Has anyone installed a dual flush or HET toilet?

[astroboi]

Just wondering what the cost was and whether or not you've seen a difference in your water bill.

Peel Region (http://www.region.peel.on.ca/watersmartpeel/indoor/toilet-program-1.htm) currently has a $60/$100 rebate and the Federal and Provincial governments offer one as well (if you do the energy audit).

Here's a list of approved toilets (Peel): http://www.region.peel.on.ca/watersmartpeel/indoor/toilets/toilet-list-sep-2007.pdf

[Jaytee]

I was actually looking at dual flush toilets yesterday.

From the reviews I have seen Caroma and Toto (Aquia is around $400) make dual flushes but both have only have very small reservoir of water right in the center. So if your stool goes to the side, many times you have to clean that with a brush which isn't pleasant. Thats what I read from reviews, anyone have first hand experience with one of these?

I read Gerber makes dual flushes with a normal size reservoir of water, so I might look for a retailer that carries them.

I don't think it would make that big a impact on your water bill unless you have a big family that uses the washroom a lot. :razz: I think you save a lot more water with a low flow shower head and shorter showers.

[mau108]

edit...nvm

[Jaytee]

Dual flush toilets have two buttons/levers.

One button uses 6L of water and the other uses 3L and so you press the button it depending on whether you are doing number 1 or number 2.

[skategoat]

I have Caroma and Toto. Caroma, I would not buy again due to very low water level in bowl. Much staining as jaytee suggests. The Toto is not a dual flush but simply a very low water consumption toilet. The Toto is the bomb. Never clogs and has a strong flush.

There's a place on Weston Rd., near Black Creek Dr. that sells Toto at the lowest prices I have seen anywhere. The name of the store is Valentini Bros. The toilet I bought was 30% more expensive at Plumbing Mart.

[B0000rt]

Dual flush toilets have two buttons/levers.

One button uses 6L of water and the other uses 3L and so you press the button it depending on whether you are doing number 1 or number 2.
Using the 3L for a heavy number 2 works most of the time for me.

[brunes]

Just a note I don't know what the cost of water is in the GTA, but based on the rate here ($0.53 / KL) I figured that for our 2 person household with say 4 low-flow flushes a day each it would take 20 years to pay for a $90 toilet.

This combined with the fact that I don't believe water conservation is really an environmental concern in Canada means I won't be getting one any time soon.

[mart242]

This combined with the fact that I don't believe water conservation is really an environmental concern in Canada means I won't be getting one any time soon.

It is but other actions would have a much bigger difference: not have a swimming pool, take a slightly shorter shower, not water the lawn as much..

[ghostryder]

Just a note I don't know what the cost of water is in the GTA, but based on the rate here ($0.53 / KL) I figured that for our 2 person household with say 4 low-flow flushes a day each it would take 20 years to pay for a $90 toilet.


Now add in how much of your property taxes go to adding additional capacity to water treatment facilities that could be avoided with simply lowering consumption.

[stealth]

We have one, I havent noticed anything significant. Theres so many other factors though in water usage. I doubt we'd see more than a 5% difference, which to me isnt really statistically significant because water usage fluctuates. Esp since sometimes a double flush is required anyways (to get rid of paper). If you have to change a toilet, I'd consider it, but no way would I recommend getting rid of a perfectly fine toilet (into the landfill) over something thats still kind of gimmicky. Thats the problem with the eco friendly fad...it encourages wastefulness in order to fuel a new economy based on unproven gimmicks.

[Arabian_Princess]

Just a note I don't know what the cost of water is in the GTA, but based on the rate here ($0.53 / KL) I figured that for our 2 person household with say 4 low-flow flushes a day each it would take 20 years to pay for a $90 toilet.

This combined with the fact that I don't believe water conservation is really an environmental concern in Canada means I won't be getting one any time soon.

thats exactly the problem with peoples mentality these days (no offence). People think they shouldnt change & improve because they think that the resource at hand isnt depleting quickly enough for them to make any changes.

During the Industrial Revolution and many years onward no one cared about the environment and look where that has brought us..

If they would have just conserved, preserved and "cleaned up", we would be in a much safer state than we are now.

Your arguement is like saying .. the air smells fresh so lets continue to pollute...

