SuSanA - Forum Kunena Site Syndication Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:43:56 +0000 Kunena 1.6 SuSanA - Forum en-gb Re: Bill Gates blog post: This Ingenious Machine Turns Feces Into Drinking Water (Omni-processor by Janicki to process sludge) - by: clint
Therefore, separation reduces the need for water, separation mentally is acceptable and separation makes it easier doing it onsite.

The immediate initial assumption that human excrement and organic kitchen scraps are WASTES needs to be re-evaluated utilizing separation wastewater plumbing and treatment systems and Mother Nature's natural methods of aerobic decomposition and vermiculture.

Once we understand that the WASTES we are trying to dispose/get rid of are actually liquid and solid gold for total recycling into food production instead of oil will we be able to comprehend that the remaining greywater can be recycled by getting the majority of the problem out of the water with separation, not to mention reducing the need for water immediately by at least 40 percent.

Please Google Equaris Corporation, AlasCan, WCCO TV NEWS PROJECT ENERGY, Don Shelby, Afton, MN.

As Bucky proclaimed, we need to design PRODUCTIVE not CONSUMPTIVE dwellings to be sustainable with technologies logically treating entities separately as they were and are created.

Faecal sludge management Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:04:51 +0000
Re: Bill Gates blog post: This Ingenious Machine Turns Feces Into Drinking Water (Omni-processor by Janicki to process sludge) - by: awhitesell
Agreed, it is important to look at the entire sanitation chain and I think the foundation is doing that. Besides the Omni-Ingestor project (collection and delivery) and the Omni-Processor (solids processing) they are investing in technology and testing of new service models, improving policy and regulatory conditions, looking at ways of increasing demand for sanitation services, and engaging manufacturing partners with sufficient capacity.

The foundation’s initial approach for the RT, OP, and OI was to cast a wide net and try to identify novel technologies that might someday become viable means of improving sanitation in urban settings. They are gradually focusing on fewer technologies that they consider viable.

Regarding the OP: I’m not at liberty to disclose the Omni-Processor RFP but the idea was to develop means of processing combined fecal sludge and solid waste in a small facility serving 1000 to 100k people in dense urban settlements. The processed waste could result in energy, fertilizer, or soil amendments that would generate revenue and offset the waste collection costs. The Janicki OP, which isn’t the only OP project, may not adhere to the original RFP but that isn’t shocking as this is an R&D effort. As you suggest, the problem may have been adjusted to suit the technology. Again, not shocking, as there is a learning curve associated with new projects, new players, new objectives, etc.

In response to your second question: does the OP offer a better response to the problem than other technologies? I don’t know. There will undoubtedly be cases where the answer is no. But there may be cases where the answer is yes. If the foundation and Janicki think they are on a path to a solution, it is their prerogative to follow it. The S100 and the S200 won’t be the only solutions or the final solutions. Ultimately, the goal is to have commercially viable, sustainable products and product development doesn’t just end…it’s a process and the Janicki OP is a step in that process.

Here’s a question for you: If there are simpler and cheaper technologies available, why are they not being utilized? Can they fit in one or two 40’ shipping containers or do they require large plots of land? Can they be located in urban areas to reduce transportation costs? Do they generate revenue? If not, what compels their adoption and motivates a private enterprise to make the investment and maintain the equipment. Is the expectation that a government agency will operate the facility? That seems to have a poor record of success.

Faecal sludge management Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:56:33 +0000
Coming to Chennai, India (Aug. 2015) - looking for contacts - by: dandreatta
In particular, I've developed and posted* some things about a couple simple devices I've developed to clean out pit latrines and septic tanks without some poor guy having to climb down in. They are bucket-based devices and are simpler than the gulper, and are resistant to clogs. I intend to build these devices at the cookstove lab, and I would love to demonstrate them under actual conditions. I've posted links to youtube videos in the past, though I'm at the WEDC conference now, so I can't reference anything.

From Loughborough, England,

Dale Andreatta, Ph.D., P.E.

* See one of these previous posts here:]]>
Faecal sludge management Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:56:30 +0000
Re: Worldwide examples of industry profiting form faecal sludge or sewage processing - by: scottchen One report says that the major waste water treatment plants have been dumping the sludge in the forest, farmland and dry river beds...even if they are some sludge treatment facilities still running.
The cost of the sludge treatment in not included in the water price..
best wishes
Faecal sludge management Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:07:50 +0000
Re: Worldwide examples of industry profiting form faecal sludge or sewage processing - by: muench
What do you mean by "throwing the sludge everywhere"? Are they putting it on farmland? What are the newspaper articles suggesting what else should be done with it?

In Germany it's mostly incinerated these days, and in some parts of Germany (Bavaria I think) also still used on farmland (but with very tight regulations with regards to heavy metals and other pollutants; only make sense for small wastewater treatment plants with no or little industrial wastewater going to the municipal treatment plant).


