CNSS Work package 4, Showcase OPS
Onshore Power Supply
(OPS) Survey
Status and future
Compiled by: LightSwitch AB, SMTF and Hordaland County Council
March 2014
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
Table of contents
2
1.
Executive summary
4
2.
Introduction
2.1
About the CNSS project
2.2
Objectives of this report
2.3
Delimitations
2.4
Disclaimer
6
6
7
7
7
3.
Background
3.1
Introduction
3.2
The global context
3.3
Stakeholders
3.3.1
Legislative and political level
3.3.2
Sector specific stakeholders
3.3.3
Commercial stakeholders
3.4
General policy framework on OPS
3.4.1
Introduction
3.4.2
International
3.4.3
European port and shipping stakeholders
3.4.4
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)
3.4.5
The European Union (EU)
3.4.6
Regional level
3.4.7
National level
3.4.8
Sub-national level
3.4.9
Municipal level
3.4.10 Ports, ship owners and grid companies
3.4.11 Shipping Indices
3.5
Stakeholders: Summary and conclusion
3.6
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
8
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
11
13
14
15
20
20
21
21
22
23
23
24
4
Overview of available technical solutions
4.1
OPS
4.1.1
Introduction
4.1.2
Low voltage connections
4.1.3
High voltage connections
4.1.4
Frequency
4.1.5
Grid issues
4.2
Other alternatives
4.3
Technical aspects of OPS
4.3.1
Ports
4.3.2
Ships
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
28
28
29
5
Environmental impact of OPS
5.1
Introduction
5.2
Ship emissions in ports and at sea
5.3
Noise reduction
5.4
OPS – a clean shipping technology?
5.5
Environmental cost-benefit
30
30
30
32
32
34
6.
Mapping of OPS in the North Sea Region
6.1
The North Sea Region
6.2
National differences
6.2.1
Sweden
36
36
36
36
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.2.2
Denmark
6.2.3
Norway
6.2.4
Germany
6.2.4
Netherlands
6.2.5
Belgium
6.2.6
UK
Conditions for different types of traffic
6.3.1
Ferry/RoPax traffic
6.3.2
Cruise traffic
6.3.3
Global liner traffic
6.3.4
Short-sea liner traffic
6.3.5
Other traffic types
Ship owners
Status of OPS in ports in the CNSS area
36
36
37
37
37
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
39
40
7.
The commercial perspective
7.1
Introduction
7.2
Ports perspective
7.3
Ship owner perspective
43
43
43
44
8.
Case studies
8.1
Case study 1: Hamburg
8.2
Case study 2: Stena Line
45
45
46
9.
Overall analysis
9.1
Introduction
9.2
Ship owners
9.3
Ports
9.4
The ship owner and port authority interface
9.5
Type of traffic
9.6
The public sector
9.7
Technical aspects
9.8
Commercial / Cost /Investment aspects
9.9
Environmental benefit
9.10 Status in the North Sea Region
48
48
48
48
48
49
49
50
51
51
52
10.
Main
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
53
53
54
54
55
11.
Recommendations
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Regulatory issues
11.3 Environmental issues
11.4 Commercial aspects
11.5 Technical issues
56
56
56
57
57
57
12.
Bibliography
58
13.
List of interviewees and references
60
findings
Regulatory issues
Environmental perspective
Commercial aspects
Technical issues
3
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
1.
Executive summary
The shipping sector accounts for a significant share of
harmful pollutants to the air, which constitutes a
pressing problem in many port communities.
Increasing concentrations of NOx, SOx, PM and other
substances and gases constitute a major threat to
public health in ports and surrounding areas. Large
ships are also major contributors to global CO2
emissions.
Due to the truly international character of the trade it is
difficult to enforce regulations to limit the environmental
effects of shipping. Similar to aviation, ship fuels and
emissions are not regulated as strictly as land-based
transport. In addition, the replacement rate for ships is
much slower than for trucks and buses, which means
that few energy efficient new ships enter the market
every year.
The result of the study confirms that OPS is a complex
issue involving a large number of diverse stakeholders
at various levels in society and the shipping supply
chain. Although not technically complicated, the
question of whether to invest in OPS or not depends on
a large number of interrelated issues that ports and
ship owners must evaluate, i.e. commercial viability of
the investment, environmental impact, rate of utilisation
as well as impacts of future emission reduction
regulations on the trade.
Globally, OPS is today far from being a widely used
technology, however there are some progressive
regions that have taken great strides in deploying the
technology, most notably the west coast of the United
4
States. As environmental awareness and concern is
growing in society at large but also specifically in the
port and shipping community, OPS is a technology
attracting increasing attention as a tool to combat
emissions. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is
something that historically have not been at the top of
the agenda in shipping, but there are signs that CSR
considerations are having increasing impact on
company balance sheets and this is a trend that is
likely to grow in future.
In the North Sea region we have found the public
sector to be a crucial driving force in promoting OPS,
both through incentives (tax reductions and grants)
and strict environmental legislation.
A large number of studies have shown that OPS has
the potential to significantly reduce emissions of
harmful substances and greenhouse gases to the air.
OPS is primarily a technology designed to combat
local air and noise pollution but if deployed on a large
scale it may also provide large CO2 savings.
Technically, OPS is not a complicated issue and new
global standards provide good guidance for
implementation. However, there are some issues
around frequency (50 or 60 Hz) and the location of the
equipment onboard ships that still remains a
challenge. Most components used in OPS installations
are standard and widely used in other types of
electrical power equipment.
In regard to the onshore grid, OPS do not pose any
major challenges, with the possible exception of cruise
ships that have a very high power demand. Mostly it is
a matter of cost and time to reinforce the grid locally.
The environmental and commercial success of any
given OPS installation needs to be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis as the conditions for individual
ports and ship owners vary greatly. In general terms
however, one can conclude that OPS is particularly
suitable for liner traffic spending considerable time in
port. The more power that is generated onshore by
renewable sources compared to onboard ships by
means of auxiliary engines, the more an OPS
investment makes commercial and environmental
sense. In a long term perspective, the issue of rising
CO2 emissions to the atmosphere is likely to result in
tougher regulations on all polluting sectors, including
shipping. OPS also provides a means for society to
indirectly influence the unregulated shipping sector
since shorebased electricity generation is included
under the CO2 emissions ceiling whereas fuel used in
auxiliary ship engines is not.
The OPS mapping of the North Sea region has shown
that Sweden is in the lead when it comes to the largest
number of installed OPS systems. There are however
very interesting developments also in Norway,
Germany, and the Netherlands.
commercial impact of OPS. For some time the OPS
debate has been dominated by the “chicken or egg”
question relating to which actor should take the first
step in investing in OPS – the port side or the ship
owners. Throughout this project it has become clear
though that the public sector plays a critical role in
promoting the deployment and utilisation of the
technology in the shipping sector. It is highly unlikely
that ship owners will take the initiative for a sector wide
implementation of OPS. Society, in the form of
national, regional and local government, has several
instruments at its disposal for promoting deployment of
OPS and other clean shipping technologies, such as
differentiated port dues, tax reductions for shorebased
power as well as grants. In addition, the public side
could play a more active role in supporting effective
collaboration and knowledge transfer in the sector.
The CNSS project together with involved stakeholders
is willing to provide recommendations to help combat
local air pollution and global emission from the
shipping industry. Taking a long-term perspective,
OPS does have an important role to play, provided that
society is willing to solve the environmental and health
problems caused by shipping. There are several
examples of successful OPS installations, which more
ports and ship owners could learn from.
Some question marks remain regarding the optimal
model for utilisation and the real environmental and
5
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
2.
Introduction
2.1
About the CNSS project
The Clean North Sea Shipping (CNSS) project,
involving 18 partners from six countries, seeks to
address the problems caused by air pollution and
greenhouse gases produced by ships operating along
the North Sea coast and within North Sea ports and
harbours. A reduction in exhaust gas emissions from
ships will improve the general environmental situation
in the North Sea Region.The CNSS project aims to
create awareness, share knowledge and convince
influential stakeholders, including regional and
European politicians, ports, shipping companies and
cargo owners, to take action.
The Clean North Sea Shipping (CNSS) project has
thoroughly examined a matrix of OPS initiatives as well
as their impact on society with the aim with the to
visualise current status and future, provide
6
recommendations and exchange experiences with
policymakers, ports, terminal operators and shipping
companies;
- Exchange of experiences
- Providing recommendations for improvement
- Guideline for policymakers on implementation of
technologies towards cleaner shipping
- Stimulate as many ports, terminal operators and
shipping companies as possible to implement
available technology, for the benefit of the
environment and their future
The OPS report is the result of one of the activities of
the WP4 Clean Shipping Technology work package.
2.2
Objectives of this report
This report provides an analysis and mapping of the
current status and prospective development of
Onshore Power Supply (OPS) in the North Sea Region.
The report was commissioned by the Clean North Sea
Shipping Project, to provide insight into a topical issue
currently of great interest to the shipping sector in the
region and internationally.
The purpose of the report is to provide an
updated picture of the status of onshore
power supply installations in the North
Sea Region. This report aims to answer
the following questions:
•
Chapter 3 who influence OPS investment
decisions?
•
Chapter 4 what is the technology?
•
Chapter 5 what are the main drivers
behind the investments?
•
Chapter 6 which ports and ship owners
have invested in OPS?
•
Chapter 7 what are the barriers to
investment?
•
Chapter 9-11 what does the future hold?
Will OPS become the norm?
The status of OPS in the North Sea region is analysed
according to a stakeholder perspective, including a
mapping of public and private stakeholders at the
international, national, regional and local levels.
interviews with a large number of stakeholders across
the North Sea Region, including ports, ship owners,
sector organisations, researchers, grid owners and
representatives from the EU as well as
national/regional/local government. To get a
comprehensive background to the subject we have
also taken into account a number of academic reports,
feasibility studies and media articles.
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
North Sea Region.
2.3
Delimitations
The study is primarily focused on high voltage OPS
connections for sea-going ship traffic in the North Sea
region, thus excluding onshore power for inland barge
traffic from the report. The main emphasis is on High
Voltage Shore Connection (HSVC) although throughout
this report we refer to the technology with the more
general term Onshore Power Supply (OPS).
2.4
Disclaimer
This report is based upon a large number of sources,
the analysis of which reflects the project team’s
interpretation of the information. Open sources and
interviews reflect information that is generally
accessible, however as the study concerns a matter
with possible business impact, confidentiality may
have had an effect on the material available. The
opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this
publication are those of the authors. During the course
of the research however, we have liaised closely with
the CNSS project management and the results of the
OPS Survey have also been subject to review by an
international reference group.1
To answer these questions we have conducted
1
The international reference group consists of Antonis Michail, ESPO; Mauritz Prinssen, Port of Rotterdam; Per Rekdal, Port Of Oslo;
Jürgen Zabel, SAM Electronics; and Lorene Grandidier, Schneider Electric.
7
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
3.
Background
3.1
Introduction
Onshore Power Supply (hereafter referred to as OPS)
is a technology that enables vessels to replace the use
of auxiliary engines whilst at berth. The technology is
sometimes also referred to as Cold Ironing, Alternative
Maritime Power (AMP), or High/Low Voltage Shore
Connection (HVSC/LVSC). In this report we focus on
HVSC.
Whilst in port vessels require electricity for various
activities, including loading and discharging cargo,
heating, lighting and air conditioning. This power is
normally generated by diesel fueled auxiliary engines
emitting sulphur dioxide (SOx), nitrogen oixides (NOx),
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particulate matter
(PM), carbon dioxide (CO2) and other green house
gases (GHG), negatively affecting the air quality of
local communities. Low frequency noise from auxiliary
engines is another local environmental problem in
ports.
Instead of generating the power onboard by means of
auxiliary engines there are available technologies
enabling vessels to connect to the local electricity grid.
As environmental awareness and concern have grown
in the shipping sector and stricter requirements on
emissions have been enforced, OPS technology is
generating increasing interest amongst ports, ship
owners and local communities as a way to mitigate
emissions and noise problems.
3.2
The global context
To set the scene for an in-depth analysis of the status
of OPS in the North Sea Region it is relevant to
consider the global context and mention some
initiatives in other parts of the world.
In the US and Canada several ports have received
financial support for OPS investments. Examples
include Port of Victoria, Port Hueneme, Los Angeles,
Long Beach and Brooklyn. The most proactive
proponents for OPS are Los Angeles and Long Beach,
which have decided that 90% of all vessels calling the
ports must be connected to the onshore grid by 2020.
This initiative is linked to the California “At-Berth
8
regulation”2 that will come into force in 2014, which
requires certain vessels to dramatically lower their
emissions whilst in port. This applies to six Californian
ports and require most ships to connect to the onshore
grid.3 California is a designated Sulphur Emissions
Control Area (SECA), something that has been an
important driving force in the deployment of OPS
technology in the region. The regulation became
effective in 2009 and will during the period 2014-2020
require increasing demands on the number of port
calls connecting to shore power and a corresponding
reduction in emissions.4
On the east coast of the United States there are also
some interesting OPS projects being planned, e.g. in
the Florida Port of Everglades (to cater for the Royal
Carribean new OASIS-class cruises).5
The government of Canada has provided significant
financial support to an OPS investment at the port of
Prince Rupert on the west coast that will provide shore
power to container ships in the transpacific trade.6
In Asia, the Hong Kong port of Kai Tak has also
decided to connect cruise liners to OPS in an effort to
lower local emissions.7
There are some examples of bilateral initiatives to
promote green shipping routes between select ports
on the US west coast and in China. The German
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
related to OPS with the aim of improving the chances
for ‘shared’ customers to be able to connect to OPS
whilst calling these ports. This typically applies to
global liner traffic, however it could be extended to
parts of the cruise liner business in which ships
operate in different regions depending on season.9
A few shipping companies have taken great strides to
retrofit their ships to accommodate OPS technology.