There are many environmental examples of where there was a body of water, large and abundant that was over-exploited because people thought it would never deplete.. and sure enough it did, and now no longer exists or is so polluted that it no longer supports any life..

My point is not the water or dual flush toilets.. my point is try to conserve where you can... try to move away from that mind-set of "oh we have a lot of xyz so lets use it all up" .. because one day in the future, ur kids or grandkids may not have this luxury.

Im not a tree-hugger but I am a student of Environmental Science... so..

Try to love your environment.. its worth more than you think
:)

[brunes]

thats exactly the problem with peoples mentality these days (no offence). People think they shouldnt change & improve because they think that the resource at hand isnt depleting quickly enough for them to make any changes.

During the Industrial Revolution and many years onward no one cared about the environment and look where that has brought us..

If they would have just conserved, preserved and "cleaned up", we would be in a much safer state than we are now.

Your arguement is like saying .. the air smells fresh so lets continue to pollute...

There are many environmental examples of where there was a body of water, large and abundant that was over-exploited because people thought it would never deplete.. and sure enough it did, and now no longer exists or is so polluted that it no longer supports any life..

My point is not the water or dual flush toilets.. my point is try to conserve where you can... try to move away from that mind-set of "oh we have a lot of xyz so lets use it all up" .. because one day in the future, ur kids or grandkids may not have this luxury.

Im not a tree-hugger but I am a student of Environmental Science... so..

Try to love your environment.. its worth more than you think
:)

You should read some of my other posts in this forum. Water does not "deplete". It exists forever. Nature naturally renews the water supply, constantly. The planet is covered with the stuff. The water scarcity problem is an entirely human created one, we want to build cities where water doesn't exist, so we steal it from places it does. If people stopped doing that then nature would immediately restore th ebalence.

"Water conservation" is just market-speak for your municipality trying to cut water distribution costs. Like I said before - what ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT difference if you replace your toilet to save a measly 500 L/year when every year your city flushes 100s of fire hydrants and hundreds of thousands of KL of water into the storm drain to flush out sediment?

Every single person in the city of Toronto could save 2L / flush and it still would not equal the amount the city blasts away every spring on hydrants and washing the roads and running decorative fountains other stupid enavdevours.

But guess what, it doesn't matter, because fresh water falls from the sky! If you want to really save water than you should be concentrating your efforts on reducing AIR pollutants because that is what ends up destroying the water supply. "Using up" water does nothing. I take water from the lake / aquifier, I run it down the drain, it goes to treatment plant, sewage is maybe separated, water goes back into environment, it evaporates, it falls as rain. No water is lost during this process.

My point is you're better off using that $100 you'd waste on a dual flush toilet and using it for something more productive, like put it toward some new windows or extra insulation or weather stripping or CFL light bulbs or ANYTHING that will reduce your homes ENERGY USE, because energy use is where all our pollution comes from in Canada. We use a lot of energy in this country, especially in the winter. Way more per capita than the US - in fact we're worst in the G8. And worst of ALL is se still rely on a lot of very dirty coal power plants to do it.

[st7860]

thats exactly the problem with peoples mentality these days (no offence). People think they shouldnt change & improve because they think that the resource at hand isnt depleting quickly enough for them to make any changes.

During the Industrial Revolution and many years onward no one cared about the environment and look where that has brought us..

If they would have just conserved, preserved and "cleaned up", we would be in a much safer state than we are now.

Your arguement is like saying .. the air smells fresh so lets continue to pollute...

There are many environmental examples of where there was a body of water, large and abundant that was over-exploited because people thought it would never deplete.. and sure enough it did, and now no longer exists or is so polluted that it no longer supports any life..

My point is not the water or dual flush toilets.. my point is try to conserve where you can... try to move away from that mind-set of "oh we have a lot of xyz so lets use it all up" .. because one day in the future, ur kids or grandkids may not have this luxury.

Im not a tree-hugger but I am a student of Environmental Science... so..

Try to love your environment.. its worth more than you think
:)

he reminds me of those people that say that they don't like saving oil because every drop they save is burned up by someone in asia consuming it.

