16 August 2024

ACT's new scientist of the year working to get renewable energy over its greatest hurdle

| James Coleman
Join the conversation
18
Dr Bjorn Sturmberg

Dr Bjorn Sturmberg is a research fellow at the Australian National University (ANU). Photo: ANU.

Dr Bjorn Sturmberg credits a particularly engaging physics teacher for getting him to where he is today.

“He was Dr Butler, and from memory, I had him both year 11 and 12, and he was a phenomenal teacher, really inspirational,” he says.

“Just as one metric of the impact he had, there was a good number of us in my year that went on to do science degrees at Sydney University, and at least three of us who did PhDs.”

Dr Sturmberg, now a senior research fellow at the Australian National University (ANU), was named ACT Emerging Scientist of the Year this week for what Chief Minister Andrew Barr described as “important work”, exploring how electric vehicles (EVs) and batteries could integrate with the power grid.

READ ALSO ‘Back to stunts’: Canberra Liberals seek Barr lookalike for ad campaign

“I would like to congratulate Dr Sturmberg on this incredible achievement and the extraordinary work that has seen him awarded 2024’s ACT Emerging Scientist of the Year,” Mr Barr said.

“His research aims to have immediate, real-world impacts to accelerate the transition to clean energy and steer this transition towards fairer and more equitable outcomes.”

Dr Sturmberg moved to Canberra in early 2019 to join the Battery Storage and Grid Integration Program at the ANU.

Created with the help of seed funding from the ACT Government in April 2018, the program aims to get the individual “building blocks” of solar panels, wind farms, EVs and batteries working together reliably enough to replace fossil fuels such as coal and gas in the grid.

Dr Bjorn Sturmberg flanked by Brian Schmidt and Alicia Payne.

Dr Bjorn Sturmberg flanked by former ANU president and vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt and Federal Labor member for Canberra Alicia Payne. Photo: ANU.

Dr Sturmberg’s PhD centred on solar technology. Before arriving in Canberra, he undertook a project involving solar that he says opened his eyes to the hurdles facing renewable energy.

“We were trying to install solar panels into this apartment building I was living in and it took us 18 months just to get all the regulatory approvals in place,” he says.

“We had to set precedent around the building codes and how they accommodated for lithium-ion batteries, and the building was heritage listed, so there was an extra layer of complexity.

“It’s all these things, human constructs that generally exist for a very good reason, but they’re fit for purpose more for the time they were written rather than the future we’re trying to create.”

Engie EV charger

Engie EV chargers at the ANU. Photo: James Coleman.

Dr Sturmberg says it’s a smaller version of the same problem his team is trying to solve now.

“When you look at the national grid, how do we get social licence for putting wind farms in certain places and building new transmission lines between states and out to renewable energy zones?

“How do we accommodate electric vehicles, and charging in a way that doesn’t stress the grid? Particularly, when it gets loaded up in the evening time and everyone comes home from work and puts on the heater or air conditioner and does their cooking.

“How can this transition be done one in a way that still meets the needs of essential services?”

READ ALSO Albanese’s ‘Future Made in Australia’ push getting a bumpy ride

He says the proudest moments of his career are when he sees “validation in the real world”, as in recently when 16 Nissan Leaf EVs in the ACT Government fleet plugged into bi-directional chargers fed power back into the national grid during a blackout in Victoria.

“There was a whole different type of satisfaction that came from seeing the data on how the vehicles had actually responded to a real unforeseen grid emergency.”

The Federal Government wants the country running on 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030, which Dr Sturmberg says is a “really good metric”.

“It’s going to take work and an accelerated uptake and deployment of solar and wind and battery storage, but I think it’s also realistic,” he says.

Dr Sturmberg's children's book

Dr Sturmberg’s children’s book Amy’s Balancing Act. Photo: Dr Bjorn Sturmberg.

“What we really need the most is coherency in the plan for how to get there, in a way that builds social confidence in the energy transition … flowing through to people having the confidence to buy EVs and knowing there will be sufficient charging networks to use them.”

Following in the footsteps of his physics teacher, Dr Sturmberg has published a children’s book. Titled Amy’s Balancing Act, his children’s fable tells of the transition to clean energy, “where different animals represent different energy technologies”.

“There’s a lizard that only has energy when the sun is on its back, or an albatross that can only fly when it’s windy, et cetera.

“It’s trying to show the different aspects of different clean-energy technologies, but also most importantly, how they can work together.”

Join the conversation

18
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

A helpful reminder; in one hour a day the sun delivers sufficient solar energy to the earth for all of humanities energy needs for a year. It does this 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year. We have simply been lazy and failed to invest in solar energy capture, conversion, storage and distribution. Now we must. The sun has been doing this task reliably for 5 billion years, it is estimated to have another 5 billion years life left.

Two questions: Because? And Why?