Examples include the world’s fourth largest container
carrier APL that have installed OPS on five container
carriers to be connected to the mainland grid in the
Port of Oakland10. In the cruise industry there are
several cruise line companies which can now connect
to onshore power, most of them trading on ports on the
US west coast, e.g. Holland America Line, Royal
Caribbean International, Celebrity Cruise Lines,
Norwegian Cruise Line, and Princess Cruises.11
Regarding newbuilt ships, it is now becoming
increasingly common that container vessels over 6000
TEUs are equipped with OPS technology.
To understand the complexity surrounding OPS
investments it makes sense to briefly describe the
different stakeholders and their type and level of
influence. Note that the below is a generic mapping of
stakeholders and the situation in individual ports vary
greatly due to size, location, type of traffic and political
framework.
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
voltage installation for ferry and cruise traffic and
possibly also for a container terminal. In Barcelona,
Spain, OPS for ferry traffic is being planned.12
3.3
Stakeholders
Although OPS is an established technology and has
been in use since the early 1980’s13 there are a number
of issues that have prevented the widespread
deployment of OPS. One key factor is the large
number of stakeholders that in one way or other
influence OPS investment decisions. For any
investment to be successful all relevant actors in a
given location need to be involved and find a way to
cooperate. They must agree on a compatible
technology and construct a viable business model for
the site-specific OPS installation.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1. Intergovernmental organisations: develop policy and
enforce regulations regarding e.g. sulphur content
of ship fuel. They can also provide incentives for
OPS through promoting sector cooperation and
grants. Examples include the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO) and the European Union.
2. National governments: policy development and
legislative power. Governments has the power of the
“stick”, e.g. forcing ports to provide OPS through
environmental court decisions, but may also provide
incentives for investments such as tax reductions for
ports and ship owners utilising the technology.
3. Regional authorities: may exercise direct or indirect
influence on OPS e.g. through developing regional
transport and logistics plans and coordinating
stakeholders in a given region.14 Regional authorities
could also provide financial means to support OPS
installations.15
California Senate Bill No. 234. Legiscan website: www.legiscan.com (accessed on 2013-04-28)
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.
2014-2016 50% of a fleet’s 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.
Bankes-Hughes, L. “Iron age – spotlight on cold ironing”, Bunkerspot Aug/Sept. 2009, www.petrospot.com
World Port Climate Initiative, www.onshorepowersupply.org
Paggie Leung. “Cruise ships to get on-shore power supply.” South China Morning Post, 19 July 2012. www.scmp.com.
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.
One such example is the ports of Stockholm and Barcelona.
World Port Climate Initiative, www.onshorepowersupply.org
They have all been awarded the Port of Seattle’s “Green Gateway Partner Award”. www.cruiseforward.org
Luciano Corbetta, Cavotec, cited in CNSS presentation 22 November 2011. www.cnss.no
In 1984 the port authorities in Stockholm installed a low voltage OPS system for the Viking Line ferry. This system is still in use.
Interview with Thomas Ney, Region Skåne in south Sweden, 2013-03-18
The Länder 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
Sea region are municipally owned16, local
government (civil servants and politicians) may
exercise direct or indirect influence on OPS
investment decisions in ports. In some cases
municipalities have co-financed installations.17
5. Sector organisations, industry associations and
NGO’s: at European and national level these may
exercise significant pressure on authorities on
issues directly or indirectly concerning OPS. The
European Seaports Organisation (ESPO) and
European Community Shipowners’ Assocation
(ECSA) have for example responded to the
European Commission’s revision proposal regarding
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
known to have influenced the public debate about
ship emissions.
3.3.2 Sector specific stakeholders
1. Port authorities: ports are by default directly involved
in any decision to install OPS as this has a direct
impact on port infrastructure, operations and
commercial relations with clients.
2. Ship owners: ship owners are maybe the most
important stakeholder of all since they to a large
extent stand for the market driven ‘demand’ for OPS.
Unless ship owners are willing to invest in OPS, any
investment in new port infrastructure is pointless.
3. Grid owners and power companies: a prerequisite
for any OPS installation is that a sufficient grid
infrastructure is in place. Depending on the power
requirements in the port the grid company may
need to improve transmission capacity locally,
especially for OPS installations aimed at large
vessels.19
16
17
18
19
20
21
10
4. OPS technology suppliers: companies such as ABB,
Siemens, Schneider Electric and Cavotec have to
design products and related services to suit the
requirements of the ports and ship owners. They
have an important role to play in the development of
industry standards, which are key to any
widespread deployment of OPS technology.
5. Ship engine suppliers and technical service
companies: as some technical adjustments are
necessary onboard ships that install OPS systems,
engine suppliers must work in tandem with OPS
technology suppliers to ensure power management
system compatibility and resolve technical issues
that may arise.
3.3.3 Commercial stakeholders
1. Investors: decisions to invest in OPS may be of
central or peripheral importance to investors and
financial institutions depending on the size and
scale of the investment as well as the possible
impact on other parts of the business. For a
company with high ambitions to have an
environmentally friendly profile, a decision to invest
in OPS may be an important tool in strengthening
the company brand.20
2. The logistics supply chain: the myriad of
stakeholders (ultimately exemplified by endconsumers globally) indirectly influence OPS
investment decisions by setting the commercial
framework conditions for any ship owner or port
involved in the transportation of goods and
passengers. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
issues may also come into play at various points in
the supply chain, putting pressure on ship owners
and ports to provide environmentally friendly
solutions.21
In Denmark the state owns or co-owns (as in the case of e.g. Copenhagen port) many ports.
Examples include Stockholm and Hamburg
ESPO “Position paper on the taxation of electricity provided through Onshore Power Supply (OPS) systems” 2010-03-30. www.espo.be
Interview Bengt-Olof Jansson, CMP, 2013-03-27: Copenhagen-Malmö Port Authority has investigated the possibility of providing OPS in
central Copenhagen, which is a popular destination for cruise liners.
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.
One such example is the forestry company Stora Enso, which has greatly influenced the ship owner Transatlantic’s decision to retrofit part
of its fleet to enable shore power connection.
Port
authorities
Ship
owners
Investors
and
financial
institutions
Regional
authorities &
municipalities
Grid
owners
and power
companies
OPS technology
suppliers
Ship engine
suppliers
authorities
Sector
organisations
and NGOs
(lobbying)
Intergovernment
al organisations
The logistics
supply chain
National
governments,
incl. legal
3.4
OPS
General policy framework on OPS
3.4.1 Introduction
In this section we aim to describe the main
stakeholders shaping the policy landscape that in
one way or other, and to varying degrees, influence
ports’ and ship owners’ ability and willingness to
invest in OPS in the North Sea Region.
Organisation (IMO) and the European Union (EU)
influence developments through policy decisions e.g.
implementing more stringent regulations regarding the
sulphur content levels in ship fuel.
International organisations also have an important role
to play in promoting joint technical standards and
fostering closer cooperation amongst ports and ship
owners internationally.
3.4.2 International
At the macro level, intergovernmental and international
sector organisations like the International Maritime
To a limited extent (so far) such organisations have
also promoted deployment by offering grants and
subsidies to ports and ship owners.
11
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
International Maritime Organisation (IMO)
The IMO is the United Nations specialised agency with
responsibility for the safety and security of shipping
and the prevention of marine pollution by ships. IMO is
the source of approximately 60 legal instruments that
guide the regulatory development of its member states
to improve safety at sea, facilitate trade among
seafaring states and protect the maritime environment.
MARPOL Annex VI is the most powerful instrument
emanating from the IMO, with the aim of limiting the
main air pollutants contained in ships exhaust gas.22
In 2008 the Marine Environment Protection Committee
of the International Maritime Organisation, IMO,
unanimously adopted the revised Annex VI, Prevention
of Air Pollution from Ships, to the MARPOL 73/78
Convention. The Annex sets limits on nitrogen oxide
and sulphur oxide emissions from ship exhausts. Low
sulphur fuel also reduces particulate emissions from
ships. The new Annex entered into force on 1 July
2010. The highest sulphur content allowed in ship fuel
was reduced globally as of 2012 from 4.5% to 3.5%
and as of 2020 to 0.5%. Sulphur content allowed in
Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) that currently
include the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English
Channel, decreased in 2010 from 1.5% to 1.0% and
will decrease further to 0.1% in 2015.23
Regarding energy efficiency of ships MARPOL VI have
introduced two important instruments that are relevant
in regard to OPS. The Energy Efficiency Design Index
(EEDI) was made mandatory for new ships and the
Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for
all ships at the Marine Environment Protection
Committee (MEPC) 62 in July 2011.24 This was the first
legally binding climate change treaty to be adopted
since the Kyoto Protocol. The EEDI is the most
important technical measure and it aims at promoting
the use of more energy efficient (and less polluting)
equipment and engines. The EEDI requires a
minimum energy efficiency level per capacity mile (e.g.
tonne mile) for different ship type and size segments
From 2013 the level is to be tightened incrementally
every five years, and so the EEDI is expected to
stimulate continued innovation and technical
development of all the components influencing the fuel
efficiency of a ship from its design phase. The EEDI is
12
a non-prescriptive, performance-based mechanism
that leaves the choice of technologies to use in a
specific ship design to the industry. As long as the
required energy efficiency level is attained, ship
designers and builders are free to use the most costefficient solutions for the ship to comply with the
regulations.25 The EEDI is developed for the largest
and most energy intensive segments of the world
merchant fleet and will embrace 72% of emissions
from new ships covering the following ship types: oil
tankers, bulk carriers, gas carriers, general cargo,
container ships, refrigerated cargo and combination
carriers. For ship types not covered by the current
formula, suitable formulas are expected to be
developed in the future addressing the largest emitters
first.26
The other IMO initiative, SEEMP, is an operational
measure that establishes a mechanism to improve the
energy efficiency of a ship in a cost-effective manner.
The SEEMP also provides an approach for shipping
companies to manage ship and fleet efficiency
performance over time using, for example, the Energy
Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI) as a monitoring
tool. The guidance on the development of the SEEMP
for new and existing ships incorporates best practices
for fuel efficient ship operation, as well as guidelines
for voluntary use of the EEOI for new and existing
ships.27
The progressive reduction of fuel sulphur content
levels impacts directly on the commercial viability of
OPS as the price for electricity generated onshore will
seriously compete with that of low-sulphur auxiliary
fuel.
World Port Climate Initiative (WPCI)
The WPCI, linked to the International Association of
Ports and Harbors (IAPH), works to raise awareness in
the port and maritime community of the need for action
to reduce GHG emissions and improve air quality.
WPCI has a special working group working to promote
knowledge exchange in the maritime community
regarding OPS issues. They have created a website
where information and news about OPS-related matters
are posted, with the purpose of sharing best practice
and promoting the deployment of the technology.28
3.4.3 European port and shipping
stakeholders
Before going on to describe the multifaceted policy
framework of the European Union, the primary
shipping-specific European lobbying organisations
should be mentioned. These serve as the ports’ and
the ship owners’ respective spokespersons, which
closely follow and try to influence developments in the
European policy making framework that impacts on
their constituent national member organisations.
European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO)
The European Sea Ports Organisation was founded in
1993. It represents the port authorities, port
associations and port administrations of the seaports
of the Member States of the European Union and
Norway. ESPO also has observer members in several
neighbouring countries to the EU.29
The EcoPorts initiative, under the ESPO umbrella,
supports sound environmental management in
European ports. ESPO/Ecoports have developed two
important tools that ports can use to improve their
environmental standards.
Firstly, there is the Self Diagnosis Method (SDM), a
methodology for identifying environmental risk and
establishing priorities for action and compliance. SDM
is a concise checklist against which port managers
can self-assess the environmental management
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
programme of the port in relation to the performance of
both the European port sector and international
standards.30
Secondly, the Port Environmental Review System
(PERS) has, according to ESPO, firmly established its
reputation as the only port-sector specific
environmental management standard. PERS stems
from work carried out by the ports themselves and it is
specifically designed to assist port authorities with the
functional organisation necessary to deliver the goals
of sustainable development. While incorporating the
main generic requirements of recognised
environmental management standards (e.g. ISO
14001), PERS is adapted to deliver effective port
environmental management and its implementation
can be independently certified.31
In addition to the above tools ESPO published a new
“Green Guide ” in October 2012, which provides a full
revision and update of the ESPO Environmental Code
of Practice. In line with ESPOs vision on sustainability,
the Guide introduces a common framework for action
under ”Five Es”, i.e. ”Exemplify”, ”Enable”,
”Encourage”, ”Engage” and ”Enforce”. This action
framework is applied to five selected environmental
issues: air quality, energy conservation and climate
change, noise management, waste management and
water management. The Guide encourages ports to be
responsible for their own initiatives, to benchmark their
performance, and to deliver science-based evidence
of achievements.32
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).
Marpol revised Annex VI.
with the adoption of amendments to MARPOL Annex VI (resolution MEPC.203(62)), by Parties to MARPOL Annex VI. Source:
http://www.imo.org
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)
www.imo.org
Ibid
World Port Climate Initiative. www.onshorepowersupply.org
European Seaports Organisation, www.espo.be
Ibid
Ibid
www.espo.be
13
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
In principle, ESPO is supportive of OPS and regard it
as one of several interesting technologies that may
contribute to a greener shipping sector. However, they
firmly believe that decisions whether to invest in OPS
must lie with individual ports and not be forced through
by EU or national legislation.33
In November 2013 the Transport Committee of the
European Parliament voted in favour of a report an
important Commission proposal on a Directive on the
Deployment of alternative fuel infrastructure. ESPO is
positive to the proposal in regard to its provisions for
LNG infrastructure. In regard to OPS however, ESPO is
critical to the introduction of a strict obligation for all
core TEN-T ports to provide shore side electricity to
vessels requiring more than 1 MVA in berths located
within 3 km of residential areas, arguing that “shore
side electricity is not a one-size-fits-all type of solution
and should therefore not be imposed horizontally. It
should be promoted where and insofar it is beneficial
for the environment and cost effective”.34
European Community Shipowners’ Association
(ECSA)
Another influential European stakeholder is ECSA,
which represent the national shipowner associations of
the EU countries and Norway.