[ghostryder]

"Water conservation" is just market-speak for your municipality trying to cut water distribution costs. Like I said before - what ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT difference if you replace your toilet to save a measly 500 L/year when every year your city flushes 100s of fire hydrants and hundreds of thousands of KL of water into the storm drain to flush out sediment?

And of course there is no environmental impact from building, operating, maintaining, and expanding water treatment facilities. Not to mention the production and transportation of the chemicals used to treat potable water.

Every single person in the city of Toronto could save 2L / flush and it still would not equal the amount the city blasts away every spring on hydrants and washing the roads and running decorative fountains other stupid enavdevours.


I don't know about where you live but when I asked the public works people where I live, they indicated they don't use potable water for street cleaning.

[d-c]

You should read some of my other posts in this forum. Water does not "deplete". It exists forever. Nature naturally renews the water supply, constantly. The planet is covered with the stuff. The water scarcity problem is an entirely human created one, we want to build cities where water doesn't exist, so we steal it from places it does. If people stopped doing that then nature would immediately restore th ebalence.

"Water conservation" is just market-speak for your municipality trying to cut water distribution costs. Like I said before - what ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT difference if you replace your toilet to save a measly 500 L/year when every year your city flushes 100s of fire hydrants and hundreds of thousands of KL of water into the storm drain to flush out sediment?

Every single person in the city of Toronto could save 2L / flush and it still would not equal the amount the city blasts away every spring on hydrants and washing the roads and running decorative fountains other stupid enavdevours.

But guess what, it doesn't matter, because fresh water falls from the sky! If you want to really save water than you should be concentrating your efforts on reducing AIR pollutants because that is what ends up destroying the water supply. "Using up" water does nothing. I take water from the lake / aquifier, I run it down the drain, it goes to treatment plant, sewage is maybe separated, water goes back into environment, it evaporates, it falls as rain. No water is lost during this process.

My point is you're better off using that $100 you'd waste on a dual flush toilet and using it for something more productive, like put it toward some new windows or extra insulation or weather stripping or CFL light bulbs or ANYTHING that will reduce your homes ENERGY USE, because energy use is where all our pollution comes from in Canada. We use a lot of energy in this country, especially in the winter. Way more per capita than the US - in fact we're worst in the G8. And worst of ALL is se still rely on a lot of very dirty coal power plants to do it.

Wow, talk about spreading disinformation. Do you really think water becomes magically clean after you use it? It takes a lot of resources to operate waste water treatment plants. This in turn creates a lot of pollution.

Where are you pulling this 2L/flush savings from? I have a 12 year old American Standard in the house that uses 16L/flush. Just for your benefit, here's an example: 4 people in the household, 4 flushes per person per day. If you replace it (or however many toilets you might have in the house) with a 4.8L toilet, that's a savings of 65.4m^3 of water. That's 131 times as much water saved as your jaded "estimate" of 0.5m^3 of water.

In Toronto, the cost per m^3 is $1.62, with an increase of 9% per year for the next few years. You could recover the cost of your new toilet(s) in as little as 1-2 years. And yes, this would considerably reduce the amount of pollution you put out.

[telman]

I was recently in Australia and every tiolet there was a dual flush and I was impressed, there were no problems described above, so it can be done. But because we don't see the problem we tend not to believe there is a problem. But think of it, we use chlorine to clean our water, a deadly substance, the less we use the better. And every little bit helps.

[scan]

You should read some of my other posts in this forum. Water does not "deplete". It exists forever. Nature naturally renews the water supply, constantly. The planet is covered with the stuff. The water scarcity problem is an entirely human created one, we want to build cities where water doesn't exist, so we steal it from places it does. If people stopped doing that then nature would immediately restore th ebalence.

"Water conservation" is just market-speak for your municipality trying to cut water distribution costs. Like I said before - what ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT difference if you replace your toilet to save a measly 500 L/year when every year your city flushes 100s of fire hydrants and hundreds of thousands of KL of water into the storm drain to flush out sediment?

Every single person in the city of Toronto could save 2L / flush and it still would not equal the amount the city blasts away every spring on hydrants and washing the roads and running decorative fountains other stupid enavdevours.

