Tools of the Trade: Sustainability

Final Assignment
An investigation into the differences in water consumption between earthships and conventional suburban households

Image 1: Source : Epa : united states environmental agency

by Markolf von Ketelhodt

Table of Contents
Final Assignment........................................................................................................................................1 An investigation into the differences in water consumption between earthships and conventional suburban households.........................................................................................................................1 Image 1: Source : Epa : united states environmental agency...........................................................1 Foreword....................................................................................................................................................3 Introduction................................................................................................................................................4 Earthships...................................................................................................................................................5 Water Consumption....................................................................................................................................6 Table 1: Mexico Water Withdrawal & Precipitation Statistics.........................................................6 Graph 1: Water Withdrawal by Sector..............................................................................................7 Comparison between the water consumption of Conventional Houses and that of Earthships.................8 Table 2: Water Used per Activity for different methods..................................................................9 Graph 2: Bar Chart Comparison between Conventional and Water Saving Methods....................10 Illustration 1: Cross section of Earthship........................................................................................13 Table 3: Water Usage per activity of Conventional Households and Earthships...........................15 Graph 3: Earthship vs Conventional Households water consumption per activity........................15 Conclusion and Evaluation......................................................................................................................16 References:...............................................................................................................................................18 Appendix..................................................................................................................................................18

Foreword
Throughout human history, never has there been a time where many of us live a life of plenty. Through the rapid evolution of technological innovation the standard of living has increased tremendously in almost all countries, arguably at different degrees. However, all this progress came with a darker side that seems to increase at parallel with industrialisation, namely pollution and waste. Natural systems do not produce waste the same way we humans do. The waste of a tree, becomes the food for countless organisms and eventually decomposes into nutrients and fertilizers for new plants. Only recently have humans in the industrial age begin to realize that continued linear production of products and consequential dumping of waste poses fundamental problems. These problems not only negatively impact the environmental systems, but the very foundation that our civilization is built upon. There is only a limited amount of time where one is able to recklessly cut down the rainforests, exploit natural ecosystems and burn non-renewable fossil fuels. The reason for this are now becoming increasingly intuitive for individuals to understand. Because of globalization and expansion of industry, we have reached a point of realization that we live on a finite planet with finite resources. The traditional way of recklessly exploiting natural resources has to come to an end, not only for the sake of the environment, but for the sake of humanities well-being altogether. What then, are available alternatives that we can adopt to function under more sustainable circumstances? The obvious point of reference are the very systems we are currently destroying; the systems that function naturally. Initiatives to implement such holistic modes of production have been developed and implemented to some degree in the modern industrial civilization, with terms and practices such as 'recycling' and 'cradle-to-cradle' becoming ever more popular. However, many aspects of our modern life continue to be inherently unsustainable. Even the 'patch-work' solutions to these problems, such as 'recycling' can often be more wasteful in terms of energy use, than simply disposing the waste in conventional ways. If the very nature of the socio-economic system that we have created is inherently unsustainable, then even many of the tools we are attempting implement are simply not enough to right the many wrongs of our system. Infinite economic growth, for all countries, can simply not occur on a planet with finite resources. And this is especially true when a large portion of economic growth is fuelled by a rapidly depleting non-renewable resource called oil. It is clear that a fundamental paradigm shift is required to rethink the way we live our lives and run our economies, which is perhaps a task to big for any government, organization or collective governing body to undertake. What then can be done? The problem of course is that modern society functions within a complicated web of a costly, inefficient and resource hungry infrastructure. The

water that we drink, is often bottled in a different country than the one we call our home. The electricity we - often wastefully - use is obtained through burning non-renewable fossil fuels, hydro-power which requires a construction of a dam and flooding of a valley, nuclear power and other forms of electricity generation which causes numerous environmental problems, economic challenges and has even results in wars between nations. The majority of the food we eat is farmed in industrial-style mono-crop farms and often requires hectares of land, the majority of our freshwater, and is sprayed with pesticides and genetically modified, then 'fed' with artificial oil-based fertilizers. Then once its harvested, it must be shipped and trucked over large distances until it reaches our plates. The hidden costs of our food is almost incalculable, especially if you include the environmental impact of soil depletion, increase of water toxicity due to the pesticides and fertilizers as well as the health costs involved with fighting multiple-resistant bacteria that become immune to the antibiotics we use in livestock farming. These hidden financial and environmental costs do not only apply to the realms of food production, but are scattered throughout the industrial 'eco-system' (economic system) that we rely on.