ECSA works through a permanent secretariat in
Brussels and a Board of Directors, as well as a number
of specialised committees. Its aim is to ”promote the
interests of European shipping so that the industry can
best serve European and international trade and
commerce in a competitive free enterprise environment
to the benefit of shippers and consumers”35.
Sometimes ECSA joins forces with ESPO in lobbying
efforts aimed at the EU Commission, as was the case
with the revision of the EU tax Directive, which has
bearing on OPS.36
European Association of Electricity
Transmission and Distribution Equipment and
Services Industry
This organisation representing industry stakeholders
like ABB, Schneider Electric, Alstom and Siemens, is
actively working to promote the use of OPS and has a
14
task force specifically working on this issue. They have
been instrumental in developing the global standard
for OPS. Another example of their involvement is a
position paper regarding the European Directive of
Alternative Fuels (see more below).
3.4.4 Non-Governmental
Organisations (NGOs)
NGOs have an important role to play in shaping policy
at all levels, from the international level down to local
level. In the environmental arena particularly, there are
a large number of NGOs putting pressure on
governments and authorities to promote sustainable
development. In the multi-level governance model of
democratic societies there are often a large number of
stakeholders involved in shaping policies, some more
influential than others. It is often difficult to obtain
verifiable facts about lobbying activities and their real
impact and this is also true in the case of NGOs’
possible influence in regard to OPS.
The Clean Shipping Coalition (CSC), which was
granted observer status to the IMO in 201037, claims to
be the only global international environmental
organisation that focuses exclusively on shipping
issues. It is based in Brussels and represents several
other environmental NGOs including the Bellona
Foundation, Transport & Environment and the North
Sea Foundation.
In the United States, Friends of the Earth is an
influential NGO that are closely monitoring the
environmental performance of cruise ships through its
”Cruise Report Card”, which ranks cruise operators
and individual vessels on air pollution, sewage
treatment and water quality compliance. In regard to
air pollution only vessels which are able to connect to
shore side power can get the top rating.38
In Brussels, environmental groups are often well
organised and strategically lobby the European
Commission and Parliament. Different NGOs often
work in tandem to present a stronger voice towards
policy makers. The Green1039 group is an excellent
example and their constituent organisations have over
20 million followers.
In the North Sea area there are several NGOs that are
actively in favour of OPS solutions. For example, the
Bellona Foundation based in Norway (but with
representation also in Russia and Brussels) has been
instrumental in supporting the OPS solution in Oslo.
Bellona has been involved in identifying sources of
funding for the project liaising closely with Color Line,
Port of Oslo and the grid company Hafslund Nett.40
In Germany NABO, an environmental NGO with a
membership base of about 450 00041 has been
vociferous in their demands for cleaner air in ports and
for example, they have recently focused their attention
on the growing cruise trade in Hamburg.42
3.4.5 The European Union (EU)
3.4.5.1 Introduction
The EU is a key stakeholder that has the power to
significantly change the market conditions for the
shipping sector. Any analysis of specific EU policies
providing incentives or creating opportunities for OPS
should be viewed in the context of the complex policy
making environment of the EU. There are a number of
policy areas that directly or indirectly influence the
shipping sector. Examples include energy,
environment (the 2020-20-20 climate goals), transport,
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
international trade and taxation.
The EU is an important public stakeholder that has a
stake in the development of OPS in Europe. It holds
legislative power over member states and also has the
financial means to support investment in OPS.
The European Commission’s Directorate General for
Mobility and Transport (MOVE) would like to see more
OPS investments made in Europe. The Directorate
General for the Environment is also in favour of OPS43.
In the policy negotiations surrounding the EU Strategy
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
Commission to the Parliament there was originally only
one reference to OPS: “Shore-side electricity facilities
can serve maritime and inland waterway transport as
clean power supply, in particular in maritime and
inland navigation ports where air quality or noise levels
are poor”.46
However, during the consultation process in the
European Parliament (EP) of this Directive proposal,
important amendments have been suggested to Article
4.4. In November 2013 the EP Transport Committee
voted in favour of the following text:
Interview with Antonis Michail, Sustainability Manager, ESPO, 2013-04-08
ESPO position paper on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure. 2013-11-12
European Community Shipowners Association, www.ecsa.eu
E.g. in regard to the revision of the EU tax Directive. www.espo.be.
Clean Shipping Coalition, www.cleanshipping.org
Friends of the earth, www.foe.org
Green10 consists of the following environmental NGOs: Birdlife Europe, CEE Bankwatch Network, Climate Action Network Europe,
European Environment Bureau, Transport and Environment, Health and Environment Alliance, Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace,
Naturefriends International, WWF European Policy Office. www.green10.org.
Bellona, www.bellona.no
NABU (Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union), www.nabu.de
A workshop on this topic was organised in February 2013, in which the issue of OPS was one of the topics of discussion. www.nabu.de.
DG MOVE has more detailed and technical knowledge in regard to OPS and conditions in the shipping sector, whereas the main concern
for DG Environment is environmental matters. (Opinion expressed by Antonis Michail, Sustainability Manager at ESPO).
European Commission, “Proposal for a Directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure”, 2013/0012 (COD), 24 January
2013, www.eur-lex.europa.eu
Interview with Frederik Neuwahl, DG Environment, EU Commission 2013-04-17
European Commission, “Proposal for a Directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure”, 2013/0012 (COD), 24 January
2013, www.eur-lex.europa.eu
15
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
“Member States, in close cooperation with regional
and local authorities, the managing bodies of the ports
and the industry concerned, shall ensure that shore
side electricity supply for waterborne vesselsrequiring
more than 1 MVA is installed inberths of ports of the
TEN-T Core Network located within 3 km of residential
and commercial areas, by 31 December 2020. This
requirement shall also apply to cruise and ferry
terminals not included in the TEN-T Core Network,
unless their managing bodies demonstrate lack of
cost-effectiveness or absence of significant
environmental benefits.”
Article 4.5 also makes an important point about
standards:”Shore-side electricity supply for maritime
and inland waterway transport shall comply with the
technical specifications set out Annex III.1.3 by 31
December 2015 at the latest.”
The plenary vote in the European Parliament on the
adopted report is scheduled to take place in February
2014.
These recent developments show that the European
institutions are confident in the OPS technology, and
have realised that regulation is required to promote
further deployment.
3.4.5.2 Background on OPS in the EU context
The Commission issued a Recommendation in 2006
“on the promotion of shore-side electricity for use by
ships at berth in Community ports”.47 Although EU
Recommendations are non-binding instruments in the
EU legal system, the 2006 Recommendation clearly
states the Commission’s opinion in regard to the
technology:
“The Commission of the European Communities hereby
recommends:
1. Member States should consider the installation of
shore-side electricity for use by ships at berth in
ports; particularly in ports where air quality limit
values are exceeded or where public concern is
expressed about high levels of noise nuisance, and
especially in berths situated near residential areas.
16
2. Member States should take note of the advice, set
out in the Annex, on the cost-effectiveness and
practicality of using shore-side electricity to reduce
emissions for different types of ships, routes and
ports. Nevertheless, the environmental benefits and
cost-effectiveness should be evaluated on a case by
case basis.
3. Member States should work within the International
Maritime Organization (IMO), in the context of the
ongoing review of the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL
Convention), to promote the development of
harmonised international standards for shore-side
electrical connections, taking into account ongoing
work. Member States should consider offering
economic incentives to operators to use shore-side
electricity provided to ships, taking advantage of the
possibilities set out in Community legislation.
5. Member States should promote awareness of shoreside electricity among local authorities whose
responsibility includes port areas, maritime
authorities, port authorities, classification societies
and industry associations.
6. Member States should encourage port authorities
and industry to exchange best practice concerning
shore-side electricity supply and harmonising
procedures for this service.
7.
Member States should report to the
Commission on the action they intend to take to
reduce ship emissions in ports, particularly where air
quality limit values are exceeded.”
In addition, under EU Directive 2005/33 the use of 0.1
% sulphur by weight for marine fuels used by ships at
berth in Community ports became mandatory as of 1
January, 2010. The Directive allows OPS as an
alternative.48
3.4.5.3 Financial support
The European Commission has so far provided
significant financial support to a limited number of OPS
projects, in the framework of the
TransEuropeanNetworks-Transport (TEN-T)
programme.
“TEN-T Priority Project 21 Motorways of the Sea (MoS)
builds on the EU’s “2020-goal” of achieving a clean,
safe and efficient transport system by transforming
shipping into a genuine alternative to overcrowded
land transport. The MoS concept aims at introducing
new intermodal maritime logistics chains to bring about
a structural change to transport organisation”.49
One recent example from the programme is the project
“Onshore Power Supply – an integrated North Sea
Network”, which offered to co-fund OPS installations in
three DFDS freight ferry terminals for three DFDS
freight ferries (Ro-Ro vessels).50 Due to high investment
costs for other SECA compliance technologies, i.e.
scrubbers and selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
however, DFDS chose to postpone its plans for OPS.51
Another TEN-T project, also co-financed by the
European Cohesion fund, is the Baltic Link GdyniaKarlskrona, through which Stena Line has received
financial support for an OPS installation.52
The Commission has confirmed that there is, and there
will be also in future, money available to support OPS
investment.53 In the 2012 TEN-T call for proposals the
budgetary allocation was €350M. Normally projects are
co-funded by the EU with between 10-20% whilst the
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
rest of the funding must come from other sources
(most likely ports, ship owners, and national or
municipal authorities).
The new TEN-T programme for the EU budgetary
period 2014-2020, has undergone significant structural
change since the last period and is part of the
Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), including measures
in transport, energy and digital networks. The new
budget for the period is €26,3 billion. In a statement
from November 2013 the Commission says that ”the
new policy establishes, for the first time, a core
transport network built on nine major corridors: 2
North–South corridors, 3 East–West corridors; and 4
diagonal corridors. The core network will transform
East–West connections, remove bottlenecks, upgrade
infrastructure and streamline cross-border transport
operations for passengers and businesses throughout
the EU. It will improve connections between different
modes of transport and contribute to the EU's climate
change objectives. The core network is to be
completed by 2030”.54
Under the Commission Implementing Decision of
23.11.201255 OPS is mentioned as an area eligible for
EU financial support:
”Under this sub-priority, the objective is to support the
development of ports as efficient entry and exit points
fully integrated with the land infrastructure. Only
category A ports are eligible under this work
programme. Projects to be selected under this priority
will concern works and should be in line with Article 12
of the TEN-T Guidelines”.
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
World Port Climate Initiative, www.onshorepowersupply.org
European Commission, DG Mobility and Transport, “Annual Report of the Coordinator - Priority Project 21, Motorways of the Sea, TransEuropean transport network,” www.ec.europa.eu
European Commission, Project description: “On Shore Power Supply - an integrated North Sea network, 2011-EU-21002-P”
www.tentea.ec.europa.eu
Interview with Gert Jakobsen, DFDS 2013-12-02
European Commission, Project description: “Baltic Link Gdynia-Karlskrona 2009-EU-21010-P”, www.tentea.ec.europa.eu
Interview, Pieter de Meyer, European Commission, DG Mobility and Transport
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kallas/headlines/news/2013/11/cef_en.htm
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:
”Port facilities improving the environmental
performance of maritime transport: LNG facilities,
including barges, enabling publicly accessible
bunkering operations in ports, shore-side and
alternative, for instance external, electricity facilities in
ports, enabling ships when berthed to be connected to
onshore power supply and reception facilities for oil
and other waste, including residues from scrubbers, to
meet environmental requirements.”
In the new revised TEN-T Directive it is also proposed
that ports that want to obtain or maintain their position
as a priority port for TEN-T will have to provide
alternative fuel infrastructure by 2020.56
In a key EU Commission implementing decision from
November 2012 onshore power is mentioned. In
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
as services and actions to support the mobility of
persons and goods activites for improving
environmental performance, such as the provision of
shore side electricity that would help ships reduce their
emissions….”
It is further mentioned in Art. 39 under the heading
“new technologies and innovation”, that “in order for
the comprehensive network to keep up with innovative
technological developments and deployments, the aim
shall be in particular to ….enable the decarbonisation
of all modes of transport modes by stimulating energy
efficiency as well as the introduction of alternative
propulsion systems, including electricity supply
systems and the provision of corresponding
infrastructure.”57
3.4.5.4 Tax exemptions
Member states are discussing the possibility of
introducing tax exemptions for the electricity provided
to seagoing vessels through OPS in the context of the
revision of the EU Directive on energy and electricity
taxation (2003/96/EC).58 Currently, member states have
different energy taxes and it is believed that a
18
harmonisation of taxes will lead to a better functioning
internal energy market. The revision of this Directive
implies a complex policy process involving a large
number of sectors and issues and in this context OPS
is a relatively minor issue.
ESPO and ECSA have in a joint position paper
expressed the support for a tax exemption for
electricity for vessels generated onshore (irrespective
of origin) to boost the industry’s ability to invest in
OPS.59 They indicate that the competitive position for
onshore power supply against using auxiliary fuels
onboard is currently negatively impacted by the fact
that maritime fuels are not subject to excise duties.60
On the topic of tax breaks, ESPO thinks the Swedish61
and German models for supporting OPS through the
tax route is interesting and would like to see more
countries adopt similar systems.62
3.4.5.5 Mandatory OPS?
The European Commission has been concerned by the
slow uptake of OPS technology in the shipping
community, despite the Recommendations issued in
2006 (see above) to improve air quality in ports by
means of OPS. The Commission has since reiterated
the recommendation in the EU Maritime Transport
Strategy to 2018.
