Inventor's Home literally "makes sh** disappear"

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2007-09-19 08:51pm

Twincities.com wrote:Afton inventor designs a self-contained home sewage treatment system
BY MARY DIVINE
Pioneer Press

Every time Clint and Bobbi Elston flush a toilet or turn on their tap, they make history.

Clint Elston has designed what he believes is the world's first self-containedsewage treatment system in the lower level of the couple's Afton home.

The new three-part system, the Elstons say, eventually could eliminate the need for piped water and sewer and drilled wells and septic systems.

It reuses all dish, shower, sink and laundry water, recycling it into drinking water.

But the most interesting feature: it collects food scraps and toilet "matter" in a large tank where thousands of small red worms live. The worms eat the waste, and out comes soil.

"We literally make s*** disappear," Clint Elston said. "It's all Mother Nature. We really haven't done anything; we've just automated Mother Nature."

Elston named his composter the Bio-Matter Resequencing Converter after hearing the term on a "Star Trek" episode. Two agitators - picture a huge Cuisinart set on its lowest level - spin the waste and worms five to 20 minutes each day. "I came up with the idea after looking at manure spreaders," Elston said.

The Elstons remove about 10 gallons of soil from the tank each year and use it as compost around their ornamental shrubs.

"The secret is, you've got to get the human waste and all the organic waste out of the wastewater," he said.

Once that's done, Elston said, you can recycle all the "gray water," the dirty water that drains from your sink, bathtub, washing machine and dishwasher.

Elston's gray water-treatment system involves three huge cone-shaped water tanks. Inside two of them are hundreds of little open plastic balls where bacteria live and eat the gunk that comes through the water. The water then goes through an extensive filtering process involving ozone, micron filters, ultraviolet light and reverse osmosis before it is stored in another tank.

A computer system continually tests the water and alerts the Elstons to any problems. They can also monitor the system on the Internet, he said.

The finished product is purer than bottled water, Bobbi Elston said. "You don't have to worry about 3M chemicals," she said, referring to recent groundwater-contamination problems in south Washington County. "We're using what the Lord has given us, and it's much better quality water."

She keeps two plastic Ziploc bags of ice cubes in the freezer. The clear ones are made from recycled gray water; the cloudy ones come from well water, she said. "There's a huge difference in quality," she said.

A typical house goes through 75 gallons of water per person a day - none of it recycled. The Elstons need about three gallons of water per person a day to make up for the water they lose through flushing the toilets, evaporation and drinking.

That water comes from the sky.

The Elstons use screened gutters to collect and pipe rainwater into two giant cisterns, where the water is filtered. "That's the best water in the world, because it's the softest water you can get," he said.

The three different systems that make up the self-contained, closed-loop zero-discharge sewage treatment system are sold through the Elstons' company, Equaris. The total cost is about $55,000. About 10 units have been sold worldwide.

Dave Stark, water plan coordinator for Cook County, Minn., said there is a huge need for technologies like Equaris, especially along the North Shore. Stark, whose background is in water resources, installed an Equaris system in his riverfront home about 10 miles outside Duluth.

"We live on the Lester River, a very sensitive river, and so I was looking for technologies to reduce pollution and alternatives to traditional mound septic systems," Stark said.

Stark said the gray water-recycling component makes Equaris' system particularly unique.

"That's the stretch. That's the part that makes it feel like the Starship Enterprise," he said. "It's more unique than anything that exists in the world on a household scale."

Elston, who holds three patents on the system, became interested in green design while building geodesic domes in Colorado in the early 1970s. He said he was influenced by the writings of R. Buckminster Fuller, inventor of the geodesic dome.

He began researching septic alternatives after installing a well and septic system on difficult soils near Winter Park, Colo. He later worked on composting toilet systems in Alaska and started the AlasCan Co., the predecessor to Equaris. He moved to Minnesota in 1995.

He said he hopes his technology can help solve the world's water woes.