But guess what, it doesn't matter, because fresh water falls from the sky! If you want to really save water than you should be concentrating your efforts on reducing AIR pollutants because that is what ends up destroying the water supply. "Using up" water does nothing. I take water from the lake / aquifier, I run it down the drain, it goes to treatment plant, sewage is maybe separated, water goes back into environment, it evaporates, it falls as rain. No water is lost during this process.

My point is you're better off using that $100 you'd waste on a dual flush toilet and using it for something more productive, like put it toward some new windows or extra insulation or weather stripping or CFL light bulbs or ANYTHING that will reduce your homes ENERGY USE, because energy use is where all our pollution comes from in Canada. We use a lot of energy in this country, especially in the winter. Way more per capita than the US - in fact we're worst in the G8. And worst of ALL is se still rely on a lot of very dirty coal power plants to do it.

where do you come up with this bs?

[brunes]

Wow, talk about spreading disinformation. Do you really think water becomes magically clean after you use it? It takes a lot of resources to operate waste water treatment plants. This in turn creates a lot of pollution.

Do you know how water treatment plans work ? The most important part of the water treatment process is time, nothing more. Time for nature and bacteria to do it's job. There is not much energy involved - certainly nothing compared to household heat waste. Do some reading:

http://home.howstuffworks.com/sewer3.htm

Where are you pulling this 2L/flush savings from? I have a 12 year old American Standard in the house that uses 16L/flush.

A standard residential toilet uses 1.6 gallons per flush, or 6L. Don't belive me go to HomeDepot.com. This has not changed significantly at al l in the past 5 years.

A dual-flush uses 4/6, hence 2L savings / flush.

I dunno WTF you have in your house that has a 16L tank - that is GARGANTUAN and certainly non-standard. The toilet in my house is easily 20 years old and only uses 1.8 gallons / flush. Therefore rest of your math is garbage.


In Toronto, the cost per m^3 is $1.62, with an increase of 9% per year for the next few years. You could recover the cost of your new toilet(s) in as little as 1-2 years. And yes, this would considerably reduce the amount of pollution you put out.

So you pay twice as much for water as the rest of the country - of course you do, you live in a high population density area, therefore, you are hard on resources. Your housing is also 10 times as expensive. This doesn't make anything else I said false.

The "pollution" humans put in water directly, our feces, is bio-degradable. It is nothing mother nature can not handle given time. And you using more water per flush is just putting clean water through the system anyway,

The pollution we put in INDIRECTLY, through the burning of coal and oil creating acid rain, is what it CAN NOT handle. It has nearly wiped out entire ecosystems in Scandinavian countries, it could easily do the same here.

[brunes]

I was recently in Australia and every tiolet there was a dual flush and I was impressed, there were no problems described above, so it can be done. But because we don't see the problem we tend not to believe there is a problem. But think of it, we use chlorine to clean our water, a deadly substance, the less we use the better. And every little bit helps.

Chlorination of water is to kill the bacteria that ate the feces in the water. It's a necessary step in the treatment of fecal mater, not semi-clean water. You using 2 extra liters of clean water per flush will not affect the amount of required chlorine since the amount of fecal matter (and therefore bacteria that eats it after) remains constant.

Point being, unless you somehow start to crap less, or do it outside, your not saving any chlorine by saving the use of clean water.

[telman]

The city delivers clean chlorinated water to my house, whether I use it for the crapper or watering my lawn, so I thinking the less water I use overall, the less, clean chlorinated water the city delivers to me and the less chlorine they use. If water conservation is not important, are all the governments, green groups talking nonsense? I am thinking there must be some benefits associated with conserving water or like many psuedo green thoughts, it would slowly disappear. I am going have to spend the day reading the internet to make up my own mind, and that usually hurts!

[ghostryder]

Chlorination of water is to kill the bacteria that ate the feces in the water. It's a necessary step in the treatment of fecal mater, not semi-clean water. You using 2 extra liters of clean water per flush will not affect the amount of required chlorine since the amount of fecal matter (and therefore bacteria that eats it after) remains constant.

Point being, unless you somehow start to crap less, or do it outside, your not saving any chlorine by saving the use of clean water.

