WHEREAS the non-exploited potential of clean, renewable, conservation and efficient energy is of utmost importance (wind energy, solar, biomass, energy conservation, energy efficiency, etc.);
WHEREAS the development of this potential is a means of creating collective wealth all the while respecting the environment and the principles of sustainable development;
WHEREAS the development of this potential will encourage innovation, technological and industrial development and high value-added job creation. Moreover, it will mobilize all Canadian citizens in the fight against pollution, climate change and create long-term prosperity;
WHEREAS the development of this potential falls in line with the development of Canada’s Northern Territories, the implementation of industrial poles in remote areas, as well as the participation of First Nations;
WHEREAS M. Ignatieff’s declaration “Canada is falling behind in the new renewable energy economy. The U.S. is set to invest eight times more per capita in renewable energy and energy efficiency than Canada. This must change – and the Liberal Party will lead that change.” (Michael Ignatieff on July 15, 2010) ;
BE IT RESOLVED that the LPC ask the government of Canada to quickly implement a vast and robust development programme of clean, renewable, of conservation and efficient energy, including provisions for the development of small and medium-scale clean energy projects and matching grants to encourage the use of passive and active solar energy, water use reducing devices, wind power where applicable, and geo-thermal technology to help construct sustainable communities.
Liberal Party of Canada (Quebec)
Liberal Party of Canada (Saskatchewan)
PAssed!!
Although wind power became a political controversy in Ontario, in many places in Canada large Wind Farms that have been constructed over that last decade without any serious controversy. Apparently producing enough electricity to power about one million homes. Cost competitiveness depends on geographic location; and also cost is offset by the benefits of innovation and manufacturing.
Many emerging nations can obtain petroleum and coal from Middle Eastern and Pacific Rim suppliers; however, those that do not have sufficient reserves of coal and petroleum would prefer cost effective Conservation and Renewable Energy technology. To be competitive in these global markets Canada must be a leader in these technologies.
Also, energy conservation, largely through public transportation infrastructure, is readily achievable. There are huge economic opportunities in public transportation technology.
The opportunities for economic growth through these technologies must be emphasized, and also the cost effectiveness by which these opportunities may be realized. Simply by mandating that federal government facilities and equipment incorporate Conservation and Renewable Energy technologies the government creates a huge incentive for private sector to investment and innovation.
(At the risk of straying from the point; John McCulligh mentions below that at one time Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were laughed at. It is noteworthy, that computers about the size of a suitcase were available in the late 1960s (e.g.: the DAK, the HP1000). Steve Jobs and Bill Gates developed consumer applications for technology developed for Government organizations. Historically, the single greatest stimulus to innovation has been government procurement of advanced technologies. Ditto for Conservation and Renewable Energy technology, if the government forms initial demand then consumer spinoff will follow.)
Most of our non-renewal resources will run out. Let’s be creative in that manner of fact.
Simple here I agree, change will be slow, combining new technology with what we already use must be encouraged. Costs will go done in the long term. While I hear many negative comments on this, I harken back to the ’80s when Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were laughed at.
I disagree with this resolution. I feel that we can most effectively protect the personal liberty of our citizens by going with the most cost effective way to maximize energy output. Presently, it’s controversial to say whether or not the energy produced by alternative means described in this article is sufficient to replace output from our hydro/nuclear plants. I think it is not. I believe that in the near future we should not turn our attention away from those technologies, but we should not adopt them without foresight either. Until these alternative energy sources have proven to be comparatively cost effective and are ready for mass production, we should continue to grow our economy with cost effective Hydro/Nuclear plants.
While adoption of these alternative energy sources would create a moral high ground for our party to platform on, I want to say that economic development could potentially be stunted if energy prices rise as output might not achieve sustained growth. There is simply insufficient proof that these alternative means could supply Canada’s macroeconomic growth to an acceptable level.
If we follow the more traditional paths to create more hydro/nuclear plants energy output will increase and prices will drop, more opportunities will become available for Canadians. I think Canadians will use less of their purchasing power to participate in the economy under an energy plan that is environmentally-friendly on a relative basis, but not cost effective.
Looking at the comments here, it looks like not many share my opinion at face value. But I believe that it’s disingenuous to believe that this policy would be extremely destructive to our environment, if it is followed with the necessary precautions, maintenance and waste disposal. As technology changes I believe there will be a future time when we will be at liberty to adopt alternative energy and keep up sustained economic growth. But I fear that our fragile economy might suffer if we adopt before we are truly ready.
