Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday May 30 2019, @03:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the comes-from-eating-too-many-Freedom-Fries dept.

US Department of Energy is now referring to fossil fuels as "freedom gas"

Call it a rebranding of "energy dominance." In a press release published on Tuesday, two Department of Energy officials used the terms "freedom gas" and "molecules of US freedom" to replace your average, everyday term "natural gas."

The press release was fairly standard, announcing the expansion of a Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminal at the Freeport facility on Quintana Island, Texas. It would have gone unnoticed had an E&E News reporter not noted the unique metonymy "molecules of US freedom."

DOE Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Steven Winberg is quoted as saying, "With the US in another year of record-setting natural gas production, I am pleased that the Department of Energy is doing what it can to promote an efficient regulatory system that allows for molecules of US freedom to be exported to the world."

Artist's depiction of this news.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Thursday May 30 2019, @04:00PM (4 children)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 30 2019, @04:00PM (#849317) Journal

    They say this design can operate on "spent reactor fuel". If it lives up to the advance billing, this will wipe out all my objections to nuclear fission power.

    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/05/seaborg-molten-salt-reactor-will-fit-on-a-truck-and-cost-less-than-coal-power.html [nextbigfuture.com]

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Thursday May 30 2019, @04:23PM (1 child)

    by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 30 2019, @04:23PM (#849324) Journal

    If objections to technologies were subject to rational analysis we would live in a very different world.

    --
    В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday May 30 2019, @04:29PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 30 2019, @04:29PM (#849326) Journal

      While I will grant that not all objections to technology are rooted in reality, I try to ensure that mine are. I'm certain I don't always succeed, but I try. This is also true of my desires for technology. Often a technology looks good on the surface, but contains implicit results that are excessively damaging. I'm sure you can think of examples.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday May 30 2019, @07:33PM

    by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday May 30 2019, @07:33PM (#849404)

    Operates on "spent reactor fuel"? You mean, like garbage [youtube.com]?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 30 2019, @07:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 30 2019, @07:37PM (#849405)

    And it requires thorium as a moderating agent. And why that's a problem [forbes.com]. So, have they made any progress since 2014? Are they on track with their timetable that Wikipedia gives?

    Don't misunderstand - I think reusing spent fuel would be a laudable goal. But everything here looks like its on paper so far.