Do you know how water treatment plans work ? The most important part of the water treatment process is time, nothing more. Time for nature and bacteria to do it's job. There is not much energy involved - certainly nothing compared to household heat waste. Do some reading:

http://home.howstuffworks.com/sewer3.htm

But the water going into my toilet comes from the water treatment plant, not the WASTE water treatment plant.

[telman]

Just quickly looking at the link, http://home.howstuffworks.com/sewer3.htm chlorine is applied once sometime twice before the water is discharged. Coming back to me, chlorine is used again as water is always treated , (remember the Walkerton diaster) so yes reducing water consumption would use less chlorine.

[malbadon]

AAAAAANYway. back on track. TOTO makes highly highly regarded toilets. You wouldn't go wrong with one but you will definately pay $ for one.
When we replaced one of our toilets I was looking at a Toto Drake, and there is a good plumbing forum, http://terrylove.com/forums where the guy is a plumber and just honestly reviews all the different toilets and people talk about them.
I guess American Standard decided to copy the Drake and came out with the Cadet 3 (not to be confused with the Cadet III). We ended up buying it instead of the Drake and haven't been disapointed. Half the price, and we did see a drop in our water bill. Not shocking or anything (there's only two of us and we aren't home enough to ..er..take advantage of it), but I guess if you actually use it every day or have a big family, it would be a larger savings.

[st7860]

Just quickly looking at the link, http://home.howstuffworks.com/sewer3.htm chlorine is applied once sometime twice before the water is discharged. Coming back to me, chlorine is used again as water is always treated , (remember the Walkerton diaster) so yes reducing water consumption would use less chlorine.

well, thats obvious to everyone except him. using less water will mean less water has to be treated at the source.

[d-c]

Do you know how water treatment plans work ? The most important part of the water treatment process is time, nothing more. Time for nature and bacteria to do it's job. There is not much energy involved - certainly nothing compared to household heat waste. Do some reading:

http://home.howstuffworks.com/sewer3.htm

A standard residential toilet uses 1.6 gallons per flush, or 6L. Don't belive me go to HomeDepot.com. This has not changed significantly at al l in the past 5 years.

A dual-flush uses 4/6, hence 2L savings / flush.

I dunno WTF you have in your house that has a 16L tank - that is GARGANTUAN and certainly non-standard. The toilet in my house is easily 20 years old and only uses 1.8 gallons / flush. Therefore rest of your math is garbage.



So you pay twice as much for water as the rest of the country - of course you do, you live in a high population density area, therefore, you are hard on resources. Your housing is also 10 times as expensive. This doesn't make anything else I said false.

The "pollution" humans put in water directly, our feces, is bio-degradable. It is nothing mother nature can not handle given time. And you using more water per flush is just putting clean water through the system anyway,

The pollution we put in INDIRECTLY, through the burning of coal and oil creating acid rain, is what it CAN NOT handle. It has nearly wiped out entire ecosystems in Scandinavian countries, it could easily do the same here.

Yes, I'm aware all the new high-efficiency toilets are 4.8-6L per flush. That's not the point. Do you really think everybody has new high-efficiency toilets? Just google something like "average toilet water usage" and you can find plenty of data. Here's a study of Seattle by the EPA for you: PDF (http://www.aquacraft.com/Publications/EPA_Combined_Retrofit_Report.pdf)

Here's a summary for you. The average toilet used 3.6 gallons (13.6L) per flush and the average resident flushed 5.2 flushes a day. Obviously, just because you might happen to have a 6L toilet doesn't mean that everybody else in Canada does.

You really know for a fact that "the most important part of the water treatment process is time, nothing more" and that "there is not much energy involved"? How come the California Energy Commission found that almost 20% of the state's electricity is used to supply and treat municipal water? Here's the report if you're really interested in using facts in a reasoned argument instead of spouting nonsense and personal attacks: PDF (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-700-2005-011/CEC-700-2005-011-SF.PDF)

The cost of delivering basic services to a high-density area is much lower per capita than to a low-density area. That should be blatantly obvious.

This is my last reply to your uncouth posts and ludicrous unsubstantiated claims in this thread. It looks like you're the only one that's being mislead by your attempts to spread misinformation and by your delusions of intellect anyway.

[tom_seng]

I SO love forums! They bring out the worst in everyone! Envrionmental Issues ALWAYS have some sort of give and take, no matter which perspective you look at.