Roman: I am not sure if I totally share your views but I do agree with you that nuclear should be included in the mix of green, low carbon fuels that will help us convert from coal, oil and gas.
But I don’t think we should decide that every green step must be totally competitive with the phased out fossil fuel.
The human race is being threatened by the implications of Global Warming and that cost is not reflected in the price of fossil fuels as they push us toward the turning point.
So if some company were to develop a drop-in non-food bio fuel at $3 per litre then we should use it immediately even though on the surface it looks like we are paying a premium.
I think we already have a competitive low carbon options for base load electricity, they are water power and nuclear. Solar is still too expensive so lets put it on the back burner. Wind is competitive with nuclear but the rural people of Ontario hate it, so I would put that on the back burner too.
The real problem is transportation. We are moving forward with solutions for electric and hybrid cars that will save energy. But our trucks, trains, ships and airplanes need a different alternative and I believe that is bio fuel. We need a competitive, non food bio fuel possibly from algae or switch grass and we should be encouraging research in these areas.
Ontario already has an Energy Audit service for helping us conserve natural gas in our homes and businesses. I don’t know about the other provinces. We should be encouraging people to take advantage of these services.
Solar will become far less expensive and more practical for home use in the near future. The University of Alberta has developed a cheap, lightweight alternative to the traditional rigid panels.
Also, the University of Michigan is close to developing a process to save excess solar energy by converting it to fuel cells.
Hi Chris: We have listened to the solar story for a long time and our farmers in Ontario still want 80 cents per kwh for roof mounted panels. If there are new developments coming up I would hope that we can see the FIT rate go down. Its giving solar a bad name.
If we can get solar to work economically, it is the total answer because we can avoid HV transmission lines as well. We also have to come up with an economical way of storing power when the sun shines so we have a power source at night.
That’s where the conversion of solar energy to fuel cells comes in.
Enough solar energy hits the earth in an hour to power the world for a year. Plastic, spray-on solar cell are projected to be retailing in 2015, which I suppose could be hastened with more money.
Look it up: it’s fascinating stuff.
Chris: If you have some links that would be helpful. I do subscribe to a number of news feeds and have not seen the kind of promise in solar that you are finding.
Here’s a YouTube link to the plastic solar cells:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GxVZpvfeOU
Hi Chris: Thank you so much for this. I think the idea of a plastic solar panel has terrific potential. I have a friend who just installed solar panels. First you have to reshingle your roof then the panels are bolted to the rafters. Its very costly and heavy work. Plastic would make the job much easier I think. A lot of our solar panels today are made in China so maybe this would increase the Canadian content as well. There is one thing. You may have heard of Electrovaya (http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National/Technology_&_Science/1244507466/ID=1305154915) which had a good story about plastic batteries and 3 years later it has not amounted to much. I will be so much happier when these startups evolve to where they can give you a price per square foot for the end product.
I think it’s fair to expect that once mass produced and bought by some major players such as HydroOne, the price for the consumer should be well below that of conventional silicon cells. After all, the price on most consumer electronic products such as laptops and HDTVs have done nothing but drop over the past few years.
Hi Chris: This is in reply to your note about mass production. I have some friends who invested in Electrovaya and lost their shirts. Now if Solarlight is a sure winner, you have an opportunity to make a lot of money but there are so many of these startups that have not moved to mass production. You have to be a little careful. The next competitive bio fuel, solar panel or nuclear reactor will be like microsoft of 1980. If you can pick one of them, it will be better than winning the lottery.
Like others, this resolution has the appearance of being a no-brainer.
However, I do think implementation must be small scale and undertaken in conjunction with public and municipal participation. I saw a documentary recently about how wind energy companies in the U.S. (probably similar tactics here in Canada too) commodify ‘wind farms’ such that they become funny money derivatives. In the end, no one knows if there is any real energy benefit!
The companies go into communities and offer people little sums of money for the right to build 400 ft windmills. But the catch: secrecy, the property owner can’t speak about the deal with their neighbours, their friends, their community. Little information is given about impacts, hydro lines, etc. The energy companies then get rebates from government, wrap up the contracts and trade them on the stock exchange, and so on.
