Fresh from sea-water ... and hydrogen too

 

Malta always had a water problem.  Every living being needs water to survive, and man is no exception.  The country is not endowed with consistent natural rivers, and along the times gathered water from wells, looked for streams out of rocks and dug holes in the ground, to be able to drink along with his animals, cook, irrigate.

 

With a growing population, usage grew commensurately, and the amount of holes in the ground increased, became deeper and so much water was extracted that some streams dried up, and the water raised started being salty such that it was hardly potable any longer.

 

Desalination entered into the picture, that is the production of fresh water from sea water.  The first type was distillation, where sea water is heated until boiling, steam rises leaving behind the salt that remains in water more and more concentrated.  The steam rises until it meets a cool surface, condenses and is gathered as fresh water.  The first such plant started in 1966.  This is a very expensive plant to run, as all the water that needs to be so procesed has to be boiled, which is very energy intensive.

 

An innovative version of this process is reverse osmosis.  Imaging having salt water on the left of, and less salty water on the right of a membrane.  In normal conditions of temperature and pressure, there will be a tendency for water to pass from the right to the left, through the pores of the membrane, until the water on both sides have the same salt content.  This process is osmosis.

 

In reverse osmosis, the more salty side is compressed, with the effect that water flow in the membrane is reversed, that is the salty side becomes even more salty as the water has the tendency of seeping to the other side.

 

Malta has several plants of this type, the first built at Għar Lapsi in 1982,1 and for many years was well known in the world as a laboratory for this technology.

 

Recently I was reading about an interesting development for this technology, which could potentially be used also for the production of hydrogen, a simple element, the first produced in the universe, and also a fuel being mentioned as having an important role on this earth in the fight against climate change.

 

Researchers have announced having found a different use for reverse osmosis membranes in electrolysis, that is the production of hydrogen and oxygen from water and electrical current.  Up to now, the production of these gases needed fresh water, as sea water couldn’t be used due to the parallel production of chlorine, with is a toxic gas (salt chemically consists of sodium and chlorine).

 

The researchers found that oxygen is produced on the positive side (anode) and hydrogen on the negative side (cathode) as happens normally during electrolysis, but chlorine can be prevented from passing from one side to the other, which happens during conventional electrolysis, by a reverse osmosis membrane.  This is a huge advantage.2

 

So far, in this research the membrane is only used for electrolysis, not also to produce fresh water at the same time.  Nevertheless, if this research is commercialised, Malta with its experience in the field of reverse osmosis and its limitless resources of sea water, can make use of this technology as a new industry if combined with a renewable source of energy.

I would follow such a development with great interest.

 

1https://www.wsc.com.mt/about-us/our-history/, retrieved 10/6/2021

2https://acapmag.com.au/2020/09/generating-renewable-hydrogen-fuel-from-sea/, retrieved 10/6/2021

Stealing that isn't

 

One of the memorable stories in the land of our forefathers was the coming of the French at the end of the eighteenth century, who took the islands from the Knights of St John at the time of GrandMaster Hompesch.

 

It is memorable as the Maltese themselves rebelled against the French rulers, after they found that positive reforms introduced by the French such as the equality (on paper) of everyone under the law, the establishment of primary schools for the education of Maltese children, the prohibition of bonavolji (a form of voluntary slavery on vessels for those unable to pay their bills)1 etc, was not enough to make up for a general lack of payments such as for damages incurred during the French coming, pensions, an increase in pawning rates etc.2

 

However surely the straw the broke the Maltese camel’s back was the taking of silver and gold from churches and the Order’s auberges.  Perhaps the most famous treasure is the sword of GrandMaster La Valette that ended up, and still is at, the Louvre Museum in Paris, and I still remember this being mentioned clearly in a childhood history lesson.

 

It wasn’t clear what had become of the treasures taken by the French.  Some thought these had been loaded on the Orient galley which from Malta went with Napoleon’s fleet to attack Egypt.  The Orient ended up at the bottom of Aboukir bay so it was thought that the Maltese treasure was there also, although this begs the question why would a treasure of such high value be loaded onto a ship going to war.

 

Recently there was an article by Dr J.F. Grima that concluded that the treasure was not on the Orient, but had been taken to the army’s treasury, parts of which were sold in Malta and Egypt, others melted into ingots or coins etc.  There were some other items of value in another vessel called Sensible which from Malta sailed towards France but was intercepted by the English, and the valuable objects thereon went hither and thither.

 

Nevertheless, the comment that struck me most from this article was that the rights to all property snatched by the French had been lost as the Order had surrendered.  In other words, La Valette’s sword in France now belongs to the French, as the Order had lost its confrontation with the French.

 

What?

 

Just imagine someone breaking into your house, in the dark of night.  You wake up in the middle of the night and find a stranger pointing a knife in your direction, threatening you and you family if you even attempt to stop him sweeping your adobe for any items of value you might have.  You decide not to risk your life and those of your loved ones, and do not resist the implementation of his plans.

 

Since you offered no resistance and let him leave, then you’ve lost every right to the items he’s pilfered.

 

Does this really make sense?

 

In criminal law, stealing exists, amongst others, when the taking of objects is done without the consent of the owner, and in the case of the example given above, this consent was not there, clearly.

 

In the case of Malta’s treasures taken by the French, one can point to the capitulation signed by the GrandMaster on 12th June 798, as the day when all rights on property held by the Order were ceded.  However is this truly the end of the story?  Is capitulation at knife point valid?

 

In the second World War, the Nazis also stole a vast amount of treasure, in precious metals, arti, cultural objects etc, which after their final defeat there was widespread action for the identification as far as possible of what had been stolen in order to return same to the original private or state owners from whom it was taken.

 

I don’t understand why this principle does not also apply to the French Republic, when Napoleon’s era ended with the battle of Waterloo in 1815 against the allies of Great Britain, Holland, Prussia and others.  It is in Malta’s interest to keep insisting that what has been taken be returned.

 

 

 

 

1L-Ilsiera fi żmien L-ordni f’Malta (5); L-Orizzont; 18/5/2017; p.20

2Ġrajjet Malta - it-tielet ktieb; p185