Module 4 10 Ecosan versus conventional sanitation How

  • Slides: 17
Download presentation
Module 4. 10 Ecosan versus conventional sanitation How can dry UD ecosan system be

Module 4. 10 Ecosan versus conventional sanitation How can dry UD ecosan system be compared with a conventional systems (open defecation, latrine pit, water-borne)?

4 Swedish systems with nutrient recovery compared 1. 2. 3. 4. Reference. Conventional system.

4 Swedish systems with nutrient recovery compared 1. 2. 3. 4. Reference. Conventional system. N & P removal in WWTP. Effluent: 8 mg N & 0. 24 mg P/l. Sludge incinerated, ash landfilled. Urine. 80% of urine diverted & recycled as fertiliser. Rest = reference Blackwater. Vacuum toilets. Collected blackwater anaerobically digested, sanitised & recycled as fertiliser. Rest = reference Sludge recycled as fertiliser. Rest = reference

Recycled plant available NPKS

Recycled plant available NPKS

Energy use

Energy use

Total use non-renewable

Total use non-renewable

Other studies of sorting systems • Many systems analysis have found same results: •

Other studies of sorting systems • Many systems analysis have found same results: • Urine diversion – decreases water emissions – gives lots of useful fertiliser – saves chemical fertiliser – saves energy

Recycled NPK vs degree of diversion

Recycled NPK vs degree of diversion

Water emissions vs degree of diversion

Water emissions vs degree of diversion

Energy usage vs degree of diversion http: //www. stockholmvatten. se/pdf_arkiv/english/Urinsep_eng. pdf

Energy usage vs degree of diversion http: //www. stockholmvatten. se/pdf_arkiv/english/Urinsep_eng. pdf

Energy usage vs transport distance

Energy usage vs transport distance

System boarders • What to include and what to exclude? • UDD – Solid

System boarders • What to include and what to exclude? • UDD – Solid organic waste – Energy production – Fertiliser production • Food production – Delivered sanitational function • Greywater • Drinking water • Other waste

Productive Sanitation Excreta Food N=2. 8 kg P=0. 4 kg K=0. 5 kg Nutrient

Productive Sanitation Excreta Food N=2. 8 kg P=0. 4 kg K=0. 5 kg Nutrient flow person and year N=2. 8 kg P=0. 4 kg K=0. 5 kg Fertiliser

Value of fertiliser - urine 2. 8 kg N = 6 kg Urea 0.

Value of fertiliser - urine 2. 8 kg N = 6 kg Urea 0. 5€/kg = 3€ 0. 4 kg P = 2 kg TPS ~0. 4€/kg = 0. 8€ 0. 5 kg K = 1 kg KCl ~0. 4€/kg = 0. 4€ Total value 4. 2€ person and year = 0. 012€ person day • Value per jerry can 20 L ~ 0. 23€ • Can at least pay for transport and spreading • Non-subsidised • •

Cost for ecosan • • Pour flush toilet 1900 INR (35€) Eco. San toilet

Cost for ecosan • • Pour flush toilet 1900 INR (35€) Eco. San toilet 4200 INR (77€)

Fertiliser per family n NPK 10 -5 -20 Indian, price 5. 5 INR/kg (0.

Fertiliser per family n NPK 10 -5 -20 Indian, price 5. 5 INR/kg (0. 1€) n Value 880 INR/year (16€) n Present value years 2 -10: 5070 INR! (93€)

Conclusion • Pour flush toilet cost: 1900 R • Eco. San toilet cost: 4200

Conclusion • Pour flush toilet cost: 1900 R • Eco. San toilet cost: 4200 R – Income from fertiliser: 5080 R • Fertiliser can pay for toilet in 10 years, not just additional cost! Additionally • Less hazard to ground & surface water – Saves on drinking water – Protects health

Cost sharing • Having no toilet has lowest investment & direct running costs! •

Cost sharing • Having no toilet has lowest investment & direct running costs! • Only type of toilet where the investment can directly pay off • The cost of Ecosan is compatitive compared with any other ecological solution • The cost is largely paid by household when building – no risk for corruption at municipal level – higher cost acceptance • More private enterprise – more competition – saves taxes