The big loser? Individual property owners and whole communities. There seems to be much impact on wildlife that we aren’t being told about.
I was devastated after watching this documentary. I had always thought windmills were elegant and a great, environmentally low impact way to go. I’m quite anti-windmill as a result and it is not because of the technology, but rather because of the realization that even with this seemingly benign means of producing energy, the corporatists bastardize even wind power.
Like most things, the devil is in the details.
Want to bring up Green Neutral Taxation again, I know what your thinking we lost an election and dropped to 77 MP’s, yes but we were a bit early and did not have the ground work done to prepare the way that now is becomming the consensus(as Hon.Paul Martin says it takes a long time to build consesus) Liberals must stand by things, we must not live up to our competitors taunts of drifting with the winds of Popular Opinion. If we want to build consensus around the best Policies we must stick with them, even in defeat. Look around the alternatives are being panned around the world and accross Canada, cap and trade is too complicated and rife of potential abuse and lack of accountability. Regulations are slow punitive and will not change behaviours of individuals. Only a behaviour change to move away from Fossil Fuels to renewables and conservation will work, Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party had it right and will be vindicated in the future.
After the overthrow of Stephane Dion, the Liberal party did, indeed, drift more and more “with the winds of popular opinion”, and gradually ended up having no vision that would attract voters. Ultimately, the Liberal platform came down to criticising the fighter planes and bigger jails that the Conservatives were implementing, but there was no vision of our own.
We were told that Canadians were primarily concerned with the economy. Discussion of “green” incentives, particularly since their implementation was successfully portrayed as costing the taxpayer more money, was abandoned by the Liberal Party.
During the recent provincial elections in Ontario, Andrea Horwath won votes by promising to remove any surtax on gasoline, a particularly irresponsible election strategy.
Education of the masses is what is needed. Many people are struggling financially. Yet they drive large trucks and go way over the speed limit to show off their powerful vehicles. If any of them are fined for speeding, it is called a tax grab, yet they do not realize that these taxes offset other services such as schools and hospitals. We need to educate the general populace that excessive speed raises gasoline consumption, for example, and if people insist on speeding and owning gas guzzlers, they will have to pay for the luxury, some of that to offset health care costs, among other services. We all must do our share to save our planet, of which we own a sizeable chunk, and the Liberal Party must become the champion of educating the general populace for the common good, doing what is right, and convincing Canadians that ultimately we will all benefit from “green” incentives.
I’m absolutely not against clean energy, but I have one interrogation, linked with international trade (this can be linked also to any social regulation which raise the general wealth).
In fact, wouldn’t those ideas, along with free trade, lead to a disadvantage for Canada in the international trade opposed to other countries which have bunch of social problems, but where wages and regulations are significantly lowers? And I’m saying that, not because I want (social and environmental) regulations lowered, but because it seems to me that could be an international problem.
So, wouldn’t it be wise to accompany our future free trade agreements of clauses in which we could pull up the regulations of those other countries by imposing fees to their transportation if they don’t have some regulation themselves. That could be called “equal trade” (equal in opportunities), but I would like to hear you about that. It’s just an idea I had.
Je vous répondrai en français ici ; je trouve lamentable la que les discussions en ligne soient scindées en forums séparées pour l’anglais et le français. Cette segrégation crée une dynamique qui défavorise les discussions en français car la plupart des participants seront actifs sur les forums en anglais et oublieront d’aller voir ce qui se dit en français. Je propose que les foires à discussions soient intégrés dorénavant pour favoriser le bilinguisme qui est l’un des piliers de notre parti.
Une idée intéressante que celle-ci. Je ne suis pas sufisamment au courant de ce qui se passe dans les négociations sur les accords commerciaux internationaux. Mais votre proposition pourrait aider à instaurer un système de commerce international plus équitable — de l’ « equitable trade » ou du « fair trade » renforcé.
En effet, je suis un francophone de Québec. Voyant qu’il n’y avait rien sur le forum francophone, j’ai décidé de poster tous mes commentaires en anglais. C’est aussi qu’ainsi, j’ai plus de chances d’être compris.
Je crois que vous avez bien saisi l’essence de ma proposition. Je suis heureux que ça ne soit pas vu comme un inacceptable affront au libre-échange et qu’il soit possible d’y réfléchir sérieusement.
