C&RT say don't empty your compost toilet in our bins.

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, redwing said:

Some fuel boats do pumpouts. Compost collection might be feasible for them

Indeed it might -- feasible, but maybe not pleasant...

 

What do they do with the waste when they get back to base? I can't imagine any fuel boat operator wanting to tend what would be by then pretty big compost heaps, so they have to get rid of it somehow. I doubt that it could be put into the normal sewage system without risking blockages, since (according to composters) it will have been mixed up with sawdust or wood chippings or something similar.

 

Alan can probably tell us what the regulations say about how to dispose of a large quantity of uncomposted human waste...

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Midnight said:

As I see it there's no urgent problem with only 700 compost bogs out of 35000 boats probably only a proportion cruising at any given time. When it does become a problem (like dog poo) then the powers that be will find a solution (like poo bins). They usually do!

Whilst I am a satisfied pump-out boater I don't see the need to keep banging on, speculating about what compost loo people may or may not do and who will or won't pay.  Nobody here knows what C&RT are planning and license fees, mooring fees etc rise no matter what. 

Unfortunately according to both CART and other boaters it is a problem today, and so far the only solution they've found is to ban bag'n'binning from December this year.

 

Emptying bins with multiple bags of uncomposted poo in them is not pleasant for the likes of Biffa, and indeed not allowed under the terms of their contract with CART. Boaters stepping in bags of the same that have been left outside full bins has also lead to complaints, for obvious reasons.

 

Saying that "mooring fees will rise no matter what" is missing the essential point, which is that most boaters disapprove of bag'n'binning and see no reason why they should pay for a problem caused by a small minority to be fixed.

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

Alan can probably tell us what the regulations say about how to dispose of a large quantity of uncomposted human waste...

 

Perhaps we could design a system where the waste is carried in pipes to storage vessels or processing sites, probably diluted with water, and possibly even with the pipe and storage vessels buried underground. That could work, don'tcher think? 

[David Mack]

Question for the genuine composters:

Do you use a liner in your toilet? If so what happens to the liner when you transfer the toilet contents to the compost heap? If you don't use a liner, how do you clean the toilet bucket between uses?

I assume the bag'n'binners use a liner as it simplifies the whole process.

[redwing]

Treat it in the same way as the new service in London does perhaps?

[Midnight]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

Unfortunately according to both CART and other boaters it is a problem today, and so far the only solution they've found is to ban bag'n'binning from December this year.

 

Emptying bins with multiple bags of uncomposted poo in them is not pleasant for the likes of Biffa, and indeed not allowed under the terms of their contract with CART. Boaters stepping in bags of the same that have been left outside full bins has also lead to complaints, for obvious reasons.

 

Saying that "mooring fees will rise no matter what" is missing the essential point, which is that most boaters disapprove of bag'n'binning and see no reason why they should pay for a problem caused by a small minority to be fixed.

Another dollop of your usual diatribe. 
You criticise every suggestion of a solution and you seem to know all about what "most boaters" think.

I've been cruising since May and have yet to see, let alone step on, a poo bag left outside or even inside a bin. Why do you worry about paying when you hire?  I'm fairly certain you do not speak for the vast majority who probably don't give a fig or worry about what others may or may not do as much as you seem to do.

Here's an idea - wait and see what happens after December. 

[IanD]

24 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Another dollop of your usual diatribe. 
You criticise every suggestion of a solution and you seem to know all about what "most boaters" think.

I've been cruising since May and have yet to see, let alone step on, a poo bag left outside or even inside a bin. Why do you worry about paying when you hire?  I'm fairly certain you do not speak for the vast majority who probably don't give a fig or worry about what others may or may not do as much as you seem to do.

Here's an idea - wait and see what happens after December. 

Poll in March with 86 responses about whether bag'n'binning should be allowed to continue or be banned.

 

16 said "yes, it should continue".

56 said "no, it should be banned".

14 said "I don't care".

 

So your "fairly certain" is wrong -- not the first time this has been claimed, in fact that's why the poll was put up, and why I said "most boaters think" -- because, well, facts, not diatribe...

Edited August 16, 2021 by IanD

[IanD]

47 minutes ago, redwing said:

Treat it in the same way as the new service in London does perhaps?

If the new service in London ever actually takes off *and* proves to work financially for the company providing it -- well, that would be good news. I'd love to know how many boats they think will actually pay them to dispose of the waste as opposed to carrying on chucking it for free, this might kill off their business but let's see.

