Table of contents
1. Executive summary 4
2. Introduction 6
2.1 About the CNSS project 6
2.2 Objectives of this report 7
2.3 Delimitations 7
2.4 Disclaimer 7
3. Background 8
3.1 Introduction 8
3.2 The global context 8
3.3 Stakeholders 9
3.3.1 Legislative and political level 9
3.3.2 Sector specific stakeholders 10
3.3.3 Commercial stakeholders 10
3.4 General policy framework on OPS 11
3.4.1 Introduction 11
3.4.2 International 11
3.4.3 European port and shipping stakeholders 13
3.4.4 Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) 14
3.4.5 The European Union (EU) 15
3.4.6 Regional level 20
3.4.7 National level 20
3.4.8 Sub-national level 21
3.4.9 Municipal level 21
3.4.10 Ports, ship owners and grid companies 22
3.4.11 Shipping Indices 23
3.5 Stakeholders: Summary and conclusion 23
3.6 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) 24
8. Case studies 45
8.1 Case study 1: Hamburg 45
8.2 Case study 2: Stena Line 46
9. Overall analysis 48
9.1 Introduction 48
9.2 Ship owners 48
9.3 Ports 48
9.4 The ship owner and port authority interface 48
9.5 Type of traffic 49
9.6 The public sector 49
9.7 Technical aspects 50
9.8 Commercial / Cost /Investment aspects 51
9.9 Environmental benefit 51
9.10 Status in the North Sea Region 52
11. Recommendations 56
11.1 Introduction 56
11.2 Regulatory issues 56
11.3 Environmental issues 57
11.4 Commercial aspects 57
11.5 Technical issues 57
12. Bibliography 58
3
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
1. Executive summary
The shipping sector accounts for a significant share of States. As environmental awareness and concern is
harmful pollutants to the air, which constitutes a growing in society at large but also specifically in the
pressing problem in many port communities. port and shipping community, OPS is a technology
Increasing concentrations of NOx, SOx, PM and other attracting increasing attention as a tool to combat
substances and gases constitute a major threat to emissions. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is
public health in ports and surrounding areas. Large something that historically have not been at the top of
ships are also major contributors to global CO2 the agenda in shipping, but there are signs that CSR
emissions. considerations are having increasing impact on
company balance sheets and this is a trend that is
Due to the truly international character of the trade it is likely to grow in future.
difficult to enforce regulations to limit the environmental
effects of shipping. Similar to aviation, ship fuels and In the North Sea region we have found the public
emissions are not regulated as strictly as land-based sector to be a crucial driving force in promoting OPS,
transport. In addition, the replacement rate for ships is both through incentives (tax reductions and grants)
much slower than for trucks and buses, which means and strict environmental legislation.
that few energy efficient new ships enter the market
every year. A large number of studies have shown that OPS has
the potential to significantly reduce emissions of
The result of the study confirms that OPS is a complex harmful substances and greenhouse gases to the air.
issue involving a large number of diverse stakeholders OPS is primarily a technology designed to combat
at various levels in society and the shipping supply local air and noise pollution but if deployed on a large
chain. Although not technically complicated, the scale it may also provide large CO2 savings.
question of whether to invest in OPS or not depends on
a large number of interrelated issues that ports and Technically, OPS is not a complicated issue and new
ship owners must evaluate, i.e. commercial viability of global standards provide good guidance for
the investment, environmental impact, rate of utilisation implementation. However, there are some issues
as well as impacts of future emission reduction around frequency (50 or 60 Hz) and the location of the
regulations on the trade. equipment onboard ships that still remains a
challenge. Most components used in OPS installations
Globally, OPS is today far from being a widely used are standard and widely used in other types of
technology, however there are some progressive electrical power equipment.
regions that have taken great strides in deploying the
technology, most notably the west coast of the United In regard to the onshore grid, OPS do not pose any
4
major challenges, with the possible exception of cruise commercial impact of OPS. For some time the OPS
ships that have a very high power demand. Mostly it is debate has been dominated by the chicken or egg
a matter of cost and time to reinforce the grid locally. question relating to which actor should take the first
step in investing in OPS the port side or the ship
The environmental and commercial success of any owners. Throughout this project it has become clear
given OPS installation needs to be evaluated on a though that the public sector plays a critical role in
case-by-case basis as the conditions for individual promoting the deployment and utilisation of the
ports and ship owners vary greatly. In general terms technology in the shipping sector. It is highly unlikely
however, one can conclude that OPS is particularly that ship owners will take the initiative for a sector wide
suitable for liner traffic spending considerable time in implementation of OPS. Society, in the form of
port. The more power that is generated onshore by national, regional and local government, has several
renewable sources compared to onboard ships by instruments at its disposal for promoting deployment of
means of auxiliary engines, the more an OPS OPS and other clean shipping technologies, such as
investment makes commercial and environmental differentiated port dues, tax reductions for shorebased
sense. In a long term perspective, the issue of rising power as well as grants. In addition, the public side
CO2 emissions to the atmosphere is likely to result in could play a more active role in supporting effective
tougher regulations on all polluting sectors, including collaboration and knowledge transfer in the sector.
shipping. OPS also provides a means for society to
indirectly influence the unregulated shipping sector The CNSS project together with involved stakeholders
since shorebased electricity generation is included is willing to provide recommendations to help combat
under the CO2 emissions ceiling whereas fuel used in local air pollution and global emission from the
auxiliary ship engines is not. shipping industry. Taking a long-term perspective,
OPS does have an important role to play, provided that
The OPS mapping of the North Sea region has shown society is willing to solve the environmental and health
that Sweden is in the lead when it comes to the largest problems caused by shipping. There are several
number of installed OPS systems. There are however examples of successful OPS installations, which more
very interesting developments also in Norway, ports and ship owners could learn from.
Germany, and the Netherlands.
5
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
2. Introduction
The Clean North Sea Shipping (CNSS) project, recommendations and exchange experiences with
involving 18 partners from six countries, seeks to policymakers, ports, terminal operators and shipping
address the problems caused by air pollution and companies;
greenhouse gases produced by ships operating along
the North Sea coast and within North Sea ports and - Exchange of experiences
harbours. A reduction in exhaust gas emissions from - Providing recommendations for improvement
ships will improve the general environmental situation - Guideline for policymakers on implementation of
in the North Sea Region.The CNSS project aims to technologies towards cleaner shipping
create awareness, share knowledge and convince - Stimulate as many ports, terminal operators and
influential stakeholders, including regional and shipping companies as possible to implement
European politicians, ports, shipping companies and available technology, for the benefit of the
cargo owners, to take action. environment and their future
The Clean North Sea Shipping (CNSS) project has The OPS report is the result of one of the activities of
thoroughly examined a matrix of OPS initiatives as well the WP4 Clean Shipping Technology work package.
as their impact on society with the aim with the to
visualise current status and future, provide
6
2.2 Objectives of this report interviews with a large number of stakeholders across
the North Sea Region, including ports, ship owners,
This report provides an analysis and mapping of the sector organisations, researchers, grid owners and
current status and prospective development of representatives from the EU as well as
Onshore Power Supply (OPS) in the North Sea Region. national/regional/local government. To get a
The report was commissioned by the Clean North Sea comprehensive background to the subject we have
Shipping Project, to provide insight into a topical issue also taken into account a number of academic reports,
currently of great interest to the shipping sector in the feasibility studies and media articles.
region and internationally.
This report will form a sound basis for further study and
exchange of knowledge between the different
stakeholders with an interest in OPS technology in the
The purpose of the report is to provide an
North Sea Region.
updated picture of the status of onshore
power supply installations in the North
Sea Region. This report aims to answer
the following questions: 2.3 Delimitations
Chapter 3 who influence OPS investment The study is primarily focused on high voltage OPS
decisions? connections for sea-going ship traffic in the North Sea
region, thus excluding onshore power for inland barge
Chapter 4 what is the technology? traffic from the report. The main emphasis is on High
Voltage Shore Connection (HSVC) although throughout
Chapter 5 what are the main drivers this report we refer to the technology with the more
behind the investments? general term Onshore Power Supply (OPS).
1 The international reference group consists of Antonis Michail, ESPO; Mauritz Prinssen, Port of Rotterdam; Per Rekdal, Port Of Oslo;
Jrgen Zabel, SAM Electronics; and Lorene Grandidier, Schneider Electric.
7
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
3. Background
3.1 Introduction regulation2 that will come into force in 2014, which
requires certain vessels to dramatically lower their
Onshore Power Supply (hereafter referred to as OPS) emissions whilst in port. This applies to six Californian
is a technology that enables vessels to replace the use ports and require most ships to connect to the onshore
of auxiliary engines whilst at berth. The technology is grid.3 California is a designated Sulphur Emissions
sometimes also referred to as Cold Ironing, Alternative Control Area (SECA), something that has been an
Maritime Power (AMP), or High/Low Voltage Shore important driving force in the deployment of OPS
Connection (HVSC/LVSC). In this report we focus on technology in the region. The regulation became
HVSC. effective in 2009 and will during the period 2014-2020
require increasing demands on the number of port
Whilst in port vessels require electricity for various
calls connecting to shore power and a corresponding
activities, including loading and discharging cargo,
reduction in emissions.4
heating, lighting and air conditioning. This power is
normally generated by diesel fueled auxiliary engines On the east coast of the United States there are also
emitting sulphur dioxide (SOx), nitrogen oixides (NOx), some interesting OPS projects being planned, e.g. in
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particulate matter the Florida Port of Everglades (to cater for the Royal
(PM), carbon dioxide (CO2) and other green house Carribean new OASIS-class cruises).5
gases (GHG), negatively affecting the air quality of
local communities. Low frequency noise from auxiliary The government of Canada has provided significant
engines is another local environmental problem in financial support to an OPS investment at the port of
ports. Prince Rupert on the west coast that will provide shore
power to container ships in the transpacific trade.6
Instead of generating the power onboard by means of
auxiliary engines there are available technologies In Asia, the Hong Kong port of Kai Tak has also
enabling vessels to connect to the local electricity grid. decided to connect cruise liners to OPS in an effort to
As environmental awareness and concern have grown lower local emissions.7
in the shipping sector and stricter requirements on
emissions have been enforced, OPS technology is There are some examples of bilateral initiatives to
generating increasing interest amongst ports, ship promote green shipping routes between select ports
owners and local communities as a way to mitigate on the US west coast and in China. The German
emissions and noise problems. federal government is also in talks with Chinese
counterparts regarding a green shipping corridor
between German ports and Shanghai.8 Individual ports
in different regions also have bilateral discussions
3.2 The global context related to OPS with the aim of improving the chances
To set the scene for an in-depth analysis of the status for shared customers to be able to connect to OPS
of OPS in the North Sea Region it is relevant to whilst calling these ports. This typically applies to
consider the global context and mention some global liner traffic, however it could be extended to
initiatives in other parts of the world. parts of the cruise liner business in which ships
operate in different regions depending on season.9
In the US and Canada several ports have received
financial support for OPS investments. Examples A few shipping companies have taken great strides to
include Port of Victoria, Port Hueneme, Los Angeles, retrofit their ships to accommodate OPS technology.
Long Beach and Brooklyn. The most proactive Examples include the worlds fourth largest container
proponents for OPS are Los Angeles and Long Beach, carrier APL that have installed OPS on five container
which have decided that 90% of all vessels calling the carriers to be connected to the mainland grid in the
ports must be connected to the onshore grid by 2020. Port of Oakland10. In the cruise industry there are
This initiative is linked to the California At-Berth several cruise line companies which can now connect
8
to onshore power, most of them trading on ports on the To understand the complexity surrounding OPS
US west coast, e.g. Holland America Line, Royal investments it makes sense to briefly describe the
Caribbean International, Celebrity Cruise Lines, different stakeholders and their type and level of
Norwegian Cruise Line, and Princess Cruises.11 influence. Note that the below is a generic mapping of
stakeholders and the situation in individual ports vary
Regarding newbuilt ships, it is now becoming greatly due to size, location, type of traffic and political
increasingly common that container vessels over 6000 framework.
