Has anyone installed a dual flush or HET toilet?

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/watersm...-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/watersm...t-sep-2007.pdf

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. I think you save a lot more water with a low flow shower head and shorter showers.

edit...nvm

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by brunes

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..

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Arabian_Princess

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.

Originally Posted by Arabian_Princess

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.

Originally Posted by brunes

"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.

Originally Posted by brunes

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.

Originally Posted by brunes

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.