 

Even if it works in London -- which remains to be seen, the numbers actually using it and how much they'll pay are critical -- then extending the same idea across the system (which is what would be needed if composting toilets were still allowed) is much more difficult since there are fewer boats over a wider area so a lot more collection points are needed with less revenue from each.

 

This is the same problem as the universal post, where higher revenue from densely-populated areas subsidises collections in places like the Highlands -- or why there's excellent public transport in London, good in most major cities, poor in smaller towns, terrible in villages, and non-existent out in the countryside.

 

Ignoring realities like this won't make them go away, however much people want them to. The numbers have to add up or such a service won't succeed, or will disappear when it turns out to lose money. Sorry, but it always comes down to money in the end, no matter how much the canals are romanticised.

 

I honestly think that composting toilets are a great idea when used properly, but I simply can't see how to make this happen on the canals without a properly thought-out long-term plan to get almost all boaters to switch to them -- including ones without much money who currently pay nothing -- which almost certainly means some strategic central funding from the government to subsidise the costs.

 

Because CART haven't even got enough money to maintain the existing network and facilities without spending more money that they haven't got... 😞

Edited August 16, 2021 by IanD

[Mike Todd]

A question and a kite fly:

 

First the question: a significant proportion of boat-produced sewage comes from hire boats. For understandable reasons, I believe that most hire companies pump out each new hire. How well do separating loos work in this context?

 

Second, the kite fly: see BBC BBC News - The zero-power sewage plant inspired by cows
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58017501. Should the effort perhaps be applied to developing new on board sewage systems that work at that scale and which meet the current and up coming regulatory restrictions?

[David Mack]

7 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

First the question: a significant proportion of boat-produced sewage comes from hire boats. For understandable reasons, I believe that most hire companies pump out each new hire. How well do separating loos work in this context?

Do any hire companies offer anything but standard pumpout toilets?

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

A question and a kite fly:

 

First the question: a significant proportion of boat-produced sewage comes from hire boats. For understandable reasons, I believe that most hire companies pump out each new hire. How well do separating loos work in this context?

 

Second, the kite fly: see BBC BBC News - The zero-power sewage plant inspired by cows
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58017501. Should the effort perhaps be applied to developing new on board sewage systems that work at that scale and which meet the current and up coming regulatory restrictions?

I don't know if there are any separating toilets on hire boats (does anyone know of any?) but I suspect not, because pumpouts work well for them, they're not too reliant on boaters using them properly, the system to dispose of the waste already exists. It would be much easier for hire bases to adopt these since they just need one central collection point, but the two big questions are why should they do it (what's in it for them?) and how do they then get rid of the resulting waste, which probably shouldn't go into the normal sewer system.

 

The kite-flying system looks very workable for onshore, but if you watch the video and look at how it works it looks like it needs a lot of space and tankage and complexity to process the waste -- great for the intended application, but doesn't look like in will fit on a boat very easily. Or just maybe somebody can figure out a way to cram it all into a small space and manufacture it for an affordable price, but I'll believe that when I see it. And since the solids just "sink to the bottom of the tank", how do you then get rid of them?

 

There are many schemes dreamed up for purposes like this that look great on a presentation but fall at the practical hurdles -- and because this works for a field full of cows doesn't mean it'll work for a boat full of people. But if it did, it would be brilliant 🙂

Edited August 16, 2021 by IanD

[David Mack]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

The kite-flying system looks very workable for onshore, but if you watch the video and look at how it works it looks like it needs a lot of space and tankage and complexity to process the waste -- great for the intended application, but doesn't look like in will fit on a boat very easily. Or just maybe somebody can figure out a way to cram it all into a small space and manufacture it for an affordable price, but I'll believe that when I see it.

It doesn't look very different from a septic tank system used at properties not on mains drainage.

[David Mack]

The Nano Membrane Toilet being developed by Cranfield University is aimed at addressing third world sanitation problems, but would seem to be ideal for boat (and RV, caravan etc.) use.

 

"The Nano Membrane Toilet will be able to treat human waste on-site without external energy or water. It is designed for single-household use (equivalent to 10 people) and will accept urine and faeces as a mixture. The flush uses a unique rotating mechanism without using any water whilst simultaneously blocking odour and the user’s view of the waste.