TEUs are equipped with OPS technology.
3.3.1 Legislative and political level
In southern Europe there are several OPS projects
being planned. In Genoa, Italy, there will be a high 1. Intergovernmental organisations: develop policy and
voltage installation for ferry and cruise traffic and enforce regulations regarding e.g. sulphur content
possibly also for a container terminal. In Barcelona, of ship fuel. They can also provide incentives for
Spain, OPS for ferry traffic is being planned.12 OPS through promoting sector cooperation and
grants. Examples include the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO) and the European Union.
2. National governments: policy development and
3.3 Stakeholders legislative power. Governments has the power of the
stick, e.g. forcing ports to provide OPS through
Although OPS is an established technology and has
environmental court decisions, but may also provide
been in use since the early 1980s13 there are a number
incentives for investments such as tax reductions for
of issues that have prevented the widespread
ports and ship owners utilising the technology.
deployment of OPS. One key factor is the large
3. Regional authorities: may exercise direct or indirect
number of stakeholders that in one way or other
influence on OPS e.g. through developing regional
influence OPS investment decisions. For any
transport and logistics plans and coordinating
investment to be successful all relevant actors in a
stakeholders in a given region.14 Regional authorities
given location need to be involved and find a way to
could also provide financial means to support OPS
cooperate. They must agree on a compatible
installations.15
technology and construct a viable business model for
the site-specific OPS installation.
2 California Senate Bill No. 234. Legiscan website: www.legiscan.com (accessed on 2013-04-28)
3 The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to grant a waiver releasing the regulation from federal jurisdiction, placing it
under the authority of the state.
4 2014-2016 50% of a fleets calls must be connected to shore power, 2017-2019 this figure is raised to 70% and by 2020 this impacts on
80% of fleet calls. This effects 28 terminal operators and 57 fleets. Source: Californian Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources
Board.
5 Bankes-Hughes, L. Iron age spotlight on cold ironing, Bunkerspot Aug/Sept. 2009, www.petrospot.com
6 World Port Climate Initiative, www.onshorepowersupply.org
7 Paggie Leung. Cruise ships to get on-shore power supply. South China Morning Post, 19 July 2012. www.scmp.com.
8 Suzana Fistric, meeting at Hamburg State Ministry, 21 March 2013: Discussions between the German federal government and Chinese
authorities have been initiated but are still at a very early stage.
9 One such example is the ports of Stockholm and Barcelona.
10 World Port Climate Initiative, www.onshorepowersupply.org
11 They have all been awarded the Port of Seattles Green Gateway Partner Award. www.cruiseforward.org
12 Luciano Corbetta, Cavotec, cited in CNSS presentation 22 November 2011. www.cnss.no
13 In 1984 the port authorities in Stockholm installed a low voltage OPS system for the Viking Line ferry. This system is still in use.
14 Interview with Thomas Ney, Region Skne in south Sweden, 2013-03-18
15 The Lnder government in Hamburg is actively involved in the plans to provide OPS for cruise ships in the port of Hamburg.
9
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
4. Municipalities: as the majority of ports in the North 4. OPS technology suppliers: companies such as ABB,
Sea region are municipally owned16, local Siemens, Schneider Electric and Cavotec have to
government (civil servants and politicians) may design products and related services to suit the
exercise direct or indirect influence on OPS requirements of the ports and ship owners. They
investment decisions in ports. In some cases have an important role to play in the development of
municipalities have co-financed installations.17 industry standards, which are key to any
5. Sector organisations, industry associations and widespread deployment of OPS technology.
NGOs: at European and national level these may 5. Ship engine suppliers and technical service
exercise significant pressure on authorities on companies: as some technical adjustments are
issues directly or indirectly concerning OPS. The necessary onboard ships that install OPS systems,
European Seaports Organisation (ESPO) and engine suppliers must work in tandem with OPS
European Community Shipowners Assocation technology suppliers to ensure power management
(ECSA) have for example responded to the system compatibility and resolve technical issues
European Commissions revision proposal regarding that may arise.
the taxation of the electricity consumed by means of
OPS.18 International NGOs like Friends of the Earth
or national counterparts such as German NABU are 3.3.3 Commercial stakeholders
known to have influenced the public debate about
1. Investors: decisions to invest in OPS may be of
ship emissions.
central or peripheral importance to investors and
financial institutions depending on the size and
3.3.2 Sector specific stakeholders scale of the investment as well as the possible
impact on other parts of the business. For a
1. Port authorities: ports are by default directly involved company with high ambitions to have an
in any decision to install OPS as this has a direct environmentally friendly profile, a decision to invest
impact on port infrastructure, operations and in OPS may be an important tool in strengthening
commercial relations with clients. the company brand.20
2. Ship owners: ship owners are maybe the most 2. The logistics supply chain: the myriad of
important stakeholder of all since they to a large stakeholders (ultimately exemplified by end-
extent stand for the market driven demand for OPS. consumers globally) indirectly influence OPS
Unless ship owners are willing to invest in OPS, any investment decisions by setting the commercial
investment in new port infrastructure is pointless. framework conditions for any ship owner or port
3. Grid owners and power companies: a prerequisite involved in the transportation of goods and
for any OPS installation is that a sufficient grid passengers. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
infrastructure is in place. Depending on the power issues may also come into play at various points in
requirements in the port the grid company may the supply chain, putting pressure on ship owners
need to improve transmission capacity locally, and ports to provide environmentally friendly
especially for OPS installations aimed at large solutions.21
vessels.19
16 In Denmark the state owns or co-owns (as in the case of e.g. Copenhagen port) many ports.
17 Examples include Stockholm and Hamburg
18 ESPO Position paper on the taxation of electricity provided through Onshore Power Supply (OPS) systems 2010-03-30. www.espo.be
19 Interview Bengt-Olof Jansson, CMP, 2013-03-27: Copenhagen-Malm Port Authority has investigated the possibility of providing OPS in
central Copenhagen, which is a popular destination for cruise liners.
20 Cruise liners such as Holland-America line for example are keen to appeal to environmentally aware customers and provide extensive
information about their work to lower fuel consumption, e.g. through OPS. Holland-America Line Sustainability Report 2009.
www.nxtbook.com.
21 One such example is the forestry company Stora Enso, which has greatly influenced the ship owner Transatlantics decision to retrofit part
of its fleet to enable shore power connection.
10
Investors Grid
Port Ship and owners OPS technology
authorities owners financial and power suppliers
institutions companies
Regional
authorities & Ship engine
municipalities suppliers
National Sector
governments,
incl. legal
authorities
OPS organisations
and NGOs
(lobbying)
11
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
12
3.4.3 European port and shipping programme of the port in relation to the performance of
stakeholders both the European port sector and international
standards.30
Before going on to describe the multifaceted policy
framework of the European Union, the primary Secondly, the Port Environmental Review System
shipping-specific European lobbying organisations (PERS) has, according to ESPO, firmly established its
should be mentioned. These serve as the ports and reputation as the only port-sector specific
the ship owners respective spokespersons, which environmental management standard. PERS stems
closely follow and try to influence developments in the from work carried out by the ports themselves and it is
European policy making framework that impacts on specifically designed to assist port authorities with the
their constituent national member organisations. functional organisation necessary to deliver the goals
of sustainable development. While incorporating the
main generic requirements of recognised
environmental management standards (e.g. ISO
European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) 14001), PERS is adapted to deliver effective port
The European Sea Ports Organisation was founded in environmental management and its implementation
1993. It represents the port authorities, port can be independently certified.31
associations and port administrations of the seaports
In addition to the above tools ESPO published a new
of the Member States of the European Union and
Green Guide in October 2012, which provides a full
Norway. ESPO also has observer members in several
revision and update of the ESPO Environmental Code
neighbouring countries to the EU.29
of Practice. In line with ESPOs vision on sustainability,
The EcoPorts initiative, under the ESPO umbrella, the Guide introduces a common framework for action
supports sound environmental management in under Five Es, i.e. Exemplify, Enable,
European ports. ESPO/Ecoports have developed two Encourage, Engage and Enforce. This action
important tools that ports can use to improve their framework is applied to five selected environmental
environmental standards. issues: air quality, energy conservation and climate
change, noise management, waste management and
Firstly, there is the Self Diagnosis Method (SDM), a water management. The Guide encourages ports to be
methodology for identifying environmental risk and responsible for their own initiatives, to benchmark their
establishing priorities for action and compliance. SDM performance, and to deliver science-based evidence
is a concise checklist against which port managers of achievements.32
can self-assess the environmental management
22 For an in-depth analysis of this area, see Policies and Instruments A baseline of Knowledge. Report 1 CNSS project, February 2012.
Dr. Ash Sinha and Dr Martyn Lightfoot (eds).
23 Marpol revised Annex VI.
24 with the adoption of amendments to MARPOL Annex VI (resolution MEPC.203(62)), by Parties to MARPOL Annex VI. Source:
http://www.imo.org
25 The CO2 reduction level (grams of CO2 per tonne mile) for the first phase is set to 10% and will be tightened every five years to keep
pace with technological developments of new efficiency and reduction measures. Reduction rates have been established until the period
2025 to 2030 when a 30% reduction is mandated for applicable ship types calculated from a reference line representing the average
efficiency for ships built between 2000 and 2010. (Source: Ibid)
26 www.imo.org
27 Ibid
28 World Port Climate Initiative. www.onshorepowersupply.org
29 European Seaports Organisation, www.espo.be
30 Ibid
31 Ibid
www.espo.be
13
32
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
In principle, ESPO is supportive of OPS and regard it task force specifically working on this issue. They have
as one of several interesting technologies that may been instrumental in developing the global standard
contribute to a greener shipping sector. However, they for OPS. Another example of their involvement is a
firmly believe that decisions whether to invest in OPS position paper regarding the European Directive of
must lie with individual ports and not be forced through Alternative Fuels (see more below).
by EU or national legislation.33
3.4.4 Non-Governmental
In November 2013 the Transport Committee of the Organisations (NGOs)
European Parliament voted in favour of a report an
important Commission proposal on a Directive on the NGOs have an important role to play in shaping policy
Deployment of alternative fuel infrastructure. ESPO is at all levels, from the international level down to local
positive to the proposal in regard to its provisions for level. In the environmental arena particularly, there are
LNG infrastructure. In regard to OPS however, ESPO is a large number of NGOs putting pressure on
critical to the introduction of a strict obligation for all governments and authorities to promote sustainable
core TEN-T ports to provide shore side electricity to development. In the multi-level governance model of
vessels requiring more than 1 MVA in berths located democratic societies there are often a large number of
within 3 km of residential areas, arguing that shore stakeholders involved in shaping policies, some more
side electricity is not a one-size-fits-all type of solution influential than others. It is often difficult to obtain
and should therefore not be imposed horizontally. It verifiable facts about lobbying activities and their real
should be promoted where and insofar it is beneficial impact and this is also true in the case of NGOs
for the environment and cost effective.34 possible influence in regard to OPS.
14
actively in favour of OPS solutions. For example, the international trade and taxation.
Bellona Foundation based in Norway (but with
representation also in Russia and Brussels) has been The EU is an important public stakeholder that has a
instrumental in supporting the OPS solution in Oslo. stake in the development of OPS in Europe. It holds
Bellona has been involved in identifying sources of legislative power over member states and also has the
funding for the project liaising closely with Color Line, financial means to support investment in OPS.