Introduction
The aim of this paper is to introduce the reader to a means of living that can co-exist with the current socio-economic structures in place today, but that is able to circumvent many of the degenerative outcomes that result from the current system. The concept of an Earthship is at the heart of one of the most sustainable initiatives and solution to the complex problems of the modern era. It solves the problems associated to water scarcity, electricity production and use, food production and waste disposal and recycling, all of which are encapsulated in the design and construction of a single building called the Earthship. This paper will elaborate on the workings of such a building and how it reduces its ecological footprint on a number of levels. To fully grasp the scope of the earthships potential, it will be compared with conventional suburban households in regards to the many 'hidden' costs of maintaining - and living in such buildings. At the end of this paper the reader will not only have a clearer understanding of the problems associated with conventional housing and living practices, but will develop an understanding and appreciation of alternative possibilities concerning sustainable housing which not only shelters its inhabitants but is able to provide small-scales of food production, waste management and other features that regular houses do not provide they rely on external facilities to provide these services. Furthermore, this paper aims to show that if the concept of earthships becomes fully utilized and replaces conventional suburban housing, that the stress on modern infrastructure will be vastly reduced. Due to the limited scope of this investigation only water, one aspect of housing is studied and compared in more detail. Quantitative arguments, in regards to

water consumption will be used to strengthen the case and highlight the differences between conventional housing and earthships. The two countries that are studied in this investigation concerning water usage are the United States and Mexico.

Earthships
The concept of earthships has been developed over the past three decades by architect Michael Reynolds. Earthships are passive-solar autonomous houses that are primarily build using natural or recycled materials. Each building is designed to capture rainwater from its roof, produce its own electricity using solar panels, processes its own waste through 'biocells' and produces a large amount of food products for its inhabitants. The main building blocks of an earthships are discarded tires that are pounded by hand and sledge hammer with earth to create a almost 200kg brick. These are not only solid structures to build walls with, but they function as thermal mass, capable of storing and releasing heat, through which they are capable of naturally regulating the indoor temperature. These principles function much like a caves, that never get hotter, or colder than the outside environment. The thinner walls of the interior are build using old soft-drink cans or plastic bottles plastered together to form a light weight strong and durable wall. Using tires, plastic bottles, and tin cans as building materials represents one the most effective form of recycling. These buildings are all designed with sustainability in mind. Compared to conventional houses, they do not rely on, or burden the national electricity grid, water services, waste disposal services and to some extent the production and transportation of food. Furthermore, the earthships usage of electricity and water are designed in such a way to minimize and save every available kilojoule or drop of water. For instance, where conventional houses require vast amounts of electricity to heat water and their living rooms, earthships are designed to trap the natural heat of the sun, as well as using it to heat water. Water is also used very differently than in conventional housing and these differences will be discussed more in detail in the following chapters. Another key feature of the earthships is that they can be designed and customized so that they can function in any climate. The birth of the first earthships was in the desert of New Mexico, in close proximity to a small town called Taos. Here the summers can get extremely hot, and the winters extremely cold, yet the inhabitants of earthships require no heating or cooling systems, because the buildings are designed to allow maximum penetration of the sun into the buildings during the winter months, and limits the amount of sun light warming the building during the summer months. Furthermore, passive ventilation is also built into the structures to help regulate temperatures. The key aspects and sustainable features are not completely unique to earthships. Solar panels are generating power on conventional homes as well. However, earthships are one of the very

few buildings that aim to be completely self-sustaining and as energy efficient as possible. One of the most interesting distinctions between earthships and conventional houses can be made by investigating the water usage of the two buildings. Investigating the differences between conventional houses water consumption and that of an earthship will provide the best indications of how much more sustainable and efficient these earthships are. This investigation will also postulate what it would mean in terms of water consumption, if every average household in the United States was replaced by an earthship.

