Comments on: Prohibited Green Technologies http://greenbuildingelements.com/2007/10/22/prohibited-green-technologies/ Reporting on Sustainably Built Environments from Bricks to Cities Wed, 23 May 2012 23:52:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Stand Up for the Earth : Ecoscraps http://greenbuildingelements.com/2007/10/22/prohibited-green-technologies/comment-page-1/#comment-897 Stand Up for the Earth : Ecoscraps Sun, 03 Feb 2008 16:43:25 +0000 http://philipproefrock.greenoptions.com/2007/10/22/prohibited-green-technologies/#comment-897 [...] one pint per flush is one pint more than waterless urinals require, but, for various reasons, not everyone is willing to embrace waterless urinals, [...] [...] one pint per flush is one pint more than waterless urinals require, but, for various reasons, not everyone is willing to embrace waterless urinals, [...]

]]> By: Bobby B. http://greenbuildingelements.com/2007/10/22/prohibited-green-technologies/comment-page-1/#comment-128 Bobby B. Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:55:36 +0000 http://philipproefrock.greenoptions.com/2007/10/22/prohibited-green-technologies/#comment-128 "inspectors have allowed waterless urinals to be installed, but have required the builder to provide plumbing supply lines to bring water to the waterless urinal locations" Since the restroom will likely have hand washing stations nearby, it's really not that much more pipe. However, even that small amount of pipe could be saved by leaving branch connections for supplies and drains behind a sink. Should traditional urinals be installed at a later date, I do not beleive that there are any regulations that force plumbers to route such piping in the walls. Also, the waterless folks must have developed a better chemical for their cartridges. You don't see near as many stories about the nasty chemicals that used to be in the cartridges. "green improvements can be perceived as just expensive indulgences, rather than offering real gains" That statement is all too true. If the ROI exceeds a person's life expectancy, what really is the point? “inspectors have allowed waterless urinals to be installed, but have required the builder to provide plumbing supply lines to bring water to the waterless urinal locations”

Since the restroom will likely have hand washing stations nearby, it’s really not that much more pipe. However, even that small amount of pipe could be saved by leaving branch connections for supplies and drains behind a sink. Should traditional urinals be installed at a later date, I do not beleive that there are any regulations that force plumbers to route such piping in the walls. Also, the waterless folks must have developed a better chemical for their cartridges. You don’t see near as many stories about the nasty chemicals that used to be in the cartridges.

“green improvements can be perceived as just expensive indulgences, rather than offering real gains”

That statement is all too true. If the ROI exceeds a person’s life expectancy, what really is the point?

]]> By: Bobby B. http://greenbuildingelements.com/2007/10/22/prohibited-green-technologies/comment-page-1/#comment-97653 Bobby B. Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:55:00 +0000 http://philipproefrock.greenoptions.com/2007/10/22/prohibited-green-technologies/#comment-97653 "inspectors have allowed waterless urinals to be installed, but have required the builder to provide plumbing supply lines to bring water to the waterless urinal locations" Since the restroom will likely have hand washing stations nearby, it's really not that much more pipe. However, even that small amount of pipe could be saved by leaving branch connections for supplies and drains behind a sink. Should traditional urinals be installed at a later date, I do not beleive that there are any regulations that force plumbers to route such piping in the walls. Also, the waterless folks must have developed a better chemical for their cartridges. You don't see near as many stories about the nasty chemicals that used to be in the cartridges. "green improvements can be perceived as just expensive indulgences, rather than offering real gains" That statement is all too true. If the ROI exceeds a person's life expectancy, what really is the point? “inspectors have allowed waterless urinals to be installed, but have required the builder to provide plumbing supply lines to bring water to the waterless urinal locations”

Since the restroom will likely have hand washing stations nearby, it’s really not that much more pipe. However, even that small amount of pipe could be saved by leaving branch connections for supplies and drains behind a sink. Should traditional urinals be installed at a later date, I do not beleive that there are any regulations that force plumbers to route such piping in the walls. Also, the waterless folks must have developed a better chemical for their cartridges. You don’t see near as many stories about the nasty chemicals that used to be in the cartridges.

“green improvements can be perceived as just expensive indulgences, rather than offering real gains”

That statement is all too true. If the ROI exceeds a person’s life expectancy, what really is the point?

]]>