<\/p>\n
Being green is all about solving problems and grabbing overlooked
\nopportunities. It turns out that there’s such a double-win in most
\nbathrooms around the world; if we had “NoMix” toilets that separate
\nurine from solid waste, municipal wastewater plants would have a
\nsignificantly easier task (and produce more methane to generate
\nelectricity), and we could much more easily extract precious nutrients like phosphorus
\nand nitrogen for use as fertilizer (instead of using fossil fuels). So
\nwhat’s stopping us from going NoMix?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
According to a pretty extensive review<\/a> based on surveys from 7 European countries with NoMix pilot projects, <\/p>\n Still, those are good numbers, especially considering that NoMix <\/p>\n For more on NoMix toilets and the benefits of separating urine from the solid waste, see the orginal post<\/a> on Treehugger and posts by John<\/a> and Lloyd<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Peepoo bags help the developing world take off a load<\/a><\/p>\n British Airways plans to get wasted on future flights<\/a><\/p>\n To reduce nitrogen pollution, we need new farm policies<\/a><\/p>\n
\n“NoMix-technology is well accepted; around 80 percent of users liked the idea,
\n75-85 percent were satisfied with design, hygiene, smell, and seating comfort
\nof NoMix-toilets, 85 percent regarded urine-fertilizers as good idea (50 percent of
\nfarmers), and 70 percent would purchase such food.” Though as usual, not
\neverybody is ready to pay more for the greener product: “Only 57 percent
\n(±29 percent) are willing-to-pay more for a NoMix than conventional toilet or
\npurchase NoMix toilets without subsidies.”<\/p>\n
\ntoilets can still improve in their design and that most people are only
\nstarting to get used to the idea. The more familiar it becomes
\n(especially in public buildings), the more accepted the technology
\nshould be.<\/p>\n