En fait, je crois que le “cheap labor” devrait être considéré comme une forme de concurrence déloyale puisqu’il n’encourage pas à améliorer les méthodes de production, mais a plutôt l’effet de tirer vers le bas la qualité de vie du plus riche des pays commerçant sans aider vraiment ceux de l’autre pays.
Ce qu’il reste à savoir, c’est s’il est possible de créer des frais de douane qui permettraient de prendre en compte la provenance des différentes parties d’un produit… Et ça, ce n’est pas gagné. C’est pourquoi je ne me précipite pas.
C’est une honte pour le parti de ne pas avoir une version française du site. Je n’écris pas assez bien en français après mes observations dans les deux langues, mais la technologie existe pour ce faire. Google a été de le faire depuis de nombreuses années.
Bonjour Christopher,
Il y a effectivement une version francophone du site – il s’agit de cliquer sur “français” dans le coin droit supérieur de la page. Par contre, rien n’empêche les francophones à rédiger leur commentaire sur le côté anglais, tel que vous et quelques autres avez fait.
Pour ce qui est de la traduction, il est effectivement possible de faire des traductions avec un logiciel tel que “google translate” mais il y a plusieurs problèmes qui peuvent arriver. Il est très facile pour google translate de se tromper et que les gens qui pensent se comprendre et qui pensent comprendre la personne à qui il sont en train de discuter avec… mais ils sont vraiment en train de comprendre une version complètement différente. La nuance qui est souvent requise dans un débat politique est très difficile a reproduire. On a testé google translate avec les textes qui se trouve sur Libéral.ca et ça ne va pas très bien. Par exemple, google translate traduit ”riding”, un mot souvent utiliser ici, par « équitation » au lieu de circonscription. Ainsi, il est devenu évident que ça ne prendra pas beaucoup de temps avant qu’un simple message à propos de la politique canadienne perd tout son sens en raison d’une mauvaise traduction.
http://translate.google.com/#en|fr|riding
Cela dit, votre commentaire n’est pas le premier que nous avons reçu sur ce sujet et nous sommes présentement en train d’étudier les diverses options à notre disposition. Merci pour la rétroaction.
This is a Google translation of the bulk of you reply…
By cons, nothing prevents the French to write their comments on the English side, as you and others have done.
In terms of translation, it is actually possible to make translations with software such as “google translate” but there are several problems that can happen. It is very easy to google translate to make mistakes and people who think they understand and believe that understanding the person he is talking with … but they are really trying to understand a completely different version. The nuance that is often required in a political debate is very difficult to reproduce. Were tested with google translate the texts found on Liberal.ca and it’s not going very well. For example, google translate translates “riding” a word often used here, by “riding” instead of riding. Thus, it became clear that it will not take long before a simple message about Canadian politics is meaningless because of bad translation.
http://translate.google.com/ # en | fr | riding
That said, your comment is not the first that we have received on this issue and we are currently studying various options available to us. Thank you for the feedback.
I would judge that to be far better than none at all. It isn’t perfect, but unless it’s a live person doing the translation it likely never will be. By the way, ‘riding’ seems to have translated perfectly in this case.
As a linguist, I can share with you the deep skepticism shared by most in my field that any kind of machine translation system will be able to equal the abilities of even an average strong bilingual let alone a professional translator/interpreter. Best not to touch something like this with a ten METRE pole. It can lead to hopeless distortion, whereas bilingual interaction on a single forum will let misunderstandings be solved by natural “crowdsourcing” to the bilingual participants. This is how it happens all the time in everyday life.
And by the way, what happened with “riding” is this: English has two homonyms also spelled “riding”. One is a noun (usually) meaning “travelling on horseback” without any further context. The other, meaning “electoral district”, is a less common term not even used in the US and some other English-speaking countries.
Google translate took the easy route and selected the most common meaning: “horse riding”, i.e. “équitation” in French. The proper French term (in Canada) is “circonscription”. If you translate “équitation” back to English, yes, it does give you “riding”, but Google translate “thinks” that is the English word that means *horseback* riding. If you translate “riding” into French correctly as “circonscription” and then Google-T it back into English, you get “district”, which is ambiguous and can easily lead to misunderstandings.
And all this for a single word. The more complex and technical the discussion gets, and the more it is about Canadian-specific issues and concepts, the bigger the likelihood is that automatic translations will lead to hilarious or even critically misleading translations.