P.S. For anyone with a particular interest in sewage sludge, see also this previous thread which was started by Kai Mikkel:]]>
Faecal sludge management Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:26:02 +0000
Re: Worldwide examples of industry profiting form faecal sludge or sewage processing - by: scottchen Faecal sludge management Sun, 26 Jul 2015 16:23:43 +0000 Re: Worldwide examples of industry profiting form faecal sludge or sewage processing - by: muench
Making a profit from waste processing would be neat but seems next to impossible (making a profit from certain elements of the chain, like collection, is of course possible if the users pay enough collection fees).

You asked about Sanergy: no, as far as I know, it is not making a profit and the funding gap is still closed by donor funds, although I know Sanergy has the aim to get away from the donor funds.
More on Sanergy here in the SuSanA project database:

The question about financial viability was asked here specifically in a post by Liz Tilley from July 2014:

She said:
I should have been more clear in saying that I am NOT trying to offset the costs with any sort of recovered value, but am rather looking into ways in which the costs are feasible, fair, and acceptable to all members of the system.

It wasn't correct of me to say "very few ways" because actually, in my particular context, there are "no ways". More correct would have been to say that I have not found any ways to make the system cost neutral, and very few ways to optimize the payments between the customers and providers, such that we can maximize use and minimize operating costs.

Her PhD thesis might contain some further information and examples, too:

One new avenue for making profit might be via the black soldier fly larvae, see most recent post by Nick from South Africa on this:

The company Agriprotein seems to be able to make a profit from organic waste processing (but not with fecal sludge), although again this is probably not looking at the entire chain (i.e. transport costs) but only the processing part?
See e.g. here a recent announcement from Agriprotein in the US:

I think as you said dewatering/drying and getting the transport costs down are probably key, and of course a marketable end product (like valuable compost).

Also getting customers to pay the right amount could be a challenge (particularly if they realise that their excreta is sold somewhere else along the chain?).

I recall an example from Burkina Faso where households had to pay to have their urine from UDDTs collected; the urine was stored and then sold to farmers. Some households then refused to pay for the collection because they said "I want to sell my urine myself!". So not easy. See case study here although I think the project might have stopped by now (does anyone know?)):
Fall, A., Coulibaly, C. (2011). Urban urine diversion dehydration toilets and reuse Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso - Draft. Case study of sustainable sanitation projects. Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA)

Please let us know what else your search has turned up so far?

Faecal sludge management Fri, 24 Jul 2015 10:59:50 +0000
Re: Appropriate Septic tank Cleaning (emptying) Frequency - by: aasimmansuri
Agree to most of the points highlighted by Mr. Pawan.

In India it is still not mandated to clean septic tanks at an interval of 2-3 years as prescribed by the CPHEEO manual. Also the septic tanks here have large cleaning frequency because of over sized septic tanks.

But here we do have General development control regulations (GDCR) and National building code that all cities have to follow. But this regulations only give an outline on how the septic tank should be designed for eg. length to breath ratio has to be 2:4, but this does not give a definite size of septic tank as per the user size and cleaning frequency as mentioned in the CPHEEO manual, 2013

Also in 2013, we had an advisory on septage management from Govt. of India which now prescribes that septic tanks need to be cleaned at an interval of 2-3 years and with new national programmes like AMRUT which lays emphasis on septage management, we are optimistic that this prescribed norms may just be mandated.

In the cities that we are working in Maharashtra we are developing this scheduled fecal sludge emptying plan and the city government is on-board with us with 3 year of emptying cycle and we are planning to finance this plan through introduction of a special sanitary tax on annual basis which comes out to be less than what the people are presently paying for getting their septic tanks emptied.

Also, there was a World Bank project in 100 rural villages of Punjab, where they had implemented settled sewer in these villages and it was mandated that households had to clean their septic tanks once in 2 years.

Faecal sludge management Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:36:39 +0000
Re: Bill Gates blog post: This Ingenious Machine Turns Feces Into Drinking Water (Omni-processor by Janicki to process sludge) - by: kevintayler
Andrew says that the omniprocessor is not meant to deal with faecal sludge collection and transport. OK, but it is important to look at the whole sanitation chain - there is ample evidence from Asia that most faecal sludge treatment plants are underloaded and it is important to at least have an idea of how the sludge is going to get to the plant at the design stage.

Andrew - you say that the solution must address the problem statement. The obvious follow up question is 'what is the problem statement for the omniprocessor?'. The website focuses on electricity generation but Pawan has suggested that the financing and operational costs are likely to exceed the income generated from selling electricity.