The Commission will “promote alternative fuel solutions
in ports, such as the use of shore-side electricity. The
Commission will propose a time-limited tax exemption
for shore-side electricity in the forthcoming review of
the Energy Taxation Directive as a first step and
elaborate a comprehensive incentive and regulatory
framework”.63
The recent progress in regard to the European Directive
for Alternative Fuels (see above), which still have to
obtain final approval in the European Parliament, is a
significant step towards mandatory OPS. This places an
obligation on member states to “ensure that shore side
electricity supply for waterborne vessels is installed in
berths within 3 km of residential/living and
shopping/commercial areas for ships requiring more
than 1 MVA, and in all cruise ships and ferry terminals,
by 31 December 2020 at the latest.”
Trans-European Seaport network64
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
Interview with Pieter de Meyer, European Commission, DG MOVE, 2013-04-23
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
World Port Climate Initiative, www.ops.wpci.nl
ESPO, www.espo.be
World Port Climate Initiative, www.ops.wpci.nl
Council Implementing Decision of 20 June 2011 authorising Sweden to apply a reduced rate of electricity tax to electricity directly provided
to vessels at berth in a port ("shore-side electricity") in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC (2011/384/EU)
Interview with Antonis Michail, Sustainability Manager, ESPO, 2013-04-08
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 EU’s maritime transport policy until
2018 /* COM/2009/0008 final”, www.eur-lex.europa.eu
www.safety4sea.com/images/media/kar/TENT-T
19
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
3.4.5.6. SECAs and CO2 reductions
The European Union is an important stakeholder in
global negotiations, including in maritime affairs.
Although the EU is not a full member of the IMO, this
does not prevent the EU from significantly influencing
the international decision-making process for
preventing vessel-source pollution.65
One issue working against a widespread deployment
of OPS in the North Sea region is the uneven
commercial competition in the shipping sector
between north and south Europe. Due to the SECA in
force in northern Europe, shipping companies and
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
significant capital costs for shipping companies and
ports.
Through improved EU coordination of member states’
intervention in IMO negotiations, the EU has an
important role to play in promoting more equal trading
terms, which indirectly would make it easier to enforce
tougher environmental regulation on the sector.
If the EU is serious about preventing global warming, it
should also promote the idea of putting CO2 limits on
the global shipping industry, which currently is exempt
from many of the emission controls that apply to
onshore transport.
One interesting idea that should be discussed would
be to enforce CO2 quotas on all ships calling
European ports. Such a bold initiative would probably
work in favour of more widespread OPS deployment in
Europe, and would also set an example to follow for
other regions in the world.
Baltic states in the early 1990s, intergovernmental,
sectoral and NGO cooperation focused on the marine
environment in the Baltic Sea has been intense. The
Baltic Sea is in many ways a very sensitive eco system
with enormous environmental problems and this has
called for urgent environmental policy measures
across the region. The EU has supported a number of
intiatives to promote greener shipping, including OPS.
Projects include Clean Baltic Sea Shipping and New
Hansa of Sustainable Ports and Cities.67 Within regions
there is also bilateral co-operation between individual
stakeholders, e.g. Stockholm has liaised closely with
Helsinki regarding the OPS installation catering for the
needs of the Viking Line ferry.
3.4.7 National level
At national level governments have the power to
promote OPS deployment with punitive measures or
incentives and subsidies. In the North Sea Region,
there is great variation in terms of government68
involvement and proactivity regarding the OPS issue.
In the region, Sweden, Germany and Norway are
leading the way in this regard.
3.4.7.1 Incentives
Sweden and Germany have both implemented tax
reductions on the onshore-generated electricity used
by ships in order to improve the commercial incentive
for ship owners to invest in OPS technology. Both
countries have received a temporary permission by the
EU Commission69 to support the industry this way.
In Norway, public stakeholders have been instrumental
in providing financial support to the OPS installation
now in place in Oslo.
3.4.6 Regional level
In northern Europe there are several initiatives aimed at
strengthening cooperation regarding sustainable
shipping in general and many projects include OPS
elements. One example in the North Sea Region is the
Clean North Sea Shipping project66, of which this report
is a result. Since the collapse of communism in the
20
3.4.7.2 Legal framework
The strict environmental legislation in Sweden has in
several instances, through the environmental courts,
required ports to provide OPS installations (or to
prepare for such technology to meet potential future
demand). The environmental permitting process has
for example played a significant role in the OPS
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).
There are of course differences between specific
provisions in national legislation. However any
stakeholder investing in OPS must comply with laws in
a number of areas, including regulations regarding:
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
building standards
public procurement
electrical installations
working environment
handling of hazardous and
incendiary materials
pollution control
other environmental considerations
natural habitats
3.4.8 Sub-national level
At sub-national, regional level the Länder government
of the City of Hamburg70 stands out as the most
proactive stakeholder in the North Sea area. It is
liaising closely with the Hamburg Port Authority and the
cruise provider AIDA to install OPS at the Hamburg
Altona cruise terminal.
Regional stakeholders has the potential of being much
more active in promoting OPS as these often have
responsiblity for regional transport and logistics
planning. Since OPS is such a complex issue involving
a large number of stakeholders regional stakeholders
could potentially provide much-needed support in
coordinating efforts in individual municipalities and
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
ports.
71
3.4.9 Municipal level
As the great majority of ports in the North Sea area are
municipally owned, local authorites are often directly or
indirectly involved in ports’ decision about
infrastructure investments like OPS. Any major
investment issues must be approved by the port’s
board in which the municipality has significant
decision-making power.
As local air and noise pollution is the primary problem
OPS is designed to alleviate, the rationale for
investment is naturally closely linked to the local
conditions around the port.
It is important to remember that the role of the port in
individual cities varies greatly depending on size, type
of traffic, environmental impact and importance to the
local economy.
In Hamburg for example, the port is of huge
importance to the local and regional economy due to
its size and strategic location. Air pollution is also a
great problem in Hamburg, which has prompted action
by local authorities in partnership with the port.
In Stockholm, the port is also an important source of
income for the city, but far from the situation in
Hamburg, due to differences in size, traffic type,
tonnage etc. A major driving force for Stockholm’s
decision to invest in OPS has been linked to vast urban
development projects on the land directly adjacent to
the port, for which the noise levels in the port is a
major problem that needs to be solved.72
Nengye Liu, The Relations between the European Union and the International Maritime Organization: an analysis: Working Paper Annual
Legal Research Network Conference 2010
Clean North Sea Shipping, EU-project. ww.cnss.no
European Commission, Project description “New Hansa of Sustainable Ports and Cities”, www.bsrinterreg.net
Government in its widest sense, i.e. including the public sector (government agencies, legal system, etc.)
Normally such government intervention in the market would be in breach of EU competition legislation.
Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
Interview, Thomas Ney, Region Skåne, Infrastructure strategist, 2013-03-18.
Royal Seaport / Värtan
21
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
In some cases the municipality provides financial
support to an OPS investment. In 2008 for example the
port of Stockholm received a grant from the Stockholm
environmental investment initiative (Miljömiljarden)
covering about 30% of the OPS investment cost.73
3.4.10
Implementing a successful OPS installation requires
close cooperation between the port and the owners of
the ships that the system is designed to connect with.
In Gothenburg for example the successful
implementation of the OPS solution is the result of a
fruitful cooperation between Port of Gothenburg, Stena
Line and Gothenburg Energy.74
Ports, ship owners and grid
companies
Ports, ship owners and grid companies are naturally
the stakeholders most directly involved in OPS issues
as they must physically implement the technology into
their infrastructure.
Even though there are supplier-customer relationships
between ports, ship owners and grid companies, these
still need to liaise closely to design a workable solution
for all parties involved.
Key issues
Port
Ship Operator
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ROI/utilisation
CSR
financing
commercial
door-opener
Power supplier
availability
compatibility
OPS
demand
irregular
consumption
environmental
Local community
impact
• grid capacity
• infrastructure
investment
• new business
segment
• interface with
regional/national grid
Illustration of the main issues relating to OPS, characterised according to a stakeholder perspective.
22
ROI/utilisation
CSR
financing
new business
model
• infrastructure
investment
• local political
framework
• mitigate local
emissions
• reduce noise
levels
• influence policy
making
• enable urban
development
3.4.11
Shipping Indices
As a part of CNSS project WP375, a review of existing
indices has been carried out with identification of
loopholes/deficiencies in the scoring system. A
sensitivity analysis has been conducted in order to find
any uncertainty in the used methodology.
regulation, primarily the SECA. The lack of SECA for
south Europe puts shipping companies and ports in
North Europe at a comparative commercial
disadvantage to counterparts in South Europe.
Arguably, international insitutions like the EU and IMO
should work for an extension of the Emission Control
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
Index (CSI), covering the most environmental
indicators. The ambition is to determine which
parameter have the greatest influence on final score
and why.
In addition, one could also argue that there is a need
for an EU standard for NOx and PM from shipping (in
addition to the IMO Tier III). This would strengthen the
case for OPS.
The development of shipping indices and their relation
to OPS, incentives and effectiveness to encourage
greener shipping play an instrumental role in the
future. Shipping behaviours do change with specific
demands on the market.
3.5
Stakeholders:
Summary and conclusion
As we have seen, OPS is an issue relevant not only for
ports and ship owners who are the actual users of
the technology, but also for society at various
different levels. The public side has a number of
instruments that can be used to promote
deployment of OPS in the North Sea Region and
further afield, for instance through:
−
−
−
−
−
enforcing tougher environmental legislation
provide financial incentives, e.g. tax breaks
provide grants for capital investments
Level of influence by Shipping Indices
promotion and coordination of sectoral
cooperation
One problem impacting on the shipping community’s
willingness to adopt the technology relates to the
uneven competition between north and south Europe
in regard to the stark differences in environmental
73
74
75
In regard to environmental legislation, another driver
that would promote the deployment of OPS and other
cleaner shipping technologies, would be the
introduction of a CO2 quota for ships calling at
European ports. Taking a long-term view, it is very
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
European shipping industry for the tougher conditions
that undoubtedly will be enforced in the medium to
long term.
Further, an issue involving all the abovementioned
stakeholders, albeit in different ways, is the possibility
of making differentiated port dues mandatory and
standardised across all EU and EEA ports in the
purpose of promoting cleaner shipping practices,
including OPS. This would promote deployment of
OPS, but requires coordinated leadership at the
international, regional, national and local levels.
In summary, the extension of the emission control area
as well as standardised and compulsory differentiated
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
companies can take advantage of. For this to happen
though, the public side must provide the necessary
leadership.
Interview Ilka Ringdahl, Technical manager, Port of Stockholm. 2013-04-14
Interview, Jan Kärnestedt, Gothenburg Energi (Grid). 2013-04-19
A. Murphy CNSS Report in Workpackage 3, Emission Indices
23
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
The EU Commission is clear in its support of OPS
technology. This provides a good basis and reference
point for nation states, regions and local authorities to
drive this development forward. Given the given the
uncoordinated and fiercly competitive environment
amongst the shipping companies, it is highly unlikely
that they will push for OPS deployment on the scale
necessary to combat the urgent environmental
problems.
3.6
Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR)
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a concept,
which does not have a general definition. It is an
umbrella term for a concept of operations that
companies use to act responsibly. CSR is built upon
voluntary basis, and it seeks to go beyond the ethical
standards regulated by legislation.76
The European Commission’s definition for responsible
business is “a concept whereby
companies integrate social and environmental
concerns in their business operations and in their
interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary
basis.”
IMO77 issues standards for responsible shipping in
regards to the marine environment and other issues.
In shipping, the pressure to be cost efficient is
extremely high. Shipping companies need to comply
with international laws and regulations regarding
safety, working conditions and protection of the
environment, but the economic pressures on the sector
often cause a conflict between the commercial
interests and CSR issues. It has been argued that for
this reason shipping companies, usually live up to the
bare minimum levels of safety, environment and social
management required in legislation, e.g. through the
76
77
78
79
24
IMO.78 Increasingly however, customers are now more
demanding in regard to a product’s impact on the
environment and socially, and this is a trend that also
affects shipping, albeit maybe slower than in other
sectors. As a study on CSR in shipping companies in
the Baltic Sea shows, about 50% of all ship owners in
Finland, Sweden and Denmark have CSR-related
content on their websites. Many of the larger
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.
In regard to OPS, CSR is likely to play a role in ports
and ship owners’ investment decisions. However, it is
very difficult to validate to what extent CSR is really the
major driving force, in comparison to more
commercially related priorities. It may be the case that
a stakeholder takes an investment decision solely
based on commercial grounds, but then realise that
there are branding gains to be made by
communicating a message that the investment was
indeed driven by concerns for the environment.
The decision by Aida cruises, a frequent caller to the
port of Hamburg, to invest in OPS, is to a large extent
driven by CSR considerations. The public opinion in
Hamburg has been vociferous in the debate about the
high emission levels in Hamburg and the critique has
primarily been directed towards the large cruise liners
calling the port. Arguably, the cruise industry is
responsible for only for a fraction of the emissions
emanating from port operations, but the increase in
cruise traffic to the city has been more “visible” to the
public than other types of traffic (i.e. the ships are very
large and the amount of tourists pouring into the city
during port calls is significant).
During the course of this research, surprisingly little
publicly available information activiely communicating
a “CSR message” has been found on the websites of
the companies that have invested in OPS.
Heald, M. (1970). The social responsibilities of business: Company and community,1900-1960. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve
University Press.
IMO MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committe resolutions. www.imo.org.
Arat, L. “Corporate Social Responsibility in Shipping Compnies in the Baltic Sea”, p. 19
Ibid.
4
Overview of available technical solutions
What is the technology?
4.1
OPS
board. This is typically done while in dry dock but as it
is insufficient to power the vessel beyond a limited set
of consumers it lacks relevance to the scope of this
study.83
4.1.1 Introduction
4.1.3 High voltage connections
Historically there has been a number of solutions
driven by various actors developing custom made
installations to fit their specific needs – the wheel has
been invented several times, looking different on each
occasion.