"There are 1.1 billion people in the world who don't have access to clean, safe water, and 2.5 billion who don't have access to proper sanitation," he said. "We need to get more out of the water that we already have."

Mary Divine covers Washington County. She can be reached at mdivine@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5443.

I've edited out the pictures from the article, but they are viewable on the site linked. I think this is fascinating - a friend of mine works in the water reclaim/recycling industry, and is getting ready to try developing and marketing a home-based water reclaim/recycling system that works similarly; combining something like that with the ideas in this article would make homes (and communities, even cities) much more resilient to drought.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-09-19 09:11pm

Asks for login. that site fails the internet, Tyson.

Very awesome technology if the Elstons can monetize their system effectively (oh wait, they did; free publicity woohoo!) and bring it to market!

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2007-09-19 09:14pm

Ah - I see the problem. The site reformed the URL. Would a passing mod mind editing the link in the OP to go:

from: "http://www.twincities.com/ci_6922335?nclick_check=1"

to: "http://www.twincities.com/ci_6922335"? Thank you in advance.

fnord · Post by **fnord** » 2007-09-19 11:53pm

Wonder if integrating some of this mob's products, especially in the greywater end, would be worthwhile?

Spin Echo · Post by **Spin Echo** » 2007-09-20 12:15am

Makes me think it would be useful for, well, pretty much most of Australia. When I was visitng Queensland, I was told they are limited to about 120 liters per day. It's not much when you consider drinking water, dishes, toilets, showers, etc.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2007-09-20 06:09am

A friend of mine who works for a development company, in a small town in Uganda has something similar. The system collects all the crap, filters it and puts out very good soil. However, the water is lost, so this new type of system would be quite an improvement.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2007-09-20 06:11am

Awesome.
A friend of mine who works for a development company, in a small town in Uganda has something similar. The system collects all the crap, filters it and puts out very good soil. However, the water is lost, so this new type of system would be quite an improvement.

Of course people will complain because "it´s disgusting to drink your own piss".

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2007-09-20 06:40am

I don't see what's disgusting about having a water bill at a grand total of zero dollars, zero cents. It sounds quite delicious to me, in fact

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2007-09-20 06:45am

PeZook wrote:I don't see what's disgusting about having a water bill at a grand total of zero dollars, zero cents. It sounds quite delicious to me, in fact

Most people don't understand that our planet is a closed system. Ignorance is bliss, no?

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2007-09-20 06:50am

Xenophobe3691 wrote: Most people don't understand that our planet is a closed system. Ignorance is bliss, no?

Which is why you conveniently don't mention this in advertisements, but focus on the "OMG ZERO WATER BILL!!!!" aspect of the system.

More educated demos can get the full treatment, with "Saving the environment" and "Clean, clear high quality water" angles.

If somebody complains about it being "disgusting", stave events where company CEOs drink a glass of water from the system. Get health authorities on the bandwagon, too.

Plus, sell or give away a limited edition of recycled bottled water with a clever name.

This system should be quite sellable with good marketing. And for once, it would be marketing for a good cause.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2007-09-20 07:11am

Water is so plentifull and free and clean up here in Finland it wouldn't have a big use here, but this is just a godsend for China, India and Africa.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2007-09-20 07:12am

Well not totally free, but cheap.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2007-09-20 07:13am

Now all we need to do is implement this system into a suit...

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2007-09-20 07:17am

Ofcourse even here it would be nice, the water doesn't have to be stored but getting all the shit out of it and only letting good water back out in nature is a plus all of itself. I wonder if this system has applications in large scale city wide waste treatment plants, a nice way to get fertilizier and help the enviroment.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2007-09-20 07:34am

His Divine Shadow wrote:Ofcourse even here it would be nice, the water doesn't have to be stored but getting all the shit out of it and only letting good water back out in nature is a plus all of itself. I wonder if this system has applications in large scale city wide waste treatment plants, a nice way to get fertilizier and help the enviroment.

