Jump to content

Anyone tried a kildwick compost loo?


Ayesha walker

Featured Posts

2 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

Having put the effort in, to produce a compost that is beneficial to plant life, most people will be keen to grow better tomatoes or roses, but even if the compost is put in the bin, we are talking just 40Kg going to landfill for two people each year. 

If this had been sent in its raw state to the sewage processing plant, then over the same period, the same two people would have sent between 300 and 400Kg of poo.

If our example couple hadn't dug in, or sent their 40Kg of solids each year to landfill, they might have used a macerating toilet, mixed their 400Kg of raw faeces with 1,500l of precious drinking water and sent it away for the authorities to process.

At the sewage works, at not inconsiderable expense, the solids are then extracted forming a sludge. This may then be de-watered, digested or composted and ultimately sent to landfill, spread directly on the land or even incinerated.

The 1&1/2 tonnes of flushing water then has to be filtered, digested and sometimes chemically treated before being flushed into a watercourse. A bit further downstream it is abstracted, filtered some more, disinfected and pumped back to you as drinking water.

It must be ecologically better to process your own.

 

It would appear then that your method reduces the available 'drinking water' by 1-1,5 tonnes per couple, as it is not fed back into the 'cycle'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

Having put the effort in, to produce a compost that is beneficial to plant life, most people will be keen to grow better tomatoes or roses, but even if the compost is put in the bin, we are talking just 40Kg going to landfill for two people each year. 

If this had been sent in its raw state to the sewage processing plant, then over the same period, the same two people would have sent between 300 and 400Kg of poo.

If our example couple hadn't dug in, or sent their 40Kg of solids each year to landfill, they might have used a macerating toilet, mixed their 400Kg of raw faeces with 1,500l of precious drinking water and sent it away for the authorities to process.

At the sewage works, at not inconsiderable expense, the solids are then extracted forming a sludge. This may then be de-watered, digested or composted and ultimately sent to landfill, spread directly on the land or even incinerated.

The 1&1/2 tonnes of flushing water then has to be filtered, digested and sometimes chemically treated before being flushed into a watercourse. A bit further downstream it is abstracted, filtered some more, disinfected and pumped back to you as drinking water.

It must be ecologically better to process your own.

 

Once I again I can only commend you for your sensible, logical and lateral thinking. Have another Brownie!

 

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

It would appear then that your method reduces the available 'drinking water' by 1-1,5 tonnes per couple, as it is not fed back into the 'cycle'.

But then it was never taken out in the first place!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Up-Side-Down said:

Once I again I can only commend you for your sensible, logical and lateral thinking. Have another Brownie!

 

But then it was never taken out in the first place!

So where did the 'liquid content' come from that changed the 'solids' from a weight of 1-1.5 tons to a 'dry' weight of 40kgs ?

 

2 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

You might want to think it through a bit more perhaps. 

It was a little 'tongue in cheek' as it obviously evaporates, goes up into the clouds and comes back as 'poo flavoured rain'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎30‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 11:19, Bargebuilder said:

Having put the effort in, to produce a compost that is beneficial to plant life, most people will be keen to grow better tomatoes or roses, but even if the compost is put in the bin, we are talking just 40Kg going to landfill for two people each year. 

If this had been sent in its raw state to the sewage processing plant, then over the same period, the same two people would have sent between 300 and 400Kg of poo.

If our example couple hadn't dug in, or sent their 40Kg of solids each year to landfill, they might have used a macerating toilet, mixed their 400Kg of raw faeces with 1,500l of precious drinking water and sent it away for the authorities to process.

At the sewage works, at not inconsiderable expense, the solids are then extracted forming a sludge. This may then be de-watered, digested or composted and ultimately sent to landfill, spread directly on the land or even incinerated.

The 1&1/2 tonnes of flushing water then has to be filtered, digested and sometimes chemically treated before being flushed into a watercourse. A bit further downstream it is abstracted, filtered some more, disinfected and pumped back to you as drinking water.

It must be ecologically better to process your own.

 

All sheets and giggles aside......

