Only Looks Like a Tempest when You're in the Teapot
>
Bad news:
>
Greywater reuse offers much more benefits than are realized
>
in most systems.
>
Good news:
>
Even the worst shortfalls in greywater design rarely cause
>
actual harm, and for the few that do, it's not much.
>
For every hundred greywater users in the US, probably 15 are achieving most
>
of the benefit they should, eighty-some could do better, and a few systems have
>
overall negative net benefit.
>
Of these, most have an overbuilt system—the problem is that the ecological
>
cost of the pumps and pipe are greater than the saved water.
>
Perhaps one greywater user in a thousand is discharging diaper greywater directly
>
to a water way, which is about the only way you can create a significant health
>
hazard. Almost all such systems date from a time when the ecosystem was much
>
bigger and the human imprint much smaller.
>
There has not been one documented case of greywater transmitted illness
>
in the US.
>
In our area, we have curbside recycling of mixed recyclables as well as trash
>
pick up.
>
I've observed that well-meaning citizens put plenty of stuff which looks vaguely
>
recyclable but is not in their recycling bins (e.g., polystyrene packing), as
>
well as totally recyclable materials in in a form which is impractical to recycle,
>
like thousands of bits of loose paper, broken glass, and specs of plastic. At
>
the sorting facility, they send this sort of stuff to the landfill.
>
For some households, the percentage of their recyclables which are actually
>
recycled is as low as 20%, though it could be 95% with good information. This
>
does not mean recycling is dangerous or illegal.
>
This is a totally different kind of "failure" than, say, burning
>
PVC in the backyard (which forms clouds of carcinogenic dioxin). These folks
>
just need to know what they're doing wrong, and how to do it better.
>
The aim of this web page is to share with greywater users and regulators
>
what they're doing wrong. The aim of our
>
greywater
>
books
>
is to detail how to do it better.
>
Please bear in mind as you read the exhaustive litany of "problems"
>
that even the most pathetically misguided attempts at greywater reuse still
>
wind up showing some net benefit relative to the alternatives.
>
Here's an overview of the failure of greywater reuse to achieve more of the
>
benefit which it easily could:
>
Most new complex grey water reuse systems are
>
abandoned, most simple ones achieve less than 10% irrigation efficiency within
>
five years.
>
If grey water treatment systems were built according
>
to overdone legal requirements, many would consume so much energy and materials
>
to save so little water that the Earth would be better off if the water were
>
just wasted instead.
>
Claims made for packaged grey water filtration
>
systems are often inflated. Some are very expensive and many don't work.
>
Some also have the preceding problem.
>
The majority of successful grey water recycling
>
systems are so simple and inexpensive they are beneath recognition by regulators,
>
manufacturers, consultants, and salespeople.
>
A web search on "grey water" "greywater"
>
"gray water" or "graywater" will yield hundreds examples
>
of the errors below. Many are designs from the early 70's, reprinted on the
>
web as cutting edge, despite having been discredited in the field for twenty
>
years.
>
a eich on 14 Oct 09The era of the energy-saving lamp has begun. But is it even ready for its new tasks?
