Professor dr apul presenters akhil kadiyala zheng xue andrew e wright
Download
1 / 26

Identification of the Most Sustainable Alternative System for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 177 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Identification of the Most Sustainable Alternative System for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of' - geoff


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
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

Presenters: AkhilKadiyala, ZhengXue, Andrew E. Wright


Objectives
Objectives for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

  • Application of ‘EIOLCA’.

  • Indicator Analysis – Environmental Indicator.

    – Natural Resource Consumption Indicator.

    – Economic Indicator.

  • Sustainability Index and Performance.

  • Possibility of obtaining LEED Credits.


Data collection
Data Collection for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

  • 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.


Data collection1
Data Collection for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets


Current water usage in restrooms
Current Water Usage in Restrooms for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

  • 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.


Rainwater harvesting
Rainwater Harvesting for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

  • 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.


Components and cost estimates for rainwater harvesting
Components and Cost Estimates for Rainwater Harvesting for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets


Greywater recycling
Greywater Recycling for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

  • Components :

  • Greywater Source

  • Collection through plumbing

  • Treatment System

  • Storage

  • Greywater Reuse


Greywater loading rates
Greywater Loading Rates for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

  • 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


Components and cost estimates for greywater recycling
Components and Cost Estimates for Greywater Recycling for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets


Composting toilets
Composting Toilets for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

  • Waterless or consume a minimum amount of flushing water.

  • Human waste is converted into an organic compost and usable soil.


Composting toilet replacements and estimates
Composting Toilet Replacements and Estimates for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

  • Total Cost of Construction = $105,180

  • Total Cost for O&M = $5268


Water consumption and effluent quantity
Water Consumption and Effluent Quantity for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets


Life cycle system boundary
Life Cycle System Boundary for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

  • Functional Unit: savings per life cycle of each system ($/life cycle).


Lca results
LCA Results for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

Greenhouse gases for “Construction” and “O&M” Stages of a Life Cycle

Energy for “Construction” and “O&M” Stages of a Life Cycle


Environmental indicator
Environmental Indicator for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

  • 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.


Environmental indicator1
Environmental Indicator for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets


Natural resource consumption indicator
Natural Resource Consumption Indicator for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

  • Overall % Water Consumption Reduction

  • Rainwater Harvesting: 21.77%

  • Greywater Recycling: 45.92%

  • Composting Toilets: 21.72%


Economic indicator
Economic Indicator for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

Economical Choice Comparison based on Cost of Construction and O&M

Economical Choice Comparison based on Cost/gal of water saved/day


Payback period
Payback Period for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

  • Rainwater Harvesting: 23.42 yrs

  • Greywater Recycling: 40.18 yrs

  • Composting Toilets: 9.5 yrs


Sustainability index and performance percentage
Sustainability Index and Performance Percentage for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

Performance = Maximum Score of indicator × ∑Sustainable Score.


Points allotted
Points Allotted for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets


Applicable leed credits
Applicable LEED Credits for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

  • 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.


Conclusions
Conclusions for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

  • 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.


Limitations and scope for future work
Limitations and Scope for Future Work for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets

  • 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.


Questions? for NE Toilets at UT: A comparative Study of Implementation of Rainwater Harvesting, Greywater Recycling, and Composting Toilets


ad