flushes to do the job. Behind such objections stands this truth: America remains a flush-oriented society, and the more powerful the flush, the better. "It was a morale issue," Anja S. Caldwell, green building chief for the Montgomery County public school system, said of initial resistance to the 50 waterless urinals introduced over the past year. "People thought that by taking the flush away, you're taking an entitlement."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I've seen them all over public places in Colorado, including airports (Durango for sure, and I think Denver, too) and ski resorts. I'm guessing it's something about building/plumbing codes there. I've never seen (or smelled) and problem with them.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They have waterless urinals at most of the motorway service stations in Germany. They seem to work well, but then they're kept spotless, probably to justify charging 50 cents to use them.
Ikea (in Austria at least) use them too; they're not kept as spotless, and I've seen them out of order occasionally.
In general nearly all the public toilets in Germany are kept spotless, whether they are urinals or not, and you generally have to pay 50 cents to use them (or 20 cents, if you are not on the autobahn).
Compared to the alternative of gross toilets it is a win-win situation.
> 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.
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"?)
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!"
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.
Ok, thanks. In light of this, I'm gonna have to stick with the "easier for parents to spot those swallowed pfennig on the way out" explanation. This seemed most logical.
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...
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.
It’s there so you can inspect your poo. Kinda useless, though, and annoying. There is obviously no good reason for it to exist (anymore?) and I think it’s very much dying out. My parent’s house has one (out of four, built twenty years ago), if I should ever build a house or fit out my own bath room I most definitely won’t get one :)
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Many cities in the US are having serious issues with their sewer infrastructure, so even if they have copious fresh water, dealing with it after use is an issue. Here in Portland, where we have no shortage of water, I still pay more for my water than for any other utility, mostly to fund upgrades to the sewers.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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".
And they should have the choice to go with cheaper electrical wire too? Get to choose what kind of materials to use for load bearing beams? No, building codes are not just for the owner/builder's benefit. There are community interests at play when someone is putting in a structure. Usually there are also lender interests at play; i.e. if the owner/builder defaults on the loan used to build, the bank wants to have something that is dependably going to sell.
Sure it can slow down innovation some, but this kind of oversight is definitely needed. Once that is admitted, it is just a discussion of where exactly to draw the line. There was a disagreement in those discussions, so a compromise was used. It gets reviewed regularly and the line can shift as needed when more information is available or the opinions in the disagreement change.
Waterless urinals are everywhere in Australia. Although water is a much more precious resource in this big brown country than most other western nations.
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.