Solids separation (faeces) is principally accomplished through sedimentation. Loosely bound water (mostly from urine) is separated using low glass transition temperature hollow-fibre membranes. The unique nanostructured membrane wall facilitates water transport in the vapour state rather than as a liquid state which yields high rejection of pathogens and some odorous volatile compounds. The water will be collected for reuse at the household level in washing or irrigation applications.

Following release of unbound water, the residual solids are transported by mechanical screw into a combustor which will convert them into ash and energy. The energy will power the membrane processes, and there may be extra energy for charging mobile phones or other low voltage items."

 

So in a boat context the liquid produced would be clean enough to discharge over the side as grey water, and the solids would be a small quantity of inert ash which would be fine to go into the rubbish system. And maybe some surplus electricity too. Winner all round!

Edited August 16, 2021 by David Mack

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The Nano Membrane Toilet being developed by Cranfield University is aimed at addressing third world sanitation problems, but would seem to be ideal for boat (and RV, caravan etc.) use.

 

"The Nano Membrane Toilet will be able to treat human waste on-site without external energy or water. It is designed for single-household use (equivalent to 10 people) and will accept urine and faeces as a mixture. The flush uses a unique rotating mechanism without using any water whilst simultaneously blocking odour and the user’s view of the waste.

Solids separation (faeces) is principally accomplished through sedimentation. Loosely bound water (mostly from urine) is separated using low glass transition temperature hollow-fibre membranes. The unique nanostructured membrane wall facilitates water transport in the vapour state rather than as a liquid state which yields high rejection of pathogens and some odorous volatile compounds. The water will be collected for reuse at the household level in washing or irrigation applications.

Following release of unbound water, the residual solids are transported by mechanical screw into a combustor which will convert them into ash and energy. The energy will power the membrane processes, and there may be extra energy for charging mobile phones or other low voltage items."

 

So in a boat context the liquid produced would be clean enough to discharge over the side as grey water, and the solids would be a small quantity of inert ash which would be fine to go into the rubbish system. And maybe some surplus electricity too. Winner all round!

That would indeed be a game-changer, and seems to get round all the disadvantages of anything else proposed so far -- including composting toilets... 🙂

 

I do wonder what the cost would be because the whole thing is very complex -- OTOH if it's targeted at the third world (and it succeeds) it'll have to be reasonably cheap and made in huge volumes, so maybe boats can ride on the back of this?

 

It's always good if a small-volume low-revenue market can take advantage of a development paid for by a much bigger market, it's what we do at work using advanced silicon technology basically paid for (tens of billions of dollars!) by the likes of Apple...

[David Mack]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

That would indeed be a game-changer, and seems to get round all the disadvantages of anything else proposed so far -- including composting toilets... 🙂

 

I do wonder what the cost would be because the whole thing is very complex -- OTOH if it's targeted at the third world (and it succeeds) it'll have to be reasonably cheap and made in huge volumes, so maybe boats can ride on the back of this?

 

It's always good if a small-volume low-revenue market can take advantage of a development paid for by a much bigger market, it's what we do at work using advanced silicon technology basically paid for (tens of billions of dollars!) by the likes of Apple...

My thoughts exactly!  If you read around the subject you will see that Cranfield have been developing various elements of this system for several years, with the work mostly funded by international development agencies, philanthropic foundations and the like. Yet they seem to have ignored what seems to me to be an obvious commercial market for the final product, which could well cross-subsidise the broader social benefits of the project.

[Midnight]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

 

So your "fairly certain" is wrong -- not the first time this has been claimed, in fact that's why the poll was put up, and why I said "most boaters think" -- because, well, facts, not diatribe...

 86 responses ? Most boaters?

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

Question for the genuine composters:

Do you use a liner in your toilet? If so what happens to the liner when you transfer the toilet contents to the compost heap? If you don't use a liner, how do you clean the toilet bucket between uses?

I assume the bag'n'binners use a liner as it simplifies the whole process.

No liner required I put coconut chip in the bottom and also throw veg matter in as I use the loo, when full take to compost heap throw it on job done. Fill bucket with water and leave a few day, empty water onto allotment dry in sun and use when needed. 

[haggis]

7 minutes ago, peterboat said:

No liner required I put coconut chip in the bottom and also throw veg matter in as I use the loo, when full take to compost heap throw it on job done. Fill bucket with water and leave a few day, empty water onto allotment dry in sun and use when needed. 

Thank you , Peter. I did wonder how the receptacle in which the solids landed was cleaned. I couldn't see it being washed in the kitchen sink 😀

 

Haggis

[IanD]

28 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 86 responses ? Most boaters?