To be able to supply larger vessels, high voltage
connections are preferred. There are some variations,
but the most common voltage is 11kV, with 6,6kV as a
fairly common second. High voltage allows for smaller
diameter cabling and connections, thus more
manageable with maintained or increased capacity.84
However, high voltage installations requires more
highly trained and/or certified crew to ensure safe and
proper handling, and the physical installation is likely
to be more bulky as onboard transformers will be
larger.85
4.1.2 Low voltage connections
Older installations typically involve low voltage (~400V
or even ~230V) connections, catering for a fairly
simple solution in terms of both shore side and
onboard installation, routine handling, etc. Low
voltage supply has the upside of being readily
available at (or at least close to) most berths already,
requiring minimal shore side installation and rarely any
upstream grid reinforcement. The most significant
drawback is the limited supply capacity of low voltage,
effectively restricting the use to vessels that have a
relatively low power consumption while in port. Though
it has been solved to some extent through multiple
cable connections, that too has an upper limit mainly
caused by handling issues.81
Today, this type of connection is widely used for inland
and in-port shipping such as barges, tugs, working
vessels etc. where the low capacity is sufficient
(Rotterdam/Wallhamn/Svitzer), but rarely beyond that.
However, for example Viking Line in both Stockholm
and Helsinki continuously connect their vessels to low
voltage OPS, which apparently is both sufficient and
operationally manageable.82
It is worth mentioning that most vessels are quite easily
connected to low voltage supply via the emergency
80
81
82
83
85
86
4.1.4 Frequency
One recurring challenge for OPS installation is that
there are two standard frequencies for AC voltage on
vessels; 50 and 60 Hz. Globally, both frequencies exist
in major power grids, where 230V/50Hz (e.g. Europe)
and 110V/60Hz (e.g. US) are the typical
combinations.86
This is mainly a concern for electrical motors in fans,
pumps etc, as all AC motors require to be supplied
with the frequency to which they are built. Simpler
applications however, such as lights and heating,
remain unaffected.
It is easy enough to convert from one frequency to the
other without any major loss, however aside from the
investment involved the components are both bulky
and heavy. As a result, ports aiming to accommodate
vessels of both standards often decide to incorporate
frequency conversion ability in the shore-side
installation, rather than relying on the vessels to carry
that equipment onboard. There are however examples
Interview with lka Ringdahl (Technical manager) at Port of Stockholm, 2013-03-14
Interview with Ingemar Sörensson, Ship Management at Stena Line Scandinavia, 2013-04-02
Interviews with Gun Rudeberg (Head of Environmental Affairs) and Ilka Ringdahl (Technical manager) at Port of Stockholm, 2013-03-14
and 2013-04-03.
Josefine Lundgren, Technical Superintendent, Maersk Tankers 2013-03-19
Interview with Ingemar Gustavsson, VD Processkontroll Elektriska, 2013-03-13
Ken Dorn Hansen, Fleet group manager, Maersk Tankers 2013-03-19
25
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
of both situations, as with Ystad where owners have
decided to include a frequency converter in the shoreside installation, wheras Trelleborg has decided not to.
This can also be applied to a situation where the ship
owner and terminal owner are the same, like for
example in the case of Stena Line.87
4.1.5 Grid issues
The impact of any OPS installment on the grid
ultimately depends on the type of vessel and the time it
spends at berth. According to information quoted on
the WPCI website, cruise vessels may require up to 16
MVA, container vessels up to 6,5 MVA and ferries and
RoRO vessels up to 3 MVA load.88 To calculate the
energy consumption the power consumption in MW is
multiplied with the total time (hours) of consumption.
In the majority of cases investigated in the CNSS
region, capacity in local and regional grids does not
represent any major technical difficulties. Rather than
being technically complicated the main issue seems to
be the cost-benefit ratio of the cost of grid
reinforcements in light of the expected benefits of the
OPS installation in question.
At a general level, the larger the OPS installation (in
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
shore power it may put considerable strain on the grid.
Connecting several cruise ships at any one time is not
feasible in most places due to the huge investment in
grid reinforcements that would be needed. In
Copenhagen, which is a major turnaround port for
cruise ships, OPS in an inner city location is being
considered89 but there are issues around grid
capacity.90
Similarly, in Stockholm, which is preparing for OPS for
10 berths suitable for cruise ships, the likelyhood of
connecting a large number of ships simultaneously is
quite low due to the fixed capacity fee costs involved.91
The location of a port, in relation to the capacity of the
regional transmission grid may be problematic if the
intended OPS installation is to cater for large power
26
consumers like cruise ships. In the UK, which does not
yet have any high voltage OPS intallation in place,
there seems to be concern about local/regional grid
capacity.92
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
installations to cater for e.g. cruiselines in the Arendal
part of the port is only a matter of time and cost
(estimated to 1MSEK / MW). According to the grid
company, reinforcing the grid to allow for more berths
does not present any technical challenges, the main
issue is whether it is economically feasible to do so.93
In Bergen there has been a discussion about the grid
capacity in regard to the planned OPS installations for
the Hurtigruten cruise ships, ferry traffic and container
vessels calling the port. Looking at the grid in the
wider perspective the electricity demand is highest
during the winter months and lowest during the warmer
season, which is normally the high season for cruise
liners trading on North European ports. In the case of
Hurtigruten however, they operate year round, which
places additional demand on the grid94. Seasonal
variations need to be taken into account when
planning for OPS installations.
4.2
Other alternatives
There are a number of different techniques to reduce a
ship’s emissons while at berth, however most lack
practical feasibility. One example is to fit vessels with
bi-fuel engines where shore supplied gas would be the
alternative fuel. Quayside supply of gas will mean less
extensive redesigning or refitting of vessels, as the
need for storage tanks is eliminated. However, both
onboard and shore-side investments are significant.
Such systems are currently being developed and
tested, but are not yet commercially operational.95
Power Barges
A more realistic gas based solution is the power barge
concept. The German engineering company
Eckelmann Group is developing what they call an LNG
e-Power Barge, which is a barge-mounted LNG-driven
electricity generator. The idea is to produce electricity
cleaner and cheaper than what can be done using a
cargo vessel’s own auxiliary engines, in ports where
grid capacity is insufficient or a OPS installation would
be too complex, extensive or expensive. Running
generators on LNG would reduce carbon dioxide
emissions significantly, and almost completely reduce
nitric- and particle emissions compared to an ordinary
diesel generator.96
The initial intention is to launch the concept in
Hamburg, supplying power mainly to container vessels
and cruise ships. In addition to providing electricity to
vessels, the barge could be connected to the shore
side grid as any other power supplier, and the cooling
water could be fed into the distric heating system. It is
likely that this additional use is required to reach
sufficient utilization for an investment to pay off.97
The maximum power output of the LNG e-powerbarge
is around 7-8 MW, which is sufficient to supply most
container ships and cruise liners calling Hamburg. The
power transmission has a voltage of 6,6kv (alternatively
11kv) and a frequency of 60 Hz.98 The frequency can
however quite easily be adjusted to 50Hz.
Becker Marine Systems has developed a very similar
solution.
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
The major drawback of using LNG as fuel is the socalled methane slip, i.e. in-complete combustion of
methane (CH4) from the engines, leaving methane as
a component in exhausts.99 The methane emissions will
negatively influence the reduction of greenhouse
gases significantly, as CH4 is around 20 times more
powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. So without fully
resolving the methane slip issue, the relative
advantage of LNG combustion is reduced by the
methane slip.100
As a rule of thumb, the methane slip tends to be
highest when engines are operating at lower loads.
Engine manufacturers are working on developing
technologies to minimise the problem, and though
prospects for important improvements are claimed to
be very good, it is still very much an issue. In part, it
can be handled through operational routines, i.e.
setting up installations with multiple smaller engines
where capacity is regulated by the number of engines
used, keeping each running engine at a high load.101
Another issue to be considered is the safety
challenges surrounding LNG bunkering. There are
different opinions on how dangerous it actually is,
however for example in Stockholm, Viking Grace is
allowed on a case-by-case basis to bunker LNG
despite its central berth and also taking crew and
passenger safety into account.
Interview with Ingemar Sörensson, Ship Management at Stena Line Scandinavia, 2013-04-02
World Port Climate Initiative. www.onshorepowersupply.org
Interview, Bengt-Olof Jansson, CTO of Copenhagen Malmö Port, 2013-03-27
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.
Interviews with Gun Rudeberg (Environmental manager) and Ilka Ringdahl (Technical manager) at Port of Stockholm, 2013-03-14 and
2013-04-03.
Interview, Richard Ballantyne, (Senior policy advisor), British Ports Association, 2013-04-02
Interview, Jan Kärnestedt, Gothenburg Energi 2013-04-21
Opdal O. and Steen E. ”Landstrom i Norge – en studie av mulighetene for landstrom i Norge”, p.21. Zero March 2012
World Port Climate Initiative. www.onshorepowersupply.org
Vanessa Fedorczuk, CARL ROBERT ECKELMANN AG “Power Barge/Projektskizze”
Interview, Bengt-Olof Jansson, Chief Technical Officer, CMP, 2013-03-27
Vanessa Fedorczuk, CARL ROBERT ECKELMANN AG “Power Barge/Projektskizze”
Interview with Leif Holmberg, Technical Manager, Transatlantic, 2013-03-19
DNV, www.dnv.com
Ibid.
27
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
4.3
Technical aspects of OPS
The technology used for both OPS and power barge
solutions are typically off-the-shelf components,
regularly used in other power transmission and
industrial applications. Accordingly, the material is
available from major industrial component producers
such as ABB, Schneider Electric and Siemens.102 The
applications are however specialized, and companies
such as SAM Electronics, Processkontroll and Marine
Global have developed various applications. The most
significant specialized component is the connection,
where Cavotec is market leader.
The actual connection and cabling requires a davit or
crane for safe handling, but whether a crane is part of
the shore-side installation or not is an open issue. As
the vast majority of vessels have some sort of lifting
equipment onboard for spares and provisions, it may
not be necessary at a berth intended for multiple
users. However, at e.g. a ferry terminal where the
same vessel frequently connects, a more customised
installation could make sense to simplify the physical
connection. The connection at the Color Line terminal
in Oslo is fully automated, meaning that no physical
labor is required by the crew.104
www.processkontroll.se
4.3.1 Ports
Assuming sufficient grid capacity is available, a shoreside installation typically requires a building relatively
close to the berth containing the necessary technical
equipment. There are also container-based solutions
for increased, yet still limited, mobility. The shore-side
includes switchgear, transformers and - if applicable a frequency converter. This is to adapt the current to
meet the vessels’ specification.103
28
There are also installations in place where a cable reel
is placed onboard rather than having the cable set up
in a shore-side davit.105 This solution is perhaps less
user-friendly, though more flexible and suitable where
the shore-side connetion is located differently in
different ports, as might be the case in a larger, less
customized liner network.
4.3.2 Ships
As rarely any two ships, even sister vessels, look the
same on a nuts and bolts level it is difficult to describe
any specific technical requirements. However
disregarding any interface issues, a generalized
installation requires modification of the main
switchboard and an upgraded power management
system. Some steel modification of cable and HV trafo
room is likely necessary along with a hull door, unless
existing pilot hatch or similar can be used.106 The
complexity of cable running will vary, but as for any
onboard installation safety requirements regarding
breech if bulkheads must be observed, mainly for fire
safety reasons.
Container-based solutions
To achieve a simpler and more flexible onboard
installation, OPS solution providers such as SAM
Marine are placing the majority of the installation in a
standard 20’ container, which is easily placed on deck
or even in a container bay. Thus, the only permanent
installation required is cable running to the vessel’s
main switchboard. SAM Marine have delivered several
102
103
104
105
106
such containers which are in operational use across
the globe.
The installation advantages aside, a container-based
setup increases the flexibility by offering the
opportunity to move the OPS equipment from one
vessel to another. In many shipowning organizations,
fleet allocation on a route network is often changing
over time. With a container based installation an owner
could let the part of the fleet calling a port offering OPS
carry a container, which could then be moved to a
replacement vessel.
A container-based solution is also available for the
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
berths etc. Schneider Electric has developed a system
with containers carrying the necessary equipment,
which is easily placed on the quay where it is needed.
The system includes monitoring systems, helping the
port authority and the vessels to keep proper track of
the energy consumed.
Interview with Tomas Lust, Managing Director, Marine Global Sweden AB, 2013-03-19
Interview with Ingemar Gustavsson, VD Processkontroll Elektriska, 2013-03-13
Norén, O. ABB AB, Presentation “Shoreside Connection - Standardization & solutions 22-11-2011”. www.cnss.no
Interview with Leif Holmberg, Technical Manager, Transatlantic, 2013-03-19
Interview with Tomas Lust, Managing Director, Marine Global Sweden AB, 2013-03-19
29
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
5
Environmental impact of OPS
What are the main
drivers behind the
investments?
5.1
Introduction
Emissions of air pollutants from ships contribute
significantly to the total levels of atmospheric pollutants
and green house gases in the North Sea region.
Although ships emit more pollutants whilst at sea, ship
emissions are a major source of local air pollution in
ports and surrounding areas.
