Ilemobade et al. (2013) investigated locally available greywater technologies (Water Rhapsody Conservation Systems) as the preferred system appropriate for two pilot sites (University of Johannesburg (UJ) and University of the Witwatersrand (WITS). The selection was based on the fact that it was cheap, rugged, functional and easy to change/upgrade if and when necessary. Perceptions highlighted included respondents’ preferences to reuse greywater for toilet flushing rather than irrigation (Li et al. 2009). The FLFT systems shall be set up in 70-100L plastic containers. The treatment system shall be placed near the garden and coupled with a drip irrigation systems
The FLFT designed in this study is a cheap, easy-to-use technology requiring minimal resources for repairs, maintenance and operation. It was also design to limit the potential for theft of the components. The system also favours the rapid growth and development of both microorganisms and macrofauna (e.g. worms) necessary for the rapid degradation of considerable amounts of fat and food particles, thus eliminating the screening process). For these reasons, he FLFT is considered an appropriate technology that can be deployed on a large scale and the proposed phases for the launched of the technology into the South African market are provided in Figure 7.1.
Phase 1
*Phase 1= P1, Phase 2= P2; Phase3 = P3; Phase 4 = P4
Figure 7.1: Schematic illustration of phases involved in the development and commercialisation of the fly ash lime filter tower technology
The project is based in the Eastern Cape at Rhodes University where it is currently in the bridging phase (P3) (Figure 7.1).Scaling up will soon commence. By setting up a pilot study within 5 residences, onsite treatment of greywater, investigating the storage methods of the treated water, characterisation of treated wastewater and the use se of treated wastewater for flushing toilet and irrigation. This will take place from March to July 2015.
Figure 7.2: Schematic representation showing how the FLFT will look like. A- is represented as a house, B1 and B2 are pipe connections, C1- is the influent (water) level, C2- FLFT system discs and D- greywater used for irrigation
The FLFT market strategy is characterised as to be in secondary phase, and the FLFT services in the phase project is in the forefront of the fuzzy front end of innovation. In phase 1 “early process of ideas” development is in many respects technique driven, where the technical skills of the founders are decisive for the generation of new ideas. In this case, the technology was developed by Zuma et al (2009). In 2012 phase 2 was handed over to other research group members where they focused on the improvement of the FLFT to increase its efficiency. In phase 3 the technology constitutes became the platform of the project and it is of high importance to focus on such aspects. However, the commercialisation aspect is also
highly relevant for possibilities of bringing the FLFT to the market. The FLFT services associated with the P2 project is at present moving from Phase 3 to Phase 4 where distinct actions are needed to take place. Real customers need technologies that are developed for attractive services that fill a particular function and helps customers/users of the system to develop their competitive advantages. The P4 needs to be further developed and also show that customers are reached and that attractive offerings are available. Offerings can be made in this phase or be directly designed and adjusted to the particular customers’ needs. This will be first preliminary business model is in this phase designed and organized see figure 7.2.
After this the project will continue to explore on the P4-work processes and maturity phases of the FLFT market in relation to the financial base which will be detailed in Table 3.
Installation of the optimised system in different settlements will assist when dealing with technical innovations as it is important to involve all stakeholders to increase the potential for market success. It is therefore, of vital importance for the FLFT technology to involve both their presumptive users as well as their customers to understand their needs as well as the social impact the innovations that are being tested in the system might have. While contributing in the maturity of the technology, which also influences end-users possibilities to contribute to the development of the technology where immature technology is more likely to render user feedback. However, the business aspect is also highly relevant for possibilities of bringing the FLFT services to the market. Much of the public concern around greywater reuse is related to a lack of information about the long-term health and environmental impacts of greywater. Domenech et al. 2010; Kulabako et al. 2009; Carden et al. 2009). This pilot study will answer some of the questions as it will examine the long-term impacts of greywater on human health and soil chemistry. Information from SEWPACKSA and international research organizations would be especially useful create a sustainable and self
regulated industries (SEWPACKSA, 2015). Greywater reuse is often considered primarily as a benefit in terms of water conservation, it also conserves energy, saves or reduces waste, and therefore the FLFT technology will use different financing approaches (Pidou et al. 2007; Li et al. 2009). Therefore, financing efforts will consider the cobenefits that could be provided to water suppliers, energy suppliers, wastewater utilities, and additional water users. This will better public information and awareness of the opportunities, benefits and risks associated with greywater will be necessary to expand greywater reuse through greywater education and outreach.
7.4. The purpose of the technology model
There are two general approaches to innovation: market-pull and technology push (Rennings 2000). A technology push implies that a new invention is pushed through Research and Development (R&D). In contrast, in market-pull, a new technology is developed through R&D in response to an identified market need (Brem 2009; Smith 2007). In the market pull approach, the market is the main source of innovation, and new product development is a direct consequence of explicit needs expressed by the consumers (Dell’Era et al. 2010). The developed technology in this study could be considered as technology push, hinged on the need for removal of phosphorus and indicator microorganisms. However, the launch of the technology will be driven by both market pull and technology push. It is also driven by market pull because of the necessity for decentralised systems, which are difficult to vandalise unlike centralised system that are easily targeted. At the same time, the uncontrolled rate of urbanisation will be yet another market pull factor for its uptake in the market. The developed technology can help rural settlement dwellers, farmers, and private home owners to reduce their water consumption by reusing greywater. Reducing water consumption is particularly important in communities, such as Grahamstown that experiences incessant water shortages and interruptions. With a growing student population in Grahamstown and increasing overall population, the scaling up of the project will help contribute to water reuse and thus reducing the burden on the already over-stretched infrastructures. Furthermore, the full-scale implementation can enable exchange of information between institutions, policymakers, city planners, engineers, public health professionals, and developer.
General costs of treating greywater are high, but decentralised treatment systems have been used on farms, at teaching institutions and in rural areas (Mwenge & Taigbenu 2011). In 2008, 78% of South Africa’s rural population had access to improved water sources, while access in the urban population was estimated at 99% (UNICEF & WHO 2012). Studies show greywater as not suitable for drinking without treatment, unless it is treated to levels accepted for human consumption (Amin & Han 2011). It can provide a source of gardening watering, toilet flushing, house cleaning, similar to portable water. There may be risks associated with human contact in the houses, thus gardening on vegetation which will not be consumed
without cooking is the safest use. Household level treatment is expensive and time consuming and is thus not often practised (Monyai 2004). General costs of treating rainwater are high, but greywater have been used on farms, at teaching institutions and in rural areas for the poor (Mwenge & Taigbenu 2011).
r\ r \r \
Conceptual laterial design Process DesigW and evaluation
Capital and Project Cost.
Estimates