Water Consumption
Fresh water is one of the most crucial natural resources life requires to exist on this planet. In our industrial age this resource is being aggressively exploited at a much faster rate than it is being replenished. This has tremendous implications on a number of different aspects of industry, domestic and international prices of fresh water, structural implications of groundwater harvesting and even affects international relations. A shocking case study that emphasizes one of the many implications of uncontrolled fresh water harvesting is the situation of Mexico city. The mega metropolis of Mexico City has been sinking into the ground due to the excessive depletion of the aquifer that lies beneath the city. The sinking of the city does not occur evenly and results in many buildings collapsing (800 to date) or tilting dangerously from their vertical axis. The city has condemned over 50 new structures since 2006 because they are unsafe to live in. The cities main cathedral and the Sagrario Church required 6 years and $33 million dollars to restore and preventing collapse. More than 380 fissures have opened up and cracks appear on the surface, one of which a foot deep and longer than a mile in length.1 These and many other problems associated with the depletion of the water resources, coupled with the constant threat of earthquakes makes Mexico City a costly project of restoration and maintenance. These are all hidden costs of unregulated and excessive aquifer depletion. Most of these problems could have been avoided if the depletion of the aquifers was more strictly monitored and other methods of water harvesting, such as rain water harvesting would have been utilized. To further investigate the problems associated with the depletion of aquifers and what potential rainwater harvesting offers, the following data will be used:
Mexico Unit 1988-1992 1993-1997 Average precipitation in volume (10^9 m3/yr) 1477 1477 Agricultural water withdrawal (10^9 m3/yr) 62.5 Industrial water withdrawal (10^9 m3/yr) Municipal water withdrawal (10^9 m3/yr) Total water withdrawal (10^9 m3/yr) Table 1: Mexico Water Withdrawal & Precipitation Statistics 1998-2002 1477 56.1 6.9 9.6 72.6 2003-2007 1477 60.57 7.22 11.16 78.95 2008-2012 1477 61.2 7.4 11.2 79.8

1 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2016310507_mexicosinking25.html

The table presents the data concerning water withdrawal for different sectors, as well as precipitation for Mexico. It was obtained from the Aquastat database and the complete dataset can be found in the appendix. The raw data as found on the Aquastat database poses a slight problem concerning the validity of the data. For instance if we look at the 'average precipitation in volume' variable, we find that the value of 1477 (10^9 m3/yr) is constant for the past 20 years. This of course reflects a estimate of how much precipitation occurs, but does not reflect the reality. But for the sake of this research assignment this data will be used, with the acknowledgement of certain inconsistencies that can be found in any data set one comes across. The main point of this acknowledgement is that any conclusions drawn in this assignment are only partially validated due to the uncertainty of the data. Nonetheless, we can clearly see that total water withdrawal of all sectors in Mexico is about 5% (79.8/1477) of the average annual precipitation. This shows that there is no lack of renewable water falling from the sky each year. Essentially all of Mexicos water needs could theoretically be satisfied using water from precipitation instead of natural aquifers. A problem concerning collection and entrapment of precipitation as well as the distribution of it is rather obvious, which makes a complete replacement of freshwater through precipitation very difficult to almost impossible. This becomes increasingly relevant once you consider the information that the following pie diagram presents:

Water Withdrawal by Sector

Mexico
14%

9%

Agricultural water withdrawal Industrial water withdrawal Municipal water withdrawal

77% Graph 1: Water Withdrawal by Sector

With 77% of all water withdrawal being attributed to the agriculture it becomes obvious that the thirst of the farming sectors can not be quenched with rainwater harvesting techniques alone. However,

the other thing the jumps out is that municipal water withdrawal is the second largest recipient of fresh water. The FAOSTAT database definition of the Municipal water withdrawal is the annual quantity of water withdrawn primarily for the direct use by the population, which includes renewable freshwater resources as well as potential over-abstraction of renewable groundwater or withdrawal of fossil groundwater and the potential use of desalinated water or treated waste water2. In the case of Mexico City we can clearly identify that their primary source of freshwater is the fossil groundwater that has been extract faster than it is replenished causing numerous problems. Although the municipal category encompasses numerous buildings and facilities of the civilian population, a large amount of the water consumed can be attributed to family households. Focusing on individual houses is important in the context of this investigation, because its at individual households where rainwater harvesting can be most effective specifically in the design of earthships. The following part of this paper focuses on the differences between the water consumption of conventional suburban households and that of earthships. The reason why earthships are being compared to suburban conventional households is that they are more easily comparable than comparing an earthship with say an apartment building in a city. Earthships are alone standing, solitary buildings and are best compared to their equivalent counterpart of conventional communities.

