Economic and environmental analysis of standard, high efficiency, rainwater flushed, and composting toilets

The current sanitation technology in developed countries is based on diluting human excreta with large volumes of centrally provided potable water. This approach is a poor use of water resources and is also inefficient, expensive, and energy intensive. The goal of this study was to compare the standard sanitation technology (Scenario 1) with alternative technologies that require less or no potable water use in toilets. The alternative technologies considered were high efficiency toilets flushed with potable water (Scenario 2), standard toilets flushed with rainwater (Scenario 3), high efficiency toilets flushed with rainwater (Scenario 4), and composting toilets (Scenario 5). Cost, energy, and carbon implications of these five design scenarios were studied using two existing University of Toledo buildings. The results showed that alternative systems modeled in Scenarios 2, 4, and 5 were viable options both from an investment and an environmental performance perspective. High efficiency fixtures that use potable water (Scenario 2) is often the most preferred method in high efficiency buildings due to reduced water use and associated reductions in annual water and wastewater costs. However, the cost, energy, and CO(2)EE analyses all showed that Scenarios 4 and 5 were preferable over Scenario 2. Cost payback periods of scenarios 2, 4 and 5 were less than 10 years; in the future, increase in water and wastewater services would further decrease the payback periods. The centralized water and wastewater services have high carbon footprints; therefore if carbon footprint reduction is a primary goal of a building complex, alternative technologies that require less potable water and generate less wastewater can largely reduce the carbon footprint. High efficiency fixtures flushed with rainwater (Scenario 4) and composting toilets (Scenario 5) required considerably less energy than direct energy demands of buildings. However, the annual carbon footprint of these technologies was comparable to the annual carbon footprint from space heating. Similarly, the carbon savings that could be achieved from Scenario 4 or 5 were comparable to a recycling program that can be implemented in buildings.