Is the world ready for the waterless urinal?

Normally I wouldn't post something about urinals to HN just because it's in Wired, but this is actually a fascinating article about a new technology's introduction being delayed by resistance from trade unions (in this case, plumbers).

One of my last undergraduate reports as an economics student at the University of Michigan in 2007 was on the "true cost" of watered urinals vs. waterless urinals for the campus. The waterless ones were primarily used in the Dana (Environmental Sciences) building, which even had expensive composting toilets- basically large, windy abysses which you defecated into.<p>We spent nearly a month doing research on vendors for waterless urinals as well as attempting to model the cost of negative externalities from the water use (sewer system upgrades, water treatment) and the waterless ones (manufacturing and disposal of cartridges, smell and hygiene.)<p>Whilst I can't locate a PDF of the report anymore, the evidence came out overwhelmingly in favour of the watered urinals. The cost of the waterless filters and hardware, even if all of the waterless urinals were installed new, was still over 2x the cost of running watered urinals at the University, externalities included (I think it was nearly 6x IIRC.)<p>I can't imagine these being useful for many municipalities – including the more water-scarce ones — unless costs have <i>really</i> dropped.

An office building I used to work in tried this a few years ago. Within a few months they replaced them with flush urinals because the men's room was starting to smell like downtown San Francisco. Oddly enough, when I was in SF last month I noted that the outdoor smell of stale urine has largely been replaced by the smell of burning marijuana. It really is an improvement.

There's a lot of them (dozens) at various office buildings where I work. They're good for an office setting, where people get used to the quirks, which are mainly: nothing but urine in the urinal (in particular, no saliva, which can clog the one-way-flow mechanism). At an airport, it would be asking for trouble.

They have these in the Adobe offices. They are all about being "green". Anyways, something never set quite right with me about them... something about the piss just sitting there, not being washed away. Not that regular urinals are clean either.

<i>"Falcon recommends pouring a bucket of hot water into its urinals to flush out deposits before putting in a new cartridge."</i> (<a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/06/ff_waterless_urinal/2/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/06/ff_waterless_urinal/2/</a>)<p>Maybe it would make sense to make a hybrid version option that flushes with water every x days. Attacks the idea of pure "waterless", but maybe more practical?

I remember when these were deployed in Terminal G at O'Hare a few years back, with lots of signage hoopla in the bathroom about it. Then they disappeared with no public explanation. Interesting to hear the reason was pipe clogs.<p>Given that they did cause clogs, I'm not sure I think the plumbers' skepticism is as unreasonable or necessarily self-interested as the OP implies.

The world might not be, but the United Kingdom seems to be. I've seen a few of these over the last year. I must admit, it didn't stand out as anything particularly revolutionary or interesting at the time, but I guess it must be.

&#62; The US Army Corp of Engineers took notice and mandated in 2006 that the Army install only waterless urinals from 2010 onward.<p>That's what an ROI can do for you!<p>It's important to find the particular customers who can benefit from your product, and have the power to act. Usually, the military is a hard market - but in this case, their control of their own facilities helped.<p>Changing community attitudes - such as towards water usage - can benefit or harm you. Here, the long-term trend was predictable (and predicted). <i>Skate to where the puck is going to be.</i><p>This whole saga was purely adoption (ie marketing). The product was already done.<p>They didn't give up.

It didn't quite surprise me that this was based on one German engineer's ideas. We're really crazy about our toilets. (Ever seen the fabled "poo shelf"?)

I'm always surprised when visiting the United States that there's a <i>lot</i> more water in every toilet than over here (Israel). One of those small things you never think about, but when you visit another country you discover there are other standards.

Never underestimate maintenance costs.<p>The traditional urinals have at least the advantage of self-maintenance. You flush them - they clean-up. If you don't flush, someone eventually will. You don't need someone to look them over or replace the liquid sealant for at least three reasons I can think of right now.<p>It's similar to what you get when you replace intersection lights with LED to save _electricity_. They don't get hot. In the winter they get covered with ice and snow enough to not see them. You then go and clean them yourself and realize that what you saved on electricity doesn't even match the cost of gas and labor you used. Or you don't clean them and you have one or more collisions and you're still no better.<p>How much water you say you save? It is peanuts compared to the water on the toilets...

I totally understand this in southwest states like Arizona and New Mexico, where water conservation is really important. But the bulk of the country essentially has infinite, cheap water. It doesn't make sense to me why you would need this in Iowa.

Australia's also using them in a lot of places. No problems here to date.<p>But then, we've been conservative about water for a while with good reason to be.

They have these at the Owen Business School at Vanderbilt University. They stink.<p>Literally.<p>They smell like urine. If we are going to use these on a wide scale then I think that men need to drink the water that is saved so that they have less pungent smelling piss.

Obligatory reference for our female geeks: "The Princess and the Pee" (<a href="http://www.ampnet.co.uk/femorabilia/pee_standing.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ampnet.co.uk/femorabilia/pee_standing.html</a>).

In Australian buildings this is already very very common. In the recent drought many urinals were converted (temporarily) but some are now back to water.<p>When maintained it is ok, but it does smell more. Generally not popular.

They had these at the national parks in the desert parts of Colorado and Utah. They do seem to smell like urine. I think a part of it is that the background mildew/mustiness is gone from the environment, so one notices the urine smell more. Also, nothing is washing the urine down the drain anymore except for more urine, so there is more smell of dry urine on the urinals themselves.<p>If I do ever build my desert getaway, I'll be putting in Clivus Multrum composting units and not one of these.

No, world is not ready. I worked in the building with such urinals and they stink. (And believe me, there is no need for smoke bomb to smell where the stink comes from)

I laughed a little when I read that they reached a compromise with the plumbers by continuing to require the plumbing to be in the walls (in case they want to switch to standard urinals).<p>Smart compromise - not wasting water, and the plumbers keep their jobs.

Waterless urinals are everywhere in Australia. Although water is a much more precious resource in this big brown country than most other western nations.

Why the cartridges, wouldn't it be easier to drain the urine down a pipe? Is processing of the cartridges waterless?

<i>Those units have been in operation since 2004. So far, there have been no urinal-related deaths.</i><p>Quote of the day. :)

Only if I can use the "pee on the inside edge" trick to prevent splashback.

Is the world ready for the first wireless urinal?

Bucky Fuller invented one in the '40s.

We have these in our office building too. They're fine but our building management has them cleaned twice a day, otherwise they stink up the place.

Attempting to innovate is always good.