[Pil-pc-oceania] Human nutrients & Toilets & greywater systems

Thu Apr 19 10:41:54 EST 2007

David and others

One aspect that needs to be considered  in assessing sustainability is 
the fate of carbon that enters the treatment system. In wet composting 
systems the carbon in the organic matter is converted to CO2 and/or 
methane through the metabolic processes of the organisms that break the 
material down, venting this to the atmosphere. What are recovered are 
the soluble nutrients and a possible small amount of suspended organic 
compounds. This is both wasteful and a contribution to greenhouse gas 
build-up.

By contrast, Biogas digesters allow recovery of the methane for use as a 
fuel, as well as the soluble nutrients for irrigation of crops. Dry 
composting toilets allow the recovery of much of the carbon as humus, as 
well as all the soluble nutrients, for crop fertilisation. Both these 
systems are readily available at low cost and allow maximum recovery - 
they should be our preferred solutions.

On this score I also argue against hot-composting as I see this as a 
wasteful loss of carbon to the atmosphere. Hot composting and worm farms 
produce very rich fertiliser, as the soluble nutrients are more 
concentrated and probably occur in organic combinations, but we need to 
get as much carbon back into our soils as possible with the least amount 
lost to the atmosphere.

I believe it is far more beneficial to have the decomposition cycle of 
our food webs happening in our soils, not in the technological 
constructions of our western industrial society.

