Jadwal Biaya Umroh bulan April

Tips Membeli Lampu yang Hemat Energi

Lampu hemat energi semakin populer dan dapat digunakan hampir di mana saja. Dalam hal memilih lampu hemat energi, ada beberapa faktor yang perlu dipertimbangkan, termasuk merek, daya, efisiensi energi, daya tahan, penampilan, dll. Berikut adalah beberapa petunjuk mengenai bagaimana Anda dapat membuat pilihan.

Pilih Merek Reputasi

Lampu hemat energi seperti CFL atau LED semakin populer karena penghematan yang luar biasa dalam energi dan biaya yang telah mereka tawarkan. Ada banyak merek di pasar yang telah menawarkan lampu hemat energi, masing-masing telah menawarkan berbagai tingkat kualitas. Sejak pembuatan lampu hemat energi memerlukan desain yang canggih, teknologi canggih dan peralatan kelas atas, sebuah merek terkenal dan mapan yang menerima pengakuan dari industri menawarkan jaminan lebih pada kualitas dan keselamatan.

Sebagai lampu hemat energi mengkonsumsi energi 80% lebih sedikit jika dibandingkan dengan bola lampu tradisional, Anda juga dapat memilih lampu hemat energi yang lebih rendah watt untuk dapat menggantikan lampu pijar Anda, reflektor halogen atau lampu logam halida.

Tips Membeli Lampu yang Hemat Energi

Carilah Label Energi dengan Efisiensi Energi Tertinggi

Banyak negara dan wilayah, seperti Uni Eropa dan Hong Kong, telah mengadopsi kebijakan energi efisiensi dan telah memperkenalkan Efisiensi Energi wajib atau sukarela skema Label untuk dapat memberikan informasi tentang konsumsi energi dan efisiensi untuk membantu konsumen membuat keputusan pembelian yang lebih baik.

Efisiensi energi alat dinilai dalam hal set kelas efisiensi energi dicatat pada label. Sebagai contoh, Grade A adalah energi yang paling efisien sementara Kelas G merupakan yang paling efisien di bawah arahan Label Energi Uni Eropa. Label juga telah memberikan informasi berguna lainnya untuk pelanggan ketika membandingkan berbagai model.

Periksa Lamp Life dari Lampu Hemat Energi

Ketika membeli sumber cahaya baru atau penggantian bohlam, hidup lampu adalah pertimbangan yang sangat penting. Sebuah lampu hemat energi dengan lampu hidup lagi menghemat waktu, uang dan upaya pada pemeliharaan, dan mengurangi limbah padat di pembuangan. Secara umum, CFL juga dapat beroperasi dari 6.000 sampai 15.000 jam sedangkan LED berlangsung sampai 40.000 jam. Mengambil faktor waktu menjadi pertimbangan, biaya rata-rata dari lampu hemat energi dapat jauh lebih rendah daripada lampu pijar dan halogen.

Pilih Warna Suhu Tepat

Suhu Warna adalah ukuran dari Warna Cahaya, telah diwakili dalam unit K (Kelvin). Semakin rendah suhu warna, cahaya muncul sebagai nada warna kuning atau merah hangat. Seperti sumber cahaya yang paling cocok untuk lingkungan yang nyaman untuk dapat membuat merasa nyaman. Di sisi lain, dengan suhu warna yang lebih tinggi, cahaya muncul sebagai nada warna biru atau putih dingin. Konsumen juga dapat memilih suhu warna lampu hemat energi berdasarkan preferensi mereka, kesempatan aplikasi dan efek pencahayaan yang diinginkan.

Periksa Ukuran dan Pertandingan Basis Lampu

Umbi datang dalam berbagai bentuk, ukuran dan fungsi. Sebagai teknologi lampu hemat energi dewasa, mereka sekarang tersedia dalam berbagai bentuk dan dalam ukuran yang sebanding dengan lampu pijar dan halogen. Bentuk yang paling umum adalah lilin, klasik, tubular dan reflektor.

