Urine. Micturation. Piss. The thing you must do every day, lest ye suffer Tycho Brahe's fate. As I have recently dissed NPR science reporting here, I want to give you their reading. And then, of course, to fix it. Should We Return The Nutrients In Our Pee Back To The Farm? : The Salt : NPR Most of the N and P that your body does not use, exits as liquid. It isn't quite sterile (even from healthy people) and it is such a rich medium that microbes grow immediately. But we'll get to that later. Human populations are so clumped (and getting more so) that this could be a useful agricultural resource. Separating from the poo (solid phase) is important because poo is ~50% microbial cells that grew in your small intestines (a topic of a not-yet-written PC rant). 'Population pee' includes caffeine, other drugs, carbon from diabetics, and whatever microbes grow on the substrates along the supply chain (it's what they do). The point here is to discuss adding this N and P to agriculture, and to ask whether other details could damage the agricultural enterprise. I suggest that they won't, but it deserves a careful look. How do global human N and P pee fluxes compare to global ag fertilizers as done now? I'll take a shot at that later, if somebody here cares. Next consider the ag crops' uptake perspective. Do bacteria, viruses, chemicals enter the next-gen plant you might eat? This is a very appropriate area of research. It can be done, and it isn't being done. Ag fertilizer N now mostly comes from the Haber process, which means adding external energy. P is from mineral sources that are quite unequally distributed across the earth. But wherever human pops are close to ag, the 'bringing in' has already been done. Here I want to draw a clear distinction between the liquid and solid phases. The latter is a microbiological muddle. The former (perhaps) suffers only from psychological misconceptions. Note that I am not advising anyone to do a Bear Grylls and drink pee. Rather, that plants that feed us use resources differently than we do. Discuss.
Fascinating topic! Speaking of Pee,, I degrees... We pulled over on a very rural, very long drive on California highway 58 once, having to take a Pee break. It was the first sizable turn out for miles in either direction, that had some trees for privacy for my wife. How surprised we were when we saw a hand painted sign nailed to a tree that said "Wee Pee Park",,, So we did! True story! I thought Mexico, (Latin America), was already using human waste for fertilizer for the crops they grow, and export to US? Yes, they are: Human Waste Used by 200 Million Farmers, Study Says
Just thinking about the drought in California, and the gallons of water typically used to dispatch a few oz of pee. At least some toilets now have a large/small flush option. And when you don't have company over you can let the yellow mellow.
Many years from now, mined phosphorous may be in short supply, according to the sustainability experts. So its nice to know we can get P from Pee.
Much of agriculture already uses both liquid and solid wastes of livestock to fertilize crops, where it is available. I can certainly attest that it is very effective. When cutting dad's ripened hay fields a few weeks ago, the winter feeding ground trail paths through the snow were highly visible and very lush. But solid waste from common herbivore livestock is quite different from solid waste from carnivores and omnivores such as humans and dogs and cats. The former is very heavily weighted towards cellulose and other fibrous plant residue. At least in the men's restrooms, most new urinals around here seem to be either waterless no-flush, or very low flush (1 pint or 0.5 liter) models. I prefer the later, as less odiferous. These would be even more effective watersavers in women's restrooms. But despite seeing numerous designs for female urinals over the decades, I'm not aware of any catching on in popularity.
On the topic of standard waste disposal treatment (where everything arrives as a mixture) the Hyperion plant in Los Angeles was cutting edge in its day, and has had some important upgrades. Technology could no doubt be developed to extract N and P from the waste stream, w/o all that other stuff that is less helpful for agriculture. But I doubt the price would be appealing. Separating urine at the front end seems more logical. So that's where the work should go I guess.
No, because they (at least, are commonly perceived to) visit the restroom to pee much more often than males, thus account for more flushes. I don't know how much of this difference is real, versus perception and common mythology. But the various health issues that lead to more frequent urination do seem to start striking females approximately at childbirth, while males problems typically wait until prostate enlargement age.
To be increasinging recycled back into water for human consumption, especially in severe drought stricken areas. DBCassidy
Another thought. I would bet the sewer lines were built to have liquid flowing to move the solids along. Lesson the liquid flow down too much, and you may end up with a lot of blockages. I remember as a kid, we had a septic tank in the back yard, with a leach field for its liquid outflow buried beneath one large section of that yard. The leach field side, had the greenest lawn, and needed way less watering. It was almost doing what is proposed. Separating the solids, using the liquids.
Our 1st Montana home was on septic. It alwas bothered me thinking the well was just a few hundred feet below that. .