Port of Oslo and the grid company Hafslund Nett.40
The European Commissions Directorate General for
In Germany NABO, an environmental NGO with a Mobility and Transport (MOVE) would like to see more
membership base of about 450 00041 has been OPS investments made in Europe. The Directorate
vociferous in their demands for cleaner air in ports and General for the Environment is also in favour of OPS43.
for example, they have recently focused their attention In the policy negotiations surrounding the EU Strategy
on the growing cruise trade in Hamburg.42 on Alternative Fuels and the work leading up to the EU
commission Directive proposal44, DG Environment was
in favour of making OPS infrastructure mandatory in
ports45, but in the working document from the
3.4.5 The European Union (EU) Commission to the Parliament there was originally only
one reference to OPS: Shore-side electricity facilities
3.4.5.1 Introduction
can serve maritime and inland waterway transport as
The EU is a key stakeholder that has the power to clean power supply, in particular in maritime and
significantly change the market conditions for the inland navigation ports where air quality or noise levels
shipping sector. Any analysis of specific EU policies are poor.46
providing incentives or creating opportunities for OPS
should be viewed in the context of the complex policy However, during the consultation process in the
making environment of the EU. There are a number of European Parliament (EP) of this Directive proposal,
policy areas that directly or indirectly influence the important amendments have been suggested to Article
shipping sector. Examples include energy, 4.4. In November 2013 the EP Transport Committee
environment (the 2020-20-20 climate goals), transport, voted in favour of the following text:
15
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
Member States, in close cooperation with regional 2. Member States should take note of the advice, set
and local authorities, the managing bodies of the ports out in the Annex, on the cost-effectiveness and
and the industry concerned, shall ensure that shore practicality of using shore-side electricity to reduce
side electricity supply for waterborne vesselsrequiring emissions for different types of ships, routes and
more than 1 MVA is installed inberths of ports of the ports. Nevertheless, the environmental benefits and
TEN-T Core Network located within 3 km of residential cost-effectiveness should be evaluated on a case by
and commercial areas, by 31 December 2020. This case basis.
requirement shall also apply to cruise and ferry
terminals not included in the TEN-T Core Network, 3. Member States should work within the International
unless their managing bodies demonstrate lack of Maritime Organization (IMO), in the context of the
cost-effectiveness or absence of significant ongoing review of the International Convention for
environmental benefits. the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL
Convention), to promote the development of
Article 4.5 also makes an important point about harmonised international standards for shore-side
standards:Shore-side electricity supply for maritime electrical connections, taking into account ongoing
and inland waterway transport shall comply with the work. Member States should consider offering
technical specifications set out Annex III.1.3 by 31 economic incentives to operators to use shore-side
December 2015 at the latest. electricity provided to ships, taking advantage of the
possibilities set out in Community legislation.
The plenary vote in the European Parliament on the
adopted report is scheduled to take place in February 5. Member States should promote awareness of shore-
2014. side electricity among local authorities whose
responsibility includes port areas, maritime
These recent developments show that the European authorities, port authorities, classification societies
institutions are confident in the OPS technology, and and industry associations.
have realised that regulation is required to promote
further deployment. 6. Member States should encourage port authorities
and industry to exchange best practice concerning
shore-side electricity supply and harmonising
3.4.5.2 Background on OPS in the EU context procedures for this service.
The Commission issued a Recommendation in 2006 7. Member States should report to the
on the promotion of shore-side electricity for use by Commission on the action they intend to take to
ships at berth in Community ports.47 Although EU reduce ship emissions in ports, particularly where air
Recommendations are non-binding instruments in the quality limit values are exceeded.
EU legal system, the 2006 Recommendation clearly
states the Commissions opinion in regard to the In addition, under EU Directive 2005/33 the use of 0.1
technology: % sulphur by weight for marine fuels used by ships at
berth in Community ports became mandatory as of 1
The Commission of the European Communities hereby January, 2010. The Directive allows OPS as an
recommends: alternative.48
16
3.4.5.3 Financial support rest of the funding must come from other sources
(most likely ports, ship owners, and national or
The European Commission has so far provided municipal authorities).
significant financial support to a limited number of OPS
projects, in the framework of the The new TEN-T programme for the EU budgetary
TransEuropeanNetworks-Transport (TEN-T) period 2014-2020, has undergone significant structural
programme. change since the last period and is part of the
Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), including measures
TEN-T Priority Project 21 Motorways of the Sea (MoS) in transport, energy and digital networks. The new
builds on the EUs 2020-goal of achieving a clean, budget for the period is 26,3 billion. In a statement
safe and efficient transport system by transforming from November 2013 the Commission says that the
shipping into a genuine alternative to overcrowded new policy establishes, for the first time, a core
land transport. The MoS concept aims at introducing transport network built on nine major corridors: 2
new intermodal maritime logistics chains to bring about NorthSouth corridors, 3 EastWest corridors; and 4
a structural change to transport organisation.49 diagonal corridors. The core network will transform
EastWest connections, remove bottlenecks, upgrade
One recent example from the programme is the project
infrastructure and streamline cross-border transport
Onshore Power Supply an integrated North Sea
operations for passengers and businesses throughout
Network, which offered to co-fund OPS installations in
the EU. It will improve connections between different
three DFDS freight ferry terminals for three DFDS
modes of transport and contribute to the EU's climate
freight ferries (Ro-Ro vessels).50 Due to high investment
change objectives. The core network is to be
costs for other SECA compliance technologies, i.e.
completed by 2030.54
scrubbers and selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
however, DFDS chose to postpone its plans for OPS.51 Under the Commission Implementing Decision of
23.11.201255 OPS is mentioned as an area eligible for
Another TEN-T project, also co-financed by the
EU financial support:
European Cohesion fund, is the Baltic Link Gdynia-
Karlskrona, through which Stena Line has received Under this sub-priority, the objective is to support the
financial support for an OPS installation.52 development of ports as efficient entry and exit points
fully integrated with the land infrastructure. Only
The Commission has confirmed that there is, and there
category A ports are eligible under this work
will be also in future, money available to support OPS
programme. Projects to be selected under this priority
investment.53 In the 2012 TEN-T call for proposals the
will concern works and should be in line with Article 12
budgetary allocation was 350M. Normally projects are
of the TEN-T Guidelines.
co-funded by the EU with between 10-20% whilst the
47 European Commission, Commission Recommendation of 8 May 2006 on the promotion of shore-side electricity for use by ships at berth
in Community ports, 2006/339/EC, www.eur-lex.europa.eu
48 World Port Climate Initiative, www.onshorepowersupply.org
49 European Commission, DG Mobility and Transport, Annual Report of the Coordinator - Priority Project 21, Motorways of the Sea, Trans-
European transport network, www.ec.europa.eu
50 European Commission, Project description: On Shore Power Supply - an integrated North Sea network, 2011-EU-21002-P
www.tentea.ec.europa.eu
51 Interview with Gert Jakobsen, DFDS 2013-12-02
52 European Commission, Project description: Baltic Link Gdynia-Karlskrona 2009-EU-21010-P, www.tentea.ec.europa.eu
53 Interview, Pieter de Meyer, European Commission, DG Mobility and Transport
54 http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kallas/headlines/news/2013/11/cef_en.htm
55 Amending Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 1579 of 14 March 2012 on the adoption of a financing decision for granting
financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) for 2012, as already amended by Commission Implementin g
Decision C(2012)6902 of 5 October 2012
17
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
One of the priority topics under this heading reads: harmonisation of taxes will lead to a better functioning
internal energy market. The revision of this Directive
Port facilities improving the environmental implies a complex policy process involving a large
performance of maritime transport: LNG facilities, number of sectors and issues and in this context OPS
including barges, enabling publicly accessible is a relatively minor issue.
bunkering operations in ports, shore-side and
alternative, for instance external, electricity facilities in ESPO and ECSA have in a joint position paper
ports, enabling ships when berthed to be connected to expressed the support for a tax exemption for
onshore power supply and reception facilities for oil electricity for vessels generated onshore (irrespective
and other waste, including residues from scrubbers, to of origin) to boost the industrys ability to invest in
meet environmental requirements. OPS.59 They indicate that the competitive position for
onshore power supply against using auxiliary fuels
In the new revised TEN-T Directive it is also proposed onboard is currently negatively impacted by the fact
that ports that want to obtain or maintain their position that maritime fuels are not subject to excise duties.60
as a priority port for TEN-T will have to provide
alternative fuel infrastructure by 2020.56 On the topic of tax breaks, ESPO thinks the Swedish61
and German models for supporting OPS through the
In a key EU Commission implementing decision from tax route is interesting and would like to see more
November 2012 onshore power is mentioned. In countries adopt similar systems.62
Art.25.3 it is stated that projects of common interest
for motorways of the sea in the trans-European
transport network may also include activites that have
wider benefits and are not linked to specific ports such 3.4.5.5 Mandatory OPS?
as services and actions to support the mobility of The European Commission has been concerned by the
persons and goods activites for improving slow uptake of OPS technology in the shipping
environmental performance, such as the provision of community, despite the Recommendations issued in
shore side electricity that would help ships reduce their 2006 (see above) to improve air quality in ports by
emissions. means of OPS. The Commission has since reiterated
the recommendation in the EU Maritime Transport
It is further mentioned in Art. 39 under the heading
Strategy to 2018.
new technologies and innovation, that in order for
the comprehensive network to keep up with innovative The Commission will promote alternative fuel solutions
technological developments and deployments, the aim in ports, such as the use of shore-side electricity. The
shall be in particular to .enable the decarbonisation Commission will propose a time-limited tax exemption
of all modes of transport modes by stimulating energy for shore-side electricity in the forthcoming review of
efficiency as well as the introduction of alternative the Energy Taxation Directive as a first step and
propulsion systems, including electricity supply elaborate a comprehensive incentive and regulatory
systems and the provision of corresponding framework.63
infrastructure.57
The recent progress in regard to the European Directive
for Alternative Fuels (see above), which still have to
3.4.5.4 Tax exemptions obtain final approval in the European Parliament, is a
significant step towards mandatory OPS. This places an
Member states are discussing the possibility of obligation on member states to ensure that shore side
introducing tax exemptions for the electricity provided electricity supply for waterborne vessels is installed in
to seagoing vessels through OPS in the context of the berths within 3 km of residential/living and
revision of the EU Directive on energy and electricity shopping/commercial areas for ships requiring more
taxation (2003/96/EC).58 Currently, member states have than 1 MVA, and in all cruise ships and ferry terminals,
different energy taxes and it is believed that a by 31 December 2020 at the latest.
18
Trans-European Seaport network64
19
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
3.4.5.6. SECAs and CO2 reductions Baltic states in the early 1990s, intergovernmental,
sectoral and NGO cooperation focused on the marine
The European Union is an important stakeholder in environment in the Baltic Sea has been intense. The
global negotiations, including in maritime affairs. Baltic Sea is in many ways a very sensitive eco system
Although the EU is not a full member of the IMO, this with enormous environmental problems and this has
does not prevent the EU from significantly influencing called for urgent environmental policy measures
the international decision-making process for across the region. The EU has supported a number of
preventing vessel-source pollution.65 intiatives to promote greener shipping, including OPS.
Projects include Clean Baltic Sea Shipping and New
One issue working against a widespread deployment
Hansa of Sustainable Ports and Cities.67 Within regions
of OPS in the North Sea region is the uneven
there is also bilateral co-operation between individual
commercial competition in the shipping sector
stakeholders, e.g. Stockholm has liaised closely with
between north and south Europe. Due to the SECA in
Helsinki regarding the OPS installation catering for the
force in northern Europe, shipping companies and
needs of the Viking Line ferry.
ports there are put at a commercial disatvantage
towards competitors trading in sourthern Europe. This
market distortion prevents progress towards cleaner
shipping technologies that currently often imply 3.4.7 National level
significant capital costs for shipping companies and
ports. At national level governments have the power to
promote OPS deployment with punitive measures or
Through improved EU coordination of member states incentives and subsidies. In the North Sea Region,
intervention in IMO negotiations, the EU has an there is great variation in terms of government68
important role to play in promoting more equal trading involvement and proactivity regarding the OPS issue.
terms, which indirectly would make it easier to enforce In the region, Sweden, Germany and Norway are
tougher environmental regulation on the sector. leading the way in this regard.