Dalam hal memilih lampu hemat energi, Anda juga harus menentukan fungsi lampu Anda. Apakah akan digunakan untuk suasana pencahayaan, lampu hias, keamanan, membaca, sebagai focal point, atau dalam beberapa cara lain? Sebagai contoh, Anda mungkin perlu bohlam lampu lilin atau lampu intensitas tinggi yang terang reflektor untuk lampu baca Anda.

Pertimbangan lain adalah basis lampu. Periksa lampu dasar fixture lampu untuk dapat menentukan energi lampu hemat cocok ke dalamnya. Yang paling umum termasuk:

Kepedulian terhadap Isu Lingkungan

Dunia sedang menghadapi banyak masalah seperti pemanasan global, efek rumah kaca, polusi, menipisnya energi, dll, yang tidak hanya membahayakan diri sendiri, tapi keturunan kita. Sementara "Hijau Pergi" adalah tren, adalah tanggung jawab setiap orang untuk mengambil tindakan segera untuk melindungi lingkungan.

Beberapa merek lampu hemat energi membayar lebih banyak usaha untuk perlindungan lingkungan dan ketat mengontrol penggunaan bahan berbahaya, termasuk timah dan merkuri dalam proses manufaktur mereka. Selain itu, mereka yang menggunakan bahan daur ulang dan dapat didaur ulang untuk produk dan kemasan mengurangi limbah padat.

 

TIPS MEMBELI LAMPU YANG HEMAT ENERGI

WASHINGTON — The former deputy director of the C.I.A. asserts in a forthcoming book that Republicans, in their eagerness to politicize the killing of the American ambassador to Libya, repeatedly distorted the agency’s analysis of events. But he also argues that the C.I.A. should get out of the business of providing “talking points” for administration officials in national security events that quickly become partisan, as happened after the Benghazi attack in 2012.

The official, Michael J. Morell, dismisses the allegation that the United States military and C.I.A. officers “were ordered to stand down and not come to the rescue of their comrades,” and he says there is “no evidence” to support the charge that “there was a conspiracy between C.I.A. and the White House to spin the Benghazi story in a way that would protect the political interests of the president and Secretary Clinton,” referring to the secretary of state at the time, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But he also concludes that the White House itself embellished some of the talking points provided by the Central Intelligence Agency and had blocked him from sending an internal study of agency conclusions to Congress.

Photo
 
Michael J. Morell Credit Mark Wilson/Getty Images

“I finally did so without asking,” just before leaving government, he writes, and after the White House released internal emails to a committee investigating the State Department’s handling of the issue.

A lengthy congressional investigation remains underway, one that many Republicans hope to use against Mrs. Clinton in the 2016 election cycle.

In parts of the book, “The Great War of Our Time” (Twelve), Mr. Morell praises his C.I.A. colleagues for many successes in stopping terrorist attacks, but he is surprisingly critical of other C.I.A. failings — and those of the National Security Agency.

Soon after Mr. Morell retired in 2013 after 33 years in the agency, President Obama appointed him to a commission reviewing the actions of the National Security Agency after the disclosures of Edward J. Snowden, a former intelligence contractor who released classified documents about the government’s eavesdropping abilities. Mr. Morell writes that he was surprised by what he found.

Advertisement

“You would have thought that of all the government entities on the planet, the one least vulnerable to such grand theft would have been the N.S.A.,” he writes. “But it turned out that the N.S.A. had left itself vulnerable.”

He concludes that most Wall Street firms had better cybersecurity than the N.S.A. had when Mr. Snowden swept information from its systems in 2013. While he said he found himself “chagrined by how well the N.S.A. was doing” compared with the C.I.A. in stepping up its collection of data on intelligence targets, he also sensed that the N.S.A., which specializes in electronic spying, was operating without considering the implications of its methods.

“The N.S.A. had largely been collecting information because it could, not necessarily in all cases because it should,” he says.

The book is to be released next week.