There's at least one bio-treatment plant in Gdansk which I believe uses a similar system on a massive scale. It stinks to high hell around the facility, but he have very clean tap water in return.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2007-09-20 07:45am

I was thinking it should help in combating the ever growing problem of the baltic sea being overfertilized by pollution from coastal cities and industry and so forth.

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2007-09-21 06:58am

Spin Echo wrote:Makes me think it would be useful for, well, pretty much most of Australia. When I was visitng Queensland, I was told they are limited to about 120 liters per day. It's not much when you consider drinking water, dishes, toilets, showers, etc.

At the moment we're supposed to 'Target 140' litres per day, by having showers under 4 minutes and other crap. I have a pipe dream of developing some kind of CELSS-like food/water/sewage system, which will come in handy when I get around to building my fortress on the moon.

kc8tbe · Post by **kc8tbe** » 2007-09-22 02:24pm

But what's the cost of electricity needed to run the system? And the cost of periodically replacing all those filters? And the cost of trucking away all the manure you aren't going to use? Sure, your bill from the city's water department will be lower, but will that be enough to offset the cost of running and maintaining your filtration equipment?

It sounds like this guy has miniaturized a waste treatment plant. Kudos to him, and I can see how this could be very useful in a rural environment or somewhere far from a water source. But I wonder if it would really result in monetary savings for city dwellers.

Remember, we have no shortage of water on this planet -- around three quarters of the planet's surface is covered in the stuff. The problem is that the energy cost of desalinating it and/or transporting it to where it is needed is too high.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-09-22 06:55pm

Winston Blake wrote:At the moment we're supposed to 'Target 140' litres per day, by having showers under 4 minutes and other crap. I have a pipe dream of developing some kind of CELSS-like food/water/sewage system, which will come in handy when I get around to building my fortress on the moon.

But remember, Brisbane might be uninhabitable in a few years... but no way bogans are drinking water recyc! Clearly democracy works, yes?

Sikon · Post by **Sikon** » 2007-09-22 07:44pm

Article wrote:Every time Clint and Bobbi Elston flush a toilet or turn on their tap, they make history.

[...]
A typical house goes through 75 gallons of water per person a day - none of it recycled.

[...]
The three different systems that make up the self-contained, closed-loop zero-discharge sewage treatment system are sold through the Elstons' company, Equaris. The total cost is about $55,000. About 10 units have been sold worldwide.

[...]
He said he hopes his technology can help solve the world's water woes.

"There are 1.1 billion people in the world who don't have access to clean, safe water, and 2.5 billion who don't have access to proper sanitation," he said. "We need to get more out of the water that we already have."

If a $55000 system is used to provide around 150 gallons of water per day, that's ~ 54800 gallons a year. Those ~ 55 thousand gallons a year are provided at an expense equivalent to thousands of dollars per year for several decades or the rest of a person's lifetime, as that's the opportunity cost of spending a $55000 capital expense compared to investing the money otherwise, assuming 3% or more average annual return.

In other words, this system's expense is substantial, as the preceding is equivalent to having a water bill of thousands of dollars annually for its limited amount of water production.

For perspective, let's compare this to more conventional techniques which obtain economy of scale by more centralized water processing:

The expense to the average residential American for their water is about $0.50 per cubic meter (1999), which is about $1.89 per thousand-gallons. That's like just around $104 a year for 55 thousand gallons annually.

Water by desalination of seawater can cost around $2 per thousand-gallons. That's like just $110 a year for 55 thousand gallons annually, although there would also be a little additional expense for distribution to the residential end-user if the preceding is the bulk rate. One can assume around $100 to $200 a year total expense per 55 thousand gallons annually.

For perspective, the average American household actually uses more water than 55 thousand gallons annually and spends about $474 each year on water and sewage charges.

Considering the preceding, one can see that the system described in the opening post is at least around one order of magnitude more expensive than centralized water processing, as long as the figures in the article apply.

It is possible that the economics of it might much improve if produced in large number, as almost any equipment can have a far lower marginal expense per unit if produced by thousands or millions than if merely a handful are produced. But a challenge for them would be approaching a large number of sales at their current production cost and sales price. The article mentions 10 sales so far.

