Precis, analysis and response

Renewable Energy

Rhetorical Pris

Thomas Parker, in an article from Nature, "Cutting Science's Electricity Bill" (December 15, 2011) suggests that to there is a need for energy reduction in large-scale research facilities through innovated heat recycling systems. Parker compares European lab usage to consumption in the United States, clarifying wasteful habits of electricity in research laboratories, explaining several methods labs can adopt to reuse heat generated into a reusable heat source. He is the energy manager of the European Spallation Source (ESS), proposing the use of new technological equipment that can operate properly with conditions of higher temperatures to encourage labs to use alternatives to cooling systems in order to reuse and conserve energy. Parker's tone is informative about energy reduction in facilities; his audience is other energy managers, scientist, and the public worldwide.

David Taylor, in an article from Environmental Health Perspectives, "On the Job with Solar PV" (January 2010) claims that solar photovoltaic energy is todays quickest growing renewable source, presently the most environmental friendly, and is an efficient renewable energy source. Taylor defines his idea with evidence of cell efficiency, the reduction of costs, and alleviating air emissions of other energy sources, such as fossil fuels. His purpose is to educate others about solar photovoltaic energy, in order to reduce our overall energy consumption, and convert to a sustainable energy source. Taylor informs readers with a defensive tone, educating energy managers, environmentalists, scientists and the public.

Philip Farese, in an article from Nature, "How to Build a Low-Energy Future" (August 16, 2012) argues that there is a need for a reduction of energy use by investing in research and development of efficient products such as heating, lighting, and insolation. Farese supports his claim by providing evidence of current costs, comparing them to the amount of energy we can save, then explain the benefits of efficient heating, lighting and insulation, and by investing into research and development to increase energy efficiency. Farese, an energy analysis, discusses ideas to increase power efficiency without sacrificing our current living standards, encouraging investments in order to develop energy saving technologies. With his informative tone, his strategies apply to business and residential power needs, making his audience the public and business personnel.

Analysis and Response

The tone of How to build a Low-Energy Future (August 16, 2012) by Philip Farese, is pensive and very informative, with the intent to persuade and report to a wavering audience of energy managers, and including residential and business owners. In the headings used, the reader quickly asses the purpose of the article, creating an energy efficient future by encouraging the use of advanced technologies, and strategic investment planning. The author uses effective imagery of town houses with every light in the house on, along with a visual diagram of current energy usage, now available technology, and emerging technologies. Farese, a senior energy analyst, portrays an authoritative persona, by presenting evidence in the form of statistics, facts and showing deep background knowledge of energy consumption. His main argument, that we have increasing need to invest in manufacturing energy equipment that is more efficient, such as heating, lighting and insulation, without sacrificing our current living standards. Farese has a sound argument enlightening the public of energy saving tactics, doing so in a professional manner, and allowing the audience to develop their own thoughts regarding the topic.

The article starts with facts, and statistics of current energy usage, and then progresses into possible energy reduction of implementing energy efficiency. Farese then strategically and respectively, uses an appropriate counter argument without demeaning the opposing views, and then explains how the argument is invalid, by using current and past statistics. The evidence to support his claim is slowly introduced, building up to the pinnacle of his argument. The author's strategy was well planned, by not bombarding the reader with his claim, but rather introducing the topic, a counter argument, and evidence, allowing the reader to process the information and adopt their own view, rather than detouring the audience who may not have agreed with his main argument. Each topic transitioned to the next smoothly, and effectively before he used evidence to support his argument of desired investments to create more efficient technologies.

The argument I strongly agree with, if more homeowners invested in better heat pumps, lighting, and insulation, in several years after the large purchase these items would pay for themselves. For example if you have a heat source for your home that burns fuel, for every unit of energy there is an equal our put of heat, but if the heat was from a heat pump then the rate of transfer increases from one unit of energy to at least three units of heat. I understand not everyone can afford drive to their local stores and buy the most energy efficient equipment, but it sounds like a reasonable investment that more homeowners should consider.

Farese's main argument is if more money was invested in energy, rather than aerospace, defense, or pharmaceuticals, we could lower or energy consumption by using much more advanced technologies than we currently have. This point is brought to the reader's attention just before the conclusion. The author could have gone into more detail of how aerospace is not vital to our society in comparison to our energy needs. Farese could have explained the wasted investments of the aerospace program, and how tax payers' money may have been better spent on improvements of energy efficiency. Possibly a testimony could have been used from an economist, to support the greater need of energy investments, this would have helped strengthen his argument in my opinion.

The author uses the appeal to mostly logos in the text and in the diagram used, with logic, testimony, facts, statistics and personal experience of energy consumption, to support his findings. Farese also gently appeals to our emotions or pathos, by using "our better nature," of shared beliefs of energy reduction importance to persuade the reader to more efficient energy consumption, and also by using the picture of the town houses wasting energy. I feel the author not allowing personal emotions to overtake his article, aided in the carefully constructed organizational form of communication to the reader.

Overall, this article tactically developed, with supporting evidence, well placed images, and reliable testimony. Farese did an exceptional job allowing the readers to think for themselves, and let them reflect on the material presented, before making his argument. This allows members of the audience who feel energy investments are a waste of money, to keep interest in the topic. He did an effective job using appropriate appeals to the reader, using evidence and testimony to support his findings. Farese's methods of persuasion worked well with this topic, and increased the likelihood of others to agree with his stance, without forcing his views upon the reader.

Work Cited

Farese, Philip. "Technology: How To Build A Low-Energy Future." Nature 488.7411 (2012): 275-277. Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition. Web. 8 May 2014.
Parker, Thomas. "Sustainable Energy: Cutting Science's Electricity Bill." Nature 480.7377 (2011): 315-316. Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition. Web. 8 May 2014
Taylor, David A. "On The Job With Solar PV." Environmental Health Perspectives 118.1 (2010): A19. Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition. Web. 8 May 2014.