The capacity of the S200 is said to be about 92 cubic metres per day. This is quite a large volume - few septage treatment plants in medium-sized towns receive this volume although the volume would be increased if scheduled emptying could be introduced. There have been attempts to do this but there is still a long way to go before such attempts can be deemed successful. Regardless of this, the minimum dry solids required 10 - 11 tonnes per day, is much higher than the amount reaching most septage treatment plants. The website does say that additional dry combustible matter can be used to augment the dry matter produced from sludge and so bring the weight up to the minimum required by the plant. To me, this sounds like adjusting the problem to suit the technology and it would be better to start from the problem and explore technologies to solve the problem. Simpler and cheaper technologies are available so why go for something that is expensive and relatively complex?

So, I come back to my question above - 'what is the problem statement?' and add a second 'in what ways does the omniprocessor offer a better response to the problem than other technologies?']]>
Faecal sludge management Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:33:44 +0000
Re: Drinking Water From Feces - Bill Gates blog post: This Ingenious Machine Turns Feces Into Drinking Water (sewage sludge, Janicki Omniprocessor) - by: pkjha Omni Ingestor (OI) and Omni Processor (OP) by Janicki were also demonstrated during the last exhibition on RTTC organized by BIRAC/ BMGF in Delhi in 2014.
Cost of one unit was much more. It was higher than the annual budget of Sanitation Head of most of the Local bodies of small towns. Cost of electricity produced per day from such unit was calculated to be much lower than the cost of interest (as per standard Bank interest rate) on the cost of the unit. Further, costs of maintenance and collection / transportation and manpower are extra. Therefore, income generated from the system can’t meet even the interest amount of the bank, if the project is funded by any Bank. The cost is calculated when the system runs into its full capacity, i.e., loading of 35 cum of septage per day. Such volume is quite large.
The technology does not appear economically sustainable.


Faecal sludge management Sun, 19 Jul 2015 11:00:22 +0000
Re: Drinking Water From Feces - Bill Gates blog post: This Ingenious Machine Turns Feces Into Drinking Water (sewage sludge, Janicki Omniprocessor) - by: awhitesell
I'd like to point out that the Janicki OP is not intended to solve the problem of fecal waste collection and transport. The technology being developed in the Omni-Ingestor project is intended to deal with those issues.

While I'm a fan of solving problems using the simplest technology possible, the solution must address the problem statement. The foundation is attempting to develop technology for specific applications, namely sludge management in densely populated urban settlements. For a wide range of reasons, traditional means of waste management are not working or are not implemented in this market.


Faecal sludge management Sat, 18 Jul 2015 03:50:49 +0000
Re: Who is doing toilet and FSM product and technology design / R&D and what are you working on? - by: awhitesell
Beaumont has been managing the Omni-Ingestor (OI) project on behalf of the BMGF for a few years and actively involved in developing some of the systems and subsystems of the OI. Feel free to contact me about what you are looking to design and if I can't help, I might be able to point you in the right direction.


Faecal sludge management Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:45:39 +0000
Re: Indirect benefit and costs of FSM - by: awhitesell
I just noticed your posting. Are you still looking for input?

Faecal sludge management Thu, 16 Jul 2015 17:13:24 +0000
Re: Appropriate Septic tank Cleaning (emptying) Frequency - by: pkjha
In India there is one Manual on Sewerage and Sewage Treatment, from CPHEEO, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. Its latest edition is of 2013. Chapter 9 of the Manual deals with on-site sanitation including Septic Tanks.
Size of septic tank and its emptying intervals is perhaps never followed as per the Manual, neither is it a mandate. In fact septic tanks are constructed by masons who never know the Manual and CPHEEO. Size of a septic tank is decided by the concerned masons and households depending on their affordability /economic status. Larger size of tank is considered better as its emptying interval is longer.
Emptying is carried out only when the tanks are completely filled and there is physically blockage of sewage from toilet Pan to tanks. Depending on the size of tanks, cleaning interval varies between 5-10 years or even more. At initial years there is treatment of sewage with better effluent quality due to longer retention time, but in subsequent years there is practically no treatment after the tanks are filled. Practically such septic tanks act as storage tanks.
Status of septic tanks linked with public/ community toilets is worse. In most of the cases, such tanks are of undersized, due to lack of space or fund or both. In this case also emptying is done only after there is back flow of sewage. Most of such toilets are maintained on pay and use basis by service providers/ contractors. They are rarely concerned with the treatment of sewage; they are more concerned with economic aspects. To follow the Manual to emptying the tanks ( in 1-2 years) will cost more and hence not interested.

Faecal sludge management Thu, 16 Jul 2015 03:43:54 +0000
Faecal Sludge Management - An animation video - by: cddsociety Well in urban areas, you'll find them everywhere! In fact, Toilets are either connected to a storm drain, a collection pit or in better cases - a septic tank.
So what happens when the collection systems fill up?

The answers you will find in the video... please take a look and give us your feedback!]]>
Faecal sludge management Thu, 16 Jul 2015 02:41:56 +0000