Professor Von Uhl
Writing for Engineering
Edison Tian
March 30, 2021

Rhetorical Analysis
The study named “Evaluating the cost and carbon footprint of second-life electric vehicle batteries in residential and utility-level applications” led by Dipti Kamath, Siddharth Shukla, Renata Arsenault, Hyundai Chip Kim, and Annick Anctil presents the idea that in an age where climate change is a huge concern, there could be batteries that can be recycled for second use to reduce carbon emissions. This experiment will simulate real-life energy usage applications offering a comparison of how efficient different batteries are (Kamath 2020). This was done by introducing the idea of second-use batteries and implementing controlled experiments side by
side to prove their viability.

According to the “Technical Communications” textbook, the title must be informative and specific enough for the audience to keep reading (Markel, & Selber, 2017). This means that it must be short enough to keep readers engaged while sufficiently addressing the topic of the
paper. The title, while accurate and descriptive, is a bit wordy. That, unfortunately, draws attention away from the focus of the paper, leaving the audience less engaged. A better title would be “Evaluating the Cost and Carbon Footprint of Second Life Electric Vehicles”. This title retains the main objective of the essay without overloading details. The excessive details on applications are unnecessary since they can be presented in the methods section.

The abstract is usually the summary of a research paper. It mainly covers the thesis and procedures without elaborating too much on the details (Markel, & Selber, 2017). The abstract for this paper starts with context on the development of battery technology and its growth. It also
narrowed the topic down to second-life batteries (SLBs). This is good since it slowly becomes more specific keeping the audience engaged. However, it did diverge away from the Technical Communication’s guide by hinting towards the results and explaining it with data prematurely.
That shouldn’t be done if the goal is to engage a general audience. The audience would be inclined to interpret that as the conclusion right away and they would disregard any following content. In other words, based on this abstract alone, the intended audience for this study would be people who are familiar with or pursuing the STEM (Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) field.

The introduction is where the hypothesis and questions are addressed which elaborate how this study improves research (Markel, & Selber, 2017). In this case, the introduction first addressed the main concerns with recycling batteries noted in previous studies. The team noted that battery recycling is still in a “developmental stage” and the idea had little government support due to unknown costs. They brought context regarding the growing electric vehicle market to shed some light and optimism on how the recycling technology could progress. It specified more with battery recycling methods and alternatives. It also elaborated on the
capabilities of second-life batteries and asked whether they could be viable alternatives to regular batteries in terms of net carbon emissions (Kamath 2020). With this information, the study finally describes how they are contributing to the field by running these tests. This is a good
thorough introduction since it brings up previous research to establish its significance. The research team’s paper is concise enough to catch the attention of the general audience since the issue at hand is reducing carbon emissions. Overall, this is a strong introduction to the topic.

The methods cover the procedures and parameters for all trials of the experiment (Markel, & Selber, 2017). The methods in this paper elaborate on the details presented in the introduction, which led to significant information on applications of both first life batteries and second-life batteries, The team used five cities to run their experiment to show variable data across locations with different parameters. Detroit, Los Angeles, New York City, Phoenix, and Portland were chosen due to their differences in solar rays, weather, electricity pricing, and electricity grid carbon intensity (Kamath, 2020). For each trial within all cities, they fabricate the
energy systems to capacities that met the electricity demand over the project life of 10 years (Kamath, 2020). Overall, even with all the energy factors and location parameters taken into account, the method is fairly easy to understand and has a good sample size for the case study.
However, the equipment and logistics necessary make it daunting for regular people to replicate it (Kamath 2020). After the methods have all been addressed, the results section comes next.

The results section contains the persuasive evidence that comes before the discussion section. This part includes data, numbers, and anything that can be quantified (Markel, & Selber, 2017). All that will help draw a summary tied back to the hypothesis thus, concluding their findings. The results in the research paper present information on the power usage of each battery, location, and setting. The researchers did a side-to-side comparison on their findings after all the trials. Their findings are mostly supported by the data presented in time charts. It also omitted some information with an explanation of why (Kamath, 2020). Overall, this both makes the researchers transparent and credible with their findings.

The discussion section is where the author takes the opportunity to answer the question or address the hypothesis using the data from the study (Markel, & Selber, 2017). A discussion section was never explicitly labeled. But, a form of a discussion section was placed indirectly
under results since it connects with their findings from the study using the comparisons to answer the question presented in the introduction. To the researcher’s credit, this is a well thawed out decision since there wouldn’t be many awkward transitions between paragraphs presenting similar content.

After the methods and results, a conclusion section must be made to summarize the lab report in a paragraph or two (Markel, & Selber, 2017). The conclusion wasn’t specifically stated in the paper but the team reached a consensus that was incorporated under the results section. This was probably due to the author’s desire for a more concise analysis. This could be done to prevent straying away from the focus of the report. Also, the transition between the paragraphs plus be much smoother. In this case, the researchers concluded from their findings that because of their longer service life, second life batteries overall lowered energy usage and manufacturing cost. Therefore, it lowers CO2 emissions as well (Kamath, 2020). It goes into details on how this will be reflected in present future trends within the electric car market. These trends help appeal
that their research will serve the field long term and will be a fruitful endeavor. Overall, the results are well written and very persuasive.This lab report contains an extensive line of references on this study that came from all contributors in the research and some other studies done in the same field for reference. Using all these accredited researchers and past studies helps solidify the credibility of this study as being legitimate and justifies its approach (Markel, & Selber, 2017).

This study on recycled batteries or second-life batteries compared to standard batteries by Kamath’s team is very concise and persuasive besides the title. The details presented from the introduction to the conclusion flows well and get progressively more engaging. The details are descriptive enough to inform the audience while keeping them engaged with the important content such as the findings and the many trends the results reflected. Overall, this study does a great job in delivering its message.

References
Kamath, D., Shukla, S., Arsenault, R., Kim, H., and Anctil, A. (2020), Evaluating the cost and carbon footprint of second-life electric vehicle batteries in residential and utility-level applications, Michigan State University, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X20302749?via%3Dihub

Markel, M., & Selber, S. A. (2017). Technical communication (Twelfth ed.). Bedford/St.Martin’s.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15o45xJlcE__xLY9md3TMRDYVd9HEyAJ3/view?usp=drivesd

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.