20
71
for example played a significant role in the OPS ports.
installations in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Ystad and
Trelleborg. In legal terms ports have no right of
disposition over ship owners (i.e. ports cannot force
ship owners to install invest in OPS). 3.4.9 Municipal level
As the great majority of ports in the North Sea area are
There are of course differences between specific
municipally owned, local authorites are often directly or
provisions in national legislation. However any
indirectly involved in ports decision about
stakeholder investing in OPS must comply with laws in
infrastructure investments like OPS. Any major
a number of areas, including regulations regarding:
investment issues must be approved by the ports
board in which the municipality has significant
building standards
decision-making power.
public procurement
electrical installations
As local air and noise pollution is the primary problem
working environment
OPS is designed to alleviate, the rationale for
handling of hazardous and
investment is naturally closely linked to the local
incendiary materials
conditions around the port.
pollution control
other environmental considerations It is important to remember that the role of the port in
natural habitats individual cities varies greatly depending on size, type
of traffic, environmental impact and importance to the
local economy.
3.4.8 Sub-national level
At sub-national, regional level the Lnder government In Hamburg for example, the port is of huge
of the City of Hamburg70 stands out as the most importance to the local and regional economy due to
proactive stakeholder in the North Sea area. It is its size and strategic location. Air pollution is also a
liaising closely with the Hamburg Port Authority and the great problem in Hamburg, which has prompted action
cruise provider AIDA to install OPS at the Hamburg by local authorities in partnership with the port.
Altona cruise terminal.
In Stockholm, the port is also an important source of
Regional stakeholders has the potential of being much income for the city, but far from the situation in
more active in promoting OPS as these often have Hamburg, due to differences in size, traffic type,
responsiblity for regional transport and logistics tonnage etc. A major driving force for Stockholms
planning. Since OPS is such a complex issue involving decision to invest in OPS has been linked to vast urban
a large number of stakeholders regional stakeholders development projects on the land directly adjacent to
could potentially provide much-needed support in the port, for which the noise levels in the port is a
coordinating efforts in individual municipalities and major problem that needs to be solved.72
65 Nengye Liu, The Relations between the European Union and the International Maritime Organization: an analysis: Working Paper Annual
Legal Research Network Conference 2010
66 Clean North Sea Shipping, EU-project. ww.cnss.no
67 European Commission, Project description New Hansa of Sustainable Ports and Cities, www.bsrinterreg.net
68 Government in its widest sense, i.e. including the public sector (government agencies, legal system, etc.)
69 Normally such government intervention in the market would be in breach of EU competition legislation.
70 Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
71 Interview, Thomas Ney, Region Skne, Infrastructure strategist, 2013-03-18.
72 Royal Seaport / Vrtan
21
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
In some cases the municipality provides financial Implementing a successful OPS installation requires
support to an OPS investment. In 2008 for example the close cooperation between the port and the owners of
port of Stockholm received a grant from the Stockholm the ships that the system is designed to connect with.
environmental investment initiative (Miljmiljarden) In Gothenburg for example the successful
covering about 30% of the OPS investment cost.73 implementation of the OPS solution is the result of a
fruitful cooperation between Port of Gothenburg, Stena
Line and Gothenburg Energy.74
Key issues
Port
Ship Operator ROI/utilisation
ROI/utilisation CSR
CSR financing
financing new business
commercial model
door-opener infrastructure
investment
availability OPS local political
compatibility demand framework
Illustration of the main issues relating to OPS, characterised according to a stakeholder perspective.
22
3.4.11 Shipping Indices regulation, primarily the SECA. The lack of SECA for
south Europe puts shipping companies and ports in
As a part of CNSS project WP375, a review of existing North Europe at a comparative commercial
indices has been carried out with identification of disadvantage to counterparts in South Europe.
loopholes/deficiencies in the scoring system. A Arguably, international insitutions like the EU and IMO
sensitivity analysis has been conducted in order to find should work for an extension of the Emission Control
any uncertainty in the used methodology. area also to southern Europe to avoid such market
distortions preventing environmental progress.
The most widely used systems are currently the
Environmental Ship Index (ESI) and the Clean Shipping In addition, one could also argue that there is a need
Index (CSI), covering the most environmental for an EU standard for NOx and PM from shipping (in
indicators. The ambition is to determine which addition to the IMO Tier III). This would strengthen the
parameter have the greatest influence on final score case for OPS.
and why.
In regard to environmental legislation, another driver
The development of shipping indices and their relation that would promote the deployment of OPS and other
to OPS, incentives and effectiveness to encourage cleaner shipping technologies, would be the
greener shipping play an instrumental role in the introduction of a CO2 quota for ships calling at
future. Shipping behaviours do change with specific European ports. Taking a long-term view, it is very
demands on the market. likely that also the shipping industry will be subject to
demands for CO2 emission reductions. Taking the
perspective of future European competitiveness in the
global economy, it would be wise to prepare the
3.5 Stakeholders: European shipping industry for the tougher conditions
Summary and conclusion that undoubtedly will be enforced in the medium to
As we have seen, OPS is an issue relevant not only for long term.
ports and ship owners who are the actual users of
the technology, but also for society at various Further, an issue involving all the abovementioned
different levels. The public side has a number of stakeholders, albeit in different ways, is the possibility
instruments that can be used to promote of making differentiated port dues mandatory and
deployment of OPS in the North Sea Region and standardised across all EU and EEA ports in the
further afield, for instance through: purpose of promoting cleaner shipping practices,
including OPS. This would promote deployment of
enforcing tougher environmental legislation OPS, but requires coordinated leadership at the
provide financial incentives, e.g. tax breaks international, regional, national and local levels.
provide grants for capital investments
Level of influence by Shipping Indices In summary, the extension of the emission control area
promotion and coordination of sectoral as well as standardised and compulsory differentiated
cooperation port fees are both examples of initiatives that would
reduce the issues related to the uneven competitive
playing field in different parts of Europe, that shipping
One problem impacting on the shipping communitys companies can take advantage of. For this to happen
willingness to adopt the technology relates to the though, the public side must provide the necessary
uneven competition between north and south Europe leadership.
in regard to the stark differences in environmental
23
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
The EU Commission is clear in its support of OPS IMO.78 Increasingly however, customers are now more
technology. This provides a good basis and reference demanding in regard to a products impact on the
point for nation states, regions and local authorities to environment and socially, and this is a trend that also
drive this development forward. Given the given the affects shipping, albeit maybe slower than in other
uncoordinated and fiercly competitive environment sectors. As a study on CSR in shipping companies in
amongst the shipping companies, it is highly unlikely the Baltic Sea shows, about 50% of all ship owners in
that they will push for OPS deployment on the scale Finland, Sweden and Denmark have CSR-related
necessary to combat the urgent environmental content on their websites. Many of the larger
problems. companies also have downloadable reports containing
more detailed information79, which may imply that CSR
issues are of relative importance to the business of the
company.
3.6 Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) In regard to OPS, CSR is likely to play a role in ports
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a concept, and ship owners investment decisions. However, it is
which does not have a general definition. It is an very difficult to validate to what extent CSR is really the
umbrella term for a concept of operations that major driving force, in comparison to more
companies use to act responsibly. CSR is built upon commercially related priorities. It may be the case that
voluntary basis, and it seeks to go beyond the ethical a stakeholder takes an investment decision solely
standards regulated by legislation.76 based on commercial grounds, but then realise that
there are branding gains to be made by
The European Commissions definition for responsible communicating a message that the investment was
business is a concept whereby indeed driven by concerns for the environment.
companies integrate social and environmental The decision by Aida cruises, a frequent caller to the
concerns in their business operations and in their port of Hamburg, to invest in OPS, is to a large extent
interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary driven by CSR considerations. The public opinion in
basis. Hamburg has been vociferous in the debate about the
high emission levels in Hamburg and the critique has
IMO77 issues standards for responsible shipping in primarily been directed towards the large cruise liners
regards to the marine environment and other issues. calling the port. Arguably, the cruise industry is
responsible for only for a fraction of the emissions
In shipping, the pressure to be cost efficient is emanating from port operations, but the increase in
extremely high. Shipping companies need to comply cruise traffic to the city has been more visible to the
with international laws and regulations regarding public than other types of traffic (i.e. the ships are very
safety, working conditions and protection of the large and the amount of tourists pouring into the city
environment, but the economic pressures on the sector during port calls is significant).
often cause a conflict between the commercial
interests and CSR issues. It has been argued that for During the course of this research, surprisingly little
this reason shipping companies, usually live up to the publicly available information activiely communicating
bare minimum levels of safety, environment and social a CSR message has been found on the websites of
management required in legislation, e.g. through the the companies that have invested in OPS.
76 Heald, M. (1970). The social responsibilities of business: Company and community,1900-1960. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve
University Press.
77 IMO MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committe resolutions. www.imo.org.
78 Arat, L. Corporate Social Responsibility in Shipping Compnies in the Baltic Sea, p. 19
79 Ibid.
24
4 Overview of available technical solutions
25
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
of both situations, as with Ystad where owners have consumers like cruise ships. In the UK, which does not
decided to include a frequency converter in the shore- yet have any high voltage OPS intallation in place,
side installation, wheras Trelleborg has decided not to. there seems to be concern about local/regional grid
This can also be applied to a situation where the ship capacity.92
owner and terminal owner are the same, like for
example in the case of Stena Line.87 Gothenburg, which has installed OPS in both the
Denmark (2,5 MW) and Germany (3,3 MW) terminals,
is in a good location with strong regional 130 kV
transmission lines close by. Planning for further OPS
4.1.5 Grid issues installations to cater for e.g. cruiselines in the Arendal
part of the port is only a matter of time and cost
The impact of any OPS installment on the grid
(estimated to 1MSEK / MW). According to the grid
ultimately depends on the type of vessel and the time it
company, reinforcing the grid to allow for more berths
spends at berth. According to information quoted on
does not present any technical challenges, the main
the WPCI website, cruise vessels may require up to 16
issue is whether it is economically feasible to do so.93
MVA, container vessels up to 6,5 MVA and ferries and
RoRO vessels up to 3 MVA load.88 To calculate the
In Bergen there has been a discussion about the grid
energy consumption the power consumption in MW is
capacity in regard to the planned OPS installations for
multiplied with the total time (hours) of consumption.
the Hurtigruten cruise ships, ferry traffic and container
vessels calling the port. Looking at the grid in the
In the majority of cases investigated in the CNSS
wider perspective the electricity demand is highest
region, capacity in local and regional grids does not
during the winter months and lowest during the warmer
represent any major technical difficulties. Rather than
season, which is normally the high season for cruise
being technically complicated the main issue seems to
liners trading on North European ports. In the case of
be the cost-benefit ratio of the cost of grid
Hurtigruten however, they operate year round, which
reinforcements in light of the expected benefits of the
places additional demand on the grid94. Seasonal
OPS installation in question.
variations need to be taken into account when
At a general level, the larger the OPS installation (in planning for OPS installations.
terms of installed capacity), the greater the impact on
the local and regional power grid. Cruise ships have
very high power demands and whilst connected to
4.2 Other alternatives
shore power it may put considerable strain on the grid.
Connecting several cruise ships at any one time is not There are a number of different techniques to reduce a
feasible in most places due to the huge investment in ships emissons while at berth, however most lack
grid reinforcements that would be needed. In practical feasibility. One example is to fit vessels with
Copenhagen, which is a major turnaround port for bi-fuel engines where shore supplied gas would be the
cruise ships, OPS in an inner city location is being alternative fuel. Quayside supply of gas will mean less
considered89 but there are issues around grid extensive redesigning or refitting of vessels, as the
capacity.90 need for storage tanks is eliminated. However, both
onboard and shore-side investments are significant.