The longer I study the emotive boat-based 'composting' bog option from all angles, selflessly committing my limited spare time to dispassionate, field-based research, muck, bullets and all the deeper I break through the drying crusty stool of the obvious and sidestep the tellingly shallow puddle of piddle that represents the intellectually moribund platitudes routinely offered by 'all-in' Evangelicals and Detractors alike, mine included.

My research is in it's infancy, raw and unpolished but objective, diligent and growing into what may serve as the basis for my Doctorate.

My person view is that so long as 'The Merchandise' is finally disposed of responsibly/safely/legally then then who cares, cassette, pump-out, compostor, whatever.....?

There are many sociologically significant and fascinating factors driving the relatively recent upsurge in the popularity of Composting seen over the last 5-10 years, for the most part inextricably linked with the corresponding upsurge in the popularity of living-aboard as a credible option for blue and white collar salarybore types who have the wherewithal, liquidity and inclination to raise both a competitive mortgage and deposit to purchase a 2/3 bed ex LA flat/house in Hainault/Croydon/Dartford/Potters Bar but would rather not commit themselves to 15-25 years of abject misery including a 90 minute daily commute to service the debt for a flat they don't really like in a town they have no real connection or innate feel for preferring to use that capital to buy an absolute corker of a boat for cash money with enough actual cash left over to cover a years marina mooring in advance somewhere much closer and watery and a great deal less miserable, ongoing mooring fees substantially offset by greatly reduced travel costs.

It's as edgy and on trend as composting bog. :)

 

Edited by tomsk
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, tomsk said:

All sheets and giggles aside......

The longer I study the emotive boat-based 'composting' bog option from all angles, selflessly committing my limited spare time to dispassionate, field-based research, muck, bullets and all the deeper I break through the drying crusty stool of the obvious and sidestep the tellingly shallow puddle of piddle that represents the intellectually moribund platitudes routinely offered by 'all-in' Evangelicals and Detractors alike, mine included.

My research is in it's infancy, raw and unpolished but objective, diligent and growing into what may serve as the basis for my Doctorate.

My person view is that so long as 'The Merchandise' is finally disposed of responsibly/safely/legally then then who cares, cassette, pump-out, compostor, whatever.....?

There are many sociologically significant and fascinating factors driving the relatively recent upsurge in the popularity of Composting seen over the last 5-10 years, for the most part inextricably linked with the corresponding upsurge in the popularity of living-aboard as a credible option for blue and white collar salarybore types who have the wherewithal, liquidity and inclination to raise both a competitive mortgage and deposit to purchase a 2/3 bed ex LA flat/house in Hainault/Croydon/Dartford/Potters Bar but would rather not commit themselves to 15-25 years of abject misery including a 90 minute daily commute to service the debt for a flat they don't really like in a town they have no real connection or innate feel for preferring to use that capital to buy an absolute corker of a boat for cash money with enough actual cash left over to cover a years marina mooring in advance somewhere much closer and watery and a great deal less miserable, ongoing mooring fees substantially offset by greatly reduced travel costs.

It's as edgy and on trend as composting bog. :)

 

Can't argue with that; perhaps I could have when I was edgy and trendy but I can no longer remember those days. To tell the truth, I struggle to remember Friday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, frahkn said:

living-aboard as a credible option for blue and white collar salarybore types who have the wherewithal, liquidity and inclination to raise both a competitive mortgage and deposit to purchase a 2/3 bed ex LA flat/house in Hainault/Croydon/Dartford/Potters Bar but would rather not commit themselves to 15-25 years of abject misery including a 90 minute daily commute to service the debt for a flat they don't really like in a town they have no real connection or innate feel for preferring to use that capital to buy an absolute corker of a boat for cash money with enough actual cash left over to cover a years marina mooring in advance somewhere much closer and watery and a great deal less miserable, ongoing mooring fees substantially offset by greatly reduced travel costs.

In these days of near zero interest on savings, I can't think of a better way to enjoy ones money than to buy a boat and spend as much time on it as you can, however, to opt for a liveaboard vessel as an alternative to bricks and mortar, composter or otherwise, really isn't wise unless it is ones only option.

