Instigator / Pro
1
1472
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#1486

Gas Plane Engines vs Electric Plane Engines

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
1
2

After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

I currently go to a school that is a mix between a Pilot Training program as well as an Unmanned Aircraft Systems program. It's built right on the towns airport so naturally it is a pretty decent place to go to school for pilot training.

Yesterday I received an email from the schools director that during their "Courageous Conversations" session, students mentioned that they want to reduce the carbon footprint. One of their suggestions was replacing the gas engines in our Cessna 172's and Baron's with electric alternatives.

When I heard the idea, I was immediately skeptical, which was further reinforced by my roommate who shared the same concerns and even elaborated more on why it would be problematic. I began discussing with my friend who I knew would 100% back the idea of electrical engines, and debated with him for a bit to see why he thinks it is a good idea. Unfortunately his debate lacked any sort of complex thought as it was based around "Well why not try since electric is better than gas?"

I decided, after a bit of contemplating, to come here with the idea and hopefully find a contender that supports electric engines in planes. I am not completely closed to the idea, but I am extremely skeptical for a multitude of reasons. I look forward to debating whoever chooses to take up the Contender slot.

-->
@Barney

My mistake! I was multitasking at the time, probably did not notice it. Like you said, probably when I stopped paying attention

-->
@DroneYoinker

The video link you gave has the targeted timestamp of nine-minutes six-seconds (probably when you stopped watching it), which is after all the relevant content. It's just something to be careful of in future.

-->
@Barney

I am not sure what you mean?

-->
@DroneYoinker

The video has a targeted timestamp for an advertisement for algebra courses at the end. In case you're on right now, you've still got a few minutes to edit the post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNvzZfsC13o&t=546s

Disclaimer: This is not to sway the vote.

I just think it's a neat video to watch for information.

-->
@DroneYoinker

What I would do:
The type of discussion this is, plus my education, causes me to feel the need to offer an opinion outside of my vote...

DroneYoinker, research if other flight schools have yet started teaching electric engines. If not, it might prove to be a marketable thing for your school (hell, even one sitting on the ground for study but not actually being used in a plane...). However, until the technology does improve, I would stick with fuel as your primary one, as right now when pilots are being hired, they are going to be expected to know how to handle the current dominant technology. Plus by the sound of the safety features, it will end up being a slightly different plane for the electric engine, not merely a different engine swapped in place.

It is an idea the school should revisit periodically, as the tipping point will be crossed sooner or later (likely not as soon as we hope, but it seems like an eventuality).

-->
@oromagi
@DroneYoinker

---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
Very open ended, and it even changed in the middle of the debate...

Gist:
It was a really good discussion more than a debate, but as a debate it was won by con for long term considerations and pollution.

1. Fossil Fuels are fading
A lot of fairly good information on personal vehicles and related matters, but then BP oil setting a 53 year estimate was a powerful appeal to authority, about like if Chuck Norris corrected technique on roundhouse kicks.
Dropped by pro.

2. Cost per distance
Pro asserts that electric are most costly.
Con counters that costs have almost equalized (at least for cars), and are projected to begin shifting in favor of electric. Very nice use of charts from a .gov source.
Conceded by pro.

3. Range
Pro suggests range limitations, in part tied to a lack of current airport facilities.
Con uses the average rate of improvement, to suggest in ten years batteries will be longer ranged than conventional fuel.
Pro brings things back to today with the lack of current airport facilities, highlighted by it being a newsworthy item when an airport adds a charging station for smaller aircrafts.
Con uses Tesla (and admits planes might not improve so fast), with a link explaining the improvement is basically like Moore’s Law but in slow motion (this does not assure no upper limit, but it’s a nice piece of evidence); and how quickly the auto industry installed the facilities to meet the demand for them.

4. Life
Battery life is non-ideal at this point.
Con uses Tesla to defend that the overall depreciation is normal.

5. Reliability
Less moving parts draws my mind to solid state hard drives... Likely a poor comparison, but intuitively fewer moving parts for the same result is a good thing.

6. Air pollution
The lead into the air was a powerful point, especially how it was banned in automobiles.

7. Noise pollution
Con used a source to show it is decreased to only a 1/1000th.

8. Safety
(pro introduced this first, but following the numbered points is a bit easier)
Batteries are apparently massively more dangerous in crashes. If an engine catches fire, we have good procedures for current engines, which would not work for electric. The separate electrical system current engines run on, serves as a nice failsafe in case the computers or whatever else the main electrical system of the plane is on fails.
Con counters that fuel is estimated to be responsible for 8% of the crash deaths already, and that the 10x figure is an unwarranted assertion.

9. Versatility
Pro reminds us that the technology is not there for airbus or other massive planes to use electric engines... at least not yet.

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points. Pro ended up dropping a lot of argument lines, which is fine in a discussion, but hurts him in grading this as a debate.

Sources:
By con’s request, I am leaving these tied. They did however favor him by a good margin (early into the debate I thought I would end up tying the debate but giving him the source points)

-->
@RationalMadman

That is something else to consider, but I assume on water landing the batteries have a way to stay isolated while electricity is removed from the engine. Such as gas being removed from the engine in a gas combustion.

-->
@DroneYoinker

You forgot to mention crashing into an ocean, lake etc, it's a devastatingly big consequence of ever risking electric engines.

-->
@oromagi

Thanks again for the debate/conversation. You've helped me understand a few things on why, in the long run, electric planes will really be key to evolution.

forgot the cite for that Pulitzer prize quote:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/lithium-ion-battery-chemistry-nobel-prize

Glancing through this debate, I am very glad to see it doesn’t boil down to appeals to novelty vs. appeals to tradition.

-->
@DroneYoinker

CON R1 Source List

https://web.archive.org/web/20110511100227/http://textron.vo.llnwd.net/o25/CES/cessna_aircraft_docs/single_engine/skyhawk/skyhawk_s%26d.pdf
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/21e8d0b43d2298188625760e005237eb/$FILE/E-286.pdf
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/july/24/four-seat-sun-flyer-in-the-works
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
https://www.nature.com/articles/481433a
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2014/0714/How-long-will-world-s-oil-reserves-last-53-years-says-BP
https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/costs.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster_(2020)
https://evadoption.com/statistics-of-the-week-comparing-vehicle-ranges-for-gas-bevs-and-phevs/
https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/test-cafe/4462251/Do-lithium-ion-batteries-follow-Moore-s-Law-
https://steinbuch.wordpress.com/2015/01/24/tesla-model-s-battery-degradation-data/
https://nbaa.org/wp-content/uploads/events/Sun-Flyer-PP_NBAA-template.pdf

Pls ignore the cut & paste remark. AD & I were gossiping about a fellow member which is bad behavior and also not appropriate for a debate comment section. Sorry for that but none of it was directed your way.

Great R1 & I forgot to say welcome to the site. Welcome!

-->
@oromagi

Ey chief you still wanting to debate?

I promise you there are no copy pastes here. I am very confused and skeptical of the idea. I will attempt to drop in on the next conversation they have or talk to the students who had the idea. Thanks for accepting Oromagi!

-->
@AvoidDeath

cut & paste, I assume

-->
@oromagi

agree, I can't think of any debate topics. so i'm just spamming accept on some of billbatards debates. idk how he thinks of so many topics.

-->
@AvoidDeath

It is certainly a very debatable topic. I just kept wondering what argument a pilot would use.

-->
@oromagi
@DroneYoinker

I hope this debate turns out nicely. Maybe even give oromagi his first loss.