Similarly, in Stockholm, which is preparing for OPS for Such systems are currently being developed and
10 berths suitable for cruise ships, the likelyhood of tested, but are not yet commercially operational.95
connecting a large number of ships simultaneously is
quite low due to the fixed capacity fee costs involved.91
26
Eckelmann Group is developing what they call an LNG The major drawback of using LNG as fuel is the so-
e-Power Barge, which is a barge-mounted LNG-driven called methane slip, i.e. in-complete combustion of
electricity generator. The idea is to produce electricity methane (CH4) from the engines, leaving methane as
cleaner and cheaper than what can be done using a a component in exhausts.99 The methane emissions will
cargo vessels own auxiliary engines, in ports where negatively influence the reduction of greenhouse
grid capacity is insufficient or a OPS installation would gases significantly, as CH4 is around 20 times more
be too complex, extensive or expensive. Running powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. So without fully
generators on LNG would reduce carbon dioxide resolving the methane slip issue, the relative
emissions significantly, and almost completely reduce advantage of LNG combustion is reduced by the
nitric- and particle emissions compared to an ordinary methane slip.100
diesel generator.96
As a rule of thumb, the methane slip tends to be
The initial intention is to launch the concept in highest when engines are operating at lower loads.
Hamburg, supplying power mainly to container vessels Engine manufacturers are working on developing
and cruise ships. In addition to providing electricity to technologies to minimise the problem, and though
vessels, the barge could be connected to the shore prospects for important improvements are claimed to
side grid as any other power supplier, and the cooling be very good, it is still very much an issue. In part, it
water could be fed into the distric heating system. It is can be handled through operational routines, i.e.
likely that this additional use is required to reach setting up installations with multiple smaller engines
sufficient utilization for an investment to pay off.97 where capacity is regulated by the number of engines
used, keeping each running engine at a high load.101
The maximum power output of the LNG e-powerbarge
is around 7-8 MW, which is sufficient to supply most Another issue to be considered is the safety
container ships and cruise liners calling Hamburg. The challenges surrounding LNG bunkering. There are
power transmission has a voltage of 6,6kv (alternatively different opinions on how dangerous it actually is,
11kv) and a frequency of 60 Hz.98 The frequency can however for example in Stockholm, Viking Grace is
however quite easily be adjusted to 50Hz. allowed on a case-by-case basis to bunker LNG
despite its central berth and also taking crew and
Becker Marine Systems has developed a very similar passenger safety into account.
solution.
87 Interview with Ingemar Srensson, Ship Management at Stena Line Scandinavia, 2013-04-02
88 World Port Climate Initiative. www.onshorepowersupply.org
89 Interview, Bengt-Olof Jansson, CTO of Copenhagen Malm Port, 2013-03-27
90 Here we refer to the fixed capacity based fee that a power consumer need to pay to the grid power on an annual (normally) basis to
guarantee a certain level of capacity.
91 Interviews with Gun Rudeberg (Environmental manager) and Ilka Ringdahl (Technical manager) at Port of Stockholm, 2013-03-14 and
2013-04-03.
92 Interview, Richard Ballantyne, (Senior policy advisor), British Ports Association, 2013-04-02
93 Interview, Jan Krnestedt, Gothenburg Energi 2013-04-21
94 Opdal O. and Steen E. Landstrom i Norge en studie av mulighetene for landstrom i Norge, p.21. Zero March 2012
95 World Port Climate Initiative. www.onshorepowersupply.org
96 Vanessa Fedorczuk, CARL ROBERT ECKELMANN AG Power Barge/Projektskizze
97 Interview, Bengt-Olof Jansson, Chief Technical Officer, CMP, 2013-03-27
98 Vanessa Fedorczuk, CARL ROBERT ECKELMANN AG Power Barge/Projektskizze
99 Interview with Leif Holmberg, Technical Manager, Transatlantic, 2013-03-19
100 DNV, www.dnv.com
101 Ibid.
27
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
4.3 Technical aspects of OPS The actual connection and cabling requires a davit or
crane for safe handling, but whether a crane is part of
The technology used for both OPS and power barge the shore-side installation or not is an open issue. As
solutions are typically off-the-shelf components, the vast majority of vessels have some sort of lifting
regularly used in other power transmission and equipment onboard for spares and provisions, it may
industrial applications. Accordingly, the material is not be necessary at a berth intended for multiple
available from major industrial component producers users. However, at e.g. a ferry terminal where the
such as ABB, Schneider Electric and Siemens.102 The same vessel frequently connects, a more customised
applications are however specialized, and companies installation could make sense to simplify the physical
such as SAM Electronics, Processkontroll and Marine connection. The connection at the Color Line terminal
Global have developed various applications. The most in Oslo is fully automated, meaning that no physical
significant specialized component is the connection, labor is required by the crew.104
where Cavotec is market leader.
www.processkontroll.se
4.3.1 Ports There are also installations in place where a cable reel
is placed onboard rather than having the cable set up
Assuming sufficient grid capacity is available, a shore- in a shore-side davit.105 This solution is perhaps less
side installation typically requires a building relatively user-friendly, though more flexible and suitable where
close to the berth containing the necessary technical the shore-side connetion is located differently in
equipment. There are also container-based solutions different ports, as might be the case in a larger, less
for increased, yet still limited, mobility. The shore-side customized liner network.
includes switchgear, transformers and - if applicable -
a frequency converter. This is to adapt the current to
meet the vessels specification.103
28
4.3.2 Ships such containers which are in operational use across
the globe.
As rarely any two ships, even sister vessels, look the
same on a nuts and bolts level it is difficult to describe The installation advantages aside, a container-based
any specific technical requirements. However setup increases the flexibility by offering the
disregarding any interface issues, a generalized opportunity to move the OPS equipment from one
installation requires modification of the main vessel to another. In many shipowning organizations,
switchboard and an upgraded power management fleet allocation on a route network is often changing
system. Some steel modification of cable and HV trafo over time. With a container based installation an owner
room is likely necessary along with a hull door, unless could let the part of the fleet calling a port offering OPS
existing pilot hatch or similar can be used.106 The carry a container, which could then be moved to a
complexity of cable running will vary, but as for any replacement vessel.
onboard installation safety requirements regarding
breech if bulkheads must be observed, mainly for fire A container-based solution is also available for the
safety reasons. shore-side installation, to cater for the need of flexibility
in a port where it may not make commercial and/or
financial sense to provide all berths with fixed OPS
supply points, or in ports during development of new
Container-based solutions berths etc. Schneider Electric has developed a system
To achieve a simpler and more flexible onboard with containers carrying the necessary equipment,
installation, OPS solution providers such as SAM which is easily placed on the quay where it is needed.
Marine are placing the majority of the installation in a The system includes monitoring systems, helping the
standard 20 container, which is easily placed on deck port authority and the vessels to keep proper track of
or even in a container bay. Thus, the only permanent the energy consumed.
installation required is cable running to the vessels
main switchboard. SAM Marine have delivered several
102 Interview with Tomas Lust, Managing Director, Marine Global Sweden AB, 2013-03-19
103 Interview with Ingemar Gustavsson, VD Processkontroll Elektriska, 2013-03-13
104 Norn, O. ABB AB, Presentation Shoreside Connection - Standardization & solutions 22-11-2011. www.cnss.no
105 Interview with Leif Holmberg, Technical Manager, Transatlantic, 2013-03-19
106 Interview with Tomas Lust, Managing Director, Marine Global Sweden AB, 2013-03-19
29
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
30
to as hotelling time. Both the transportation of pollutants over several
hundreds of kilometers and the transformation of
Some of the NOx found in harbour cities may be pollutants in the atmosphere should be taken into
produced by ships at sea and this also has to be taken account.
into account when calculating the emissions generated
by ships whilst in port. A prerequisite for any further To support policy makers and industrial stakeholders
study would be port authorities providing information in taking strategic decisions regarding choice of
on ship arrivals and hotelling times inside their technology and clean shipping practices, the
harbours. Regular surveys on the use of boilers, power Geestacht researchers are developing a number of
generators and main engines inside ports could also different scenarios for how the shipping sector may
help improve the accuracy of the applied emissions develop until 2020 or 2030.110
factors for different substances.
The OPS-specific scenario for ports (still being
Outside the port area, ship emission calculations developed) is based on the following assumptions:
should be based on accurate AIS data. This data
should be collected by all states bordering the North Onshore power supply may reduce harbour emissions.
Sea and made available, at no cost, for further The scenarios are built along the power that may be
research. The information should also be used to supplied to ships in a harbour, e.g. a cruise ship with a
compile accurate emission inventories for shipping in 6MW power demand for 10 hours equals emissions
the North Sea, which in turn would provide the raw savings from 60 MW of power generation, which would
data to support calculations of air quality with a three mean around 864 kg NOx.
dimensional atmospheric chemistry transport model.
In short, the researchers at the Helmholz-Zentrum - Three variants: 5, 10 or 20 ships may be served with
Geesthacht / Centre for Materials and Coastal electricity at the same time
Research have come to the following conclusions and - New and big ships will preferably use OPS
recommendations: - Only the power previously generated by auxiliary
engines will be replaced
- No emissions for generating the onshore power will
be considered
Ship emissions while at sea as well as at berth need
to be taken into consideration.
The best way to calcultate emissions may be through
a bottom-up approach using AIS data for ship
movements.
Inside harbours, information on hotelling time and the
use of boilers vs. power generators is crucial in
determining ship emissions.
North Sea countries and harbours should collect AIS
data and ship information, making it available for
research and to all interested authorities.
Simulation models with varying complexity may be
used to estimate the contribution of ships to air
pollution.
107 V. Matthias CNSS Report on activity 1 in Workpackage 5, Monitoring & simulation of pollutant generation and spread
108 Ibid
109 Ibid
110 Presentation 2012-06-14, CNSS Workpackage 5, Matthias, V. www.cnss.no
31
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
32
Source: Eurostat,
Electricity
statistics, 2011
Since the countries in the North Sea region are The issue of whether an increase in demand (i.e. due
integrated into different regional synchronised power to an OPS installation) is met by renewable sources of
systems with a power mix consisting of electricity electricity is extremely complex depending on a
generation from several different countries, the table number of variables at various levels in regional power
above is only intended to give a generalised view of systems, and is thus not in the scope of this report. At
the regional differences regarding renewable and non- regional power system level, OPS (even if generally
renewable power generation. It is easy to calculate introduced across the region) will not have any
electrical power generation on a national basis, significant effects in the large European electricity
however, calculating power consumption across transmission systems.119
integrated regional synchronised systems is extremely
complex. In a longer-term perspective the European power
market will face fundamental structural changes with
sharp increases in renewable energy production. The
EU 2020-20-20 goals puts considerable pressure on
member states to increase renewable energy
production and promote energy efficiency. In the
CNSS region, two countries are particularly interesting
in this regard, namely the UK with highly ambitious
plans to invest in large scale offshore wind capacity,
and Germany that took the decision to phase out all
nuclear power production.
