No-Mix Vacuum Toilet Had Me At “Uses 90% Less Water.” The Other Features Sound Like Hot Gas.

No-Mix Vacuum Toilet   Nanyang Technical UniversityFor some reason, a good Jubblingified idea can get lost in a bunch of eco-crap. In this case, the crap is literal and the good idea is the No-Mix Vacuum Toilet. Developed by Assistant Professor Wang Jing-Yuan and 4 other researchers from Nanyang Technical University, the No-Mix Vacuum Toilet can process our dirty business with 90% less water by using airplane toilet like suction. It then separates the solids from the liquids and the captured goods are then processed further (from the Inhabitat article):

“The No-Mix Vacuum Toilet then diverts the liquid waste to a processing facility where components [are] used for fertilizers — nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium can be recovered. Meanwhile all solid waste is sent to a bioreactor where it will be digested to release bio-gas which contains methane. The gas can then be converted to electricity and used to fuel power plants or fuel cells.”

The ultimate aim of the No-Mix Vacuum Toilet team is to separate, capture and convert everything flushed into useful resources.No Mix Vacuum ToiletI’d buy a Vacuum Toilet and I do expect that my kids will try to drop a solid in the liquid section. Kids do that kind of stuff… so do adults. That’ll pass. What I don’t want to see is a toilet that uses 90% less water being delayed because we don’t have the infrastructure in place to process the poo and pee separately. It’s a great goal to have but it shouldn’t be all or none.

So please bring the No-Mix Vacuum Toilet to market asap so we can start conserving water. In the interim, we’ll just call it the No-Mix Vacuum Toilet. When we figure out how to separate #2 from #1, we can drop the strikethru and bring “No-Mix” back to the party. [Inhabitat]

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

Three Required Green Accessories: Peace Symbol, Politicized Hemp Shirt, And Bible?

Inspired by NYTimes.com article: “In Kansas, Climate Skeptics Embrace Cleaner Energy“.

Nixon vs Gore - Who is more Jubbling?When did politics become so infused into the issue of conservation? Yes, Richard Nixon’s Republican administration kick-started the Environmental Decade in the 1970’s and helped spawn the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments of 1970 and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). President Nixon was a tree-hugger but should we hold that against all Republicans?

There was a great article posted in the NYTimes.com about The Climate and Energy Project and how six towns in Kansas rallied around an effort to consume fewer resources and push for renewable energy. Their motivation was not political nor was it about melting polar ice caps or greenhouse gas emissions; according to the article, their motivation was born out of thrift, patriotism, spiritual conviction and economic prosperity. Lessen our dependence on foreign oil and respect God’s earth is basically it. So, what were the results? Over the life of the program which ended in the spring of 2010, the towns reduced energy consumption by 5% when a 1.5% reduction is considered significant.

Sorry Al Gore, Greenzo and Copenhagen – the answer to reducing consumption and finding renewable energy sources may not come from a “shock and awe” message but from efforts that are truly grassroots and definitely not politicized.

Now I do have one last question for the people in these participating Kansas towns – what about all those cool hemp based, peace-sign covered clothing that announces how environmentally aware you are; please tell me you are not giving that all up too. Everyone knows that it’s the best part of being truly green.

[Answer to Who’s More Jubbling – Nixon or Gore? Who Cares.]

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail