- Joined
- Dec 7, 2020
- Posts
- 6,891
- Reaction score
- 17,445
- Location
- Minneapolis, MN
- Ram Year
- 2017 2500 Laramie Crew Cab
- Engine
- 6.4L HEMI
10% of the fuel contains ~30% fewer BTU's, hence an estimated 3% fewer miles per gallon.
But also the reason ethanol has ~30% fewer BTU's per unit of mass is each molecule contains an oxygen atom; that's what's taking up the volume/mass. When you're burning fuel you're also burning oxygen. One doesn't work without the other - but we get most (ethanol) or all (pure petroleum) of the oxygen for free from the air and don't think about it as part of the fuel.
Since the oxygen in ethanol is part of the combustion process & since the molar density of nitrogen (80% of air..) is greater than the average molar density across petroleum's constituent elements burning E10 also means you're not wasting as much combustion energy heating up nitrogen for a given BTU product and you're pushing 3.74% less total mass out your exhaust pipe for a given BTU product. You're also drawing around 6% less mass through your air filter.
Isn't the end finance for the consumer the $$ per mile? Once long ago I had calculated it was about a wash, that was with ethanol taxpayer subsidies, so it wasn't a wash because our tax money was deducted from our pay before the pump price. I'm not an ideologist, just an application engineer.
Point is, a number of scientists posit that corn should be used for food, not a taxpayer subsidized program for big agribusinesses.