Anyways, there's this dual flush adapter that a company in Lethbridge, Alberta designs. It's used to retrofit toilets to be dual flush.

http://www.twoflush.com/

The one thing I really worry about is parts availability? Can anyone check reviews for it?

[MethodMan]

This combined with the fact that I don't believe water conservation is really an environmental concern in Canada means I won't be getting one any time soon.

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read in a while.

[brunes]

Yes, I'm aware all the new high-efficiency toilets are 4.8-6L per flush. That's not the point. Do you really think everybody has new high-efficiency toilets? Just google something like "average toilet water usage" and you can find plenty of data. Here's a study of Seattle by the EPA for you: PDF (http://www.aquacraft.com/Publications/EPA_Combined_Retrofit_Report.pdf)

Here's a summary for you. The average toilet used 3.6 gallons (13.6L) per flush and the average resident flushed 5.2 flushes a day. Obviously, just because you might happen to have a 6L toilet doesn't mean that everybody else in Canada does.

You really know for a fact that "the most important part of the water treatment process is time, nothing more" and that "there is not much energy involved"? How come the California Energy Commission found that almost 20% of the state's electricity is used to supply and treat municipal water? Here's the report if you're really interested in using facts in a reasoned argument instead of spouting nonsense and personal attacks: PDF (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-700-2005-011/CEC-700-2005-011-SF.PDF)

The cost of delivering basic services to a high-density area is much lower per capita than to a low-density area. That should be blatantly obvious.

This is my last reply to your uncouth posts and ludicrous unsubstantiated claims in this thread. It looks like you're the only one that's being mislead by your attempts to spread misinformation and by your delusions of intellect anyway.

For starters, in Canada, the % energy usage of water distribution is going to be a much lower number than 20%. Its proportion is so high in California because they do not have to spend vast amount of energy on heating or cooling because even though they are far south, most of the population lives on the coast the ocean acts as a temperature sink. It doesn't get above 70 in LA very often, in fact, the average temp. almost year around is 60-65 degrees (ref: CityRating.com).

In Canada we DO spend a ton on heating during the winter (and cooling in the summer, because most of our population lives inland in south-eastern Ont where it gets very hot).

Aside from this obvious fact - I still have not hearn anyone refute my key point. "Water conservation" is just market-speak for your municipality trying to cut water distribution costs. Like I said before - what ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT difference if you replace your toilet to save a measly 500 L/year when every year your city flushes 100s of fire hydrants and hundreds of thousands of KL of water into the storm drain to flush out sediment?

With these statistics 1,000+ people would have to install HET toilets to compensate for *one* fire hydrant flush.

And what about other blatent wastes of water municipalities have? Stupid decorative public water fountains. Irresponsible irrigation practices that could be replaced by sensible low-cost rainwater management solutions. Inefficient municipal COMMERCIAL toilets. Etc etc, the list goes on.

Until cities start conserving water and not wasting it citizens should not waste their time and money doing things that have no impact. Spend it on things that DO have impact. Take your $100 you'd waste on your HET toilet (which would also end up sending your other toilet into a landfill) and use it to plant a few hundred trees.

[gwn]

Back to the topic of dual flush, we put in a Rona brand 4/6 litre two piece toilet. There are two buttons one for 4 and another for 6 litre flushes. The 4L is fine for urine and the 6L does a good job on the brown stuff. After the $100 rebate from Peel, it cost approx $150 excluding taxes.

Thanks,
Art

[chadhumm]

Its the right thing to do. Nature doesnt always replinish the water supply by "making it fall from the sky". There is a term 'drought' which occurs and you do not know ahead of time when it will. Atlanta, GA is a good example. You can waste now and years down the road wish you could go back and get a do over. Maybe you will be one of the lucky ones and never have a water shortage or drought in your area but the fact is that many people will have to deal with that problem. Here water costs about 2 cents per gallon when taxes and fees are figured in, and there is no shortage here. I conserve for the environment and to lower my water bill. When and if supply gets low I am doing my part to conserve. Toilets before 1980 used 6-7 gallons per flush. From 1980-1994 the average toilet used 3-4 gallons a flush , the new standard came in in 94' perhaps 96' of 1.6 gpf. My toilet gets flushed 5 times a day, I save 12 gallons a day =372 permonth =4464 gallons a year. Thats for 1 person. double that for a 2 person househld. 4464 at 2 cents a gallon is $90 a year in water saving. It would be a saving of $180 a year for 2 people. You can find good quality 1.25 to 1.6 gpf toilets for under $100 making your payback period about a year if your a single person 6 months for a 2 person household. American Standard and Glacier Bay both are fine toilets you dont need a $400 toilet to save water.