The concept described in the opening post is interesting. Still, though this system may have some applications, usually centralized water production is a lot more economically efficient. Similar recycling of water could be done but on a larger scale with a bigger plant serving more people for better economics.

The places where people don't have decent water are primarily places where they haven't had the money to obtain anything with much capital cost. For large portions of the world, one is talking about countries where the average PPP (purchasing-power-parity) GDP per capita is equivalent to hundreds or low thousands of dollars per year, and large segments of their population are far below even that average income figure. Many basically just don't have access to modern manufactured equipment at all. That's within a wide range that varies from that up to the top of the scale, comprised of $44000 per person per year for the U.S. and a bit higher for a handful of rich small countries (2004).

Although it looks more gaudy and awkward to use than ideal, the LifeStraw product is illustrative of some techniques; it costs just $3 while filtering water to provide safe drinking water for a person, potentially relatively affordable for humanitarian aid groups. Typically places where people lack safe water do have water but lack clean water. Having safe water for drinking is relatively easy in principle since a person may drink just a gallon a day, a couple orders of magnitude less than the hundreds of gallons a day total water usage of the average U.S. household. Beyond that, for large-scale water production and consumption, a centralized public utility system usually tends to work best.

Sikon · Post by **Sikon** » 2007-09-22 07:59pm

Just to add a bit, here's an example of humanitarian measures capable of being applied to many rural, impoverished areas of the world:

The Simple Solution for $5/Person

In most third-world applications, the solution to the clean drinking water need is found in the Concrete Biosand Filter. The Biosand filter has the ability to produce safe, clean drinking water from both contaminated surface water and ground water sources alike. As a result, this simple yet effective technology provides a long-term, sustainable, and economical drinking water solution for those in poverty stricken areas around the world. Where non-contaminated ground water sources are a viable option, Shallow Water Wells equipped with hand pumps provide an equally economical and sustainable clean water supply to entire villages. In addition, Hand Pump Repair of existing wells with broken hand pumps serves to multiply the production of clean water throughout a region.

Thirst Relief’s cost to build, deliver, and install a concrete Biosand water filter is $50, which in turn benefits on average 10 people in need. Our cost to repair an existing broken well hand pump is $300-$800, which in turn benefits 500 to 1000 people in need. Our cost to drill a new well is $2,000-$4,000, which in turn benefits 500 to 1000 people in need. For less than $5 per person, we can provide the basic necessity of clean drinking water to those in need around the world.

From here.

Of course, well cost would be a lot more than $5 per person if it was instead to provide up to a couple orders of magnitude greater total water consumption for other purposes. Wells like that do not work in some rural areas, but one can see what often can be the case.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2007-09-22 09:52pm

So a few weeks ago, I decided that fall Saturdays were for the playing of fight songs and other such football noise exclusively. Maroon and Gold just came up and I actually shed a tear.

I belong in Tempe tonight. This is really frustrating.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2007-09-22 10:19pm

I wonder how much space this system takes up? The fact that the article uses the word 'huge' twice to describe it would suggest quite a bit.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2007-09-23 12:03am

Wow I was very much in the wrong thread. My bad.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2007-09-23 01:08am

salm wrote:Awesome.
A friend of mine who works for a development company, in a small town in Uganda has something similar. The system collects all the crap, filters it and puts out very good soil. However, the water is lost, so this new type of system would be quite an improvement.

Of course people will complain because "it´s disgusting to drink your own piss".

There are even people here in Arizona trying to get laws passed that won't allow any recycled water to be used as drinking water. The waste water treatment plant treats it and then has to dump it back into the Santa Cruz "river". Which has more or less been dry on the surface, except for rain and artificial input, in this area for about 100 years.

People in the desert love their well water, and if you really make them they'll accept processed Colorado River water.

Of course neither of those two types of water have ever passed through the kidneys of a living thing.