The North Sea is in fact one of the most congested
ship traffic regions in the world. In recent years, ship
traffic has increased significantly in this region. This
becomes evident when looking at cargo turnover in the
most important North Sea harbours like Rotterdam and
Hamburg. While the total number of ships arriving at
the port of Rotterdam and Hamburg between 2000 and
2009 did not change much, the total cargo increased
by more than 30 % in Rotterdam, and in Hamburg it
more than doubled. This is reflected in the significant
shift in ship sizes. While the number of smaller ships
with less than 5000 GT decreased by 50%, the number
of big ships with more than 50000 GT doubled in
Hamburg.107 This sharp increase in traffic results in
higher emissions to the air. Larger ships are equipped
with larger engines, which use more fuel and therefore
generate higher total emissions.108
When estimating the potential positive impact of OPS
on reducing emissions in individual ports, it is
important to bear in mind the great variations between
the emissions emanating from different ship types. In
the North Sea region it is interesting to compare the
ports of Bergen, Hamburg and Rotterdam. In Bergen it
is estimated that about 43% of NOx emissions are
generated from cruise ships. In Hamburg the main
source of air pollution is container traffic (56%)
whereas in Rotterdam, tankers stand for 45% of
emissions in port.109
5.2
Ship emissions in ports
and at sea
Researchers at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht,
30
Centre for Materials and Coastal Research have
looked closely at the issue of ship emissions to the air
and have developed advanced methods for
calculating the environmental effects of shipping.
Based on this modelling they are constructing
scenarios describing the likely effects on air pollution
by various technologies such as OPS and LNG as a
main fuel, the purpose of which is to provide guidance
to authorities and industry stakeholders about how
their choice of technology may impact on air pollution
levels in the future. It should be noted that their
research does not focus on CO2 emissions, but rather
NOx, SOx, and particulate matter (PM).
In their report ”Monitoring & simulation of pollutant
generation and spread” (written in the framework of the
CNSS project) the researchers describe the complexity
of correctly estimating ship emissions, but they also
explain how such data could be obtained. The
information in this chapter is to a large extent based on
their findings.
The optimal method for calculating ship emissions is a
bottom-up approach, collecting information on the
technical specifications and operational efficiency of
ship engines, and combining that with substancespecific emission factors (not just related to the fuel) to
calculate the total emissions. Although this approach is
the most accurate, it relies on access to detailed
information on ship movements and characteristics.
For coastal areas, this information is available in the
form of AIS transponder data, which tracks and logs a
ship's position, velocity and heading. Together with
information on ship characteristics, it is then possible
to calculate emissions from ships operating close to
the coast. However, in the open North Sea the AIS
data must be extrapolated and augmented with other
sources of voyage data to provide adequate coverage
of the entire area.
Inside harbour areas many ships switch off their AIS
systems, so accurate tracking information is not
available. However, port authorities do gather data on
ship arrivals, departures and gross tonnage as part of
their harbour fees collection process. If this information
were available for different ship types and sizes, it
could be used to calculate in-harbour emissions. One
crucial piece of information not included in the port
authority data is the time spent at berth, often referred
to as hotelling time.
Some of the NOx found in harbour cities may be
produced by ships at sea and this also has to be taken
into account when calculating the emissions generated
by ships whilst in port. A prerequisite for any further
study would be port authorities providing information
on ship arrivals and hotelling times inside their
harbours. Regular surveys on the use of boilers, power
generators and main engines inside ports could also
help improve the accuracy of the applied emissions
factors for different substances.
Outside the port area, ship emission calculations
should be based on accurate AIS data. This data
should be collected by all states bordering the North
Sea and made available, at no cost, for further
research. The information should also be used to
compile accurate emission inventories for shipping in
the North Sea, which in turn would provide the raw
data to support calculations of air quality with a three
dimensional atmospheric chemistry transport model.
In short, the researchers at the Helmholz-Zentrum
Geesthacht / Centre for Materials and Coastal
Research have come to the following conclusions and
recommendations:
• Both the transportation of pollutants over several
hundreds of kilometers and the transformation of
pollutants in the atmosphere should be taken into
account.
To support policy makers and industrial stakeholders
in taking strategic decisions regarding choice of
technology and clean shipping ‘practices’, the
Geestacht researchers are developing a number of
different scenarios for how the shipping sector may
develop until 2020 or 2030.110
The OPS-specific scenario for ports (still being
developed) is based on the following assumptions:
Onshore power supply may reduce harbour emissions.
The scenarios are built along the power that may be
supplied to ships in a harbour, e.g. a cruise ship with a
6MW power demand for 10 hours equals emissions
savings from 60 MW of power generation, which would
mean around 864 kg NOx.
- Three variants: 5, 10 or 20 ships may be served with
electricity at the same time
- New and big ships will preferably use OPS
- 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
108
109
110
V. Matthias CNSS Report on activity 1 in Workpackage 5, Monitoring & simulation of pollutant generation and spread
Ibid
Ibid
Presentation 2012-06-14, CNSS Workpackage 5, Matthias, V. www.cnss.no
31
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
5.3
Noise reduction
Air emissions are not the only environmental problem
caused by ship activity. Noise is also a major cause for
concern in many local communities in close proximity
of port areas. In the EU and nationally there are strict
rules regulating the maximum levels of noise allowed in
populated areas. Noise is also classed differently
depending on source (i.e. transport, industrial activity).
In Sweden, noise generated by shipping is classed as
‘industry noise’, which must not exceed 55 dB. As
shipping activity in many cases may generate noise
exceeding the legal maximum limit, this causes
problems in municipalities that want to exploit the
‘attractive’ seaside land for property development.
The cities of Stockholm, Malmö, Gothenburg and
Helsingborg are working in partnership to promote a
more flexible legislation regarding noise to allow for
urban development in areas close to ports.111
In Hamburg, noise pollution from the port is also a
problem for urban development. Urban planners and
construction companies have had to come up with
innovative solutions to enable development in the
HafenCity area, which is located in the port area.112
OPS is an interesting technology in this regard, as ship
noise is significantly reduced. However, as the
experience in Stockholm shows, not all types of noise
generated by ships at berth is eliminated by OPS. If
the ship engine is the primary source of noise, OPS
solves the problem. If however the noise problem is
caused by the fan systems onboard, OPS does not
offer a solution.113
5.4
OPS – a clean shipping
technology?
According to the IEA, the average CO2 emission
associated with electric power generation in the EU is
350-380 g/kWh. The corresponding CO2 emissions of
auxiliary engines are around 680 g/kWh, implying a
significant emissions reduction if vessels switch to
OPS.114
If the power produced by auxiliary engines onboard
ships is replaced by onshore power generated from
renewable sources, OPS has clear environmental
benefits (proportional to the level of use of any given
32
installation). If the auxiliary fuel is replaced by fossile
based power production onshore, the benefit is
naturally significantly smaller. The World Port Climate
Initiative (WPCI) provides a calculation tool to inform
shipping stakeholders of the impact on CO2 emissions
of any given OPS investment. According to WPCI the
climate impact of natural gas-fired power plant is less
than half that of a coal-fired plant, implying a reduction
of around 40 % compared with auxiliary engine use.115
One could argue that it still makes sense to shift to
onshore power in cases of fossile based electricity
since centralised power production in gas or coalfired
power stations is both more efficient than ship engines
(i.e. more power output per fuel unit) and is also likely
to have better cleaning technologies (particle filters).116
In addition, it is also possible to use the waste heat
generated by large power plants for district heating.
Another argument in favour of OPS regardless of
electricity production source is that power produced
onshore is covered by national and international
emissions ceilings (for CO2 mainly), whereas power
produced onboard is not counted towards national
emissions targets. This leads to an increase in the total
power consumption covered by the emission ceiling.
Temporarily this increase is most likely to be met by
fossile based power production but long term the
increase must be compensated by renewable power.
In interviews with ports using OPS or with concrete
plans to do so in future, all confirm that they will only
purchase ‘clean power’. This makes a lot of sense,
however one must bear in mind that if a port pays a
little extra to the power trading company for renewable
electricity the non-renewable power is consumed
somewhere else in the system anyway. Hence this is a
‘symbolic’ measure, but one which promotes
renewables in the long term. Stena is interesting in this
regard however, as the company owns wind farms
producing ‘green electricity’, which meets the needs of
the OPS installation in the port of Gothenburg.117
In the North Sea region, power generation in individual
countries and sub-regions vary greatly. At one end of
the spectrum there is Norway with virtually all electricity
production coming from hydro power. The other
extreme is the Netherlands, which is almost totally
dependent on conventional thermal power.
Source: Eurostat,
Electricity
statistics, 2011
Since the countries in the North Sea region are
integrated into different regional synchronised power
systems with a power mix consisting of electricity
generation from several different countries, the table
above is only intended to give a generalised view of
the regional differences regarding renewable and nonrenewable power generation. It is easy to calculate
electrical power generation on a national basis,
however, calculating power consumption across
integrated regional synchronised systems is extremely
complex.
Map of of European Transmission System Operators
Organizations (Regional Groups) Continental Europe,
Nordic, Baltic, Great Britain 118and Ireland / Northern
Ireland (Wikipedia) 118
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
The issue of whether an increase in demand (i.e. due
to an OPS installation) is met by renewable sources of
electricity is extremely complex depending on a
number of variables at various levels in regional power
systems, and is thus not in the scope of this report. At
regional power system level, OPS (even if generally
introduced across the region) will not have any
significant effects in the large European electricity
transmission systems.119
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.
The connection of all ships in the port will require
enomorous amount of power, which is not possible for
most of the biggest container ports now. According to
the international standard for high volrtage shore
connection IEC/ IEEE/ ISO 80005-1 the system for
connection of ocean going container / reefer vessel
should be sized for 7.5 MVA. The same standard
requiremnets for cruise ships account for minimum
Interview, Per Blomstrand, Stockholms Stad AB, 2013-03-12. Information about the project “Stadens ljud” (in Swedish):
www.hplus.helsingborg.se
Interview, Hape Schneider, HafenCity, Hamburg, 2013-03-21
Interview, Gun Rudeberg, Port of Stockholm, 2013-04-03
IEA information quoted on the World Port Climate Initiative website, www.onshorepowersupply.org
www.onshorepowersupply.org
Opdal O. and Steen E. ”Landstrom i Norge – en studie av mulighetene for landstrom i Norge”, Zero March 2012
Interview Jan Kärnestedt, Gothenburg Energy, 2013-04-21
www.wikipedia.org
Interview, Tommie Lindquist, Swedish National Grid
33
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
16.5 MVA and recommended 20 MVA system
requirements. Shore power is the only technology to
completely reduce the emissions in port, with the wider
penetration of this technology ports will require
significant improvement of existing transmission and
distribution infrastructure, while utilities will need to
improve significantly the power output. In a wider
context, one could also see the deployment of OPS
technology as being part of the trend of increasing
electrification of society, another example being the
car industry working to move away from fossile fuel to
electric vehicles.
5.5
Environmental cost-benefit
The big question the whole shipping industry seems to
be asking is whether OPS really has any positive
environmental impact. At a general level it is clear that
if deployed on a massive scale, there would be a large
reduction of the amount of fuel oil used in shipping,
and generating the electricity onshore will emit less
pollutants, even if this is done in coal-powered plants
(because of better filtering techniques and higher
environmental requirements). To get a more detailed
answer to this question the environmental cost-benefit
analysis must be studied on a case-by-case basis as
port conditions and shipping patterns in individual
locations are so diverse.
Apart from the environmental footprint reduction
analysis it is important to evaluate the marginal costs
of emissions reduction. Marginal cost of emissions is
the estimated economic damage value, which gasses
do to the socio-economical parameters of life, e.g.
health, living conditions, environment. According to
ABB and Danish Energy Association calculations for
the Copenhagen Cruise Terminal and official marginal
costs of emissions for Denmark marginal costs of
Emission reduction per year will be more than 2.25 M
EUR
34
Marginal cost of pollution case/example
As with many other “environmental investments” it is
often unclear at the outset what both the environmental
and commercial cost-benefit of the investment will be.
In this regard, OPS needs to be assessed in a longterm perspective looking ahead towards 2050 or
beyond. It is probably safe to assume that the energy
mix in Europe is significantly greener then than it is
today.
In very general terms the following factors are
important when estimating the environmental impact in
any given port / ship.
- Total time in port and electricity consumption i
- n port (i.e. how many kWh are generated onshore as
opposed to onboard).
- The degree to which ships can connect to shore
power in the ports on their specific route (the higher
number of ports a ship can connect to, the more it
makes sense for the ship owner to install OPS
technology onboard).
- Ship engine efficiency, e.g. depending on age, type
of technology, and exhaust gas cleaning system
onboard.
- Ship use of energy for heat vs. electricity. Heat
produced in boilers cannot be replaced by shore
side electricity. For some ship types (e.g. tankers)
this may be significant.
- Type of fuel (HFO/MGO/LNG) used in auxiliary
engines (i.e. the ‘dirtier’ the fuel, the greater positive
impact of switching to OPS).
- How is the onshore electricity produced (i.e.
renewable or fossile-based sources)?
- How close to the quay are residential areas? OPS
avoids local emissions that may cause harmful
concentration levels.
OPS is primarily a technology designed to solve local
environmental problems of air pollution and noise in
port. It is very far from a catch-all solution which alone
will transform shipping into a significantly greener
trade. In combination with other emission reduction
technologies however, OPS does have an important
role to play.
Obviously, if there is a critical mass of ports and ships
that invest in compatible OPS technology globally, this
makes environmental sense, provided the increase in
power consumption from the onshore grid is met with
an increase in renewable energy production. The key
to determining the usefulness of OPS technology is the
amount of kWh genereated by renewable sources
onshore instead of onboard ships. Assuming the longterm perspective as argued above, it is likely that
international regulations regarding emissions are much
tougher than today and OPS might well become a
global requirement for all ports and ship owners. In this
scenario the global CO2 emission reductions would be
considerable.
modelling to analyse whether OPS, which may be a
significant investment, has any impact on the local
community in proximity of the port.121 They give two
interesting examples proving this point. “At the ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach there is no buffer zone
between the local community and the port, and drastic
control measures may therefore be needed in the form
of OPS. At the Port of Rotterdam, on the other hand,
research has shown that installating OPS at the
Euromax terminal at Maasvlakte 2 would not benefit
local communities, as these are located outside the
immediate region of air quality impacts. The greatest
benefits are thus to be gained at terminals located
close to built-up areas”.122
Any specific OPS installation in a port or a ship must
be analysed in its wider context, also taking into
accounts the potential environmental effects of other
technologies and practices, including cleaner fuels,
scrubbing, energy efficiency measures onboard (e.g.
heating, lighting, ventilation, water, electricity
consumption)120, and selective catalytic reduction
(SCR).
