1 / 26

Professor: Dr. Apul Presenters: Akhil Kadiyala , Zheng Xue , Andrew E. Wright

Identification of the Most Sustainable Alternative System for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets. CIVE 6900 Sustainability Science and Engineering Fall 2008. Professor: Dr. Apul

sarahrivera
Download Presentation

Professor: Dr. Apul Presenters: Akhil Kadiyala , Zheng Xue , Andrew E. Wright

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Identification of the Most Sustainable Alternative System for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets CIVE 6900 Sustainability Science and Engineering Fall 2008 Professor: Dr. Apul Presenters: AkhilKadiyala, ZhengXue, Andrew E. Wright

  2. Objectives • Application of ‘EIOLCA’. • Indicator Analysis – Environmental Indicator. – Natural Resource Consumption Indicator. – Economic Indicator. • Sustainability Index and Performance. • Possibility of obtaining LEED Credits.

  3. Data Collection • Floor plans, plumbing diagrams, and number of toilets – Maintenance Department. • Utility water usage (gal/flush) obtained from online websites based on manufacturing company. • NE water bill - $4277.00 for 1048 ccf (783,904 gallons). • Materials required, quantities, and costs requires for LCA are obtained from online web search and open literature.

  4. Data Collection

  5. Current Water Usage in Restrooms • Assumptions • No. of people = 2370 • Usage of restroom = 1.5 times/day. • 75% Male and 25% Female • 30% of total water consumption is used by toilets.

  6. Rainwater Harvesting • Design Criteria: • Roof rainwater collected at a general point and sent to a tank. • Filtered via ground filter. • The rainwater is then pumped to a header tank . • Disinfection with UV. • Rainwater is distributed to the WCs via the header tank which incorporates the main water back up, riser connection and overflow.

  7. Components and Cost Estimates for Rainwater Harvesting

  8. Greywater Recycling • Components : • Greywater Source • Collection through plumbing • Treatment System • Storage • Greywater Reuse

  9. Greywater Loading Rates • Hydraulic Loading Rates • 0.25-1 gal/sq .ft /day – Fine media • 3-10 gal/sq .ft/day – Recirculation • Organic Loading Rates • 0.00025lbs BOD5/ft2/day to 0.0012 lbs BOD5/ft2/day - Fine media

  10. Components and Cost Estimates for Greywater Recycling

  11. Composting Toilets • Waterless or consume a minimum amount of flushing water. • Human waste is converted into an organic compost and usable soil.

  12. Composting Toilet Replacements and Estimates • Total Cost of Construction = $105,180 • Total Cost for O&M = $5268

  13. Water Consumption and Effluent Quantity

  14. Life Cycle System Boundary • Functional Unit: savings per life cycle of each system ($/life cycle).

  15. LCA Results Greenhouse gases for “Construction” and “O&M” Stages of a Life Cycle Energy for “Construction” and “O&M” Stages of a Life Cycle

  16. Environmental Indicator • The need for potable water use for toilet flushing： • Cost for rainwater harvesting and grey water recycling with 811,950 gallons per year - $4,348. • For composting toilets, it would be 853,370 gallons with a cost of $4,608.

  17. Environmental Indicator

  18. Natural Resource Consumption Indicator • Overall % Water Consumption Reduction • Rainwater Harvesting: 21.77% • Greywater Recycling: 45.92% • Composting Toilets: 21.72%

  19. Economic Indicator Economical Choice Comparison based on Cost of Construction and O&M Economical Choice Comparison based on Cost/gal of water saved/day

  20. Payback Period • Rainwater Harvesting: 23.42 yrs • Greywater Recycling: 40.18 yrs • Composting Toilets: 9.5 yrs

  21. Sustainability Index and Performance Percentage Performance = Maximum Score of indicator × ∑Sustainable Score.

  22. Points Allotted

  23. Applicable LEED Credits • WE 3.1: Water Use Reduction 20%. • The intent is to maximize water efficiency within buildings to reduce the burden on municipal water supply and wastewater systems.

  24. Conclusions • Composting Toilets - Most Sustainable Alternative System. • Greywater Recycling is recommended for long term use – Ability to conserve large amounts of water, thereby reducing potable water demand. • Rain water harvesting can also be used similarly but the source of supply to this system is dependent on rainfall and seasons.

  25. Limitations and Scope for Future Work • Limitations: • Difference in persons perspective. • Complete life cycle not taken into account. • Applicability to only toilet flushing is considered. • Scope for Future Work: • Study the combination of alternative systems studied individually in this study.

  26. Questions?

More Related