Government a bad investor in energy

Not to pick on Adam Smit (Fence Post Aug. 18) alone but yet another reader writes urging that "we invest" in alternate energy technology, etc.

I'm open to correction, but when in our history did the government develop any significant industry by "investing"?

Our past and present energy industries: whale oil, coal, petroleum, electricity, natural gas, all came into being by the effort of entrepreneurs, inventors, and private investors, with no help from the government; certainly no investment.

(The REA, TVA and public power districts expanded the electrification of the nation, well after the widespread establishment of the industry, but these were simply ways to subsidize customers, not innovation nor development of technology.) The Synthetic Fuels Corporation was a U.S. government-funded corporation established in 1980 to create a market for alternatives to imported fossil fuels (such as coal gasification). The corporation was discontinued in 1985. We investors, willing and unwilling, have lost our investment.

By contrast, had it succeeded, to whom would the profits belong?

Today's practice of subsidizing ethanol production while mandating its use sparks a complex debate, but I'm confident that without the subsidy/mandate, there would be no industry because there is no profit.

This is an investment? The point is that it is not the job of the government to invest to reduce our gas prices, oil imports, nor our inconvenience. Plenty of private industries exist to innovate and develop these alternate energy sources.

If Mr. Smit and like-minded individuals believe in the promise of these alternate sources of energy, it's their duty to invest in these ideas.

Inevitably, marketable solutions will emerge; the technology and infrastructure to exploit these sources of energy must "belong" to somebody, and those somebodies (individual or corporate) will rightfully expect a return on their investment, should it succeed.

Gary Patterson

West Chicago