Auto-Flush Toilets: Useful or wasteful?
I'm in the Phoenix airport as I'm writing this post, inspired by a product I've encountered in airports the world over: automatic-flush toilets. When they first came out, they packed some "wow" factor - but now that they're thoroughly passe, what to make of them? Are they really performing a useful service to users? Let's check it out: the only two useful functions this product serves is to make sure that a flush occurs after each use, and not require the user to touch anything. These services, however nice, certainly aren't necessary - the next user can remedy a non-flush quite easily, and hands should be washed after each use regardless of whether you've had to touch a handle. And what are the costs of the convenience? Well, the hardware almost certainly costs more than a manual flush setup; electricity is consumed running the flush actuator and sensor (which presumably drains power 24/7); and my personal pet peeve, false triggers. By the time I've left the stall, I'm not surprised to have had the darn thing actuate 4 or 5 times, wasting gallons of water! No, I don't think it's worth it. We can do better for ourselves, our money, and our resources. Now if only those auto-flushers could flush themselves down the can...
3 comments:
Some engineers and I at VMware has this conversation regarding our new campus which is aimed at being very "green."
As the team that brings arcane technology (virtualization) to a consumer audience (Mac users who need to use Windows), we are VERY aware of the tendency of engineers who pursue tech for tech's sake, and one of our engineers gave auto-flush as a great example.
In the context of sensor-based sinks, it makes sense: the water turns off when you're rubbing your hands, and you don't have to touch things that have been touched by other people (which can help with germiness). Great.
In the context of toilets though--don't know where the value is. The good old "Foot-flush" has been a good solution for a long time. In this case, it seems like the marginal value is really people who don't foot flush, or forget to flush. But are there really that many of those, compared to the three or four false positives you can get? I'd like to see some research on "errant non-flushers" to see if it really is that big an issue.
As always, Pete, you're right on - though auto-sensing faucet controls make good usability and "green" sense, auto-flushing just might be a case of pursuing tech for tech's sake!
Although, I was reminded when I was at work yesterday, there is perhaps sanitary value in auto-flush on urinals, to the extent that it's quite difficult to implement a "foot flush" on current urinals! I suppose the hack there is the good old "elbow flush."
Perhaps the better solution here is to come up with mechnical, sanitary implementations. Or to reduce false-positives.
Post a Comment