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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

There is a lot to unpack in this debate.

The primary arguments from con are mostly related to cost, that gasoline is fading, as electric engines are the future. In the opening round con outlined that range and reliability are improving and not a substantial barrier. These were mostly acknowledged by pro, and I can’t see these being substantially challenged by him - in fact they appeared to be accepted as benefits. As a result, these benefits have to be given.

Noise pollution and air pollution themselves are concerns that are also motivated by electric planes - as is the concept of training people on the future, with ICE’s on their way out. Most of these again, went largely uncontested.

In terms of the negative cases, pro raises issues with recharging time and availability - to which con points out the particulars of lithium battery charging are improving and close to that of gas. I think con does well enough to show that the issues are not to the point of detrimental.

These practicality issues again appear largely motivated by con also.

The safety issues, I felt were pros strongest aspect. The possibility of major fire after crashes were motivated by con; but the difficulty of putting out a fire, is a point I didn’t feel mitigated by con - other to say that 20vs2000 does improve limit the possibility of other types of failure.

The issue with electrical failures mentioned by pro was not addressed at all as far I can see- but also not expanded upon by pro.

I couldn’t find parts of cons argument that addressed battery degradation over time, or temperature performance other to than it would need to be addressed.

Pro could actually have won this on these grounds by arguing that with an unknown safety record, and technological solutions that are currently unspecified is not a desirable scenario for learner pilots; however neither side explains how much prototyping, and timescales to use - as it wasn’t clear where this was a general “shift” or “let’s go with what we have today”, that muddied the water somewhat. Given that safety seems a huge barrier to adopting a new type of plane over efficiency, or it being the way forward, this aspect largely weights itself the point that it raised an inherent doubt in my mind.

However, as this wasn’t really argued to a substantial degree by pro, I can’t award this in pros favour. However imo, while I am leaning towards con, there’s too much of a question mark over the weighting of the safety aspects raised to award it to con either.

As a result, I am awarding this as a tie.

I would have awarded the win to con had he done more to explicitly weight the safety concerns or unknowns here against the immediate benefits; or presented a plan whereby, say, the issues are presented as technical knowns that would be demonstrably next addressed; there was some of this, but it fell short of what I needed to push me over the line.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1486/comment_links/21212

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.