111 Interview, Per Blomstrand, Stockholms Stad AB, 2013-03-12. Information about the project Stadens ljud (in Swedish):
www.hplus.helsingborg.se
112 Interview, Hape Schneider, HafenCity, Hamburg, 2013-03-21
113 Interview, Gun Rudeberg, Port of Stockholm, 2013-04-03
114 IEA information quoted on the World Port Climate Initiative website, www.onshorepowersupply.org
115 www.onshorepowersupply.org
116 Opdal O. and Steen E. Landstrom i Norge en studie av mulighetene for landstrom i Norge, Zero March 2012
117 Interview Jan Krnestedt, Gothenburg Energy, 2013-04-21
118 www.wikipedia.org
119 Interview, Tommie Lindquist, Swedish National Grid
33
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
16.5 MVA and recommended 20 MVA system Marginal cost of pollution case/example
requirements. Shore power is the only technology to
completely reduce the emissions in port, with the wider As with many other environmental investments it is
penetration of this technology ports will require often unclear at the outset what both the environmental
significant improvement of existing transmission and and commercial cost-benefit of the investment will be.
distribution infrastructure, while utilities will need to In this regard, OPS needs to be assessed in a long-
improve significantly the power output. In a wider term perspective looking ahead towards 2050 or
context, one could also see the deployment of OPS beyond. It is probably safe to assume that the energy
technology as being part of the trend of increasing mix in Europe is significantly greener then than it is
electrification of society, another example being the today.
car industry working to move away from fossile fuel to
In very general terms the following factors are
electric vehicles.
important when estimating the environmental impact in
any given port / ship.
34
Obviously, if there is a critical mass of ports and ships modelling to analyse whether OPS, which may be a
that invest in compatible OPS technology globally, this significant investment, has any impact on the local
makes environmental sense, provided the increase in community in proximity of the port.121 They give two
power consumption from the onshore grid is met with interesting examples proving this point. At the ports of
an increase in renewable energy production. The key Los Angeles and Long Beach there is no buffer zone
to determining the usefulness of OPS technology is the between the local community and the port, and drastic
amount of kWh genereated by renewable sources control measures may therefore be needed in the form
onshore instead of onboard ships. Assuming the long- of OPS. At the Port of Rotterdam, on the other hand,
term perspective as argued above, it is likely that research has shown that installating OPS at the
international regulations regarding emissions are much Euromax terminal at Maasvlakte 2 would not benefit
tougher than today and OPS might well become a local communities, as these are located outside the
global requirement for all ports and ship owners. In this immediate region of air quality impacts. The greatest
scenario the global CO2 emission reductions would be benefits are thus to be gained at terminals located
considerable. close to built-up areas.122
Any specific OPS installation in a port or a ship must To conclude, OPS is primarily designed to solve local
be analysed in its wider context, also taking into pollution problems. If it is clear that the technology will
accounts the potential environmental effects of other significantly reduce emissions in specific communities
technologies and practices, including cleaner fuels, investment is recommended. Since public funds are
scrubbing, energy efficiency measures onboard (e.g. often scarce society should primarily focus on the
heating, lighting, ventilation, water, electricity ships that stand for the largest emissions whilst in port.
consumption)120, and selective catalytic reduction To provide guidance for investment decisions in
(SCR). individual locations, ports would benefit from
implementing Emission Management Plans (e.g. based
As the WPCI points out, it is important to use air quality on EcoPorts or equivalent approach).
120 The new Viking Grace ferry is a very interesting example in this regard and this LNG-powered ship has a wide range of energy saving
technologies installed.
121 www.onshorepowersupply.org
122 Ibid
35
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
36
The average electricity price in Norway in 2011 was relatively limited time at port. On the other hand, the
0,091.130 larger the vessel, the larger their energy consumption,
putting severe strain on the onshore grid.
37
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
38
Cargo is often discharged using
onboard equipment (pumps, screws
etc) generating a relatively high power
consumption.
39
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
By Vessel
6.5 Status of OPS in ports in The selection of major North Sea Ports in the CNSS
the CNSS area Geografical area was based on tonnes/year or
pax/year.
Though the focus of this study is on high voltage
connections (HVSC) the list includes low voltage As many ports have running evaluations of possible
(LVSC) installations as well, gaining relevance as it investment options, the information in this list needs to
offers a working solution for many vessels. be maintained continuously.
40
Status
The OPS initiatives in this
report are mainly from
Scandinavian ports and
shipowners as shown in the
table below. We estimate in
our research that there are
approximately 40 matching
ship/shore high voltage
connections globally today.
According to ABB
estimations there are more
than 100 installations with HV
and LV shore connection.
One optimistic view is the Table X, A list of of the OPS status in major seaports in the North Sea/CNSS Area
fact that the number of
containerized OPS systems
are increasing, almost all
vessels above 6000 TEU include the technology in the connections (HVSC) the list includes low voltage
140
delivery of a new vessel . (LVSC) installations as well, gaining relevance as it
offers a working solution for many vessels.
Though the focus of this study is on high voltage
137 www.iaphworldports.org/WorldPortInfo.aspx
138 www.marinetraffic.com
139 www.worldportsource.com
140 Lorene Grandidier, Schneider Electric.
41
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
The selection of major North Sea Ports in the CNSS As many ports have running evaluations of possible
Geografical area was based on tonnes/year or investment options, the information in this list needs to
pax/year.141 be maintained continuously.
141 www.iaphworldports.org/WorldPortInfo.aspx
42
7. The commercial perspective
43
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
44
8. Case studies
8.1 Case study 1: Hamburg 14th in the world and third in Europe (messured on
TEUs/container traffic), Hamburg faces serious
environmental challenges posed by port-related
The Senate of Hamburg strives to further activity. The primary concern is air quality and
authorities work to promote a more environmentally
reduce portrelated emissions, in particular sustainable shipping sector. For example, Hamburg
in fringe areas of the port that are in direct Port Authority is actively involved in the work of the
vicinity to emissions sensitive urban World Port Climate Initiative.146
areas.
The port authority, Hamburgs government (the Senate)
and relevant authorities work in tandem to try to cut
Cruise shipping companies have already emissions generated in the harbour as air pollution
expressed their interest in using shore levels exceed the regulated EU threshold.147 In recent
power for their high-consumption years public concern about air pollution has grown,
driven by a sharp increase in cruise traffic. Even
passenger ships. The Senate of Hamburg though cruise traffic represents a minor share of port
will pursue this issue and verify operations in Hamburg, cruise liners are more visible
economically viable offers for the two to the public due to the nearness of the cruise
cruise ship terminals in Altona and terminals to the residential areas and to the influx of
tourists roaming the city. For this reason the public
HafenCity by taking account of the specific
debate has to a large extent focused on the cruise
characteristics of each berth. Mobile trade.
energy supply options for cruise ships will
also be considered with the respective In 2011 the Hamburg parliament gave the ministry for
urban development and environment (BSU) the task to
nautical circumstances in mind. 143
investigate the feasibility of providing shore-side
electricity in the port. It was decided to focus on cruise
ships as a pilot case, testing the viability of OPS as a
Hamburg is a universal port144 stretching across 7,399
model to reduce local air pollution. The OPS plans
hectares, of which (4,331 hectares are land area). In
relate to the cruise berths at Altona and HafenCity.
addition to this, an area of 919 hectares is planned for
future port expansion. There are 320 berths in the port,
The cruise trade in Hamburg
which serves about 10 000 port calls (2011 figures),
roughly half of which are container ships handling an The cruise ships calling at the port stay for about 10
annual grand total of over 130 million tons of cargo. hours in port (mostly only by day). In total there are
Although still proportionally a small share of total port about 160 calls by cruise ships divided over the two
activity the cruise trade is an increasingly important terminals, Altona and Hafen City. In Altona, it is
sector for the port. Cruise calls were up from 61 in estimated that the OPS installation will cater for the
2006 to 175 in 2012, and this figure continues needs of cruise ships 70-80 days staying for about 10
to grow.145 hours per port call. In the medium term the authorities
believe that about half of the cruise liners will be able
In light of the size of the port of Hamburg, which ranks to utilise the OPS connection.
143 Port Development Plan to 2025, p. 82, Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, www.hafen-hamburg.de
144 In addition to container handling, a universal port is geared to all forms of non-containerised cargo like project cargo, suction cargo, liquid
cargo, grab cargo and bulk cargo.
145 In an interview with the port authority and City of Hamburg the current estimate is 160 cruise calls per annum.
146 Interview with Hamburg port authority and City of Hamburg, 2013-03-20
147 Ibid
45
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
The Altona terminal has one berth with a quay length of the City of Hamburg, the port authority, Vattenfall and
360m for ships up to 300m, 12m/NN water depth, plus BSU.
an integrated passenger boarding bridge. The
construction of the quay and terminal was completed
in 2011.148
Power Barges
In order to create a viable OPS solution meeting the
In parallel with the plans for the permanently installed
needs of the port clients, BSU, the ministry for
shore-side power, the city is actively supporting the
economy and the port authority are working closely
more commercially driven alternative to OPS, namely
with the cruise operator Aida, which account for about
the novel concept of Power Barges. Aida cruises are
80% of port calls by cruise ships in Hamburg.
considering using the power barge solution at the
HafenCity terminal. The Hamburg Parliament has also
Aida caters for about 2000 passengers and has a
tasked the citys authorities with providing support to
power demand of 6,4 MW (3,2 kW per passsenger).
this development in the form of regulatory advice and
The planned installation will be able to provide for 12
information (no public financial support will be
MW. Once connected this will equal about 4% of the
available).
power consumption of the whole city of Hamburg.149
Any additional considerations for a 3rd Cruise Terminal
When completed the OPS installation will be the largest
in the port also include power barges to supply Cruise
in the world in terms of power. Converters will be
Ships with shore power. The power barges will use
installed on the quay to change the frequency from 50
LNG for power generation.
to 60 Hz. The installation will be based on the IEC
standard for High Voltage Shore Connection System,
similar to the installation used in the port of Oslo (Color
Line).
8.2 Case study 2: Stena Line
Financially, Hamburgs Senate will provide the funding
for the OPS investment, however there is hope to Stena Line, one of the worlds largest ferry operators,
obtain some co-funding from the EUs TEN-T has been an early adopter of the OPS concept. As with
programme. The ministries are currently working on a most others, they started out using low voltage
strategy document and feasibility study to be connections to supply their ferries while at berth during
presented to the Senate of Hamburg. The tender for overnight stops.
the OPS installation is due to be published towards the
end of 2013. There has been a gradual transition to HVSC, partially
driven by a continuous upgrade of the fleet where
In regards to the power grid, the OPS installation does larger newly built vessels have replaced smaller ones.
not pose any significant challenges. As Hamburg is With vessels respectively using both 50 and 60 Hz,
such a large port, which even without OPS has a very their recent installations include shoreside frequency
high power consumption, there are already strong grid converters to cater for all possibilities.
connections serving the port. In proportion to the
power need of the port as a whole, the OPS installation As a ferry operator mainly trafficking shorter routes,
will not have any disruptive effect on the grid Stena Line has the inherent advantage of just calling
infrastructure. The grid owner, Vattenfall, have two ports per vessel. With a long-term commitment to
confirmed that they can provide the necessary power routes, ports and terminals, the investment time is
to the cruise ships. There are also initiatives in the port predictable and cooperation with local authorities,
looking at smart grid solutions in cooperation between municipalities, etc. is inevitable.
46
Stena Lines OPS progress
Stena Lines OPS drive was initiated as a means to a functioning installation, local commitment is
reduce noise at their terminals in central Gothenburg. imperative. Though shoreside electricity costs less per
The vicinity to residential areas has been a major MWh than what is produced onboard using the
factor, and Stena chose to launch OPS as one of many auxiliaries, availability is key for ship owners to invest.
initiatives to reduce their local environmental impact
rather than moving their terminals to more remote parts In the winter time, Stenas vessels are occasionally
of the harbour. These initiatives have been part of forced to run their engines despite being connected to
Stena Lines license to operate the terminal as set by OPS in order to generate sufficient heating. Aside from
the environmental court. the temperature in the accommodation and public
areas of the vessel, heating is required to maintain the
As the figure shows, all current OPS usage is at one of temperature in fuel oil storage and day tanks as well as
two ports only. To some extent this is a consequence on the main engines. In Gothenburg, the local power
of the home port idea, i.e. having one port where any company is looking at connecting Stenas ferries to the
overnight layovers are placed, thus creating a district heating system to resolve this issue, however
significant inbalance in how much time is spent at this project is still at a very early stage.
berth in each port. Additionally, connecting in only one
port is, in part, a result of an absence of local It could be noted that the port of Kiel has not
municipal requirements, and/or a lack of sufficient grid supported OPS installations for either Stena or Color
capacity. As shoreside investments beyond what Line, both fitted with HVSC equipment.