Mr. Morell was a career analyst who rose through the ranks of the agency, and he ended up in the No. 2 post. He served as President George W. Bush’s personal intelligence briefer in the first months of his presidency — in those days, he could often be spotted at the Starbucks in Waco, Tex., catching up on his reading — and was with him in the schoolhouse in Florida on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when the Bush presidency changed in an instant.

Mr. Morell twice took over as acting C.I.A. director, first when Leon E. Panetta was appointed secretary of defense and then when retired Gen. David H. Petraeus resigned over an extramarital affair with his biographer, a relationship that included his handing her classified notes of his time as America’s best-known military commander.

Mr. Morell says he first learned of the affair from Mr. Petraeus only the night before he resigned, and just as the Benghazi events were turning into a political firestorm. While praising Mr. Petraeus, who had told his deputy “I am very lucky” to run the C.I.A., Mr. Morell writes that “the organization did not feel the same way about him.” The former general “created the impression through the tone of his voice and his body language that he did not want people to disagree with him (which was not true in my own interaction with him),” he says.

But it is his account of the Benghazi attacks — and how the C.I.A. was drawn into the debate over whether the Obama White House deliberately distorted its account of the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens — that is bound to attract attention, at least partly because of its relevance to the coming presidential election. The initial assessments that the C.I.A. gave to the White House said demonstrations had preceded the attack. By the time analysts reversed their opinion, Susan E. Rice, now the national security adviser, had made a series of statements on Sunday talk shows describing the initial assessment. The controversy and other comments Ms. Rice made derailed Mr. Obama’s plan to appoint her as secretary of state.

The experience prompted Mr. Morell to write that the C.I.A. should stay out of the business of preparing talking points — especially on issues that are being seized upon for “political purposes.” He is critical of the State Department for not beefing up security in Libya for its diplomats, as the C.I.A., he said, did for its employees.

But he concludes that the assault in which the ambassador was killed took place “with little or no advance planning” and “was not well organized.” He says the attackers “did not appear to be looking for Americans to harm. They appeared intent on looting and conducting some vandalism,” setting fires that killed Mr. Stevens and a security official, Sean Smith.

Mr. Morell paints a picture of an agency that was struggling, largely unsuccessfully, to understand dynamics in the Middle East and North Africa when the Arab Spring broke out in late 2011 in Tunisia. The agency’s analysts failed to see the forces of revolution coming — and then failed again, he writes, when they told Mr. Obama that the uprisings would undercut Al Qaeda by showing there was a democratic pathway to change.

“There is no good explanation for our not being able to see the pressures growing to dangerous levels across the region,” he writes. The agency had again relied too heavily “on a handful of strong leaders in the countries of concern to help us understand what was going on in the Arab street,” he says, and those leaders themselves were clueless.

Moreover, an agency that has always overvalued secretly gathered intelligence and undervalued “open source” material “was not doing enough to mine the wealth of information available through social media,” he writes. “We thought and told policy makers that this outburst of popular revolt would damage Al Qaeda by undermining the group’s narrative,” he writes.

Instead, weak governments in Egypt, and the absence of governance from Libya to Yemen, were “a boon to Islamic extremists across both the Middle East and North Africa.”

Mr. Morell is gentle about most of the politicians he dealt with — he expresses admiration for both Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama, though he accuses former Vice President Dick Cheney of deliberately implying a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq that the C.I.A. had concluded probably did not exist. But when it comes to the events leading up to the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq, he is critical of his own agency.

Mr. Morell concludes that the Bush White House did not have to twist intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s alleged effort to rekindle the country’s work on weapons of mass destruction.

“The view that hard-liners in the Bush administration forced the intelligence community into its position on W.M.D. is just flat wrong,” he writes. “No one pushed. The analysts were already there and they had been there for years, long before Bush came to office.”

Ex-C.I.A. Official Rebuts Republican Claims on Benghazi Attack in ‘The Great War of Our Time’

Artikel lainnya »