Regards

Graeme

David Arnold wrote:
> Joel, Graeme and all,
>  
> The basic elements of the Biolytix that Joel described are very 
> similar to the 'Worm Farm Waste System" that is also commercially 
> available.  In that case I understand they use what they describe as 
> 'special screens' rather than a layer of something like onion bags 
> full of onion bags [Joel's description of the Biolytix base layer] as 
> the base to catch and hold the solids while they decompose.
>  
> Conventional septic systems can be converted to this setup. Worm Farm 
> Waste Systems offer to do this.
>  
> The septic needs to have suitable screens and base layer of non 
> degradable material set up at, say, 1/2 or 2/3 height inside the tank, 
> and a new outlet close to the base of the tank.  This new outlet may 
> be problematic for gravity draining systems, requiring a much deeper 
> trench and substantial fall in the land to allow the drain to 
> resurface downhill.  Many systems on flatter land these days have a 
> pump well and submersible pump already installed after the septic 
> tank, so it is just a matter of getting the septic to drain from its 
> base to the pump well.
>  
> The difference between Biolytix, the Worm Farm Waste System, and the 
> home septic tank conversion described above is in the degree to which 
> regulatory concerns have been satisfied, and the extent to which 
> potentially poor or lack of management by the householder has been 
> designed out of the arrangement.  I don't know every detail of the 
> commercial systems, but I suspect that a well set-up and managed home 
> septic tank conversion is capable of producing waste water just as 
> well treated as the commercial systems.
>  
> I agree that the basic form of this technology passes the 
> 'appropriate' test for a remote village, and it is potentially a very 
> cost effective retrofit of existing septic systems.  Where water 
> toilets already exist, passing stored irrigation water through the 
> water toilet, and carrying the nutrients safely to, say, fruit trees, 
> is a good way to make the best of this situation.
>  
> The disadvantage of the water toilet in this example is not the use of 
> water, which may be being sent to those fruit trees anyway, but the 
> loss of control of the use, and the timing of the use, of the 
> nutrients.  I would be reluctant to use this waste water on vegetable 
> gardens, for example, just as a precaution.  A bucket toilet, with 
> follow up composting, gives much more control and choice over how 
> those nutrients are used.
>  
> By the way, health inspectors very very rarely return to inspect 
> septic systems after their initial approval, especially if they are 
> functioning well and not causing any complaints.  And even an 
> inspection is only likely to be superficial, checking that there are 
> no surface odours or stagnant water, perhaps unless a 'householder 
> innovation' has been reported and complained about.  Though it would 
> be hard and potentially embarassing for them to prosecute against an 
> innovation that was clearly an improvement.  Sometimes we may decide 
> not to wait for regulations to catch up with the times.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> David
>  
> Violet Town, where in our dreamy but dry autumn our household waste 
> water is greatly appreciated by the orchard, especially since the salt 
> load from washing detergent was reduced!
>
>  
> On 18/04/07, *Meadows, Joel* <JMeadows at portphillip.vic.gov.au 
> <mailto:JMeadows at portphillip.vic.gov.au>> wrote:
>
>     Dear All,
>
>     I was impressed with the presentation on Biolitix at the Melbourne
>     convergence and Dean Camoron's work in developing it. I think at
>     its core is a system that can be low-energy, stable and as Graeme
>     says "technology appropriate for a remote village in Bangladesh or
>     Zambia".
>
>     Essentially it is a very simple (but clever) biological system
>     with a bit of high tech control gear. I'm sure there are lots of
>     Permies out there like me who have looked at the Biolitix and
>     thought "I could build one of those".
>
>     Inside the tank are several layers of non degradable medium (they
>     look like orange onion bags stuffed with similar material) that
>     the water and solids go in to the top of. In the media are worms,
>     beetles and other micro-organisms probably found in a wetish
>     compost heap from a similar climate. These organisms live off the
>     solids in the waste water and because of the size and diversity of
>     space in the tank find their niche in the layers and spaces of the
>     system. The water passes through and solids are physically and
>     biologically filtered and consumed down through the layers of the
>     system. The water that comes out the bottom is nutrient rich, but
>     has almost no sediment as the biological action within the tank
>     has caught and utilised the solids. Dean suggested they can be run
>     without the pump if you set up the system to be gravity fed, and
>     most of the control aspects of the system seem to be there to make
>     them 'acceptable' in a highly regulated Western market and are not
>     essential to its function.
>
>     The cleaning of the system is a little confusing as it seems that
>     with commercial units only a Biolityx rep can come and clean the
>     system. So unlike dry compost systems where we get valuable solids
>     out, I'm not sure if the same can be said for Biolityx. Dean
>     justified this aspect at the convergence by saying that the matter
>     that was removed was used to seed other Biolityx systems. The
>     systems also needed very rare intervention, and I believe that the
>     majority of the nutrient processed by the system would end up as
>     suspended solids in the liquid, with almost no material getting
>     stuck in the system (as long as you keep un-degradables out).
>
>     It would be great if the essence of what makes the system work
>     were freely available but this is of course a proprietary secret.
>     Any home-made biolityx systems and not going to be 'approved', and
>     those who are likely to make such systems are unlikely to be able
>     to afford to buy one. We do live in crazy times!
>
>     Any further thought?
>
>     Joel Meadows
>     Inner City Melbourne
>     Damn Autumn in Melbourne is beautiful!
>
>     ________________________________
>
>     From: pil-pc-oceania-bounces at lists.permacultureinternational.org
>     <mailto:pil-pc-oceania-bounces at lists.permacultureinternational.org>
>     on behalf of Graeme George - Earthcare Permaculture
>     Sent: Tue 4/17/2007 9:24 AM
>     To: permacultue discussion list
>     Subject: Re: [Pil-pc-oceania] Human nutrients & Toilets &
>     greywater systems
>
>     Matthew, Colin and others
>
>     The Biolytix system and many other "off the shelf" technologies
>     that have been given regulatory approval fit in with David
>     Holmgren's second scenario for our energy descent future -
>     "Green-Tech Stability". His first scenario is "Techno-Explosion",
>     ie continuation of the current reliance on technology to solve all
>     our problems with unlimited energy and resources, which is of
>     course a fantasy. David's third scenario is "Earth Stewardship"
>     using Permaculture to design a gradual descent into a low-energy
>     future. The fourth is "Atlantis", or total collapse. In David's
>     public presentations on this he emphasises that the Green-tech and
>     Earth stewardship scenarios are likely to run parallel courses for
>     a short period in terms of energy use but must inevitably start to
>     diverge as energy becomes scarcer/more expensive.
>
>     Thus, technologies such as Biolytix, even though they may use
>     permaculture concepts in their design, can only be seen as
>     transitional until truly sustainable systems become acceptable. I
>     suggest that a reasonable test is the question "Is this technology
>     appropriate for a remote village in Bangladesh or Zambia ?" If the
>     answer is no, then I don't see it being part of a sustainable low
>     energy future. I agree that we need to be able to manage our own
>     systems. Sustainable systems for basic services such as waste
>     disposal need to be as self-regulating as possible and/or capable
>     of being managed with minimum skills and training and requiring
>     minimal resources and infrastructure for their establishment. I
>     see most green-tech solutions as being the prerogative of the
>     wealthy. Unfortunately we don't currently have much choice in our
>     over-regulated society, as Colin has pointed out. (David also has
>     a bit to say about getting around bureaucratic impediments!)
>
>     For those who haven't heard David speak about these energy descent
>     scenarios, his PP presentation can be viewed as a PDF file on his
>     website (www.holmgren.com.au <http://www.holmgren.com.au>), under
>     Writings, Permaculture Solutions for the Energy Descent Future.
>
>     Regards
>
>     Graeme
>
>     Graeme George
>     Earthcare Permaculture
>     35 Deering Ave, Healesville, Vic, 3777
>     (03) 5962 5070
>
>     Matthew Bond wrote:
>
>            Hi Colin,
>
>            From what I've seen and heard about Biolytix I'm a great
>     supporter however I must say I was a little suspicious of it when
>     I heard only people from Biolytix could service it if there was a
>     problem and something about an alarm that can be activated which
>     sends a fault report back to Biolytix via the phone line (not too
>     sure about that??)  I think it would be preferable for the owner
>     to learn how to maintain it.  Then again, I don't know how viable
>     it is to train someone to do the maintenance and there may be
>     other issues.  What are you thoughts on this?
>
>            Matthew.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://jasper.cmsarchitects.com/pipermail/pil-pc-oceania/attachments/20070419/76b664ea/attachment.html 