Don't you understand how polls and statistical sampling work? Do you think (for example) that a poll about voting in an election asks 30 million people? You need a big enough sample to have a reasonable level of confidence in the result, which in this case is more than "me and my mates" but less than "every boater in the UK". The bigger the sample the more accurate the results, so if you want to get numbers accurate to a few percent you need a big sample -- which matters if the result is closely balanced, like in a general election. If the results are not closely split -- as here -- a smaller sample is good enough.

 

OK, try this -- "out of the 86 people who replied from a population of 35000 boaters, 56 (65%) said that bag'n'binning should be banned compared to those who said it should continue (16) or didn't care (14). To a confidence level of 95%, this shows the results are accurate to within a margin of error of around +/-10%, or 9 votes -- so between 47 (55%) and 65 (75%) is the likely range for wanting it banned in the entire boater population. This assumes that the CWDF sample is representative of the entire UK boater population."

 

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/mp/sample-size-calculator/

 

Happy now?

Edited August 16, 2021 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

Do any hire companies offer anything but standard pumpout toilets?

 

 

I cannot imagine that hirers will be overly chuffed in having to separate their urine, bottle it and tip it out every day of two.

It may well be 'part of boating' but I think it would come as a shock to those not expecting it.

[IanD]

34 minutes ago, David Mack said:

My thoughts exactly!  If you read around the subject you will see that Cranfield have been developing various elements of this system for several years, with the work mostly funded by international development agencies, philanthropic foundations and the like. Yet they seem to have ignored what seems to me to be an obvious commercial market for the final product, which could well cross-subsidise the broader social benefits of the project.

Narrowboats would be well down the priority list though, going by numbers I expect RVs will be #1 and lumpy water boats #2 since there are far more of them so their markets are much bigger -- they also have the advantage of (generalising here...) having deeper pockets than narrowboat owners, especially lumpy water boats. Still means narrowboats would get to use them "for free" though, at least as far as development costs are concerned...

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I cannot imagine that hirers will be overly chuffed in having to separate their urine, bottle it and tip it out every day of two.

It may well be 'part of boating' but I think it would come as a shock to those not expecting it.

Even pumpouts can be difficult enough for some lubbers to understand, given the horror stories I've heard from hire boat operators -- there now seems to be a standard £100 callout charge if they have to come out and unblock one...

[Midnight]

15 minutes ago, IanD said:

Don't you understand how polls and statistical sampling work?

 Errr actually do you?

Using the calculator link you so kindly provided a population of 35000 would require a sample size of 380 

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 Errr actually do you?

Using the calculator link you so kindly provided a population of 35000 would require a sample size of 380 

Yes I do, having done statistics as an essential part of my engineering degree -- for 95% confidence level 86 samples means a 10.6% margin of error, which is +/-9 votes. You used a 5% margin of error.

 

For a poll with such big differences between responses, 86 samples is plenty 🙂

Edited August 16, 2021 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

Narrowboats would be well down the priority list though, going by numbers I expect RVs will be #1 and lumpy water boats #2 since there are far more of them so their markets are much bigger -- they also have the advantage of (generalising here...) having deeper pockets than narrowboat owners, especially lumpy water boats. Still means narrowboats would get to use them "for free" though, at least as far as development costs are concerned...

 

 

I do not really think that Lumpy water boats (300,000+ leisure boats) will be interested in separating toilets when all they need to do is have a sea-toilet (which most do) and open the valve to 'dump'.

The latest issue of the RCD / RCR requires ALL boats to be built with holding tanks so that the sewage can be retained on board whilst in harbour / port / on inland waterways, and once out at sea, or if 'inland' pump it out.

Edited August 16, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I do not really think that Lumpy water boats (300,000+ leisure boats) will be interested in separating toilets when all they need to do is have a sea-toilet (which most do) and open the valve to 'dump'.

The latest issue of the RCD / RCR requires ALL boats to be built with holding tanks so that the sewage can be retained on board whilst in harbour / port, and once out at sea pump it out.

Quite possibly, depending on how long they stay in harbour/port/marina before going out to sea to dump it. If this means a big holding tank is needed (plus restrictions on how long they can stay in port) they might well choose to have a Cranford toilet installed. Even if only a relatively small number choose to do this, this is still a much bigger number worldwide than UK narrowboats.

 

I would have thought that a holding tank would not be required if one of these was fitted, since the purpose of the regulation is to stop waste discharge which this does even more effectively.