Passive
One of 4 ways to meet this need. Cost, carbon, footprint and rankings are relative to other solutions for the same need, not absolute.
A pressurised feed, because a mist needs pressure that a gravity tank will not give. A drain and a sloped floor or tray. Nothing structural is touched, so it goes into an existing enclosure
Two fixed misters wet the body with a fine spray instead of a stream, with a third movable one for rinsing. A whole shower fits in 2 to 5 litres, against the 60 to 80 a day a conventional shower accounts for, because a mist wets skin using a small fraction of what a jet delivers. The hot water comes from a small insulated point-of-use tank -- 2 litres at 75 C in the build this is drawn from -- so the energy falls with the volume rather than as a separate measure. Two consequences are physics rather than detail: fine droplets cool fast, so in winter the tank has to start above 70 C, and the shower ends cold as the tank empties, which is what sets its length. Misting also wets more slowly than a jet, so it takes longer, particularly with long hair.
Compare building and maintaining complexity, as well as efficiency where possible.
| Solution | Build skill | Upkeep burden | Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gravity-fed shower | Basic | 2 | #3 |
| Pressurised mains-fed shower/bath | Intermediate | 4 | #4 |
| Closed-loop recirculating shower | Specialist | 8 | #1 |
| Misting shower | Intermediate | 3 | #2 |
Build skill and upkeep burden are proxies (lower burden = simpler to maintain); the efficiency column is this sub-function’s ranking, 1 = best. “N/A” where an axis isn’t rated here.
No sizing or quantities: how much a technique yields, and how much a household needs, both depend on the build and the people, so the catalogue compares options rather than dimensioning them. It carries no bill of materials and no build sequence, and it is written for an oceanic, clay-soil climate (Normandy, France). Regulatory notes are indicative and need confirming locally.