No Splash, No Flush Urinals from Kohler
by Collin Dunn, Corvallis, OR, USA on 08.14.07
If the "if it's yellow let it mellow" debate still rages in your home, have we got the solution for you: a waterless urinal. Though most often relegated to restaurant bathrooms and the like, urinals in the home make tons of sense: they save thousands of gallons of water and you don't have to worry about remembering to put the seat down. Add the waterless -- as in, no flushing required -- element and you've got a device that conserves a remarkable amount of water. Take this sleek option from Kohler (above); it's tubular design is not only a refreshing take on the more typical blocky designs, but it "virtually eliminates splashing". Because you don't have to flush it (more on that in a sec), it saves an astounding 40,000 gallons of water per year.
The "waterless" part of the design works like this: there's a "trapway" at the base of the urinal, in which the "sealing liquid" goes; since it's less dense than liquid waste, once your pee goes through, the liquid stays at the top of the trapway, providing a barrier that blocks odors and keeps maintenance to a minimum.
We've seen similar concepts before, but if whizzing into a flower doesn't do it for you, these might be a better option. More details at ::Kohler via ::Yanko Design
it saves an astounding 40,000 gallons of water per year
What they actually say is it "can save up to 40,000 gallons of water per fixture per year and significantly reduces sewage and maintenance costs."
In my 2.5 person household, total water consumption, which includes lots of laundry, cooking, dishwashing, lawn watering, car washing, and with toilets that aren't even low-flow -- we use about 32,000 gallons in a year.
This device would save us 0 gallons since we don't flush urine when it's by itself.
Are any public utilities or policy groups prompting legislation that would make these part of home building codes? Maybe not in every bathroom; but it would seem to make sense to have one of these in every home. That would save a massive amount of water (which, I would think, over the "life" of a house, would more than make up the cost of installation.) Anyone see pitfalls in that?
Unfortunately, my bathroom is still too small for something like this to be useful. Ideally you could integrate the no-flush urinal into a conventional commode, then we'd have something.
And as for the "sealing liquid," could you use something like peppermint oil? That way it gives off a burst of minty goodness when you're finished with your business
I just noticed a bunch of these at Shea Stadium last weekend. They don't afford much privacy in a public restroom, but they sure are a great design otherwise.
Just this past weekend during a road trip, I made a pit-stop at an interstate rest stop that had waterless no-flush urinals. I don't recall what brand they were (or which state - it was a long trip) but do remember that they were branded as waterless. Good to see the concept is already seeing practical use in a high traffic facility.
On a negative side, the traditional design of the rest stop urinals allowed too much spray to land outside the urinal basin (on my pants), which in turn makes me doubt the practicality for home use unless the Kohler design live up to their splashless claim. Adding a urinal to a bathroom will take more space. Perhaps OK in a newer home with a large bath, but not where I live. But there is also the hygiene issue of "over-spray" and who has to clean it up... To save on the cleaning at home, I just sit on the toilet.
130 bucks for a gallon of the 'sealing liquid'? wow
Similar to the first poster, our household's solution is based on "policy" rather than "equipment". You know the saying: "if its brown flush it down, if its yellow let it mellow".
I'm sorry, but my gag-factor won't permit me to sit on a toilet containing someone else's urine and potentially splashing said fluid on my posterior. Toilet water I can force myself to accept, but toilet water and someone else's waste? >squick!
I wind up flushing twice (before and after) whenever I share accommodations with someone who leaves urine in the bowl and have to sit. This negates any advantages the other person is "gaining" by only flushing solids.
For me, this product (or one like it) would solve that issue.
One thing I have noticed about no-flush urinals in public restrooms - sometimes, the "barrier fluid" starts to stink after a while. (I guess some compounds in urine are soluble in the fluid and they accumulate over time). Hopefully, they've addressed this issue for the home unit. Having a bathroom that stinks like 4 month-old "asparagus pee" would be hard to take, even if it was saving water.
'm sorry, but my gag-factor won't permit me to sit on a toilet containing someone else's urine and potentially splashing said fluid on my posterior. Toilet water I can force myself to accept, but toilet water and someone else's waste? >squick! I wind up flushing twice (before and after) whenever I share accommodations with someone who leaves urine in the bowl and have to sit. This negates any advantages the other person is "gaining" by only flushing solids.
Sounds like you have some issues.
In Japan they have a great system for toilets. Every toilet has two flushing options. One is a heavy flush, which is just a normal flush. But the other one is more like a shower that outputs a little bit of water, just enough to rinse the pee off the bowl. By using this option we don't have any smell and can wait until we have brown waste before using the normal flush.
uhm,yeah,in all public restrooms please.but at home....i don't know....last i checked women can't use them....or have i missed out on something?
This is all well and good for the men, but what about for women? I await the day they develop a waterless toilet - I can only imagine the technology that would go into that. I wonder if it's even feasible?
pretty neat, id like to get one in my house if not only to prevent splashing!!
Just pee in the tub like everyone else.
Carson, women could accessorize with something like the She Pee ;)
http://www.shepee.co.uk/
I have a 'dry' compost toilet system. My toilet - the commode that I sit on - looks fairly normal except that it does not have a basin for flushing water sitting above the seating part. This 'commode' has two sections - the front part within the commode is a mini urinal connected to its own piping (which leads to a urine storage bucket) and the back part is where the crap goes. It is very natural because any woman or man sitting to take either a piss or shit will automatically use the correct section - unless the individual has an extremely unique waste discharge set up. Neither uses ANY water whatsoever.
