Many of them would also be in the category of running a fuel enriched beyond what is allowed in civilian reactors.

You could start with Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-sulfur_battery

Good insulation, and you don't heat the building, you heat the guts of the battery. Also, the lost energy is likely heating the battery.

Not the ones I've seen. (Hospital and nuke reactor backup.)

Check your state's laws. Some states have laws protecting workers from this, making such clauses unenforceable. I personally recall a co-worker I had who found our state's (Washington) law WRT this and challenged our employer over the issue (mid 90s). (I wish I had the citation handy for my example, but I don't.)

Do you even know what that word means? It doesn't seem like you do due to how you use it. A comment like this getting +5 is why I think /. suffers from a bad case of group-think, and makes me want to build a new site with a moderation system that works against such.

TFA calls it a "green energy project". The type of people who think this is green energy are the complete f-ing morons that side track the rest of us from real viable energy advancements.

Further more, the TFA claims this will "lower the energy consumption of the market". At the inefficiency of this (which is already limited to being no more efficient than a car is itself), it will actually increase the energy consumption of the market.

I had a similar situation. In my situation I was able to purchase the .net version of the domain name. The squatter with the .com version then contacted me trying to sell it to me. I sent a nasty note back that I would not deal with a fucking squatter. I think I also sent a note to their upstream for UCE.

Soon after that the squatter dropped the name and I picked it up. I'd paid for 'domain name back order' at my registrar, so it cost me a little more than normal, but not much more and the fucking squatter didn't get any of that extra cost.

Oops... I didn't have enough coffee in me when I read the post I was replying to. My post was replying to the notion that you can correct the power factor of a CFL with an inductor/cap, not that you can make it appear to draw no power to the metering device. (Which is also not true.)

It is in fact, you can make a fluro light appear to your meter to use zero power (with the right inductor/cap combo).

No, you can't.

There are two different types of power factor. One is related to the phase of the current being shifted from the phase of the voltage, the other is related to the shape of the wave if you plot the current.

The first type, which is the type that most people are familiar with, can be corrected with inductors or capacitors. This is often done for induction motors.

The second type of bad power factor is often due to rectifiers feeding a capacitor... your basic AC to DC conversion. The current only flows when the voltage on the AC side exceeds the voltage on the DC side. Thus, you get spikes of current centered around the peaks of the AC voltage. The phase is correct, but the current waveform is not sinusoidal. This cannot be simply corrected by inductors or capacitors.

As a side note, this is the bad power factor that many computer power supplies suffer from.

More complex switching supplies can overcome this issue. I've usually seen it referred to as a "power factor corrected" supply. They cost more because there are more parts in it. Thus, you don't see them in cheap CFLs.

IAAEE (I am an Electrical Engineer)