Merci André.
Effectivement, je suis au courant du forum du côté français du site. Le problème, c’est que dans la dynamique d’une conversation nationale, ceux qui préféreraient s’exprimer en français sont pris : soit ils s’expriment sur le forum do côté français – dont la plupart du monde ignorera l’existence – et risquent de se faire marginaliser, soit ils se dirigent vers le forum en anglais pour faire entendre leur voix et s’expriment en anglais soit par peur d’être mal perçus s’ils s’expriment en français soit par peur que d’autres participants ne les comprennent pas.
De mon point de vue personnel, je perçois que dans des forums oû l’on utilise les deux langues, on s’adapte facilement et les bilingues viennent souvent en aide aux monolingues (ou presque) dans l’une ou l’autre des deux langues. C’est simplement ce qui se passe dans la vie quotidienne dans un milieu bilingue, ou ce qui se passerait en vis-à-vis au Congrès. (Au moins, je l’imagine ainsi : qui sait si l’on fournira des écouteurs à tous les délégués et que tout mais tout sera traduit ?)
Thanks André.
Actually, I’m aware of the forum on the French side of the site. The problem is that in the dynamics of a national discussion, those who would prefer to contribute in French find themselves in a quandary: either they post in the French forum – which most people probably don’t know exists – and risk being marginalised, or they go to the English language forum to be heard and write in English either for fear of looking bad if they write in French, or for fear that other participants won’t understand them.
From my own experience, I notice that in forums where both languages are used, people adapt easily and bilinguals often help out the people who are (essentially) monolingual in one or the other of the two languages. This is really just how things work in daily life in a bilingual environment, or how it would work at the Convention. (At least, that’s how I imagine things: who knows if they’ll be giving us all headphones and translating absolutely everything that anyone says?)
As I pointed out in my first comment above, I would much prefer an integrated bilingual forum rather than linguistic apartheid that might disadvantage some members compared to others.
I very much sympathize with your initial complaint. One of the areas where this refusal to deal with French as an official (equal)language is most obvious is during broadcasts of political speeches. The party leaders generally alternate between English and French. Yet the French address is simultaneously translated into English and transposed over the French part of the speech. I find this particularly annoying, seeing that the French is already an abbreviated version of the English: There is absolutely no harm in exposing Canadians to their other official language for some brief comments in an otherwise English address…
I am with George Apostol here. There are two faces to the problem. One is developing sources of energy that have a minimal damaging impact on the environment, including CO2 emissions. This will only meaningful if we retool our infrastructure so that it is no less easy and convenient to go to most destinations than it is now by private automobile. Private automobiles are among the largest contributors to our CO2 footprint, and the suburban sprawl they engender follows close behind. The costs of the motor-based infrastructure system extend far beyond CO2: they inherently bring gridlock with them – a problem big city mayors raised during and after the last election, and maintenance costs for the road system (repairs, snow clearing) are far higher than they would be had we opted for a far less car-intensive transportation system in the past.
This is a problem not just in Canada but almost everywhere else in the world, where the automobile has essentially become the compulsory way of getting around. You are at a disadvantage if you don’t have a car or drive. This is not a natural state of affairs; it’s the result of conscious choices to neglect trains between cities and public transit and safe, segregated cycling infrastructure in cities.
The chances of making progress on energy conservation and efficiency are small indeed if we don’t take concerted action on the transportation front. There are new technologies being developed in the transportation field that are potential game changers and could put us, if we take the bold leap, in the forefront among nations. I’ll have more to say about this in resolutions 7 and 16.
While Canada produces less than 2% of global carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas) emissions, we are among the highest per capita emitters in the world and one of the areas that is, and will continue to be, among the most adversely impacted regions on the planet is northern Canada. I support this resolution because I believe there is a great opportunity for Canada to demonstrate global leadership in devising methods, tools and technologies to reduce fossil fuel emissions through imaginative approaches to energy conservation and the development of alternate energy sources in an environmentally responsible manner. Unfortunately, at this point, it appears that even if Canada reduced its fossil fuel emissions to zero this achievement would likely have little impact on the challenges we will face in adapting to climate change over the next few decades because of the massive amounts of greenhouse gases being emitted globally. This said, I believe there is much we could do to help humankind to eventually mitigate the mess we have gotten ourselves into and also, as a result, leave a larger store of fossil fuels available to future generations who may come up with ways to use these resources more intelligently than we have.