The country will soon commit to nuclear power, delivering a balanced reliable emissions-free energy mix.
https://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2024/06/19/australias-energy-future

It’s unlikely nuclear will ever be viable while there is a high proportion of renewable energy.
The reason is because renewable is always the cheapest energy that is dispatched to the grid first.
So during the day when there is 90% renewable energy in the grid, such as in South Australia today,
either the nuclear will have to switch off or home rooftop solar will have to be switched off.
Nuclear power stations go broke if they are switched off, They can not be turned down much.
That means home rooftop solar will be switched off by the network, but that will be extremely unpopular & a major vote loser.

Capital Retro1:42 pm 20 Aug 24

In case you were not aware Ian, industry doesn’t function only in daytime hours.

If what you wrote is the sort of stuff you have learned in school then you should buy lots of candles and firewood, now!

“The Coalition believes Australia must have a balanced energy mix to deliver cheaper, cleaner and consistent 24/7 electricity. 90 per cent of baseload electricity, predominantly coal fired power stations, is coming to the end of life over the next decade. Nuclear energy for Australia is an idea whose time has come.”

“Labor’s approach requires imposing 58 million solar panels, 3,500 new industrial wind turbines, and up to 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines across the country. Energy experts have warned the cost of Labor’s rollout will be between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion.”

“If you are serious about meeting our net zero by 2050 emissions commitments, then you must include zero-emission nuclear as part of your energy mix. Zero-emission nuclear power plants produce no air pollution or carbon emissions. For example, a 1.1 GW AP-1000 reactor cuts approximately seven million metric tonnes of CO2 emissions, equivalent to removing 1.5 million cars from the road.”

The coalition won’t be able to deliver a nuclear plant for 20 years even if they got into power. In that time renewables will take over the entirety of our electricity supply and are already cheaper than nuclear.

The chances of a nuclear power plant getting built in Australia is pretty much zero, they have no role to play in net zero as the more expensive and too late option.

How is that a barrier? ACT Labor and the greens can’t deliver a complete train set for a century and that still went ahead.

According to the Centre for Independent Studies nuclear is cost-competitive with nuclear. The CSIRO GenCost model has 3 cost flaws for large scale nuclear, the life of a nuclear plant, the capacity factor of nuclear, and the lifetime cost of fuel. They also under estimate the cost of renewables, especially the cost of storage and transmission.
This is their 5 minute summary – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw_AX9WaJ08

Wikipedia tells me this about the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS):
“Although there are no explicit ties between the CIS and the centre-right Liberal Party, the CIS is politically aligned with the Liberal Party, praising Liberal Party founder Robert Menzies, hosting various Liberal Party politicians and holding very critical views of the Labor Party”. “The CIS describes itself as a “classical liberal think tank.”” “The CIS does not publish its funding.”
I would be more inclined to believe the CSIRO than the CIS on this matter.

nobody, why has no commercial entity indicated they would build and deliver nuclear (subject to a clear legal pathway) if it is in fact cost-competitive?

The economic life of a plant differs from the effective life. This is true of all major private industrial developments, nothing different for nuclear. Do you know anything about the reality of truly large scale investment? Your first “issue”, containing most of the supposed economic improvement, is simply of no account. CSIRO also considered 40 years anyway rather than just 30, in case any investors might be willing to go there.

Helpful to nuclear in its review, GenCost ignored the fact that by the time nuclear turned up it would have no market willing to buy compared with lower cost renewables. They did note that nuclear would also be out-competed by any existing coal — not a new plant so low marginal cost.

Capacity factor relates to the market as well as to theoretical operation, and the GenCost figures are derived from industry data, not cherry-picking one market over the last two years. How much difference do you think there is between 89% and 93% anyway?

Nuclear feed costs have little effect, as even CIS notes, and transmission is already part of the GenCost report.

Have you noticed that the LNP has failed to produce any further data which they had promised by now, still only a media release? It is meant to get people like you excited with a hope others will then be misguided enough to vote for this pointless drain on taxpayers.

KenM,
We’re you trying to make my point for me?

So you agree we shouldn’t waste our time on unaffordable projects that will take decades to deliver for little benefit?

Nuclear power is cost-competitive, has popular support, is emissions free, has suitable locations, and is reliable 24/7. A minority don’t like it and will argue strongly against it, but the country will soon commit to nuclear power.

Writer ‘nobody’ prefers fantasy over pretty straightforward facts, making no attempt to consider my rather obvious opening question or to respond to even one of my verifiable points, but still pumping out falsehoods fed to them.

Line just flying off the reel here. 🤣

I think all your posts are trolling Ken, no one can be that bereft of basic knowledge so frequently.

Entirely missing the mark yet again, chewy. If I looked up oblivious in the dictionary, I’m sure I’d find your photo right there.

Ken can’t even come up with original insults, which isn’t unexpected.

If you looked up anything in the dictionary it would be a first, never too late for you to start learning the basics.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.