The "abject misery" of living in Croydon, enduring a long commute and struggling to pay a mortgage might not seem worth it at the time, but just compare your financial position a bit later in life compared to having 'sunk' ones cash into a nice boat. You could enjoy obsene levels of house price inflation or relentless boat depreciation. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/08/2017 at 11:19, Bargebuilder said:

Having put the effort in, to produce a compost that is beneficial to plant life, most people will be keen to grow better tomatoes or roses, but even if the compost is put in the bin, we are talking just 40Kg going to landfill for two people each year. 

If this had been sent in its raw state to the sewage processing plant, then over the same period, the same two people would have sent between 300 and 400Kg of poo.

If our example couple hadn't dug in, or sent their 40Kg of solids each year to landfill, they might have used a macerating toilet, mixed their 400Kg of raw faeces with 1,500l of precious drinking water and sent it away for the authorities to process.

At the sewage works, at not inconsiderable expense, the solids are then extracted forming a sludge. This may then be de-watered, digested or composted and ultimately sent to landfill, spread directly on the land or even incinerated.

The 1&1/2 tonnes of flushing water then has to be filtered, digested and sometimes chemically treated before being flushed into a watercourse. A bit further downstream it is abstracted, filtered some more, disinfected and pumped back to you as drinking water.

It must be ecologically better to process your own.

 

To a degree I agree with you, considered disposal of properly composted waste in your own garden is a fine achievement. 

Throwing anything into a landfill is a backward step, apart from possibly Blackburn Lancashire,  holes in the ground are a finite resource

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Throwing anything into a landfill is a backward step, apart from possibly Blackburn Lancashire,  holes in the ground are a finite resource

Sending fully biodegradable humanure to landfill isn't an issue: Unlike plastics etc. it will be incorporated into the environment by worms, fungi, bacteria etc and ultimately, with a bit of surface landscaping, will provide a perfect 'foundation' for amenity areas planted with trees and shrubs that would benefit both people and wildlife.

The dessicated and compacted solids from sewage farms usually go to landfill anyway. 

Since this is the end result in either case, by composting, one can avoid the senseless waste of flushing (drinking) water and the cost to the environment of processing raw sewage, including the chemicals and electricity used in the process.

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

Sending fully biodegradable humanure to landfill isn't an issue: 

 

 

Frankly, this is bobbins.

It might be fine in tiny quantities, but not if everyone does it. If it worked fine to bury the stuff, we would not have needed to invent sewage farms and the public drainage system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

Sending fully biodegradable humanure to landfill isn't an issue: Unlike plastics etc. it will be incorporated into the environment by worms, fungi, bacteria etc and ultimately, with a bit of surface landscaping, will provide a perfect 'foundation' for amenity areas planted with trees and shrubs that would benefit both people and wildlife.

The dessicated and compacted solids from sewage farms usually go to landfill anyway. 

Since this is the end result in either case, by composting, one can avoid the senseless waste of flushing (drinking) water and the cost to the environment of processing raw sewage, including the chemicals and electricity used in the process.

 

You miss my point by a mile, filling holes in the ground with any sort of waste shouldn't be something to encourage,  it doesn't matter that it will eventually degrade, holes in the ground are finite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

It might be fine in tiny quantities, but not if everyone does it. If it worked fine to bury the stuff, we would not have needed to invent sewage farms and the public drainage system. 

I don't think that anyone would seriously predict that everyone would suddenly start composting.

I should point out also that sewage farms were invented well after flushing toilets, their purpose being to clean up the environment and reduce the serious public health issues that the trend towards flushing into the streets created.

Before the water closet, toilet waste was held in pits where it partially dried out and composted before it was collected periodically by lucky chaps who carted it away and flogged it to a farmers to fertilise their crops. Not a system that would be acceptable today, but it was far better than the stench and disease of the early days of water closets!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

The dessicated and compacted solids from sewage farms usually go to landfill anyway. 

Do you have a source for this claim?