To conclude, OPS is primarily designed to solve local
pollution problems. If it is clear that the technology will
significantly reduce emissions in specific communities
investment is recommended. Since public funds are
often scarce society should primarily focus on the
ships that stand for the largest emissions whilst in port.
To provide guidance for investment decisions in
individual locations, ports would benefit from
implementing Emission Management Plans (e.g. based
on EcoPorts or equivalent approach).
As the WPCI points out, it is important to use air quality
120
121
122
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.
www.onshorepowersupply.org
Ibid
35
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
6.
Mapping of OPS in the North Sea Region
Which ports and ship
owners have invested
in OPS?
6.1
The North Sea Region
Virtually all types of seabourne traffic can be found in
the North Sea region, from inland barges to ULCC’s
and anything in between. Similarities between some
segments exist, in terms of flows of goods, market
conditions, trading patterns as well as physical
restrictions, etc. However, sometimes the differences
are so significant that the use of water as medium is
the only common denominator.
All countries bordering the North Sea are members of
the EU except Norway. Though the formal policy
framework in place may not always include Norway,
there is a common mindset in most matters relevant to
this study.
The area is trade and consumption intensive, highly
developed and regarded as safe. Piracy is unheard of
in modern days, and security is rarely an issue. One of
the common issues is the environmental impact of
industrialization, affecting most parts of the region to
some extent.
The major flows of goods in the region are the import
flows, typically entering the area via the ARA
(Antwerp/Rotterdam/Amsterdam) for further
transshipment within the region. This is mainly
unitized/containerized goods, however applicable to
petroleum products, dry bulk cargoes etc as well.123 As
an area with several major hub ports, the
transshipment rate and highly developed distribution
system means a certain degree of predictability
regarding transport network constellations, network
loads etc. Liner traffic of descending capacity is key in
such a transshipment intense system.
36
6.2
National differences
6.2.1 Sweden
Sweden has the most OPS installations available in the
North Sea region, albeit a significant part in Baltic Sea
ports. This is a result of the national legislations on
environmental issues, forcing operators to invest in
OPS via the environmental courts.
Electricity consumed via OPS is subject to tax
reductions, and operators only have to pay 1,3% of the
regular tax on the electricity consumed.124
Sweden has a relatively low electricity price –
€0,083/kWh in 2011125.
6.2.2 Denmark
There are no HVSC installations yet operational in
Denmark, though several ports offer LVSC
connections. CMP, which is the company jointly
operating Copenhagen and Malmö ports are actively
looking into various options for cruise ships.126
The average electricity price in Denmark in 2011 was
€0,093/kWh127
6.2.3 Norway
Norway offers opportunity to investment support from
the so called NOX fund, and several organistions are
involved in assisting companies looking for investment
support, e.g. Bellona and Enova, which were both
involved in the Color Line terminal OPS at Oslo port.
The installation was a result of joint financing with
contributions from Color Line, Transnova, Enova and
Oslo Havn KF.128
There are discussions on introducing a tax break
similar to Sweden.129
The average electricity price in Norway in 2011 was
€0,091.130
6.2.4 Germany
Germany has high environmental ambitions on a
federal level as well as on state level. This is in part
shown through a tax deduction for electricity
consumed through OPS.
Hamburg stands out as progressive, engaged in cooperation with Chinese counterpart ports to offer global
liner traffic OPS at both ends of their route, as well as
looking at what can be done about the emissions and
noise caused by the cruise vessels calling the port.
Hamburg has decided to invest in an OPS installation
for the cruise liners calling the Altona terminal, but in
part due to grid restrictions, the power barge concept
is also pursued in Hamburg.131
The average electricity price in Germany in 2011 was
€0,124.132
6.2.4 Netherlands
As a result of the intense inland barge traffic, low
voltage OPS is widely deployed, and even mandatory
for barges in the Port of Rotterdam. Rotterdam holds
Europe’s biggest port, making shipping important to
the national economy. A significant part of the goods
passing Rotterdam comes in via global liner traffic. As
the larger container vessels only call a few ports on
their routes, OPS could be interesting despite their
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
relatively limited time at port. On the other hand, the
larger the vessel, the larger their energy consumption,
putting severe strain on the onshore grid.
The Dutch government has decided to offer subsidies
to shipping companies and seaport terminals investing
in OPS. Initially, the program will apply to the Port of
Rotterdam only, and the maximum subsidy is
€750.000.133
The average electricity price in the Netherlands in
2011 was €0,094
6.2.5 Belgium
Belgium has one HVSC installation in the port of
Antwerp. The installation has been developed by
initiative of the Independent Maritime Terminal, which
is owned by the Independent Container Lines
company. The project was co-financed by the Flemish
government and the Antwerp Port Authority. The
installation was initially the only dual-frequency OPS in
the world, however other similar systems have been
built since.134
The average electricity price in the Belgium in 2011
was €0,115.
American Association of Port Authorities, www.aapa.org
Swedish Government, http://www.regeringen.se
Eurostat 2011, epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu
Interview with Bengt-Olof Jansson, CMP. 2013-04-27.
Eurostat 2011, epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu
Oslo Havn, http://www.oslohavn.no/
Opdal O. and Steen E. ”Landstrom i Norge – en studie av mulighetene for landstrom i Norge”, p.25. Zero March 2012
Eurostat 2011, epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu
Port of Hamburg, www.portofhamburg.com
Eurostat 2011, epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu
WCPI, www.ops.wpci.nl
Ibid.
37
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
6.2.6 UK
6.3.3 Global liner traffic
There are ports in the UK, such as Southampton135,
assessing OPS, however there are no concrete
projects as of yet. (DFDS have postponed its plans to
invest in OPS for its terminal in Immingham)136.
If time in port represents only a minor part of any given
voyage, which applies to all transoceanic trade
irrespective of cargo type, the incentive to invest in
OPS technology is very low today for the following
reasons:
The UK differs somewhat from the rest of the countries
in the region in terms of port ownership structure.
Though it occurs throughout the region, UK ports are
to a larger extent privately owned, thereby more
intensely subject to commercial fluctuations, possibly
rendering port operators less likely to invest in
technology with uncertain utilization. There are also
grid limitations holding back any initiatives.
The average electricity price in the UK in 2011 was
€0,104.
6.3
Conditions for different
types of traffic
6.3.1 Ferry/RoPax traffic
Regular traffic typically between two set ports per
vessel increases the incentive to invest in OPS,
provided that ship owners and ports can agree on a
compatible technology. As most ferry operators own
(or long-term lease) their terminals this threshold
should be minimal provided upstream grid capacity is
sufficient. Decision to invest depends on time in port
and the likely trend of fuel costs vs. electricity costs.
6.3.2 Cruise traffic
Cruise vessels often trade in various regions across
the globe depending on season, e.g. a few months in
the Baltic, a couple of weeks in the Mediterranean
followed by the winter months in the Caribbean. In the
Baltic and North Sea region they are unlikely to call the
same port more than around 10-15 times per year, so
all destinations on their route, preferably in more than
one region, needs to offer or demand OPS connection
for the owners to invest. Cost savings could be
significant considering their power consumption,
especially in regions with warmer climate.
135
136
38
• Very few ports offer OPS.
• The time in port is short in comparison to their time
spent at sea.
• As with other types of traffic the cost of fuel vs. cost
of electricity in different countries/regions is central
to any investment decision.
• Upside: these vessels only access a very limited
number of berths due to their size, which speaks in
favour of customised, cost-efficient shore-side
installations.
• Containerised OPS solutions onboard improve and
speed up access to the onshore grid.
6.3.4 Short-sea liner traffic
The same issues as for global traffic apply, however as
more time is spent in port, an investment threshold
should be slightly lower. RoRo liners often have their
own terminals, meaning that the same berths are used
on each call, catering for customized, cost efficient
shore-side installations just as for large container
vessels
• Less power required as short sea trading vessels
are smaller, thus reducing upstream power grid
requirements.
• Liner traffic generally means container or RoRo,
where the cargo is loaded/unloaded by means of
shore-side cranes, tug masters etc, which reduces
the power required by the vessel itself.
6.3.5 Other traffic types
As bulk cargoes, both liquid and dry, are generally
shipped on spot/tramper basis the trading patterns are
often very irregular. This applies to all vessel sizes
except for the very smallest (<4000 dwt).
“Port of Southampton Master plan 2009-2030”, www.southamptonvts.co.uk
Interview with Gert Jakobsen, DFDS 2013-12-02
Cargo is often discharged using
onboard equipment (pumps, screws
etc) generating a relatively high power
consumption.
6.4
Ship owners
Obtaining specific information
regarding individual ships and their
owners is sometimes difficult due to the
complexity of owner structures in the
sector. Another aspect to take into
account is that there is no single
definition of “shipowner”, i.e. it
depends on the perspective applied.
For the purpose of this mapping we
have chosen to consider the
commercial operator to be the owner in
any case of split ownership/operation.
By Traffic Type
Traffic Type Owner
OPS
Container
Hapag-Lloyd
HV
Container
APL
HV
Container
ICL
HV
Container
Maersk Line
N
Container
MSC
HV
RoRo
DFDS
P
RoRo
Polferries
HV
RoRo
RABT
HV
RoRo
Cobelfret
HV
Comment
Evaluating
RoRo
Wagenborg
HV
Ferry
Viking Line
HV
Ferry
Color Line
HV
Ferry
Hurtigruten
P
Ferry
Tallink Silja
P
Cruise
Aida
P
Cruise
HAL
HV
Not EU trading
Cruise
RCCL
HV
Not EU trading
(HV=HVSC, N = No, P = Planned)
It is well worth pointing out that though Royal
Carribean (RCCL) and Holland America (HAL) have
vessels that can connect to OPS they do not empoly
them on North European trade. These vessels are
equipped with OPS facilities to enable trade on the US
west coast. Nonetheless, it suggests that they are
willing to invest in the system as such, provided there
is sufficient (legislative) incentive.
Maersk Line is included in the list as the company is
continuously evaluating various environmental
improvement activities, including OPS. These
evaluations are handled by Maersk Marine
Technology, a cross-functional division having an
overall responsibility for various improvement activities
for all AP Møller controlled tonnage. There are no
immediate plans to invest in OPS for vessels in
European trade, however container vessels calling
Californian ports will of course also be affected by the
local regulations. Being the world’s largest ship
operator a decision to invest could have major impact
for the concept as such as it could be rolled out
quickly across the entire fleet.
Though slightly difficult to discern any trends from the
limited number of installations, the concentration is
certainly among short-sea liner operators. The absence
of any owner operating in tramper trade is notable.
39
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
By Vessel
Vessel name
Owner/operator
Vessel type
Port
Color Fantasy
Color Line
Ferry
Oslo
Color Magic
Color Line
Ferry
Oslo
NYK Apollo*
NYK Line
Container
Antwerp
Stena Britannica
Stena Line
Ferry
Rotterdam
Stena Hollandica
Stena Line
Ferry
Rotterdam
Stena Danica
Stena Line
Ferry
Gothenburg
Stena Germanica
Stena Line
Ferry
Gothenburg
TransPaper
RABT
RoRo
Kemi/Oulu/Lübeck/Gothenburg
TransTimber
RABT
RoRo
Kemi/Oulu/Lübeck/Gothenburg
Transpulp
RABT
RoRo
Gothenburg/Tilbury
Stena Jutlandica
Stena Line
Ferry
Gothenburg
Stena Scandinavica
Stena Line
Ferry
Gothenburg
Stena Spirit
Stena Line
Ferry
Karlskrona
Stena Vision
Stena Line
Ferry
Karlskrona
Skåne
Stena Line
Ferry
Trelleborg
Wavel
Polferries
Ferry
Ystad
Jan Sniadecki
Polferries
Ferry
Ystad
Skania
Unity Lines
Ferry
Ystad
Mariella
Viking Line
Ferry
Stockholm
Romantika
Tallink
Ferry
Stockholm
Victoria
Tallink
Ferry
Stockholm
Princess Anastasia
St Peter Line
Ferry
Stockholm (LVSC)
Icebreakers
Swedish
Icebreakers
Luleå (LVSC)
6.5
Status of OPS in ports in
the CNSS area
Though the focus of this study is on high voltage
connections (HVSC) the list includes low voltage
(LVSC) installations as well, gaining relevance as it
offers a working solution for many vessels.
40
The selection of major North Sea Ports in the CNSS
Geografical area was based on tonnes/year or
pax/year.
As many ports have running evaluations of possible
investment options, the information in this list needs to
be maintained continuously.
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.
With an estimated number of
vessels to more than
50000138, all types and areas
in the world included and
roughly 4700 ports139 we may
conclude there is a potential
for OPS with the available
international standards and
technology in place.
At any given moment there
are 4000 ships in the
European ECAs. It is fair to
say that the OPS status in the
forseable future will be poor,
with the planned installations
considered, in the North Sea
region as well as globally.
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
connections (HVSC) the list includes low voltage
vessels above 6000 TEU include the technology in the
140
(LVSC)
installations as well, gaining relevance as it
delivery of a new vessel .
offers a working solution for many vessels.
Though the focus of this study is on high voltage
137
138
139
140
www.iaphworldports.org/WorldPortInfo.aspx
www.marinetraffic.com
www.worldportsource.com
Lorene Grandidier, Schneider Electric.
41
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
The selection of major North Sea Ports in the CNSS
Geografical area was based on tonnes/year or
pax/year.141
NB: Rotterdam is on the list due to Stena Line’s OPS at
their Hoek-Van-Holland terminal. There are however
plans to install OPS in other parts of the port, not
dedicated to one specific operator and their terminal,
however this is yet to be decided upon.