Why do men have to suffer with this? Why is my pee not allowed any water?
How about making one where I don't have to be Minnesota Fats with the three-angle bank shot to avoid splashback? I've used enough urinals to know that the most splash-free ones are the ones that are freakin' HUGE!
And by the way, I'll plant a drought resistant yard so I can have a fresh bowl like a civilized person! If I can't flush, I'd rather water the lawn!
Oh, yeah, what's .5 of a person?
Just pee in the sink. Then you can wash your hands while rinsing out the urine. Problem solved.
When I lived in Japan over 8 years ago every toilet that wasn't the squat type had a dual flush mode . Twist one way for light rinse "pee" , and twist the other way for heavier flow of water for "poo" , and the one in my apartment used waste water from the bathroom sink to fill the flush tank . Let's get with the time America , even the porta potty's on construction sites used "grey water" to flush the squat style toilets .
Waterless urinals first need to find there way into all public and commercial institutes. In a commercial office tower, waterless urinals by themselves can cut potable water use by over 20% below code. Add in other low-flow fixtures and you can easily decrease potable water use by 40% below code. In large public venues like stadiums and convention centers, these savings are even greater. And remember, Americans spend most of their time not at home, but at work or play.
On the home-front, dual-flush toilets are readily available on the market and may be a little more practical than giving every man his own urinal. Kohler makes one in-fact. These offer you the choice of a full, 1.6 gallon flush or a half, 0.8 gallon flush. Use as you see fit. I fully expect, once their price comes down, these toilets will become code in many cities. They are currently being installed in many of the high-end 'green' condo developments around the country.
yeah, (most) women are the main issue here. they have to flush a whole toilet of water when they pee, and seem to have illogical hygiene issues even when dealing with their own effluent.
@ Jason Nicholas - Legislating something like this for private homes is ridiculous - in a house full of women - where's the savings? (not only does it cost money to buy and install, it takes up space needlessly) Legislating for public men's restrooms - maybe.
@ Michael - The she-pees look disposable - which negates any water savings. And not to get too technical, but I'd still need toilet paper to wipe up afterwards - what would you propose us thick-haired women do with our urine soaked toiletpaper?
@ All the males that want to make comments about this subject as it relates to women - ask a woman first, before you make your comment.
irrated chick:
many (if not most) countries that use toilet paper actually throw it away into a can beside the toilet, gross as that sounds.
many of us men HAVE asked women and/or lived with women and observed their habits. not to mention posts by women about this very article (and similar ones) seem to indicate a fear of urine mellowing or mingling.
@ brennan - I'm a let it mellow (to a point) kind of person as are the vast majority of my friends. (However, the thought of mellowing tp in a trashcan does kind of gross me out.)
And I did simply say that males should "ask a woman first, before you make your comment" If you've asked and know what you're talking about, then comment away. From Jason and Michael's comments, they hadn't seriously considered what they were talking about from a woman's perspective.
I work in a Australian State Government department in a building housing 1500 staff. Every urinal is fitted out with these:
http://www.desert.com.au/
I was coming from the perspective of a man who lives with a woman who insists the toilet be flushed upon every usage (and, I suppose I would not want to have someone else's urine splashing up around my intimate parts; there's not really an argument against that. "Suck it up, honey. It's for the planet!" She thinks it would not be a bad idea to have a home urinal). I suppose one would have to balance out the overall water savings of installing such units at home vs. the cost of installation.
I see the point that every home is not co-occupied by men; is there a way to readily equip a bathroom with fittings for a urinal so that it could be easily installed or removed (e.g. a pantry that is equipped for a washing machine, etc.)?
If not legislated, hopefully public utilities will at least educate people about the possibility (or, um, pissibility).
why not put ICE CUBES in the urinal.that would save lots of flushings.
Legislation to require waterless urinals is being considered by some NGOs, and installation is promoted for LEED buildings. I have worked in water conservation for a few years, and am very familiar with the movement to require these devices in California. However there are some issues, both in their legislation and in their maintenance.
1) Plumbing unions are objecting due to their installation for "public health" reasons. The actual motivation may be because they require half the plumbing of a regular urinal as they require no potable water.
2) The are more expensive to maintain, and only save 0.5-1.0 gallons per flush when compared to modern urinals models. Most modern urinals now only require 0.5 gallons to flush, and do not have the same maintenance issues that the waterless urinal experience.
3) Men complain about the smell from these urinals constantly. This is because the bowl portion must be wiped out by hand daily since no flushing cleans this portion. Standard cleaning products CANNOT be flushed down the drain without disrupting the trap liquid. Once the liquid is disrupted, the urinal is open to the sewer pipe until the liquid is replaced. This causes further smell issues. Because many janitorial services are not familiar with these urinals or refuse to properly maintain them, regular staff often take proper daily cleaning upon themselves.
I'm obviously for water conservation, but I worry that a LCA would show that the chemicals required for the cleaning and use of these urinals would be worse than the very low water requirements of the 0.5-1.0 gallon per flush urinals. Additionally, I know that where all the urinals are waterless, male employees have opted to use the toilets instead, wasting an entire 1.6 gallons of saving 1.1 gallons.
I did the math, and although the sealing liquid is 130 bucks, it will supply one urinal for seven years! You only use three ounes every two months.