I think this should go hand in hand with encouraging public transportation and discourage use of personal cars.
There is significant scientific research being devoted to the development of new energy technologies. More federal funding for research in these areas will undoubtably create new technologies that can harness solar energy to produce electricity, or another energy carrier (i.e. hydrogen), that can then be used domestically and exported abroad.
I would like to see some real incentives on energy conservation. When you look at basic standards across Canada for building and developing there is no benchmark. When a PVR consumes as much electricity as a new refridgerator we have to look at our whole criterion for how products are introduced into markets. The Smart Grid technology revolution is really close to starting where computers will assist our houses at optimizing power consumption. We also need to need development planning new housing to be in line with tomorrows expectations. Geothermal heating is a real solution for reducing heating costs, but the lack of planning for new development keeps many people away. The drilling/excacation costs could be reduced if not shared with community developments. Heating COOPs pragrams could be created to manage the accounts on the municipal level. We have the technology all we need is to provide funding solutions that work. We share costs for water and sewer on the municipal level, why no geothermal supply and other energy development? There are many ways we can increase efficiency, tax credits not the best. Setting energy requirements for new construction and allowing alternative ideas for funding for programs that support communities are others.
I read that someone at the University of Michigan is trying to develop a way to convert solar energy into fuel cells. If successful, it may be the answer to our energy needs until something better comes along.
Also, plants convert and store solar energy at a 99% efficiency rate. We need to fund studies on how to duplicate the process nature already has created.
A correction: Plants have a photosynthetic efficiency of around 1%. 99% is how much they lose. If 99% efficiency were the case biofuels would be extremely cheap and we would probably not have the energy troubles we face today.
I support this resolution. I support good environment management, and also because there are opportunities for economic growth through innovation of environmental technologies.
However, the resolution refers to “provisions” and “grants”; and there should be some elaboration of what is meant by “provisions”. The government has many facilities that could be powered, in whole or in part, by renewable energy; and could incorporate energy conservation technologies. Purchases of these technologies for government facilities provides great incentive to private sector investment in innovate technologies. I think “procurements for government facilities, equipment and materials” should be explicitly stated as one of the “provisions”.
Although grants and subsidies have there place, we tend to underestimate the huge incentive that government purchasing of innovative technology has. A huge proportion of private sector investment in innovative technology has been driven by government procurement. This is a cost effective and accountable means of stimulating investment in innovative technology. Whereas grants and subsidies can be costly to administer, and the accountability of the recipient can be problematic.
I will vote for this but No Carbon Tax!
We need a carbon tax in Canada. Most developed countries have already a carbon tax. Sweden, Denmark, Australia, South Korea, Finland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, U.K, Switzerland. Even In Quebec and BC we have a carbon tax, and in some parts of California as well. We are lagging behind. If we create a carbon tax and reduce income tax we will reduce tax burden on the average Canadian and increase burden on polluting industries.
I agree that we need a carbon tax. The only way to get us collectively to reduce carbon is to hit us in the pocketbook.
And yes, polluters need to pay the piper too.
My opinion, the Ontario version of renewable energy, solar panels, wind turbine has been a total failure. Poorly implemented, poorly envisioned and completely unfair to the residence of Ontario.
If we are proceeding down this road, which no doubt we are, a full review of goals, objectives and legislative oversight driven by public input is essential to its success.
There are tremendous opportunities in Canada for the development of a wide range of renewable energy technologies, including: solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydro, bio-gas, smart grid technology, the capture of waste energy, etc. We live in a cold climate, but could be at the forefront of energy conservation. We could market our technologies around the world and create clean 21st century jobs here at home. Canada should have its own RET research centres. Perhaps there should be a junior minister of RET within the Natural Resources Canada dept.
And I think we should work with the USA on some of this. There are regions there where solar power “farms” should be highly productive, would be modular, and could be internationally run: Rent the desert lot, install the (Canadian) generators and feed – sell – into the grid. Canada may have places better suited to certain kinds of energy storage, such as pumping water to higher ground for hydro power recovery on demand. The north may have more suitable places for wind farms (with fewer people, bats and birds to disrupt).
There is a thread between this resolution and the resolution calling for greater investment in science and innovation.