Case Study for Flushless Urinals
by Michael Graham Richard, Ottawa, Canada 
on 07.24.05
A 2003 Pacific Institute research titled "Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California" (pdf) tells us that if California's water-use was as efficient as readily available technology allows it to be, a saving of 33% - from 185 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to 123 gpcd – could be achieve. "Despite their comparatively small use, individuals and businesses can play an important role in conserving water." With that in mind, the people at Triple Pundit have conducted this case study (pdf) on the cost benefit of using flushless urinals at the Kaiser Permanente French Campus Facility in San Francisco.
For those not familiar with the fascinating world of urinal technology: "Conventional urinals use at least three liters of water per flush (about a gallon), whereas flushless urinals need neither water nor a flushing system [...] Special glazes give sanitary-ware urinals a pore-free surface, while urinals made of synthetic material have a long-lasting gel coating that repels liquids. The urine flows off the smooth surface of the urinal into a siphon. [...] The siphon contains a liquid sealant that has a specific density that is lighter-than-water. This floats to the top, allowing the urine to flow through it and away, taking any odors with it. The liquid sealant remains in the siphon. Flushless urinals have no joints or cracks in which bacteria can colonize. The special surface repels most liquids and impurities. Cleaning therefore involves less cost and effort than with conventional systems, and strong toilet cleaners are unnecessary."
The conclusions of the case study are quite interesting. Even using “worse case scenario” numbers, replacing current urinals with flushless ones at the French Campus would lead to $800 of savings, while the best case scenario would result in savings of around $40,000. Obviously, doing nothing it the most costly option.
Final words: "Therefore, in pure economic terms there is no question that investing in 14 flushless urinals for the French Campus would be a positive financial decision."
Good job, Triple Pundit (and in particular Nick Aster, Steve Kropfl, Kathryn Zender).
::Case Study: The Cost Benefit of Flushless Urinals, ::Case Study (pdf)
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Save Water in Your Garden: 5 Tips for Maximum Conservation
- Did You Know Saving Water = Saving Electricity?
- Zero Waste—The Newest Eco-Fashion Innovation?
- Just Use Less! A Bathroom Conservation Checklist
- Your Idle Computer Can Save Lives
- Send Your Kids Packing...to One of These East Coast Eco-Friendly Summer Camps
We got these at The Mirage in the back. They work great. Don't splash like the old ones either.
I saw some of these in the main lobby/lodge men's room at Asilomar State Park, Pacific Grove, CA, this year.
I agree about them being less splashy (less floor clean up neede afterwards too, which is good) and they don't seem to smell either.
(Hard to make a comment on this because of filtering for "questionable content")
We use those all over campus at UNC. Company called Falcon Waterfree. They claim each one saves 15,000 gallons of water annually
We have several made by Falcon at the office and they REEK. As much as I like saving water, I can rarely bring myself to use them. =(
They are absolutly disgusting. They reek and usually
have a large amount of pubic hair lingering in them. Cleaners usually just hose them down which replaces the fluid that is supposed to hold the smell back, making the problem worse. As for the don't splash, you got to be joking. It is so terrible that people don't want to get close and after about two years the floor area around them has permanently discolored. Saving water is great but they do not work in high traffic areas.
I have to agree with the thumbs down on the Falcons. It is impossible to use them without getting urine all over your legs. (caveat- the rock smoking architect chose to make all the urinals midget accessible) Ours have puddles of urine in front of them.
They might not reek so much if they actually collected all of the urine.
As with everything, I suppose there are good and bad designs/implementations.
Sad to hear that some of them are quite bad; it could leave a bad taste in people's mouth (sorry for the mental picture) and keep them from wanting the good ones. Kind of like passenger car diesel in the US. After the bad experience from the 70s, few people are attracted by the idea even though it made quite a bit of progress since then.
Why not develop a similar sytem which could flush maybe after 5 uses........thereby getting rid of any design flaws
I also have them at UNC. The Falcon ones. They really do stink. Ours have the regular scent puck in the basin and when that is used up and not replaced they are aweful to be around. There must still be a better solution.