Stena can do at their terminals are necessary to get
47
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
9. Overall analysis
During 2013 several important decisions have been Port activities are key to the economic well-being of
taken in the EU, that are working in favour of wider many societies, however, their decision making clout in
deployment of OPS, most notably the European regulatory matters is not necessarily in proportion.
Directive of Alternative Fuels, which is likely to be Although ports are affected by market changes in the
adopted during the spring 2014. shipping sector, compared to ship operations they are
less susceptible to rapid market fluctuations. They
The emerging signs of cooperation between regions in generally take a more long-term view on investments
different parts of the world is also relevant when than ship owners.
looking at the future role of OPS in the shipping trade.
Compared to ship operators, ports are to a larger
extent publically owned. In the North Sea region the
ownership structure is diverse ranging from entirely
municipally owned to fully commercial bodies. The
9.2 Ship owners public influence on ports means that their business is
The shipping sector is at the heart of the global subject to local politics and public opinion affecting
industrial supply chain and competition between ship their decision making, not least in regard to
owners is fierce. The truly international character of the environmental issues. One could also argue that
trade emphasises the difficulty for governments to expectations and pressure on ports to accept local
regulate beyond their respective national jurisdictions. conditions in terms of environmental management and
Shipping also has a highly fragmented ownership corporate social responsibility issues are stronger
structure, which adds to the complexity. since they are fixed to a specific location, often in
close proximity to urban areas.
The shipping sector is increasingly under pressure to
provide low-cost and safe transport with minimal
environmental impact. Arguably, since the shipping
sector as a collective constitutes an extremely 9.4 The ship owner and port
heterogeneous group, ranging from very small authority interface
companies to multinational corporations, it lacks the The precondition today for any viable OPS investment
proactivity to efficiently influence long-term market to be initiated is a long-term collective commitment by
developments through multi-party cooperation. either ports or ship owners to eliminate the chicken or
Consequently, they become subject to regulation egg situation. As publicly controlled entities, ports are
without being able to successfully lobby for their comparatively more likely than ship owners to prioritise
interests. the public interest over commercial profits.
48
It is improbable that ship owners would take the agree on an acceptable business model and technical
initiative to invest in OPS unless economic effective solution.
incentives, e.g. electricity/fuel prices or inherent
costs, would change dramatically.
49
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
OPS projects. It is clear that both DG Mobility and 9.7 Technical aspects
Transport (MOVE) and DG Environment are in favour of
OPS and there is (and will be) considerable funding The OPS technology, has been tested and
available to promote investments. In interviews with implemented, is readily available and functionality is
European Commission officials it has become clear proven in numerous installations. From what we have
that OPS is moving up on the EUs agenda. gathered, incidents like blackouts are practically
unheard of. From a technical and operational
In a similar fashion, governments, national and perspective, all current users are satisfied in terms of
municipal authorities can also to a large extent shape system reliability and general performance. Retrofit of
the conditions favouring OPS. Sweden is an excellent existing vessels (e.g. with a containerised OPS
example where the national government has used the solution) or installation on a newbuilt vessel is viable.
power of the stick (in the form of strict environmental
legislation) but also the carrot (in the form of tax One major step towards a wider adoption is the
reductions and some municipal co-funding of OPS). In recently agreed technical standard. Though offering
Norway and Germany, the public sector is also some flexibility on several key issues (voltage,
promoting OPS. frequency, etc) it is vital to have a standardised
installation format in order to roll out the technology
OPS is an issue requiring considerable co-operative beyond the customised one-operator set-ups like
efforts by a large number of stakeholders, not only in a Stenas.
given port location, but in the case of liner traffic also
with other ports. Both the shipping industry and to As two incompatible A/C frequencies (50 and 60 Hz)
some extent also the port sector are heterogenous and occur regularly, a port considering an OPS installation
do not have a very impressive history of co-operation. has two options either a customised setup with a
International players such as the EU and/or regional one-frequency installation, or a dual frequency
co-operation bodies can play a very important role in configuration. Unless an installation is specifically
bringing this fragmented group of stakeholders intended for a limited number of specified vessels
together to discuss the issue. The CNSS project itself using one frequency, a dual frequency set-up would
is a good example of how EU funding may foster be preferred to ensure availability, which would
closer collaboration amongst a range of stakeholders consequently have a positive impact on utilisation.
all joined by the mutual vision of creating a more
Any installation will mainly comprise of standard
environmentally friendly shipping sector.
components, ensuring availability and relatively low
In short, at this relatively early stage of technology cost. It is the application and combination of
deployment, international organisations and national components that is relatively specialised. The know-
governments must show the way and provide how to design an OPS installation exists with multiple
incentives for the market to take off. It is likely that suppliers, catering for a competitive environment thus
there needs to be a critical mass of ports in a given reducing cost.
region or trade for a large number of ship owners to
One possible challenge ports may face is that of
voluntarily want to invest in OPS.
upstream grid capacity. Investments are impossible to
Since the benefits of OPS must be evaluated on a generalise, however any reinforcement is expected to
case-by-case basis it is also important for the public be costly and requires significant co-ordination and
sector to offer technology-neutral incentives to ship interaction between the port authority and the grid
owners, i.e. in the form of lower emissions targets, owner.
instead of forcing them to use a technology that may
not give the desired impact. For instance, ESPO is
positive towards OPS but they remain adamant that it
must be up to the market to choose the most suitable
technology to reach the required emission reductions.
50
9.8 Commercial / Cost / slightly more complex than that of the ship owner,
Investment aspects seeing as the port will need to decide on service level,
expected maximum output etc based on forecasts of
conditions further away frpom their own reach,
rendering the information less certain.
From a ship owners perspective an evaluation to
invest in OPS needs to consist of the following The cost for grid re-inforcement will of course be a
considerations: central part in any ports investment analysis, and as
previously mentioned it will inevitably vary from port to
Time at sea vs. time in port
port.
Cost of bunkers for onboard electricity production
Cost of maintenance, repairs etc for onboard From a business perspective, a reduction of noise and
electricity production emissions from a port could result in expansion of the
Cost of electricity while at berth ports activities, whereas it could be difficult to get the
Installation cost required permissions for such an expansion should
noise and emissions grow along with the port.
As most sources indicate that onboard production of
electricity costs around one third more than the shore-
side grid price, subject to power supplier mark-up, an
investment will pay off. The cost reduction per 9.9 Environmental benefit
consumed kWh needs to be weighed against the
A large number of studies from around the world show
investment, and based on the expected average time
that there are significant local environmental gains to
spent at berth a pay-back time can be calculated.
be made from deploying OPS in ports. The
Though different theories exist, it is not unlikely that the environmental impact is primarily local rather than
upcoming restrictions on sulphur emissions in the global, although if applied on a massive scale OPS will
Baltic Sea will affect the local bunker prices, as contribute to a decrease of CO2 emissions.
demand for low sulphur fuels will increase drastically.
As research from Hamburg shows, calculating the
As electricity prices are unlikely to be similarly
potential reduction in emissions to the air specifically
affected, the difference in price will increase even
by implementing OPS is extremely complex. There are
further, thus making OPS a more attractive solution.
a large number of variables that need to be taken into
For a port, the investment evaluation will be slightly account (e.g. other sources such as pollution from
different. The port will have an opportunity to profit on road), which requires very advanced modelling tools
supplying electricity, however too big a mark-up may and a large amount of accurate data of ship
affect usage. Depending on the traffic type on the port movements and vessel time at berth. The condition
and average coverage on the berths, an investment and age of the ship engine also plays a role, as does
utilisation can be estimated. the possible impact of other emission-reducing
technologies onboard such as scrubbing or Selective
A high proportion of transshipment in a port could Catalytic Reduction.
indicate that the port is geared towards primarily
global traffic. On the one hand, this means that vessels In the North Sea region it is interesting to see that in
are likely to spend limited time in port in relation to time some locations noise pollution rather than air quality
at sea, thus reducing the commercial argument for seems to have been the main problem driving the
investing in OPS. On the other hand, vessels engaged decision to invest in OPS technology. In Stockholm,
in global liner operation typically trade on fixed routes, noise pollution in residential areas in proximity of the
which could lowers the investment threshold. port cause problems for urban development plans,
whereas in Hamburg air quality is the primary driver.
The decision-making process could be assumed to be
In regard to the source of electricity used through OPS
51
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
installations, all interviewees claim that they buy/will 9.10 Status in the North Sea Region
buy renewable power. The main question to keep in
mind when evaluating the environmental benefit is how In the North Sea region many ports are working hard to
many kwh of electricity is generated by renewable improve their environmental performance and OPS is
sources onshore instead of by auxiliary engines one of a range solutions that may improve the
onboard. Hence, the longer time in port, the higher environment. The environment is indeed an important
environmental impact of any given OPS installation. issue for North Sea ports, however we have found that
OPS is far from the top priority for most ports.
Although some might argue that instead of investing in
OPS it is better to save the money to invest in more There are currently very few installations in place and
efficient and higher-impact solutions like LNG that will the great majority are located in Sweden, which largely
become commercially viable in the future, it is has to do with strict environmental legislation.
imperative to act on all levels to solve the pressing However, many other ports across the region are in
local and global environmental problems. different stages of progress towards implementing
OPS technology. Interesting examples include Norway,
Although some might argue that instead of investing in Germany and the Netherlands.
OPS it is better to save the money to invest in more
efficient and higher-impact solutions like LNG that will In the great majority of cases it is the port or the local
become commercially viable in the future, it is authorities that have provided the main driving force
imperative to act on all levels to solve the pressing behind realising the investments (in Sweden often
local and global environmental problems. The based on legal requirements).
alternative fuel LNG in combination with OPS is the
In regard to CSR as a primary driver, the Finno-
most sustainable and availiable option for the future.
Swedish company Stora Enso has been progressive in
The figure below describes and argues:
regards to placing demands on its transport supply
chain to provide OPS.
52
10. Main findings
There is increasing interest in OPS as an important tool - The European Union is committed to promoting OPS
in combating local pollution, however the results of the technology and it is expected that the future
incentives and regulations provided by the public implementation of the Directive on Alternative Fuels
sector in the North Sea Region has so far been very will result in wider deployment.
poor (with the exception of Sweden).
- It is problematic that the SECA does not apply to all
of Europe. This creates an uneven playingfield and
makes it harder to deploy more environmentally
When comparing OPS with other solutions we need to friendly solutions like OPS, that sometimes require
have a long-term view of the investments (e.g. to significant investment.
2050). In this perpsective, OPS makes a lot of sense
considering that fuel oil prices are likely to increase - In terms of regulation, as far as practically possible,
and that shipping ultimately must take responsibility the same conditions regarding OPS should apply for
(and pay) for its CO2 emissions. In addition, one could all ports to avoid competitive issues that ship
see OPS as part of the general trend of an owners can take advantage of.
electrification of society and of transport in particular. - The public sector, in the form of the EU, nation
states and local authorities have the dual power of
the carrot and the stick. It can provide effective
incentive schemes, e.g. differentiated port dues that
Below follows a list of our main findings, divided into
favour ship owners that have invested in OPS. Strict
four main categories, i.e regulatory, environmental,
environmental legislation, as in the case of Sweden,
commercial and technical issues.
has also proved to be very effective.
