What can Canada and Québec learn from history to drive energy innovation today?
(LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/innovation-napoleonic-france-industrial-revolution-britain-marcoux-no3ie)
Napoleonic France emphasized centralized scientific progress, while Industrial Revolution Britain thrived on market-driven experimentation and private-sector collaboration. The result? Britain rapidly adopted innovations like steam power, while France, despite breakthroughs, struggled with scalability and commercialization.
Fast forward to today—Canada faces a similar crossroads. While state-driven initiatives in clean energy have driven remarkable progress, ensuring that these innovations transition from research labs to large-scale adoption remains a challenge.
?? Should Canada focus more on private-sector incentives to accelerate commercialization? ?? What lessons from history can help balance government-led research with entrepreneurial agility?
The answers lie in a strategic blend of historical lessons, modern policies, and bold action. Read on to discover how Canada and Québec can build an energy ecosystem that scales innovation and strengthens national energy security.
I. Comparing the Two Innovation Models in Energy
While both Napoleonic France and Industrial Revolution Britain played crucial roles in energy innovation, their approaches differed significantly. France’s state-led model focused on controlled scientific advancements, while Britain’s decentralized market-driven approach encouraged rapid adoption. The table below highlights key contrasts between the two models:
This contrast demonstrates that while state-led research can produce major breakthroughs, sustained technological progress often depends on decentralized innovation networks, private investment, and market-driven incentives. In Britain, organizations such as the Lunar Society (which included inventors like James Watt and Matthew Boulton) and the Royal Society provided crucial platforms for knowledge exchange and collaboration. These informal networks allowed inventors to refine ideas and accelerate practical applications, fostering a dynamic innovation ecosystem.
In contrast, France relied on formal institutions like the Académie des Sciences and the École Polytechnique, which focused on state-led scientific progress. While these institutions ensured a high level of theoretical knowledge and systematic research, the centralized control limited the commercial scalability of innovations. Canada and Québec must find a balance between these models to successfully scale clean energy technologies in today’s geopolitical landscape.
II. Invention vs. Adoption in Energy
Case Study: Innovation in Steam Power
France contributed foundational research in energy innovation. Sadi Carnot (1824) developed thermodynamic theory, laying the foundation for modern heat engines. However, France’s lack of industrial ecosystems prevented immediate practical applications.
Before then, James Watt’s steam engine (1769) had revolutionized British industry, allowing for mass production in textiles, mining, and railways. Britain’s private investment networks and industrial-scale coal extraction fuelled rapid adoption. Additionally, British inventors frequently engaged in tinkering and trial-and-error experimentation, often producing early prototypes without a deep theoretical foundation. The Lunar Society facilitated discussions that helped bridge the gap between scientific theory and practical industrial applications.
Implications for Canada and Québec
Québec, with its strong hydroelectric sector, mirrors France’s state-led model, where major energy projects are government-controlled. For new clean energy technologies (e.g. green hydrogen, battery storage), Canada must enable private-sector investment to scale adoption beyond state-supported projects. Encouraging experimental innovation hubs and public laboratories where companies can test and refine early-stage clean energy solutions could accelerate commercialization. Given current economic and geopolitical pressures, including U.S. annexation threats, Canada must ensure energy independence and strategic resource control to avoid economic vulnerability. Fostering a Canada-wide energy ecosystem and encouraging energy entrepreneurs to collaborate across provinces is critical, especially now, as collaboration with U.S. firms will be more difficult.
III. Challenges in Adoption: Comparing France, Britain, and Canada/Québec
1. Centralized Control Slows Commercialization
Napoleonic France’s highly structured approach to scientific progress meant that while significant breakthroughs were made, they were often constrained by bureaucratic control. Scientists and engineers worked on government mandates, and private-sector incentives were minimal. This created an environment where technological advancements were slow to reach industrial applications.
Meanwhile, Britain’s market-driven model encouraged widespread industrial adoption, fuelled by private investment and strong patent protections. Inventors had the freedom to develop, refine, and commercialize their work, leading to rapid advancements in energy technology.
Similarly, Canada today faces challenges in bridging the gap between government-supported research and large-scale industrial adoption. While public R&D investments have driven advancements in renewable energy, bureaucratic barriers, especially between provinces, and regulatory constraints have slowed down commercialization. Canada and Québec must ensure that clean energy innovations do not stagnate in research institutions but instead transition into widespread market use.
2. Energy Innovation Needs Market Adoption
Napoleonic France saw many groundbreaking scientific discoveries, yet these innovations often remained confined to academic or military applications rather than being widely implemented in the economy.
Britain’s decentralized, private-sector-driven model allowed for rapid adoption of technological advancements, particularly in the energy sector.
Canada faces similar challenges today—while it has strengths in energy innovation (e.g. hydroelectric power, carbon capture, and battery technology), adoption remains limited due to regulatory constraints and a lack of private-sector incentives.
To fully realize the potential of clean energy technologies, Canada must align market forces with innovation incentives, ensuring that breakthroughs transition into widespread industrial and consumer use.
Encouraging domestic adoption of clean technologies will reduce reliance on external markets, making Canada more resilient in the face of geopolitical instability.
IV. Strategic Priorities for Canada and Québec in Energy
The lessons from France and Britain’s historical approaches to innovation offer valuable guidance for Canada and Québec’s energy future. A successful energy transition requires a strategic balance between government support and industrial policies and private-sector dynamism. Policies should foster investment, streamline market adoption, and prioritize energy sovereignty to ensure long-term resilience.
1. Encourage Private Investment in Clean Energy — Government-backed research should actively partner with industry to ensure commercial-scale adoption. Canada must prioritize energy independence in response to U.S. trade aggression.
2. Ensure Resilience in Energy Supply Chains — Trade conflicts highlight the need for electrical equipment, domestic battery and clean energy technology production.
3. Decentralized Innovation Clusters Are More Effective Than Bureaucratic Control — Canada and Québec should strengthen regional energy innovation clusters while ensuring national coordination. Although clusters may focus on specific technologies, a cohesive strategy will maximize innovation, resource-sharing, and energy security.
4. Energy Sovereignty Must Be a National Priority — Given geopolitical threats, Canada must protect strategic energy assets and infrastructure from foreign control.
Conclusion: Canada’s Path Forward in Energy Innovation
The contrast between France’s structured scientific advancements and Britain’s hands-on, market-driven tinkering highlights key lessons for Canada and Québec today. By leveraging state-led research while fostering private-sector commercialization, Canada can establish a strong, resilient clean energy sector that ensures long-term economic stability and energy security.