[turtletom]

A couple of weeks ago I saw a dual flush toilet at Home Depot for $110 and it qualified for the $100 rebate. They had a bunch of them lined up near the front of the store.

I had a Toto Drake installed. It's not a dual flush but it works very well. However it is expensive.

[st7860]

install a graywater collection system to use for flushing your toilet.

[1226]

.

[Seafury]

We have one, I havent noticed anything significant. Theres so many other factors though in water usage. I doubt we'd see more than a 5% difference, which to me isnt really statistically significant because water usage fluctuates. Esp since sometimes a double flush is required anyways (to get rid of paper). If you have to change a toilet, I'd consider it, but no way would I recommend getting rid of a perfectly fine toilet (into the landfill) over something thats still kind of gimmicky. Thats the problem with the eco friendly fad...it encourages wastefulness in order to fuel a new economy based on unproven gimmicks.

Regardless of the amount of water saved, which will vary by toilet tank size, it's still water saved. You don't need to get a whole new toilet to have a dual flush toilet. http://www.dualflushtoilet.ca is a good example of a dual flush retrofit kit. (That is not an affiliate link).

[animex]

anyone here has any experience with rona dual flush toilet or sears $199 one?

[dendrobate]

Anyone just try the easiest savings method ? Just add a brick or some other weighted item to displace the water, and reduce the amount of water filled in the tank :idea: Been doing this for years, cost NOTHING.

[animex]

Anyone just try the easiest savings method ? Just add a brick or some other weighted item to displace the water, and reduce the amount of water filled in the tank :idea: Been doing this for years, cost NOTHING.

With bricks or a bottle of water didn't work too well for me. Sometimes I had to flush twice.
Rona's dual flush toilet has been working great so far. Installed it myself and it was easy. Replaced all 3 other toilets in the house. Looks very compact too.

[brunes]

Anyone just try the easiest savings method ? Just add a brick or some other weighted item to displace the water, and reduce the amount of water filled in the tank :idea: Been doing this for years, cost NOTHING.

If all you want to do is make the tank hold less water, you can just adjust the floater arm - that's what it is for. You don't need put put a brick in it or other such nonsense.


EDIT: Food for thought - a dual flush toilet touted to save 6000 gallons / year, at $1.02 / KL ( my local rate ), saves you $23 / year. That's an awful long payback for a $150+ toilet. Even the retrofit kit at $50 is a 3 year payback.

[Carpe Diem]

Using the 3L for a heavy number 2 works most of the time for me.

If there is a best post 2008, I nominate this.

[st7860]

get an american standard Type R
http://www.markdepot.com/toilet/
http://www.markdepot.com/toilet/closed.jpg

[rb]

I put in 3 Rona 6l toilets (installed myself) - each costs $129 complete and get $60- rebate from Peel. My sister who had changed to similar toilets a few months back said her water bill fell 50% from approx $80 to around $40 every 3 months ....I only installed 3 weeks ago so can't make any claims on savings. I also will get $100 back for each toilet as I am doing the home energy audit so essentially the toilets will be free. I think that a 30-40% saving on your water bill is quite reasonable to assume. My water bill over a year is $320 so I expect to save $100 a year. I iwll be posting some of the results of the changes i made in the next 3 months (tankless water heater, new furnace and toilets)

[cheeseshredder]

You should read some of my other posts in this forum. Water does not "deplete". It exists forever. Nature naturally renews the water supply, constantly. The planet is covered with the stuff. The water scarcity problem is an entirely human created one, we want to build cities where water doesn't exist, so we steal it from places it does. If people stopped doing that then nature would immediately restore th ebalence.