53
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
- It is difficult for society to regulate and influence the 10.3 Commercial aspects
shipping sector due to its inherently international
nature. Making OPS mandatory for ships calling at - For the ship owner, the key priority is to maintain a
European ports would be one way to impose more stable revenue stream.
environmental control over the sector, bringing at
least a part of its emissions under the CO2 trading - Ship owners are sensitive to the needs of their cargo
system. customers. The various shipping indeces could
provide efficient tools to motivate customers to
demand OPS from their transport suppliers.
10.2 Environmental perspective
- Although the situation varies greatly between
- OPS is the only clean shipping technology that different port locations it is currently difficult to
reduces all pollutants (NOx, SOx, PM and CO2) and finance infrastructure in ports without support from
is compatible with MARPOL Annex VI. the public sector. Most current OPS installations are
financed through a mix of different sources (local
- Local communities can influence the shipping authorities, EU, ship owners, etc.).
community by introducing OPS e.g. through the
application of differentiated port fees, which - Differentiated port dues can provide good incentives
promotes the use of more sustainable solutions. for OPS, both for the port and for the ship owner.
- It is clear that the use of OPS will reduce the amount - To stimulate investment specifically 0n the ship
of local emissions from ships at berth but we owner side, the idea of a European fund, based on
acknowledge that electricity generation may the principle of the Norwegian NOx fund, would be
produce emissions of pollutants elsewhere, interesting. Ship owners would then have to pay a
depending on the power mix. Nevertheless, it may fee based on its emissions (e.g. according to 2021
be easier to mitigate emission and pollution from Tier III level), but then be able to apply for grants
large land-based power generation stations than from the fund to pay for investments aimed at
locally onboard ships due to better filtration emission reductions. The Norwegian fund has
techniques and regulation. proved very effective in reaching targeted and
measureable effects and promoted technology
- The environmental impact of OPS is dependant on transfer in the industry. Such a fund could be
the size of the ship, the number of hours spent at technology-neutral or specifically aimed to promote
berth and the frequency of port calls. It is important OPS.
that priority is given to the ships causing the largest
emissions. Hence, it is important to always carry out - The combination of an emissions fund and
a proper environmental cost-benefit analysis. differentiated port dues would have double effect
(providing both the carrot and the stick).
- OPS is more effective if it is used on a large scale. - In a commercial perspective, there are large
To be truly effective ships equipped with the differences between different types of traffic, e.g.
technology must be able to connect during all (or cruise ships differ from cargo ships due to higher
most) port calls. power demand, CSR issues are more important
(cruise customers demand clean travel) and
- It is important to bring CO2 on the global emissions public pressure is greater (due to their visibility in
agenda in shipping. local communities).
54
- Ferries and RoRO (frequent callers) are particularly 10.4 Technical issues
suited to use OPS (due to their higher rate of
utilisation) - The global technical standard is sufficient and has
solved the main incompatibility issues.
- Ship owners should seriously consider OPS for both
environmental and economic reasons. Ship owners - More trade specific standards would be beneficial,
must prepare for stricter environmental regulations, regarding maximum energy output, frequency
which are highly likely to be enforced in the medium harmonization and standards in physical placement
to long term. In regard to the current price of of the HVSC on the ship and the quay respectively.
auxiliary fuel versus electricity from the onshore grid
it is already now significantly cheaper per kwh. - Further work is needed to create a communication
Provided that shore-side connections are readily protocol standard (safety, training, etc.).
available in ports, the pay-back time for an onboard
installation is relatively short, e.g. about two years - Three innovations increase the flexibility around
for a 2500 lane meter RoRo vessel with 30% of its OPS: semi-transferrable systems, containerised OPS
operation in port.150 and the power barge (power generation by
alternative fuel, LNG)
55
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
11. Findings
- The same tax regime should apply for onshore - Public bodies should keep the rate of utilisation as
power as for fuel oil within all EU / EEA ports. the most important criteria when choosing which
ports should receive co-funding for OPS
- Differentiated port dues should be mandatory and investments. Thus, it seems reasonable to focus
standardised for all ports in Europe. their efforts on frequent liner traffic to maximise
system utilisation.
- Reduced port fees for OPS users should
compensate for the (potentially) higher price of - The public sector at EU, national and regional level
electricity generated onshore compared with energy as well as collective port associations have an
produced on board. important role to play in promoting pragmatic and
solution-oriented co-operation and dialogue
- Promote same conditions for all ports better between ports and ship owners to make informed
cooperation between ports to avoid competitive investment decisions regarding OPS.
issues that ship owners can take advantage of.
56
11.3 Environmental issues 11.5 Technical issues
- Create an EU standard for NOx and PM emissions - A standard communication protocol needs to be
from shipping established in order to control the OPS connection
from the ship.
- Establish a European fund based on the idea of the
Norwegian NOx fund, supporting the retrofitting of - All new built ships should always be fitted with OPS
ships with the aim of reducing NOx and PM.
- The location of the HVSC connection on the ship
- Each port should implement an Emission should be standardised
Management Plan which
- Ports, shipowners, designers, shipbuilders and
- puts priority on the bigger pollution HVSC technology suppliers should continue the
sources (e.g. cruise, ferries) work towards harmonisation of the technology more
intensely globally, considering both retrofit and
- is based on EcoPorts or an newbuilt vessels.
equivalent approach
- It is recommended to implement stricter standards,
use and operation of the existing technology, from
11.4 Commercial aspects used frequency and max output, trade-specific (type
- Differentiated port dues should become mandatory of vessel berth etc), physical placement of
in European ports (see above) installations to communication protocols for the
phasing in and out of the powergrid on arrival and
- Further development of the existing Shipping departure of the berth.
Indices in relation to OPS
57
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
12. Bibliography
ESPO Position paper on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure, 2013-11-12. www.espo.be. Accessed
on 2013-11-30
ESPO Green Guide - Towards excellence in port environmental management and sustainability, 2012-10-03.
www.espo.be. Accessed on 2013-11-30.
European Commission, C(2012) 8508 final Commission Implementing Decision of 27.11.2012 amending
Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 1574 of 15 March 2012 establishing a multi-annual work
programme 2012 for grants in the field of trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) for the period 2007-2013,
www.europa.eu. Accessed on 2013-04-28.
European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Strategic goals and
recommendations for the EUs maritime transport policy until 2018 /* COM/2009/0008 final, www.eur-
lex.europa.eu. Accessed on 2013-04-28.
European Commission, Proposal for a Directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure, 2013/0012
(COD), 24 January 2013, www.eur-lex.europa.eu. Accessed on 2013-04-28
European Commission, Proposal for a Directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure, 2013/0012
(COD), 24 January 2013, www.eur-lex.europa.eu. Accessed on 2013-04-28.
European Commission, DG Mobility and Transport, Annual Report of the Coordinator - Priority Project 21,
Motorways of the Sea, Trans-European transport network. www.ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/ten-
t-implementation/priority-projects/doc/pp21.pdf. Accessed on 2013-04-28.
58
European Commission, Project description New Hansa of Sustainable Ports and Cities, www.bsrinterreg.net
European Commission, Project description: Baltic Link Gdynia-Karlskrona 2009-EU-21010-P,
www.tentea.ec.europa.eu. Accessed on 2013-04-28.
European Commission, Project description: On Shore Power Supply - an integrated North Sea network, 2011-
EU-21002-P www.tentea.ec.europa.eu. Accessed on 2013-04-28
European Commission. Connecting Europe Facility: Commission adopts plan for50 billion boost to European
networks, Press release 2011-10-19 / Reference: IP/11/1200. www.europa.eu. Accessed on 2013-04-28.
European Community Shipowners Association, Annual Report 2012, www.ecsa.eu. Accessed on 2013-04-28
European Seaports organisation, About ESPO, www.espo.be
Eurostat, Energy price statistics, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu, 2013-04-29
Friends of the Earth, Cruise Report Card, www.foe.org. Accessed on 2013-04-28.
Green 10, About the Green 10 www.green10.org. Accessed on 2013-04-28.
Heald, M. (1970). The social responsibilities of business: Company and community,1900-1960. Cleveland, OH:
Case Western Reserve University Press.
Holland-America Line Sustainability Report 2009. http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/holland/sustainability-
2009/index.php?startid=56. Accessed on 2013-04-28
IMO MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committe resolutions. www.imo.org. Accessed on 2013-12-02
Inland Shipping, Facilities www.portofrotterdam.com, 2013-04-29
Luciano Corbetta, Luciano Corbetta, Cavotec, cited in CNSS presentation 22 November 2011. www.cnss.no/wp-
content/uploads/2011/11/Climate-benefit-and-ports-using-the-technology-CNSS-22-November-2011.pdf.
Accessed 2013-04-28
NABU (Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union) www.nabu.de
Nengye, L., The Relations between the European Union and the International Maritime Organization: an analysis:
Working Paper Annual Legal Research Network Conference 2010.
Norn, O. ABB AB, Presentation Shoreside Connection - Standardization & solutions 2011-11-22. www.cnss.no
Opdal O. and Steen E. Landstrom i Norge en studie av mulighetene for landstrom i Norge, p.21. Zero March
2012
Oslo Hamn, Shore-based electrical power in Oslo, http://www.oslohavn.no/, 2013-04-29
Paggie Leung. Cruise ships to get on-shore power supply. South China Morning Post, 19 July 2012. South
China Morning Posts website www.scmp.com. Accessed on 2013-04-28
Port of Hamburg, Eckelmann AG Develops Floating Environment-Friendly Power Supply for Cruise Ships
www.portofhamburg.com, 2013-04-29
Swedish Government, Promemoria 2009-12-09 Skattenedsttning fr landansluten elektrisk kraft till fartyg i
hamn http://www.regeringen.se, 2013-04-29
WCPI, OPS installed / Antwerp, www.ops.wpci.nl, 2013-04-29
Wikipedia, Mains electricity by country http://en.wikipedia.org, 2013-04-29
World Port Climate Initiative website, Onshore Power, www.onshorepowersupply.org. Accessed on 2013-04-28.
www.imo.org, Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships. Accessed on 2013-04-28.
59
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
60
European Union Ship owners
Pieter de Meyer, Policy Officer (Ports and Inland Ingemar Srensson, Stena Line Scandinavia, Ship
Navigation), Directorate General for Mobility and Management
Transport (MOVE), European Commission Dick van der Ent, Stena Line Rotterdam
Frederik Neuwahl, Policy Officer (Industrial Leif Holmberg, Transatlantic, Technical Manager
Emissions, Air Quality & Noise), Directorate General
Joachim Lund, Thun Tankers, Chartering Manager
for Environment (ENV), European Commission
Hans Lindgren, Furetank Chartering, Operations
Research Josefin Lundgren, Maersk Tankers, Technical
Volker Matthias, Head of Department, Chemistry Superintendent
Transport Modelling, Helmholz-Centrum Institute of Ken Dorn Hansen, Maersk Tankers, Fleet Group
Coastal Research Manager
Armin Aulinger, Scientist, Chemistry Transport Gustav Lind, Maersk Tankers, Operations
Modelling, Helmholz-Centrum Institute of Coastal
Jorgen Hansen, Maersk Line, ex Maersk Marine
Research
Technology
Alan Murphy, Newcastle University
Gert Jakobsen, DFDS
Sector organisations
Antonis Michail, Policy Advisor and EcoPorts
Coordinator, European Sea Ports Organisation
(ESPO)
Richard Ballantyne, Senior Policy Advisor, British
Ports Association
Grid companies and electrical power experts
Tommie Lindquist, PhD, Swedish National Grid
Jan Krnestedt, Gothenburg Energi
Gran Lundgren, GL Add Wise
Erik Lindn, Remigium AB
Tomas Lust, Marine Global Group
Ingemar Gustavsson, Processkontroll Elektriska
Lorene Grandidier, Schneider Electric.
61
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
Photo: Volker Matthias
62
63
FINAL REPORT KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
www.cnss.no
LEAD BENEFICIARY