My understanding is that this waste is what makes your potatoes grow. It's spread over farmers' fields. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

You miss my point by a mile, filling holes in the ground with any sort of waste shouldn't be something to encourage,  it doesn't matter that it will eventually degrade, holes in the ground are finite

In practice, ground-fill is often surface coverage and not reliant on holes at all. Perhaps land covered in 20 feet of compost with mixed trees and shrubs planted on it would encourage biodiversity, unlike endless fields of monoculture.

More of concern for many countries is the availability of drinking water. The supply of drinking water will increasingly become a serious issue worldwide and it is widely recognised as a finite resource. For many countries, unnecessarily wasting vast volumes of precious drinking water by flushing it down the toilet would be considered as wasteful or even irresponsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bargebuilder said:

In practice, ground-fill is often surface coverage and not reliant on holes at all. Perhaps land covered in 20 feet of compost with mixed trees and shrubs planted on it would encourage biodiversity, unlike endless fields of monoculture.

More of concern for many countries is the availability of drinking water. The supply of drinking water will increasingly become a serious issue worldwide and it is widely recognised as a finite resource. For many countries, unnecessarily wasting vast volumes of precious drinking water by flushing it down the toilet would be considered as wasteful or even irresponsible.

Although I agree with your issue about fresh drinking water in principle,  you still miss my point about landfill,  we shouldn't be encouraging anyone putting any more waste in any sort of landfill. Especially something that should be recycled via proper composting or digestor units

Plus of course current advice is to double bag and seal the poo in plastic bags before dumping in the bin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Although I agree with your issue about fresh drinking water in principle,  you still miss my point about landfill,  we shouldn't be encouraging anyone putting any more waste in any sort of landfill. Especially something that should be recycled via proper composting or digestor units

Plus of course current advice is to double bag and seal the poo in plastic bags before dumping in the bin

In the unlikely event that toilet composting became really widespread or was forced on us by the authorities due to concerns over available water supplies, I feel sure that proper digestors would be employed to create flammable gas and solid fuel and that incinerator/powerplants would be used to generate electricity as well: All worthwhile don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

In the unlikely event that toilet composting became really widespread or was forced on us by the authorities due to concerns over available water supplies, I feel sure that proper digestors would be employed to create flammable gas and solid fuel and that incinerator/powerplants would be used to generate electricity as well: All worthwhile don't you think?

Again you miss my point about landfill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tree monkey said:

Throwing anything into a landfill is a backward step, apart from possibly Blackburn Lancashire,  holes in the ground are a finite resource

Err, according to the song 4,000 holes appeared in Blackburn Lancashire, so even those holes were a finite resource.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bargebuilder said:

Sending fully biodegradable humanure to landfill isn't an issue: Unlike plastics etc. it will be incorporated into the environment by worms, fungi, bacteria etc and ultimately, with a bit of surface landscaping, will provide a perfect 'foundation' for amenity areas planted with trees and shrubs that would benefit both people and wildlife.

The dessicated and compacted solids from sewage farms usually go to landfill anyway. 

Since this is the end result in either case, by composting, one can avoid the senseless waste of flushing (drinking) water and the cost to the environment of processing raw sewage, including the chemicals and electricity used in the process.

 

Once again I bow to your innate wisdom and common sense (which is allowing me to enjoy my composting loo even more .......... )

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Again you miss my point about landfill

You might be missing mine......

Is the collecting cow slurry or other farmyard manure and spreading it on fields land fill?

The covering of fields with manure, cow made or man made can have the effect of improving and fertilising the soil and often making it better suited, not worse, to the growing of plants and trees. There are rules governing concentrations of trace elements which dictate whether this soil improvement can be followed by the planting of food crops or amenity landscape.

Where is the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

You might be missing mine......

Is the collecting cow slurry or other farmyard manure and spreading it on fields land fill?

The covering of fields with manure, cow made or man made can have the effect of improving and fertilising the soil and often making it better suited, not worse, to the growing of plants and trees. There are rules governing concentrations of trace elements which dictate whether this soil improvement can be followed by the planting of food crops or amenity landscape.

Where is the problem?

Because spreading muck following approved methods is completly different from double bagging human waste and throwing it in a bin to be dumped in a mixed use landfill

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.