Comparison between the water consumption of Conventional Houses and that of Earthships
In order to compare the water consumption of both models, it is vital to form a coherent appreciation of how much water the average household requires in conventional buildings. It is impossible to get data for the exact amount of water each household uses, in each state or country. Therefore this paper focuses on the average water consumption of a household in just one of the states of the US. The state in question is Washington and the data was obtained from the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission and indicates how much water is used for a specific household activity. No further information is given concerning how many people live in an average household nor was it possible to find any additional meta-data on the website.3 The table on the following page is complied using information given by the WSSC, and is manipulated into SI form in order better aid in this investigation.
2 FAOSTAT, Aquastat, Resources, Water: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/popups/itemDefn.html?id=4251, 28.03.2012 3 Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission: http://www.wsscwater.com/home/jsp/content/water-usagechart.faces

Liters Used Liters Used (Conventional) (Water Saving*) Toilet (per flush) 22.72 9.47 Shower (per day) 386.1 136.32 Bath (full tub) 162.77 132.49 Laundry Machine (full load) 227.12 158.99 Dishwasher 56.78 33.12 Dish Washing by hand 113.56 56.78 Shaving 75.71 13.25 Brushing Teeth 37.85 9.47 Washing Hands 7.57 5.68 TOTAL 1090.18 555.57 Table 2: Water Used per Activity for different methods Activity

Liters Used (AVERAGE*) 16.095 261.21 147.63 193.055 44.95 85.17 44.48 23.66 6.625 822.875

[Original values were converted manually from gallons into litres, and are averages where necessary, see original table in the Appendix]

These figures will be used to get the general appreciation of how much water the average household uses in the United States. Although this may differ from state to state, this paper assumes that suburban houses in other states and countries use on average the same amounts of water than those in Washington. The table shows two categories of how water is used in Washington; there is the 'Conventional' method, and the 'Water Saving*' method. The third 'grey' column represents the calculated average between the 'conventional' and the 'water-saving' methods water consumption. The estimates in the (AVERAGE) column will be used at a later stage to compare water usage between conventional houses and earthships. But before this can commence, it is important to describe in detail the data manipulation that was undertaken in order to get these estimates, as well as do some rudimentary data interpretation. This will help justify the data manipulation that took place. For now, we shall concentrate on the two 'original' categories of the table, namely the 'conventional' and the 'water-saving' methods. The original estimates were not only converted from gallons into litres, but in some cases, an average was taken between two estimates, in order to acquire one value that is easier to work with. For instance, for the activity of 'Toilet (per flush)' the original table provided the estimated amount of water being used for the 'conventional' method to be between 5 and 7 gallons. In order to convert these into workable SI values, I first converted each estimate separately and then calculated the mean between the two values, which for the case of flushing toilets the 'conventional' way is 45.43 litres per flush. This was done for all estimates that provided a range rather than a concise value. Further more, concerning the estimates of water used for showering, the meta-data on the website does not provide any explanation if these estimates are per person or per

household. In fact, the original table indicates how much water is used 'per minute' in a shower, as opposed to 'per day'. These estimates differ from the conventional shower to the water saving shower (conventional shower = 32.18L/min and water-saving shower = 11.36l/min). Also, the meta-data provided describes that a conventional shower takes between 7-10 minutes, where as a water-saving shower takes between 12-15 minutes, which is a rather odd phenomena. Regardless of this, for the purpose of this investigation I shall assume that the average household requires 12 minutes to shower, which is about 3 minutes per person for a four people home. Because the other estimated amounts of water used for the other activities presented in the table are 'per day' estimates, it was important to convert the 'per minute' shower estimates into 'per day' estimates as well. The following bar chart indicates how much water each household activity requires, on average each day, for both the conventional and water-saving methods:

Comparison between Conventional and Water Saving Methods

(each activities water use (litres) for the average household)
6 8 9 13 57 33 57 159 132 163 136 227 Washing Hands Brushing Teeth Shaving Liters Used (Conventional) Liters Used (Water Saving*) 76 114

38

Activity

Dish Washing by hand Dishwasher Laundry Machine (full load) Bath (full tub) Shower (per day) Toilet (per flush) 0 9 23 50

386

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Graph 2: Bar Chart Comparison between Conventional and Water Saving Methods

Water Used (Litres)

The bar chart on the previous page clearly indicates the differences in the amounts of water being used between the two methods and also highlights which activities require the most amounts of water. Clearly, showering in the conventional way requires the most amount of water compared to any other activity and method . However, we also find that in the water-saving method, showering requires less water than the laundry machine, which is not the case for the conventional method. These differences are important to identify, specifically if we want to compare the water consumption of conventional households (both 'water-saving' and 'conventional') with that of earthships. Furthermore, Table 2 indicates the total amount of water being used for both types of water

using scenarios. The 'conventional' water usage requires approximately 1090.18 litres of water a day, compared to the 'water-saving' houses that require about half (555.57 litres) of the water the former uses. Because there are two different types of water usage evident in conventional housing and the quantity used differs quite substantially, it remains a difficult process in comparing these estimates with earthships, that have a completely different methodology of managing the water usage. One possibility to circumvent this problem is to calculate the average water usage between the 'conventional' and the 'water-saving' methods in order to have one estimate viable for the comparison between earthships and conventional suburban households as opposed to having two. This is why the third grey column (AVERAGE) was added into Table 2. In the 'average' column we find that the total amount of water being used is approximately 822.88 litres a day. From this point on, the investigation will focus on the 'AVERAGE' litres of water used in conventional housing. A more extensive and longer report would avoid such simplification of the data. Nonetheless, the average total of 822.88 litres of water used in a household is a rather conservative estimation, considering that this does not even include the out door water use for gardening, washing cars, swimming pools etcetera. Now that the technicalities regarding the data manipulation have been addressed, and the interpretation of the data has taken place, it is time to compare the water consumption of conventional households with that of earthships. In conventional housing each activity uses new/additional fresh water from the pipes. What sets the earthship apart in this aspect is that it relies solely on rain or snow water harvesting to meet the water requirements of the household. The roofs of earthships are designed to channel every drop of rainwater and even dew through a silt catching filter into large underground cisterns which store up to 4000 litres of water each. Many earthships have multiple cisterns in order to trap as much water as possible during wet periods, so that they have enough water during drier periods. The cisterns are designed to gravity feed a WOM (water organization module) which filters out bacteria and contaminants, and makes it suitable for drinking. The WOM consists of a number of filters and a DC pump which is powered by the solar panels on the roof. The pump is used to push the water through the filters and into a conventional pressure tank to create normal household water pressure. Conventional houses on the other hand, rely on water utilities to provide them with fresh water, and different utility companies rely on different methods to providing fresh water to a thirsty population. This paper has earlier demonstrated the problems associated with the conventional management and supply of fresh water. The problems describe with Mexico City is one extreme example which discussed most of the hidden costs associated with conventional methods of obtaining and distributing fresh water. The earthships method of trapping rain water is a far more

environmentally friendly and sustainable approach of acquiring fresh water. It needs to be stressed that rainwater harvesting is not unique to earthships, nonetheless it remains an important difference between earthships and conventional houses. Furthermore, the plumbing of earthships is designed to reuse a lot of the waste water from different activities. Waste water can be distinguished between two categories; grey water and black water. Grey water is the waste water generated from domestic activities, such as washing dishes, washing hands, dishwashers, the waste water from showers etcetera, which can be recycled on site. It differs from black water or toilet water that requires special sewage treatment. The earthships plumbing is design in such a way that all of the grey water is recycled in a number of different ways. Before the grey water can be reused, the earthships plumbing is designed to channel it through a grease and particle filter and then into a rubber lined botanical cell. The botanical cell is essentially a flowerbed inside (and/or outside) the living room of an earthship, which is comprised of multiple layers. The bottom of such a cell is comprised of large rough gravel and rocks, which allows water to pass through. On top of this layer, there is a layer of smaller gravel and sand, which divides the larger rocks with the soil on top of it, which encourages plants (even edible plants) to grow. Throughout the botanical cell oxygenation, filtration, transpiration and bacteria encounter all take place and help to cleanse the water(Reynolds, 2000) through natural mechanism. The filtration of the grey water is primarily achieved by passing the water through a mixture of gravel and plant roots. The plant roots add oxygen to the water, remove nitrogen and absorb some of the water, which transpires through their leaves. Natural bacteria will grow helping the plants fixate nitrogen and nitrates and further help cleanse the water. The botanical cells floor is slightly sloped in order to gravity-pull the grey water from one side to the other. Once it reaches the end of the cell it is directed through a peat moss filter and then collects in a small reservoir or well. This semi-filtered grey water, although unfit for primary reuse such as drinking or showering, can/and is used to flush conventional toilets or to water the gardens. The main precautions that are necessary for the 'healthy' functioning of such a natural filtration systems, is of course not to pollute them with toxins. In a conventional home, there are no immediate consequences to the home owner when pouring dangerous chemicals down the drain. In an earthship, this is discouraged, because if you pour something like paint thinner down your grey water drain, it will not be healthy for the plants in the botanical cell. There are however, a number of biologically degradable soaps, shampoos and cleaning agents that can be used in these systems. This, however requires the conscious use of chemicals by the home owners of an earthship. This may seem limiting to conventional home owners, but in terms of sustainability and environmental consequences, this limitation may be viewed as negligible. Furthermore, earthships often have botanical cells placed both indoors and outdoors. For the process of the grey water coming from sinks and showers an indoor

botanical cell is used, and the outdoor botanical cells are used to process the grey water from washing and dish washing machines as well as the over flow of the processed black water. Depending on the size of the earthship, as well as the number of toilets it has, the grey water of washing machines and/or dishwashers can also be processed indoors. To prevent flooding the indoor botanical cells, calculations need to be made before hand to determine how many people will live in the earthship and use the toilet which will flush out the excess grey water. The black water or toilet water, is non-reusable waste water and is sent to a outdoor solarenhanced septic tank which stores the sun's heat in its concrete mass to help anaerobic processes to break down the solids. The excess semi-filtered black water over flows and is channelled into an outdoor landscaping plant bed that is similar to the indoor botanical cells. This is also where the grey water from washing and dishwashers end up in, if the indoor botanical cell is too small to process these amounts of grey water. The following schematic illustrates the use of water in an earthship as well as many of its other unique features that make it one of the most sustainable houses ever designed:

Illustration 1: Cross section of Earthship

An earthship provides a small scale sewage treatment facility that is modelled after natural decomposition and recycling processes. Furthermore, the flexibility of the earthships design allows it to be connected to traditional utilities for water and waste management. However, this is often only done in areas where there is either too little natural rainfall to satisfy the water needs (which rarely is the

case) or in areas of extreme climate, where outdoor temperatures are too cold to process the black water waste. However, because of the ongoing innovation in the design of earthships, even these difficulties are now overcome. In extremely cold climates such as Norway, earthships are designed with a doublegreenhouse, in which the outer green houses encapsulates the black water treatment botanical cells, and the inner green house functions as the conventional grey water treatment botanical cells that allow for edible plants to be grown. These greenhouses also function as an crucial aspect of the interrior climate control system, regulating temperature and humidity. Waste in an earthship is no longer seen as waste, but as nutrients for other purposes. All this is not to say that an earthship does not produce any chemical waste at all. Batteries need to be exchanged and disposed of every few years, so do light bulbs, but the extent to which the waste is managed and disposed of is extremely reduced compared to conventional houses. The task of quantifying all of the sustainable features of earthships and comparing them with conventional housing will prove to be a too large scope for this investigation. Solely concentrating on the usage of water simplifies this task to a great degree. To compare the water usage of earthships with conventional households a number of assumptions need to be made. Because earthships, much like conventional houses differ in size and scope, I will assume that they require the same amount of water for each activity as the 'average' conventional household does. This information is encapsulated in the 'grey' column of Table 2. The major difference of course lies in the fact that earthships require no additional new water for flushing the toilets, but instead use grey water for this task. Furthermore, earthships require no additional water for watering out door plants during dry periods, because their waste water full fills this task. According to the WSSC the average household in requires between 6301860 gallons (2000-7000 litres) of water an hour for out door activities (see Appendix for table). The other main difference between earthships and conventional houses, is that only a few conventional houses actually make use of water saving devices, while a majority of them use the conventional way. The exact ratio between how many houses use 'conventional' and 'water-saving' methods is unknown, but the term 'conventional' indicates an implicit normality to the term, hence it is rather likely that the majority of conventional households use the 'conventional' method of using water. This further emphasizes the conservativeness of the estimated 'average' household usage. Nonetheless, the water use in earthships is radically reduced because all earthships are designed to use low flow show heads, low water use washing machines and other water saving devices. Therefore it can be assumed that the water usage of the average earthship is similar to the 'water-saving' methods that some conventional households have. In order to compare earthships with conventional houses, the estimates of strictly 'water-saving' methods are attributed to the earthships and the calculated 'average' water

usage, will be attributed to conventional households. These presumptions should be justified considering the extensive descriptions and analysis offered on the previous pages. The following table presents the assumed water consumption of earthships and the calculated average water consumption of conventional households:
Liters Used Liters Used (Conventional Household) (Earthship) Toilet (per flush) 16.10 0 261.21 Shower (per day) 136.32 147.63 Bath (full tub) 132.49 193.06 Laundry Machine (full load) 158.99 Dishwasher 44.95 33.12 Dish Washing by hand 85.17 56.78 Shaving 44.48 13.25 Brushing Teeth 23.66 9.47 Washing Hands 6.63 5.68 TOTAL 822.89 546.1 Table 3: Water Usage per activity of Conventional Households and Earthships Activity

The following bar chart visualizes the information from the table and helps with comparing the amounts of water being used per activity between earthships and conventional households:

Earthship vs Conventional Household

(comparrison of water consumption per activity)
Washing Hands Brushing Teeth Shaving Dish Washing by hand 6 7 9 Conventional Household Earthship 44 57

24 13

85 159 132 148 136

Activity

Dishwasher Laundry Machine (full load) Bath (full tub) Shower (per day) Toilet (per flush) 0 16 0

33 45 193

261

50

100

150

200

250

300

Litres of Water
Graph 3: Earthship vs Conventional Households water consumption per activity

The one difference between the earthships water consumption and the 'water-saving' estimates of conventional households, is that the earthship requires no additional water to flush toilets, because it uses filtered grey water. This lowers the earthship water consumption by approximately 9.5 litres a day, compared to the 'water-saving' estimates of conventional households. This may not seem like much, but 9.5 litres a day equate to 3467.5 litres a year, which are solely used for flushing a toilet. The graph on the previous page illustrates that the majority of the water used in earthships is attributed to laundry machines. Another interesting thing about these graphs and the data provided by the WSSC is that they indicate differences in water consumption between shaving, brushing teeth and washing dishes by hand for different methods of water consumption. It seems in an earthship you use less than half the water for shaving, than what you would use in a conventional household. These differences cannot solely be attributed to physical water-saving devices, but are probably determined by the way individuals use the water themselves. After all, leaving the tap running while shaving and brushing teeth requires a lot more water than if you only use the tap when washing off the shaving cream or tooth paste once your done. These differences in behaviour undoubtedly have a significant influence on the water consumption of a household and are rather difficult to capture in a statistical value or estimate.

Conclusion and Evaluation

Regardless of the many implications surrounding the data, and the many assumptions that were necessary to arrive at a conclusion, this investigation has been able to provide a framework in which to estimate the differences in water consumption between earthships and conventional households. A conservative estimate of the amount of water being used in conventional households is around 823 litres a day, which equates to a little over 300,000 litres a year. In comparison, earthships only use an estimated 546 litres a day, equating to a little under 200,000 litres a year. This is 1/3 reduction of water consumption by a single household. Furthermore, if you take into account that these 200,000 litres used by earthships do not come from underground fossil water aquifers, large dams, or other conventional fresh water sources, but from harvesting water from rain and snow fall, it becomes clear how much less pressure is put on the environment. The United States of America has a little over 300 million inhabitants, who live in approximately 125 million houses. Not all of these house are alone standing 'conventional' households, but if only one fifth (25 million) of these houses were replaced by earthships, that all harvest their own rain water and take care of their own sewage, the US would save approximately 2.5 trillion litres of water a year. Many of the technologies concerning water-saving can be implemented into conventional

