Lower mileage lifts ethanol's true cost

A mathematical error has resulted in your gravely understating the detriment of the use of E85 vs. regular gasoline.
The article informed us that E85 results in 25% poorer fuel mileage, and will result in our using an extra 300 gallons of E85 per year, and stated the extra cost at $100 per year.
The actual cost of 300 gallons of E85 is closer to $1,000.
It's a shame that your proofreaders missed such an important misstatement.
Adding into the account that our taxpayer dollars are subsidizing ethanol plants, and that some such plants are drying up community water supplies, the use of ethanol is much more costly to our economy than Joe Citizen realizes.
Thank you for an otherwise wonderful newspaper.
Chuck Koshiol
Zap Cycle
Paynesville, MN
zapcycle@lakedalelink.net

There are also hidden costs of E85. At a family event yesterday a cousin said she has a E85 SUV and the engine blew $4,000 down the proverbial drain. No warrenty.

GM loves ethanol, as they can inflate their CAFE numbers cheaply by adding on the $100 of equipment to make something "flex fuel". The perverse irony of the ethanol loophole is that it raises the rated fuel economy for CAFE purposes, when in reality a vehicle gets lower mileage.

I fully support pricing fuel by cost per unit of energy. Diesel has more than gasoline, and summer gasoline has more than winter gasoline. It would make tracking fuel economy much easier and make fuel pricing more transparent.