"Water conservation" is just market-speak for your municipality trying to cut water distribution costs. Like I said before - what ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT difference if you replace your toilet to save a measly 500 L/year when every year your city flushes 100s of fire hydrants and hundreds of thousands of KL of water into the storm drain to flush out sediment?

Every single person in the city of Toronto could save 2L / flush and it still would not equal the amount the city blasts away every spring on hydrants and washing the roads and running decorative fountains other stupid enavdevours.

But guess what, it doesn't matter, because fresh water falls from the sky! If you want to really save water than you should be concentrating your efforts on reducing AIR pollutants because that is what ends up destroying the water supply. "Using up" water does nothing. I take water from the lake / aquifier, I run it down the drain, it goes to treatment plant, sewage is maybe separated, water goes back into environment, it evaporates, it falls as rain. No water is lost during this process.

My point is you're better off using that $100 you'd waste on a dual flush toilet and using it for something more productive, like put it toward some new windows or extra insulation or weather stripping or CFL light bulbs or ANYTHING that will reduce your homes ENERGY USE, because energy use is where all our pollution comes from in Canada. We use a lot of energy in this country, especially in the winter. Way more per capita than the US - in fact we're worst in the G8. And worst of ALL is se still rely on a lot of very dirty coal power plants to do it.

Please do more research.

[brunes]

I put in 3 Rona 6l toilets (installed myself) - each costs $129 complete and get $60- rebate from Peel. My sister who had changed to similar toilets a few months back said her water bill fell 50% from approx $80 to around $40 every 3 months ....I only installed 3 weeks ago so can't make any claims on savings. I also will get $100 back for each toilet as I am doing the home energy audit so essentially the toilets will be free. I think that a 30-40% saving on your water bill is quite reasonable to assume. My water bill over a year is $320 so I expect to save $100 a year. I iwll be posting some of the results of the changes i made in the next 3 months (tankless water heater, new furnace and toilets)

How much is your water / KL to save that much ?!?!?

[thrifty1]

Just remember that if you have an older home (say thirty plus years) the waste pipes in your house will likely not be plastic. The corrosion in your old plumbing will make using a low-flush unit a real pain as the extra water is needed to run the solids along... just a thought

[sixer]

I would avoid the cheap dual flush toilets, poor quality

[Darth Menace]

yeah ive installed two of them! they are amazing if people work it right. push for pee/pull for poo

[astroboi]

Here are the recent MaP test results for toilets to help you choose:

http://www.cwwa.ca/pdf_files/WEN%20-%20WatersenseHET%20(jan09).pdf

[astroboi]

Well, I went out and bought 4 low flush toilets today to replace all of my existing toilets from Home Depot. I decided to go with:

3 x Ceralux (Vitra) Evergreen, 800g, round bowl, unlined, 4.5L

1 x American Standard Cadet 3, 1000g, round bowl, lined, 6L (complete kit)

The Ceralux toilets will go in the ensuite, main and half baths and the stronger American Standard will go in the basement. It's my understanding that having a strong toilet in the basement is a must since you don't have the full benefit of gravity. It was also important that the basement toilet tank be lined because the washroom is very small and gets very steamy during showers.

My total cost came out to almost $900 after tax, but I will be getting $360 back from the region of Peel, $400 from provincial/federal rebates (I did an energy audit) and I'll get another $100 gift certificate from HD as they currently have bathroom renovation incentive.

I also picked up a few indoor water saving kits from the region of Peel for $5. They include a 4L per minute shower head, kitchen and bathroom sink aerators, toilet leak tabs, teflon tape and toilet tank displacement bag (which I won't need anymore).

[softballguy]

Lowes has an American Standard on sale til, I believe the 26th, for $175... York region has a $75 rebate as well.

Rebate expires end of year

[new_vr]

I dunno WTF you have in your house that has a 16L tank - that is GARGANTUAN and certainly non-standard. The toilet in my house is easily 20 years old and only uses 1.8 gallons / flush. Therefore rest of your math is garbage.


We just bought a 30 year old house. One of the toilets used 12L/flush and the other 20L/ flush...so they are out there. I am just replacing them with 6L/flush because they work fine and are simple.
Also, the biggest consumer of water is the waste water plant, with nowhere else being even close. I know this from talking to the manager of the water plant