households as well. However, what sets the earthship apart, is that its efficiency in water use, is not its only characteristic. The efficiency of its water management and recycling processes is just a fraction of what earthships are capable of in terms of sustainability. Their electricity use is just as impressive as its efficiency in reducing the amount of water it requires. More all-encompassing research needs to be undergone in order to fully appreciate the benefits of earthships in quantitative terms. Nonetheless, this investigation aimed to demonstrate one aspect of the effectiveness of the intelligent design of sustainable housing. Earthships are just one of the more effective and impressive alternative sustainable housing solutions, the use waste as building materials, and natural processes for electricity production and water management. One of the more pressing issues concerning earthships is that their design will be hard to incorporate into existing cities and high rise buildings. But there would be no problem in replacing every single suburban household with an earthship, or retrofitting existing houses with the technological mechanisms that make the earthship so sustainable. The only thing hindering the expansion such efforts is the lacking appreciation of societies need for a sustainable revolution.

References:
1. Seattle Times, Mexico City copes with that sinking feeling http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2016310507_mexicosinking25.html 2. FAOSTAT, Aquastat, Resources, Water: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/popups/itemDefn.html?id=4251, 28.03.2012 3. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission: http://www.wsscwater.com/home/jsp/content/water-usagechart.faces 4. Earthship Information: http://www.appropedia.org/Earthship, 28.03.2012

Appendix
1. FAOSTAT raw data:
Mexico Total population Rural population Urban population Average precipitation in volume National Rainfall Index (NRI) Agricultural water withdrawal Industrial water withdrawal Municipal water withdrawal Total water withdrawal Municipal water withdrawal as % of total withdrawal (%) Total water withdrawal per capita Municipal water withdrawal per capita (total population) Produced wastewater Treated wastewater Direct use of treated wastewater United States of America Total population Rural population Urban population Average precipitation in volume National Rainfall Index (NRI) Agricultural water withdrawal Industrial water withdrawal Municipal water withdrawal Total water withdrawal Municipal water withdrawal as % of total withdrawal (%) Total water withdrawal per capita Municipal water withdrawal per capita (total population) Produced wastewater Treated wastewater Direct use of treated wastewater 1988-1992 1993-1997 1998-2002 2003-2007 2008-2012 87523 95441 102634 109221 112033 24264 24874 25317 25200 25173 63259 70567 77317 84021 86860 1477 1477 1477 1477 1477 1199 1171 1052 62.5 56.1 60.57 61.2 6.9 7.22 7.4 9.6 11.16 11.2 72.6 78.95 79.8 13.22 14.14 14.04 (m3/inhab/yr) 707.4 722.8 712.3 (m3/inhab/yr) 93.54 102.2 99.97 (10^9 m3/yr) 9.4 13.34 (10^9 m3/yr) 1.92 2.596 3.11 (10^9 m3/yr) 0.28 1988-1992 1993-1997 1998-2002 2003-2007 2008-2012 258276 272643 288467 302285 307687 62009 59932 58320 56230 55394 196267 212711 230147 246055 252293 6885 6885 6887 6887 7030 1020 1005 938.7 194.7 195.6 196.5 192.4 207.1 210.1 213 220.6 60.67 62.31 63.95 65.44 462.5 468 473.4 478.4 13.12 13.31 13.51 13.68 1791 1717 1641 1583 (m3/inhab/yr) (m3/inhab/yr) 234.9 228.5 221.7 216.5 (10^9 m3/yr) 76.75 (10^9 m3/yr) 48.71 (10^9 m3/yr) 1.284 Unit (1000 inhab) (1000 inhab) (1000 inhab) (10^9 m3/yr) (mm/yr) (10^9 m3/yr) (10^9 m3/yr) (10^9 m3/yr) (10^9 m3/yr) Unit (1000 inhab) (1000 inhab) (1000 inhab) (10^9 m3/yr) (mm/yr) (10^9 m3/yr) (10^9 m3/yr) (10^9 m3/yr) (10^9 m3/yr)

2. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Data Tables:

3.