EcoSanRes: Re: again Ecosan in dense urban areas

0 views

Skip to first unread message

c...@rotaria.net

unread,

Apr 8, 2008, 6:56:57 PM4/8/08

to ecos...@yahoogroups.com

Dear Ralf and Arno,

Thanks for your comments. Yes, I am aware of the critical point concerning urine infiltration I pointed out. But let us see it from another side, the conventional side, the “wastewater solution” side. I would be more than happy when a sanitation company accepts the idea to be responsible to collect the feces and to receive a collection tariff for this work. When I get this part going, even with all the urine infiltrated (as it happens to be right now), than I got a sustainable system from the point of “ongoing, continuous” service. Unfortunately (give me some light if it is different) most of the UDDT solutions up to now depend on the willingness of the user to maintain the system. I am totally convinced that such a concept has to fail if we are talking of 40.000 p.e. We have to have a continuous service for the cleaning, as we do for garbage (I think we do agree on this). The difference is the following point of view. For me introducing ECOSAN for dense urban areas is a step by step concept.

1. Getting a municipal Water Sanitation company to assume the collection of feces as their task, equally to providing water. Or subcontracting or doing it by their own.

2. Having a financial system that makes the user pay for part of the installation and a monthly fee for collecting.

3. Implanting the system in an area voluntarily, giving discount for early birds. Constantly getting larger numbers. That is a very good thing of UDDT as you are working decentralized.

4. Just “getting away” the dried feces to a central composting or, still better, anaerobic treatment followed by composting. Final disposal (or use in agriculture).

At this point the direct responsibility of the water company of these first examples is over. My intention is not to go further in the responsibility with the water-sanitation company. Keep things simple! By this, they have an alternative solution they can overlook and are somehow used to it.

The reuse of dried fecal matter (instead of disposal) and the collection and use of urine are aspects I will approach in parallel but from the other side -> Looking for users who might be directly interested.

Ralph your point: “Collection and truck transport is technically feasible at reasonable costs (if no dilution). “ I did some economic calculations, really truck transport is not an easy option and I do not trust my persuasive abilities to explain the whole complex system to directors of a municipal sanitation company, that they get back the money by selling the urine and so one. I am afraid that they would be opting for the conventional (easily understandable) solution, (might be just my fear).

Arno thanks for ideas, they help me thinking. Concerning your remark: “Urine collection is economic in dense areas especially now more than ever since phosphate fertilizer has gone up 6 times over the past 12-14 months now being shipped in bulk at over $1200 per ton. In slum areas this can be done using jerry cans and local farmers can take care of this service on an entrepreneurial basis.” Again see comment before. My approach is: If it is economic in dense areas, especially in slum areas by using “jerry cans”, for me that is a parallel project. I would not address the sanitation company for this part but yes with agricultural or street worker organizations. We can create jobs, but again, keeping the need for success apart from the “basic model” pointed out.

Infiltration of urine can very easily corrected, just cut the pipe and duck it into a canister. A freshly waterborne (without water) system can not be corrected anymore.

I do not want to risk all. That is the reason for my approach.

What do you think?

Yours

Christoph

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (4) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic