RFLOI: Reinvent the Toilet Challenge (Round 2)
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announces the second round of its Reinvent the Toilet Challenge designed to prototype a means of dealing effectively and cost-efficiently with human waste for the 2 billion people on earth who currently lack access to safe and affordable sanitation.

"...prototyping and testing entirely stand-alone, self-contained, practical sanitation modules which intake bodily wastes and swiftly dispose of them without any incoming water piping, outgoing sewer piping or electric or gas utility services. These modules must intake all outputs of the serviced population – ultimately at single-residence scales – with minimal module footprints and assured biosafety. Thus, chemical and mechanical engineering approaches are preferred."

source: www.gatesfoundation.org/watersanitationh...oilet-challenge.aspx

Richard Holden already mentioned his thoughts on this new approach by the BMGF via the ecosanres Yahoo! group, so I am wondering what you, dear SuSanA members, think about these new requirements (bold formatting done by me)?

I personally like it that the high-tech approach is regarded as a plausible solution and hope that someone will come up with some sort of Magic Toilet 3.0 that may also scale later on. I also believe that these high-tech approaches must not necessarily be that bad. Who knows, maybe there's going to be a system that pops out dry pellets or anything else that we may dispose of safely?

As far as I read this offer, all mentioned requirements are some sort of Desiderata and a guidance for where the future BMGF support is aiming at - with a special focus on self-contained solutions. I understand that they are also only focusing on brown and yellow water, leaving an option for a future grey water treatment. Dunno about anal cleaning practices though and how to tackle this side.

What I especially like about the high-tech approach as such is that high-tech solutions may be an ideal marketing instrument.
Many people in developing countries don't buy/drive Lada or Dacia, but Mercedes and BMW, if possible. Similarly, the ideal toilet may also be a high-tech product and not just the typical low-cost, low-tech solution - and be something (that) people are willing to invest in. Something the slum dwellers can take along once they move around (like their TV & VCR sets - our main investment competitors).
So that's why I don't oppose any high-tech solution even though I am also very sceptical how such a zero output will be achieved (hence the pellets idea).

What DO YOU THINK about this?

Thanks for mentioning this.

I totally agree with your comment that marketing of "high-tech" solutions might be the key in some areas.

I have one question regarding the requirements though: Do you think a small DEWATS system connecting <100HH would still fall under the no outgoing sewer requirements? I assume not, but technically it is all self-contained and I guess that is the original idea.

Eh, I also don't think so ("no outgoing sewer piping"), so any sort of pipe is probably not desired.

I do understand their request in a way that they are looking for something completely new and not iterations/variations of the existing technologies.

Surely someone on this forum will win the funding prize?!

Tight deadline for submissions - by 10th May.

RFLOI: Reinvent the Toilet Challenge (Round 2)

www.gatesfoundation.org/watersanitationh...oilet-challenge.aspx

SOL: 1063751
Open Date: April 23, 2012
Proposals Due: May 10, 2012
Apply here with a one page LOI, by May 10th 2012
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announces the second round of its Reinvent the Toilet Challenge designed to prototype a means of dealing effectively and cost-efficiently with human waste for the 2 billion people on earth who currently lack access to safe and affordable sanitation.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, it seeks to ensure that all people—especially those with the fewest resources—have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life.

We concentrate on areas with the potential for high-impact—sustainable solutions that can reach millions of people. We work closely with our partners to support innovative approaches and expand existing ones so they reach the people who need them most. We also support policy and advocacy efforts to accelerate progress against the world’s most acute poverty.

Global Development
Nearly 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day. For one person in eight, hunger is a constant, potentially deadly companion. The vast majority of the poor also lack access to the most basic financial services, and only a tiny minority have access to the Internet. The foundation's Global Development Program is working with motivated partners to create opportunities for people to lift themselves out of poverty and hunger. Our strategy is focused. Because most of the world's poorest people rely directly on agriculture, we support efforts to help small farmers improve crop production and market access. Because loans, insurance, and savings can help people weather setbacks and build assets, we facilitate access to financial services for the poor. In addition, because information can change lives, we support free public access to computers connected to the Internet. The newest Global Development program area — Water, Sanitation & Hygiene—focuses on sanitation that works for the poor.

The Sanitation Challenge
A large share of the solids and liquids people eat and drink are passed on in urine and feces. Human waste contains potentially valuable and recyclable resources such as water, energy, urea, salts, and minerals. It also consists of large amounts of useful as well as harmful microorganisms, mostly bacteria, as well as pathogens ranging in size from viruses to helminthes. Many diseases are passed on from person to person through the fecal-oral pathway—pathogens in one person’s waste end up ingested by another. For some diseases, this is the primary transmission pathway; for others, it is one of several transmission pathways. Human waste also contains residues of the many complex, engineered chemicals people use, such as food additives, antibiotics, hormones, and nutritional supplements, some of which remain in the environment and result in unsafe accumulation in waste sinks.

Water,Sanitation & Hygiene Program
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works with a wide range of partners through its Water, Sanitation & Hygiene program to reduce the burden of excreta-related disease and improve the lives of the poor. Our approach aims to expand the use of toilet and sanitation technologies that do not connect to a sewer, as this is by far the most common type used by the poor. We invest in effective approaches that help end open defecation and unsafe sanitation in rural communities, and we help develop the tools and technologies that will allow the urban poor access sustainable non-piped sanitation.

Request for Letters of Inquiry
The Water, Sanitation & Hygiene Program will be disbursing a set of new grants to support its Reinvent the Toilet Challenge. These grants are intended for exceptionally highly-qualified research groups interested in contributing to major advances in sanitation and hygiene in the developing world.

Successful applicants will participate in the next phase of the Reinvent the Toilet Challenge: designing, prototyping and testing entirely stand-alone, self-contained, practical sanitation modules which intake bodily wastes and swiftly dispose of them without any incoming water piping, outgoing sewer piping or electric or gas utility services. These modules must intake all outputs of the serviced population – ultimately at single-residence scales – with minimal module footprints and assured biosafety. Thus, chemical and mechanical engineering approaches are preferred.

At present, the Foundation is soliciting letters of inquiry and capability declarations from groups, primarily in the academic sector and from for-profit organizations, who are well qualified to undertake R&D and execute pertinent program plans. Full proposals for grant awards are not being solicited at the present, but submission of proposals may be invited in the near future from those whose letters of inquiry and capability declarations are of extraordinary quality.

How to Apply
A single-page typed-or-printed letter of inquiry and capability declaration should be submitted no later than May 10th 2012 in order to be assured of consideration. This should concisely declare the nature of interest, relevant backgrounds and salient qualifications of Principal Investigator(s) and key group members, cite pertinent publications and the date by which a grant-supported effort could commence (after August 31, 2012 and before January 1, 2013), and the basic architecture, scale and key milestones of the contemplated effort to be proposed for grant consideration. Please note that submission of a letter of inquiry or capability declaration does not imply, directly or indirectly, that any such submission will result in an award of a grant or any other funding.
Non-Confidential Application Process. The Foundation does not guarantee that any information submitted will be maintained as confidential.

Apply for this LOI

Here is a brief statement by Chris Buckley which he made in the closed ecosanres forum and which he has allowed me to copy to here:

++++++++++++++

Greetings all

Staff from the Foundation have attended and contributed to key sanitation conferences / meetings / workshops and have a firm grasp of the challenges in the sector.

Looking at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation web site it will be seen that the foundation understands the Sanitation Value Chain (www.gatesfoundation.org/watersanitationh...trategy-overview.pdf). The approach is reinforced in a recent speech at the World Water Forum 6, Marseille, France (www.gatesfoundation.org/speeches-comment...-rijsberman-wwf.aspx).

Their funding strategy is focused in 3 areas (Sanitation science and technology; Delivery models at scale; and, Policy and advocacy).

Much more information about the grants are given on their web pages.

Chris Buckley
(Recipient of funding for sanitation research from Water Research Commission of South Africa; Borda; Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; eThekwini Water and Sanitation; Unilever

Pollution Research Group
University of KwaZulu-Natal

Arno Rosemarin's points on the same topic (copied from the ecosanres Yahoo mailing list with his permission):

++++++++++


++++++++++

And there is an interesting "Challenge Paper" by the BMGF which I saw today advertised on Sanitation Updates which sheds further light on their approach to scaling-up sanitation:
sanitationupdates.wordpress.com/2012/05/...ater-and-sanitation/

Well worth a read, I think.

Thx, Elisabeth!

In the aforementioned paper, it says: "something everyone will want to use and that over time replaces the flush toilet as the new gold standard."
To me, this is the key phrase on Round 2. What I still miss in this (summary of the) "challenge paper" is the willingness to not only have an iPhone-styled (one button, easy to use, etc.) eco flush&forget type for developing countries with their lack of decent sanitation, but also a clear statement that we'll also need this in developed countries. The lack of good public toilets in many developed countries is just evidence of this need. Why should anyone in Africa want to use a toilet system that isn't used in Europe? Who says that the flush&forget approach is so bad?

Of course as watsan people with the background in conventional waste water treatment, we see the system as a whole, like in a way Arno also mentioned it. Also, there's a whole industry behind this (sewage maintenance alone is a huge market in Germany).
Toilets are a system and product that greatly depends on user interaction - especially when it comes to misuse (e.g. someone urinating into the wrong chamber on UDDTs) - and which has the disadvantage of creating hazardous waste.

I am right now in the process of trying to see whether a (cradle 2 cradle) certification could apply to toilets, and if so, in which way. And instead of regarding the existing solutions as "systems", I am focusing on "products" - as in "the toilet as a product" (like a TV or mobile phone). I believe that most consumers just don't care about the treatment options and would just like to use a product that generates waste streams that can be handled safely. So instead of trying to regard this challenge from an engineering perspective (which most of us certainly do), I'd like to focus on the consumer side and start from there. Yes, I am one of those who speak of toilets, even though I know it's also just one (small) part of the equation.

On the other hand, there's got to be a reason why people in Japan invest USD 3,000 on a toilet with music while elsewhere the next available option is used. If this Round2 (and other crazy approaches) help in getting us from end of pipe to closing the loop - well, then I am all for it.

(some will certainly laugh about this iPhone comparison, but similar to the iPhone which wasn't the first smartphone, it was the first everyone wanted to have. You can't state this in a scientific paper, but you can publicly write it on forum like this one and ask for some understanding. Thx!

Dear all,

(This is Part 3 of my feedback from the Africa Water Week and 15th SuSanA meeting in Cairo)

We were fortunate to have Doulaye Koné from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to join us on the panel for Session 8 in the main program (called "Sustainable sanitation and the role of hygiene in the value chain"). I have already spoken about this session in another post (see: forum.susana.org/forum/categories/24-men...12&start=24#1561).

I am attaching below his presentation and a photo of his presentation. (video footage is currently being edited and will be up online on the SuSanA website under "meetings" in about 1-2 weeks from now; please stay tuned)

Doulaye Koné (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) by Sustainable sanitation, on Flickr

For us in the SuSanA network, it is great to know that we are on the same "wave length" with the Gates Foundation who have become an important player, donor and actor in the field of sanitation within a very short time!

Doulaye´s presentation looks at first sight focussed only on high tech. And in a way it is - high tech, science and innovation. Their point is that they will focus on what they are good at, and not focus on things that other people are already good at doing right now. (having said that, they do financially support various CLTS initiatives; there was also a posting on this here on the forum by Darren Saywell previously: forum.susana.org/forum/categories/5-clts...dels-of-facilitation)

Important elements in their strategy are the sanitation system, the value chain, creating something useful from excreta, reuse options.

Their ultimate goal is:

My personal view: This goal will be next to impossible to achieve (I would love to be proven wrong in years to come) but we need to have a vision and I simply love the way the engagement of the BMGF in sanitation with the methods they have chosen ("Reinvent the toilet challenge" etc.), has attracted so much media attention and continues to get journalists, as well as university professors, inventors, engineers, business people, investors interested in a topic that was formerly only taken up by NGOs or development workers (e.g. serving the urban poor with sanitation).

So the Africa Water Week was good for SuSanA and the Foundation to show to those who are not so much into sanitation yet, a glimpse about the potential (in terms of value creation) which innovative sanitation has to offer.

Regards,
Elisabeth

P.S. I can't resist inserting another photo from the same event here, because it is so nice how photos which are in our flickr collection can be embedded here by using the BBC code:

Elisabeth von Muench with all the 5 presenters by Sustainable sanitation, on Flickr

Dear all,

I have started to write a reply to this topic a number of times now, but somehow never found the right tone (and am not sure I have this time).
In a way I feel quite inclined to go along with the reasoning of for instance Elizabeth, that the BMGF have some really neat ideas and that they are great at creating public interest in sanitation. Even that their way of asking for what seems to most of us the impossible is a great way to generate interest and maybe some off the wall “miracle”solution will appear.

However I am also left with an uncomfortable feeling, a lot of what I see about their challenges goes against my experiences (admittedly quite limited) working in the developing world, specifically Nepal. In the rest of this post, I will voice some of these doubts, in the hope that other people will join the conversation, because I do feel that there is a worthwhile discussion to be had over the re-invent the toilet challenge and about the focus on high-tech solutions.

Both in this challenge as in some of the recent agriculture round robins, the focus is very much on high-tech solutions. It does amaze me that on a forum like this, where so many people would probably agree instantly if I would write that for sanitation no magic bullet exists, everyone seems to be willing to go along with the BMGF in trying to make that silver bullet. For example, if the government of Kenya would reserve 100 million dollar and set this challenge, how many people would take it seriously?

I do see the attraction of a high-tech solution, especially as a selling point. However I do not see how even the most fancy toilet could compete with a TV playing Shahrukh Khan movies for more than a day. It does make me wonder, what happened to the whole concept of intermediate technologies? Even if one of these toilets could be build for the very limited budget that the BMGF proposes (by the way, how do you define 0.05 cents per user per day?, how long do you expect people to save or pay of a loan?) what will happen to M&E, if a 25 dollar piece of the toilet fails, how are people going to fix it?

There are other questions about the appropriateness of high-tech; where will these toilets be built? It can not be done in Nepal, so how should a very poor country find the money to buy the high-tech toilets in India or China? Having a high-tech pre-made unit also completely takes away the possibility for people to contribute (other then paying for it) to their toilet solution. What does that do to ownership and the sense that people can change their own lives?

I can probably go on coming up with doubts and problems, but I think everyone can see where I am headed with this. My feeling is that what this challenges is trying to do is to design a new (and definitely better) toilet solution for high and middle income countries. But why can they not simply put it that way? Why is it impossible to say, we in America, Europe, etc. are the problem, we need different toilets! Now I am left with the feeling that the developing world is used as a marketing tool to generate interest in a toilet solution, that ultimately they will not be able to afford .

In the hope that this will direct the discussion somewhat:

How do we on this forum see the interaction between high-tech and sustainability. In terms of M&O, ownership of pre-fabricated toilets, etc?

Kind regards

Marijn

Thx, Marijn & Elisabeth!

Just as a quick reply to the high-tech factor: afaik, Nepal also doesn't produce iPhones or even simple Nokia or Huawei feature phones. And yet almost everyone has one. How do they repair the multi-layered pcbs with their tiny surface mounted bga chips? Someone just does it.

A toilet of course isn't a telephone, yet they mentioned the success of the telecom sector as an orientation for wash activities.

I also understand the Reinvent the toilet challenge to be an international thing which is not only meant for developing countries.

@Marijn
While I agree with your general concern, I would say "high-tech" does not necessarily mean in this case also "can only be build in a chip factory".

If someone would come up with a clever way to chemically dry feces for example, using substances that do not produce a huge environmental pollution while also being available relatively cheaply, I am quite sure such a system could also be build (and sold) in Nepal.

Dear Marijn and others,
I think the gates foundation is in its right to perceive a way THEY think is the best. I really do not understand why they are criticized for that (in sanitation). If they were operating on money from governments…yes than we might have to discuss if the way is the most effective way and probably they would not have the room to go other ways. I think we all do agree, until now there is no magic way and almost EVERYTHING has failed in certain situations. There is no proven solution to achieve sanitation coverage in unstructured, densely populated areas. So isn´t it time to come up with something new? If they come up with a new toilet (I as well doubt the possibility to find something) why does it have to be expensive? and if it is expensive….is ist not possible that
a) scale will bring down costs
b) there might be possibilities for cheaper versions?
So why do we criticize a new approach to find a solution? Many of us have ideas how it could be done, how it could be tested and I know that we differ a lot about THE SOLUTION. I think we should discuss solutions and not be to negative sided for new approaches because we were not able to find a way until now. Yes, I am disappointed that the Gates foundation did not share my view on how to tackle the problem (in the first round) … that´s life.
I personally would go another way than they go because I think there are ways which just need to be done as an example in scale, so I would tackle the problem from a different angle. I would do a call for the cities and water authorities... who give me the best institutional conditions to implant a non sewer based system based on a sanitation tariff, gets a funding. I think the institutional setting is one of if not THE most important aspect for a large scale project. Then I would put together a group who defines for that city a strategy and would do a bidding for the execution of the project (or I would call for ideas (2-3 groups making (paid) proposals). I would have a committee with the city and the sanitation provider to choose the most promising solution. Then I would go for implementation. It is a 3 year time frame for significant results when we shortcut by this the institutional problems which mostly undermine projects and are very time consuming. The Gates foundation has that ability. Government organizations may not, because their activities are bound to bi lateral agreements, they cannot work when the institutional does not allow work anymore.
I really appreciate the serious trying to find new approaches of anyone and any organization, we should challenge the ideas, but not negatively (it is easier to bring down a new idea than having an own idea).
I can remember five years ago the involvement of the Gates foundation in sanitation was very, very timid, today it is an important issue, so there are large changes and they seem to be a learning organization which is remarkable in large organizations. I am positive about the development.
Let’s try to give ideas and I´m sure somebody will have the task to collect ideas ….and one day …maybe there is room for these ideas.
Yours
Christoph

Dear all,

First of all, I realise that I was thinking too much from a perspective of (remote) rural communities. I guess in (unplanned) urban situations it should be a lot easier to have plumbers who are specialised in repairing an un-conventional toilet solution. As there are many more potential clients there. (yes mobile phones are sometimes repaired in Nepal, but you have to take them to a city; which, with a toilet is hard to do).

Also, I am genuinely interested in the work and results of the BMGF on sanitation and yes of course they can do with their money what they like (some of their work is very good). But they are moving in a more technology oriented direction. They do (with this challenge) present things in a way that suggests that (more) technology will be the driving factor to create sustainable sanitation for all, which I just do not believe in.

One of my main interests in this discussion is how this issue (what level of technical complication, price, required additives would be sustainable) is seen by the large group of professionals on this forum. So far in the discussion here everyone seems to step over that issue very lightly, which surprises me.
By the way, in this context I would think of high-tech as: can not be fixed with standard plumbing tools such as: pipe, hose, plunger, wrench and if all else fails: duct tape.

I see how a nicer toilet could be easier to sell, but I think the main challenge will remain to actually convince people to invest in a toilet in the first place. That may be easier if it is more easy to use and relevant to their situation (portable, while still giving privacy?), but there is more to it than that.

Further I think that the comparison between sanitation and mobile phones is not very useful. The differences between the world of mobile phones and toilets are just too big. A very short and unscientific way of putting this: a mobile phone is a social utility and is a gadget, while a toilet is not. (It would be nice to have a long discussion about that one as well ). I am sure there are lessons to learn, but convinced that there are less then many people think.

PS, I do also (partly)agree with a lot of things people mention here, but there are things that are in my view debatable and to create a lively debate you sometimes take somewhat more extreme positions than you really want .

Regards

Marijn

I think the BMGF initative is good. Research is always important and a well conceived campaing to draw media attention to an urgent problem is equally welcome and necessary.

What I'd critisise is that this campain is based on and nourishes that dear illusion that we can solve the worlds problems by technology, by smart inventions.

We now have a lot of great sanitation technologies available, lot's of different options that are able to provide satisfying solutions to any thinkable problem and situation. So it's obviously not because of a lack of good technologies or systems that we still have this huge gap with sanitation coverage worldwide. It's also not so much because of a lack of money. It is much more because of a lack of local capacities and functionning structures to provide sanitation services.

Unfortunatly these problems can hardly be addressed by a smart campaign like the "reinvent the toielt" challenge. It rather will take an increadibly huge amount of work, a lot of money and long time to develop the local structures and capacities that will able to properly use all these nice technologies for providing good sanitation services to all.

But of course this initative may give us a few additional good technological options, which certainly would be a good thing.

Florian

Marijn Zandee wrote:


I think one lesson that can be learned from the telcom sector is that communication has for long been a neglected need that was eventually solved via the introduction of affordable base stations and handsets. Who would have thought that e.g. economic prosperity in a country like Kenya now greatly depends on the recent advancements in the telcom & IT sector - whereas one would probably assume that there are more urgent sectors that need to grow? In Kenya, it's this sector - and not the agricultural, energy, health or infrastructure sector.

I support this far-fetched comparison between the WASH and telcom sector because it may change our current position ("toilet is not a social utility") into one where a toilet is regarded as a desirable object. So while phones and toilets are two completely different objects with different markets, there's still a long neglected need as a common starting point and the added value both products can deliver (various businesses based on mobile communication; businesses based on toilet by-products or Kiosks like the Ikotoilet in Kenya).

Maybe similar to the Peepoo bag system which also isn't considered a true toilet by many, but which has the advantage that it is modular (!) and has a direct return on investment for the users.

This modularity (see the Reinvent the toilet challenge - single, integrated on-site treatment options) is key, imo, especially in an area where consumers are used to buying small units of everything (food, cigarettes, prepaid payment options, etc.). So when I say that there's a lesson to be learned from the telcom sector, I am not only talking about the desirable qualities of the products or its sexiness to consumers, but also about the modularity of any on-site system that may also scale to a smaller factor and a use-scenario that we may also find in the telecom sector (short telephone calls, billed by seconds, prepaid options, credit transfer, flexibility of mobile payments and so on). My ideal toilet system would target these aspects.

@Christoph: thx for sharing your approach with us! I guess most of us never knew that you had also contributed (one of) your approaches to the BMGF. I haven't but would love to come up with a suitable concept as well.

Hey everyone,

Here is the link for the video 'Finding a New Way to Go', an interesting one about conventional and alternative sanitation systems made by Science Magazine - it also mentions the work of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.

video.sciencemag.org/Featured/1773936333001/1

It is 4 minutes and a half, it's clear with some well-known examples. It may not be so attractive as the one from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but I assume it's due to the different audiences. Anyway, well-done videos are always good ways to communicate messages and facilitate learning processes.

Best regards,
Cecília.

Dear Cecilia,

Thanks for sharing this link. I like the video, yes it is plain and simple but it is just so good to see how mainstream media, like Science, report on this topic. I was actually one of the people interviewed by the journalist who speaks in the video (Gretchen Vogel), so I am really keen to see her final article. At this stage, it is not yet available for free reading, only for purchasing (maybe later?).

What she says in the video is mostly very correct. I am happy to see that they used 3 or 4 photos from SuSanA's flickr photo collection (for anyone who doesn't know this collection yet, see here: www.flickr.com/photos/gtzecosan/collections/).

One thing I didn't like so much is how they showed the urine diversion flush toilet (the picture shows the NoMix toilet by Roediger Vacuum), rather than mentioning the UDDT, which would have made more sense here, in my opinion (e.g. she says the brownwater, without the urine, is less smelly; that is not a siginificant difference). Less water use is also not that significant.
But it is probably easier for Westerners to relate to the NoMix toilet, maybe that's why (their production is by the way discontinued as of this year). There might be other companies in the future who try to bring out a better model, who knows.

Regards,
Elisabeth

Dear all,

You know that the toilet fair at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is currently going on in Seattle (it finished today). Bill Gates himself handed over the price. I was curious to see how much media attention this event would draw.
Without searching much, I have seen these two:

In German news (with a nice video): www.welt.de/vermischtes/weltgeschehen/ar...oiletten-retten.html
(even the Prince of Orange (Netherlands), Willem Alexander, was there (if I spotted him correctly in the video))

On BBC:
www.bbc.com/news/technology-19271061

Quote from the BBC article:


Let me know where else you might have seen it mentioned this week?
Good stuff!

Regards,
Elisabeth

www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/P...hallenge-120814.aspx

Has some more information on the round 2 winners also.

Will more detailed technical descriptions of the systems be published somewhere?

I also find the comments interesting: www.impatientoptimists.org/Posts/2012/08...for-the-21st-Century

(+Carol?

www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/08/15/1588...s-at-sanitation-fair

(both links via Karsten @ SuSanDesign / FB)

And now Mashable also picked up the story, with pics of all teams
mashable.com/2012/08/16/bill-gates-reinvent-toilet-fair/
(always the site with the worst comments though)

And our SuSanA partner Eawag from Switzerland won an award for their toilet design worth USD 40,000. See here (in German):
www.news.admin.ch/message/index.html?lang=de&msg-id=45585

Well done!

And thanks for the links, Jürgen. In the blog post of the Impatient Optimist which you had given, there is a link to a video from a trip Bill Gates made to South Africa in 2009. It is 4 minutes, with Bill Gates narrating, and the first half shows his visit to Durban, where he met for example with SuSanA partner University Kwa Zulu Natal (Chris Buckley) and Neil Macleod.
Our sanitation colleagues in Durban can be very proud of themselves for helping to get Bill onto the right track here in terms of sustainable sanitation, i.e. not just any type of toilets but better ones than what we know at the moment!

Regards,
Elisabeth

Are we going to have anyone presenting the results from the challenge during the upcoming SuSanA meeting?

Hi Jürgen

No such presentation is in the agenda at the moment. (www.susana.org/lang-en/meetings/16th-sus...ing-stockholm-sweden)

Are you coming to the 16th SuSanA meeting?
Perhaps you would want to present the results?

I think it would be a really interesting presentation and attract a lot of interested folks to come and listen.
What would you feel should be included in such a presentation?

Look forward to your response.
Trevor

Hi Trevor,
I won't make it to the 16th meeting, but it would be great to have someone from BMGF talking about the challenge and also showcasing what has been displayed during their Reinvent the Toilet Fair. Are they already invited to the meeting?

It would maybe also be interesting to hear/see the results from those who didn't win a prize but who had contributed and would like to share to a limited audience (NDA?) or even publicly what their toilet plan looks like. Similar to what Christoph had written some time ago.

All three prize winners (so far) were universities who had only covered the treatment side. So the talk by EAWAG will also be very interesting with their urine diversion approach and because they also focus on toilet design (which I am somehow missing on the treatment prize winners?). After all, the toilet is the interface most users interact with - and not the treatment side.

In any case, it will be great to hear about new approaches and also technologies that are not only made for developing countries.

Appreciated succinct, informative overview of the Reinvent the Toilet Challenge on Saniblog. Let's hope more in depth reporting which is accessible to the general public is coming. Many the early stories have been superficial.

Jack Sim introduced me to Sallie Tisdale who is working on a Reinventing the Toilet feature for the New York Times Magazine. Should be good.

At the Fair yesterday, the conversations were extremely rich. I was impressed by some of the low tech solutions that haven't gotten a lot of play in the media. The use of black soldier fly larvae and tiger worms by London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. re:char with its factory in a 20-foot container to produce oil drum bio char stoves which double as UD toilets. And Andrew Lerner's low-cost 5 unit structures for emergencies; pee and poop fall directly into the long term composting pile. Here are a a few photos. www.flickr.com/photos/28305104@N07/sets/72157631102590654/

And here's a video of the winning project:



"They would repurpose the solar panels and batteries to powering TVs and charging cell phones and go back to shovels for their sanitary needs.", says one YouTube user.

Such a comment (as true as it is) only tells me that the "let's do this for developing countries 1!11"-approach is too limited. I'd love to see a system that has been designed for developed countries.

I understand it's just a prototype at the moment and that the future toilet probably will be a healthy mixture of all systems (hence also why there's round 2), but going by this video alone, it would have been great to see real life tests with fresh faeces, tissues, napkins, condoms, hair and what else it usually flushed down a toilet. They've used primary sludge instead which often doesn't contain the bigger parts, but which would quickly kill any such system. Going by this video alone, the winner is just an alternative to conventional biochemical waste water treatment - which would even work with sewage systems.

I have to agree, this is a bit underwhelming as technically this isn't really anything new (at least in the drinkingwater treatment sector), and the practical technical problems etc (see comment above) or the user-interface are not dealt with at all it seems.

But maybe the final product (if it ever materializes) will be something really nice...

If I got it right from the video, it is basically a septic tank, where they don't bother at all with what to do with the sludge ("can be used as fertilizer") and treat the liquid by electro-chemical oxidation, a process which is quite energy intensive.

So this is really the best that came out of that competition?

Who knows what's the best is until folks tweak and retweak in the light of feedback like this. But the Fair had dozens of potentially huge, low tech innovations that the press missed, in mostly congratulating the winners.

Also I wonder how the prize money was scaled to fit the need for tweaking and next iterations. There are folks working in their backyards on whole system approaches with exquisite monitoring who could do a whole lot with a couple of thousand bucks.

Thanks for the update Carol. I look forward to when the details of these low tech solutions are readily available to the public.

In my opinion the ambitious challenge should ignite the developed world wastewater utilities to recallibrate their benchmarks of what they are aiming for. As suggested by Christoph it would be great to see the developed world waste water utilities get behind the challenge and use their capacity to support the gates foundations findings or go it alone. At the end of the day if they are successful it will revolutionise sanitation globally.

It would have been nice if the winner had satisfied the challenge to utilise the internal energy and chemical potential of excreta. as suggested by the gates foundation quote posted by Elisabeth, which was:

"...Thermodynamic calculation shows that excreta contains enough embodied energy to sustain a chemical process (drying, combustion, heating, filtration, evaporation etc)."

Im interested to hear more about the solutions that met this criteria.

See the latest blog post at PHLUSH.org. Some prototypes appeared to come to fruition very recently. Each exhibit had handouts but by Day 3 they were running out.

It might be useful for me to list the two dozen or so exhibitors ( in several categories - not just the contestants ). That way we can inquire or look for news items and details on their websites as they are posted.

www.phlush.org/2012/08/17/reinvent-the-toilet-fair/

I received several news links from friends, family, and colleagues who know my interest in sustainable sanitation. Below are a few that I didn't see posted here. I'm happy so many major news networks covered the story! Has anyone seen a full list of all models shown at the fair?

Regards, Sara

www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-15/bill-gate...t-the-toilet/4199962

www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-08...60480/1?csp=obinsite

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations...01f1abab19_blog.html

m.futureoftech.msnbc.msn.com/technology/...-funded-prize-942373

I am looking forward to hearing about some of the other entrants in the "Reinvent the toilet" challenge. If nothing else it is great to see some mainstream media coverage of the issues faced by 2.6 billion people.

@Marijn of post 24 may.
The same solution may not be suitable for the urban people and the rural people. An increasing number of people is living in urban areas and focus can be on middle and low income housing. The question raised is how people can afford the installations, which are probably as costly as a motor cycle. The income can hardly be generated from the cash-flow of these people, but they can contribute in terms of their excrements, labour and organisation. An important point for low-income communities is that they must be able to manufacture and maintain the equipment themselves. Any comparison with telephone or car industries does not work.
The commercialization of the excrements needs to be optimized to pay for a substantial part of the installation. This means that biogas extraction and use is a must. Not only the gas can be used for cooking, but methane is a mayor greenhouse gas. On a large scale operation the local authorities or the installation company can obtain Carbon Emission Rights (CERs) which contribute greatly to the finance of the installation. In addition commercialization of the resulting compost and urine is important to reduce the countries dependency on most of the important fertilizers. Hence countries implementing an integrated toilet system according to the ideas of BMGF can subsidize the installation for not needing to spend foreign currency on fertilizer imports.
The design of the unit can be greatly mechanized, but middle income and low income communities can also supply paid labour for making the equipment operating. Opening and closing doors, lifting and closing toilet seats are part of the operation. This means that instead of a high level of auto-mechanization, some labour input is required. Local operators can generates local income. Low income people are more prepared to pay a little when local people keep the system clean and working.
The disposition of sanitary towels should be taken care of.
The absence of a public sewage system reduces municipal costs on installation and maintenance or sewage processing. This is translated either in lowering connection cost or subsidy for those that are not connected to the sewer system.
The processing of kitchen waste should be included which is beneficial for the biogas production and grey water can be used for flushing and eventually recycled within the unit through membrane technology, and outside the unit for urban garding.
On another Susana forum I had posted a sketch for such a unit, which can be build in components and fitted into existing or new buildings.
Although it has not a sewer connection some of the activities such as struvite production or drying the effluent need to be done centralized for efficiency.

@ Carol Thanks for the link to the blog, it has been hard to find more information on the lets say "non-winners" of the contest. I am not sure but you seemed to be considering making an index of all participants, with their web-sites. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take that effort.

@ Elizabeth As far as other media covering the story, I also found it in one dutch paper (NRC Handelsblad) and it was also covered in the Irish Times.

@ Sjoerd
I think some of the points you raise echo my concerns. The high-tech approach that for instance the winner of this challenge takes, makes it in my view not very suited for low-income families. For one, how will they pay for it? I fully agree that solutions that can be in part "home build" are better, not only financially, but also from a perspective of people taking ownership and understanding how they can O&M their toilet.

Further, I would be very hesitant to financially underpin a sanitation system with carbon credits. I am really afraid that companies at some point are not going to keep spending money on them. The process is too non-transparent and too many countries opt out. I think any project that largely depends on CERs may find themselves in trouble a few years from now. But that is just an opinion .

Lastly, I did enjoy your sketch. However just struvite removal from the urine is not going to be sufficient. As that does not take care of most of the ammonium, so you need further processing.

Regards

Marijn

And here's the Flickr set of the event via BMGF www.flickr.com/photos/gatesfoundation/se...548/with/7780869398/

(though Carol's PLUSH Flickr set is much better

Hi, everyone,

As promised, below is the list of the 35 exhibitors copied from the Reinvent the Toilet Fair program. Please note that they come from various categories: GCEG = Grand Cghallenges Explorations Grantee RTC = Reinvent the Toilet Challenge Grantee. OE = Other Exhibitor At the Fair, RTC university teams were awarded prizes and several GCEG grants were announced.

When you find good (or interesting) technical info on these projects, can you tell us here? Sorry not to have time to search and add links as Marijn suggests. Prototyping evolves and I think exhibitors will start posting more in light of the feedback exchanges among them. (As I've located details I've posted at bottom of our blog post www.phlush.org/2012/08/17/reinvent-the-toilet-fair/)

1. Fecal Sludge Omni-Ingestor. AGi Manufacturing, Synpase Product Development and DCI Automation, Beaumont Design, Inc. USA. OE

2. Educating children and their caregivers about good water, sanitation and hygiene practices. Sesame Workshop. OE

3. World Toilet Organization Singapore OE

4. Project Sammam Institute for Financial Management and Research [IFMR] represented by Quicksand. India OE

5. Improved latrine pans for pour flush systems. American Standard Brands. OE

6. The Great Wash Yatra: A sanitation and hygiene advocacy campaign Participating organizations: WASH United, quicksand Design, Germany and India. OE

7. Poop Games:Using Technology to design and improve sanitation. Hattery Labs LLC USA

8. An energy-producing, waterless toilet system. Loowatt, Ltd. United Kingdom. GCEG

9. A high-efficiency sanitary toilets with sewage treatment. Livvon LLC USA GCEG

10. A self-mixing biogas generator. Frontier Environmental Technology. GCEG

11. Developing fortified fertilizer pellets from human waste. International Water Management Institute, Ghana. GCEG

12. Sewage Containment and Mineralization Device. (SeCoM) Institute for Residential Innovation [IResl] GCEG

13. Tiger Toilet and Black Soldier Fly Larvae System "The Kone" Longon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. United Kingdom GCEG

14. Bioelectric Toilet University of Colorado, Denver, USA GCEG

15.Developing chemicals to self-clean and disinfect toilets. American Environmental Systems. USA. GCEG

16. Modeling the next generation of sanitation systems. University College, London. GCEG

17. A toilet that converts human waste to fuel gas. Delft University of Technology. The Netherlands. RTC.

18. The Microflush Biofil Toilet. participating organizations: Ghana Sustainable Aid Project and Biofilcom Ltd. USA. GCEG

19. Diversion for safe sanitation participating organizations: EAWAG: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology; EOOS. Switzerland. RTC

20. A community bathroom block that recovers clean water, nutrients, and energy. University of Kwazulu-Natal. South Africa. RTC

21. A toilet that produces biological charcoal, minerals and clean water. Longborough University, United Kingdom. RTC

22. A device that sterilizes fecal sludge. Oklahoma State University USA GCEG

23. The Earth Auger Toilet: Innovation in waterless sanitation [el taladro de la tierra]. Fundacíon Ub Terris. Ecuador. GCEG

24. A toilet that sanitizes feces and urine to recover resources and energy. University of Toronto. Canada. RTC

25. Safe sludge project. University of California, berkley. USA. GCEG

26. A vortex bioreactor that processes fecal sludge and wastewater. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, United Kingdom. GCEG

27. A device to improve latrine emptying. North Carolina State University. USA GCEG

28. A urine-diverting combustion toilet. National University of Singapore. Singapore. GCEG

29. Urban sanitation solutions for high-use flooded, and difficult to serve areas. Fontes Foundation, Norway/ Haiti. GCEG

30. A solar-powered toilet that generates hydrogen and electricity. California Institute of Technology, USA. RTC

31. Converting human waste to biological charcoal re:char, USA GCEG

32. A wind-driven sanitation systems. A wind-driven sanitation system. GCEG

33. On-site fecal sludge extraction and disposal system. Shijiazhuand University of Economics, China. GCEG

34. A solar steam sterilizer to theat human waste. Rice University, USA GCEG

35. A sanitation system that comverst human waste into biological charcoal. Participating organizations: Stanford University and the Climate Foundation, USA RTC

Here is a link to Sanitation Ventures homepage with information on the Black Soldier Fly and Tiger worm projects:

www.sanitationventures.com/innovation-bsf-additives.htm

More technical information on teh systems will likely be posted soon...

Sanitation ventures also have a blog that you might want to keep an eye on!

www.blog.sanitationventures.com/

Re: Reinvent the Toilet Fair

Happy to see that the Gates Foundation has posted a list of 10 videos on Reinvent the Toilet, eight of which are quick overviews of teams participating at the Fair. While there's not a lot of technical detail, at least you can see how prototypes are set up. www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAA2616C5...C99&feature=plcp

I've also incorporated links to individual projects in my evolving blog post. www.phlush.org/2012/08/17/reinvent-the-toilet-fair/

A toilet that converts human waste to fuel gas. Delft University of Technology. The Netherlands.

Diversion for safe sanitation participating organizations: EAWAG: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology; EOOS. Switzerland.

A community bathroom block that recovers clean water, nutrients, and energy. University of Kwazulu-Natal. South Africa.

A toilet that produces biological charcoal, minerals and clean water. Longborough University, United Kingdom.

A toilet that sanitizes feces and urine to recover resources and energy. University of Toronto. Canada.

A urine-diverting combustion toilet. National University of Singapore. Singapore.

A solar-powered toilet that generates hydrogen and electricity. California Institute of Technology, USA.

A sanitation system that comverst human waste into biological charcoal. Participating organizations: Stanford University and the Climate Foundation, USA

Dear all,
attached a scanned copy of an article from the Vienniese weekly newspaper "Falter" on the "Reinvent the toilet" challenge of the BMGF.
A Vienniese designer is interviewed, he is working together with EAWAG.
Sorry, but the article is in German only.
Best regards,
Guenter Langergraber

Dear all,

To be honest, I've been somewhat amazed about how the discussion about the „reinvent the toilet challenge" of the Gates Foundation has gone. If I have read the requirements of the foundation correctly, they have an aim of 5 US cents per user per day for the costs of the envisaged toilet. That's at least 25 cents, if not 30 or 40 cents per day for a family out of an income of possibly 2 US dollars per day (or less) - two dollars per day would actually be very decent, that's what my security people are earning. Under these circumstances, 25 cents would be more than 10% of daily family income!! Do you seriously think that anybody among the poor would spend that kind of money for a toilet?

In another post on Susana: forum.susana.org/forum/categories/34-uri...harge-on-water-bill,
I have mentioned a toilet that is costing less than 2 US cents per person per day - a UDDT that we have improved upon (and still do) here in Adjumani, Uganda. The locals that are having such toilets - admittedly usually more durable and expensive ones - built in Adjumani are among the more wealthy people. From my observations, the ONLY reason for the poor to shy away from these toilets are perceived costs. The Gates Foundation should aim at a toilet that costs ONE cent (US) per person per day, AND is hygienic, AND doesn't require water for flushing, AND doesn't require electricity, AND recovers the nutrient value of faeces (at least potentially). That would be the proper goals to reach the poor at least in Northern Uganda!

Kind regards to everybody,

Hanns-Andre

Here's another project with an onsite sanitation proposal: The Nano Membrane Toilet

==> water & sludge briquettes as end products, vacuum pump to be manually operated by toilet user

www.nanomembranetoilet.org/index.php

Great approach, imo, but what I don't like is this:


Also, I wonder how many UDDTs the fund could have financed (like the one by Woo Woo, the latest SuSanA partner org www.waterlesstoilets.co.uk/).

There seems to be some progress in the direction the challenge is developing, in the sense that they also want to address the issues of pre-digested sludge and that they now call on applicants to consider all the other stuff that goes down toilets.

It is too bad that there is so little information being made available on how the processes that are being researched work. The way things are presented thus far I get the feeling that actually none or very few of the solutions pioneered follow the design brief as in the challenge statement.

For example, solutions need to be off grid, but then a solar panel is allowed? How do they defend that? Solar voltage take is still more expensive then grid power in almost any place. To me saying you want to be off grid and then award a solution with a solar panel as the winner seems very strange.

Also with the Nano membrane toilet mentioned above, as far as I understand they will not deliver a product that is bio-safe. The briquettes they propose to make are essentially untreated thickened sludge. So unless I am missing something mayor in their texts they are not safe for re-use in agriculture, especially when we consider worm eggs.

As I am sure at least one person at BMGF is reading these posts, I would like to call on them to create an on-line platform where they share information and come to a dialogue on why they sometimes seem to go against their own design briefs. For many of us working in sanitation it would be a very interesting if the challenges would be more transparent and open source. I think ultimately that the groups involved in the challenge would also benefit from a more open approach.

Kind regards

Marijn Zandee

Hi Marijn,
I agree with your concerns and also find it a bit strange that most solutions we've heard about so far are focused on water treatment - and not on what's actually flushed down a toilet. Also, the miso test sausages (even though they are part of the official norm test for toilets) can't deliver the full picture.

I'd like to defend the solar approach though, because I guess they are looking at countries like Kenya where grid power is unavailable or unreliable so that many upcountry folks in Kenya have meanwhile resorted to solar panels which are hooked up to a (used car) battery. A solar panel also serves as a "multi-purpose machine" as it can recharge mobile phones or power something else that will be used to generate income. In fact, there's a (Dutch CEO!) company in Kenya already producing solar panels from imported silicium debris. The market leader is SunTech from China though. So solar panels are already widely available in those target markets and approved products. My understanding is that BMGF is looking at East Africa in particular.

And yes, it would be great to have an open platform where we can discuss these technologies and/or have more inventors openly sharing their approaches, but obviously, they come from a different background where such a point of view isn't part of the package and/or they are restricted by/afraid of IPR. I am glad that we have this forum here and don't have to use e.g. YouTube's comment section where we'd also be dealing with the usual pee & poo trolls. Still, BMGF would be well advised to allow a more open dialogue, especially since most forum members here are practitioners with an imagineering point of view.

Hi Juergen,

For me the solar, even if probably perfectly workable in a technical sense, is another example of how some of the solutions seem to go against the spirit of the challenge. If I recall correctly the suggestion at the start of the challenge was pretty much that off-grid meant with no electrical input. For instance in one presentation there was this message about the thermodynamics of the process showing that it could be energy neutral.

Cool that they are making solar panels in Kenia now, we need that here in Nepal:-). For next winter they project two 9 hour power-cuts per day.

It is good that we can discuss the projects here, it would just be nice if there was a platform through which the BMGF would actually interact with "practitioners" in stead of leaving us speculating .

Regards

Marijn

I have been reading through the posts on this topic and it makes me wonder....

How have telecomunications companies succeeded to convince most people of the economic and social benefits of telephones and we cannot convince people of the economic, social and environmental benefits of sustainable, designated places to defecate and/or urinate...?

RowanBarber wrote:


Jeroen also recently asked this question (we're all wondering about). My answer is here: forum.susana.org/forum/categories/39-mis...ne-applications#1511

In short, I believe the difference is: mobility. Mobile phones are mobile, most toilets aren't. It probably also has a lot to do with marketing, and that we still haven't found the "hot button" to the repitillian brain when it comes to toilet marketing (the Japanese have done so, btw, with their washlets).

FYI - BBC article discussing the 'reinvent the toilet challenge', including brief discussions of the recent prize winners (the solar powered toilet - which I see is generating some discussion here):

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19873478

regards

Neil

To see the list of projects that were exhibited at the Reinvent the Toilet Fair in Seattle at the Gates Foundation (which I also attended) please take a look at the programme brochure which is now available in the SuSanA library here:
www.susana.org/lang-en/library?view=ccbk...p;type=2&id=1636

In addition on the same page is a collection of excellent fact sheets showing how the specific sanitation solution fits the criteria stipulated in the grantee programme. Both files can be downloaded from the link above.

--Arno Rosemarin/SEI

The Re-invent the Toilet Challenge was featured in a 1-page article in NZZ (Neue Zürcher Zeitung) – only in German!

Here is the link:

www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/hintergrund/wisse...erer_1.13461638.html

C. Luthi, Eawag-Sandec