141
42
www.iaphworldports.org/WorldPortInfo.aspx
As many ports have running evaluations of possible
investment options, the information in this list needs to
be maintained continuously.
7.
The commercial perspective
What are the barriers
to investment?
7.2
Ports perspective
7.2.1 Advantages
7.1
Introduction
There are a number of factors impacting on the
commercial viability of OPS for ports and ship owners
respectively, including:
-
the price difference between fuel oil and
electricity generated onshore
-
tax on electricity / fuel oil
-
design and application of port dues
-
rate of utilisation of the OPS equipment
One way of making the commercial equation regarding
OPS more advantageous for both ports and ship
owners is the application of differentiated port dues.
Arguably, to create a level field for the industry while
tackling environmental problems, differentiated port
dues should be made mandatory.
Another mechanism that may promote ship owners to
invest in OPS is the idea of a joint industry fund,
inspired by the Norwegian fund. Ship owners causing
emissions would through this approach have to
contribute to the fund, paying an emissions fee, e.g.
based on the 2021 Tier III level. The fund would then
help ship owners to invest in OPS and/or other clean
shipping technologies. If applied on a European level,
this could significantly aid the shipping industry in
retrofitting its vessels.
The port of Gothenburg uses a model whereby there
are targeted fees for NOx and SOx funds sustainable
development projects in the port.142
142
From a port’s perspective, an OPS installation will have
a number of obvious advantages, of which noise and
emission reduction are the most obvious and
immediate. This would in turn generate goodwill
benefits, strengthening the environmental profile of the
organisation.
The investment could be considered relatively safe
from a technical perspective, as there are several
installations in place, representing a track record of
proven functionality and reliability.
Looking at it as a business opportunity it could
represent a possible income source, depending on
what pricing principle is used, i.e. if the port should
serve as non-profit transmission supplier or if they
should add on to the electricity cost incurred from the
power supplier. The latter would be preferable to add
viability to an investment, however it could cause
discontent among ship owners, especially if
connecting to OPS becomes mandatory.
7.2.2 Disadvantages
Though very individual and difficult to predict on a
general level, an assumed grid reinforcement could be
rather expensive. That is not necessarily a
disadvantage as such, however it is certainly an issue
to consider as any large-scale investment affects a
company’s financial situation.
Unless OPS is made mandatory for ship owners, port
operators stand to risk investing heavily in an
installation with low utilization. If it is made mandatory
on a municipal or national level rather than regional,
ports may lose traffic to other ports without such a
requirement.
Interview with Susanne Dutt, Port of Gothenburg 2013-11-22
43
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
7.3
Ship owner perspective
7.3.1 Advantages
A transition from onboard generated power to OPS
connections is likely to reduce the vessel’s running
costs, both in terms of fuel savings and through
reduced engine wear and increased maintenance
intervals.
Depending on the efficiency of the generators and
varying with fuel market price, the cost of producing
electricity on board is around 0,15 /kWh whereas
electricity supplied via OPS should cost in the region
of 0,1/kWh, so the difference is considerable. NB
however that aside from electricity, the auxiliary
engines will generate heat, which is put to use
onboard, and that too would have to be compensated
for, either by increased electricity use or by connecting
to the district heating system.
The onboard working environment will be improved as
a result of noise, emission and vibration reductions,
and as for the ports there are possible goodwill effects.
If a port – or rather a region – makes OPS mandatory,
a decision to invest will enable the vessel to trade
44
unrestricted making it easier to employ and
consequently more profitable.
Development of differentiated port dues for ships
utilising OPS, would make such investments more
attractive to the ship owners.
7.3.2 Disadvantages
An installation will through its weight have a limited
impact on fuel consumption under way – it may come
off as negligible but over the lifetime of a vessel it
could be significant.
The utilization issue is the same for ship owners as for
ports – unless a sufficient share of the ports regularly
called provides OPS, utilization will be too low to drive
enough savings on the running costs.
Assuming the unlikely scenario of increased electricity
prices without a corresponding development on
bunker prices, a possible increase in running costs
could occur.
8.
Case studies
8.1
Case study 1: Hamburg
”The Senate of Hamburg strives to further
reduce portrelated emissions, in particular
in fringe areas of the port that are in direct
vicinity to emissions sensitive urban
areas”.
”Cruise shipping companies have already
expressed their interest in using shore
power for their high-consumption
passenger ships. The Senate of Hamburg
will pursue this issue and verify
economically viable offers for the two
cruise ship terminals in Altona and
HafenCity by taking account of the specific
characteristics of each berth. Mobile
energy supply options for cruise ships will
also be considered with the respective
nautical circumstances in mind”. 143
Hamburg is a universal port144 stretching across 7,399
hectares, of which (4,331 hectares are land area). In
addition to this, an area of 919 hectares is planned for
future port expansion. There are 320 berths in the port,
which serves about 10 000 port calls (2011 figures),
roughly half of which are container ships handling an
annual grand total of over 130 million tons of cargo.
Although still proportionally a small share of total port
activity the cruise trade is an increasingly important
sector for the port. Cruise calls were up from 61 in
2006 to 175 in 2012, and this figure continues
to grow.145
In light of the size of the port of Hamburg, which ranks
143
144
145
146
147
14th in the world and third in Europe (messured on
TEUs/container traffic), Hamburg faces serious
environmental challenges posed by port-related
activity. The primary concern is air quality and
authorities work to promote a more environmentally
sustainable shipping sector. For example, Hamburg
Port Authority is actively involved in the work of the
World Port Climate Initiative.146
The port authority, Hamburg’s government (the Senate)
and relevant authorities work in tandem to try to cut
emissions generated in the harbour as air pollution
levels exceed the regulated EU threshold.147 In recent
years public concern about air pollution has grown,
driven by a sharp increase in cruise traffic. Even
though cruise traffic represents a minor share of port
operations in Hamburg, cruise liners are more ‘visible’
to the public due to the nearness of the cruise
terminals to the residential areas and to the influx of
tourists roaming the city. For this reason the public
debate has to a large extent focused on the cruise
trade.
In 2011 the Hamburg parliament gave the ministry for
urban development and environment (BSU) the task to
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
model to reduce local air pollution. The OPS plans
relate to the cruise berths at Altona and HafenCity.
The cruise trade in Hamburg
The cruise ships calling at the port stay for about 10
hours in port (mostly only by day). In total there are
about 160 calls by cruise ships divided over the two
terminals, Altona and Hafen City. In Altona, it is
estimated that the OPS installation will cater for the
needs of cruise ships 70-80 days staying for about 10
hours per port call. In the medium term the authorities
believe that about half of the cruise liners will be able
to utilise the OPS connection.
”Port Development Plan to 2025”, p. 82, Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, www.hafen-hamburg.de
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.
In an interview with the port authority and City of Hamburg the current estimate is 160 cruise calls per annum.
Interview with Hamburg port authority and City of Hamburg, 2013-03-20
Ibid
45
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
The Altona terminal has one berth with a quay length of
360m for ships up to 300m, 12m/NN water depth, plus
an integrated passenger boarding bridge. The
construction of the quay and terminal was completed
in 2011.148
In order to create a viable OPS solution meeting the
needs of the port clients, BSU, the ministry for
economy and the port authority are working closely
with the cruise operator Aida, which account for about
80% of port calls by cruise ships in Hamburg.
Aida caters for about 2000 passengers and has a
power demand of 6,4 MW (3,2 kW per passsenger).
The planned installation will be able to provide for 12
MW. Once connected this will equal about 4% of the
power consumption of the whole city of Hamburg.149
When completed the OPS installation will be the largest
in the world in terms of power. Converters will be
installed on the quay to change the frequency from 50
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).
the City of Hamburg, the port authority, Vattenfall and
BSU.
Power Barges
In parallel with the plans for the permanently installed
shore-side power, the city is actively supporting the
more commercially driven alternative to OPS, namely
the novel concept of Power Barges. Aida cruises are
considering using the power barge solution at the
HafenCity terminal. The Hamburg Parliament has also
tasked the city’s authorities with providing support to
this development in the form of regulatory advice and
information (no public financial support will be
available).
Any additional considerations for a 3rd Cruise Terminal
in the port also include power barges to supply Cruise
Ships with shore power. The power barges will use
LNG for power generation.
8.2 Case study 2: Stena Line
Financially, Hamburg’s Senate will provide the funding
for the OPS investment, however there is hope to
obtain some co-funding from the EU’s TEN-T
programme. The ministries are currently working on a
strategy document and feasibility study to be
presented to the Senate of Hamburg. The tender for
the OPS installation is due to be published towards the
end of 2013.
In regards to the power grid, the OPS installation does
not pose any significant challenges. As Hamburg is
such a large port, which even without OPS has a very
high power consumption, there are already strong grid
connections serving the port. In proportion to the
power need of the port as a whole, the OPS installation
will not have any disruptive effect on the grid
infrastructure. The grid owner, Vattenfall, have
confirmed that they can provide the necessary power
to the cruise ships. There are also initiatives in the port
looking at ‘smart grid’ solutions in cooperation between
148
149
46
Stena Line, one of the world’s largest ferry operators,
has been an early adopter of the OPS concept. As with
most others, they started out using low voltage
connections to supply their ferries while at berth during
overnight stops.
There has been a gradual transition to HVSC, partially
driven by a continuous upgrade of the fleet where
larger newly built vessels have replaced smaller ones.
With vessels respectively using both 50 and 60 Hz,
their recent installations include shoreside frequency
converters to cater for all possibilities.
As a ferry operator mainly trafficking shorter routes,
Stena Line has the inherent advantage of just calling
two ports per vessel. With a long-term commitment to
routes, ports and terminals, the investment time is
predictable and cooperation with local authorities,
municipalities, etc. is inevitable.
Hamburg Cruise Center, www.hamburgcruisecenter.eu
Interview with Hamburg port authority and City of Hamburg, 2013-03-20
Stena Line’s OPS progress
1990
Connection of the Kiel vessels in Gothenburg
1997
Connection of Stena Carisma (Gothenburg)
2006
Connection of Stena Danica (Gothenburg)
2010
Two connections at Masthuggskajen's terminal and overnight berths
2010
Shore side power installed in Karlskrona
2011
Connection of the two Superferries at Hoek van Holland
Stena Line’s OPS drive was initiated as a means to
reduce noise at their terminals in central Gothenburg.
The vicinity to residential areas has been a major
factor, and Stena chose to launch OPS as one of many
initiatives to reduce their local environmental impact
rather than moving their terminals to more remote parts
of the harbour. These initiatives have been part of
Stena Line’s license to operate the terminal as set by
the environmental court.
As the figure shows, all current OPS usage is at one of
two ports only. To some extent this is a consequence
of the “home port” idea, i.e. having one port where any
overnight layovers are placed, thus creating a
significant inbalance in how much time is spent at
berth in each port. Additionally, connecting in only one
port is, in part, a result of an absence of local
municipal requirements, and/or a lack of sufficient grid
capacity. As shoreside investments – beyond what
Stena can do at their terminals – are necessary to get
a functioning installation, local commitment is
imperative. Though shoreside electricity costs less per
MWh than what is produced onboard using the
auxiliaries, availability is key for ship owners to invest.
In the winter time, Stena’s vessels are occasionally
forced to run their engines despite being connected to
OPS in order to generate sufficient heating. Aside from
the temperature in the accommodation and public
areas of the vessel, heating is required to maintain the
temperature in fuel oil storage and day tanks as well as
on the main engines. In Gothenburg, the local power
company is looking at connecting Stena’s ferries to the
district heating system to resolve this issue, however
this project is still at a very early stage.
It could be noted that the port of Kiel has not
supported OPS installations for either Stena or Color
Line, both fitted with HVSC equipment.
47
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
9.
Overall analysis
What does the future
hold? Will OPS become
the norm?
9.1
Introduction
There are several regions in the world closely looking
at OPS technology as a means to cut local air pollution
and noise. The most far-reaching initiatives have been
taken on the west coast of the United States where
OPS becomes mandatory for cruise and container
vessles in select ports from 2014.
During 2013 several important decisions have been
taken in the EU, that are working in favour of wider
deployment of OPS, most notably the European
Directive of Alternative Fuels, which is likely to be
adopted during the spring 2014.
The emerging signs of cooperation between regions in
different parts of the world is also relevant when
looking at the future role of OPS in the shipping trade.
9.2
Ship owners
The shipping sector is at the heart of the global
industrial supply chain and competition between ship
owners is fierce. The truly international character of the
trade emphasises the difficulty for governments to
regulate beyond their respective national jurisdictions.
Shipping also has a highly fragmented ownership
structure, which adds to the complexity.
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
heterogeneous group, ranging from very small
companies to multinational corporations, it lacks the
proactivity to efficiently influence long-term market
developments through multi-party cooperation.
Consequently, they become subject to regulation
without being able to successfully lobby for their
interests.
48
In the case of a primarily infrastructural issue like OPS,
this means that any large-scale deployment will have
to be promoted, initiated and enforced by regulatory
bodies and port authorities.
9.3
Ports
Similar to the fragmented shipping industry, the
European port sector also comprises a very diverse
group of stakeholders ranging from hub ports
facilitating the majority of the global trade down to
smaller regional hubs and distribution networks.
Port activities are key to the economic well-being of
many societies, however, their decision making clout in
regulatory matters is not necessarily in proportion.
Although ports are affected by market changes in the
shipping sector, compared to ship operations they are
less susceptible to rapid market fluctuations. They
generally take a more long-term view on investments
than ship owners.
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
public influence on ports means that their business is
subject to local politics and public opinion affecting
their decision making, not least in regard to
environmental issues. One could also argue that
expectations and pressure on ports to accept local
conditions in terms of environmental management and
corporate social responsibility issues are stronger
since they are fixed to a specific location, often in
close proximity to urban areas.
9.4
The ship owner and port
authority interface
The precondition today for any viable OPS investment
to be initiated is a long-term collective commitment by
either ports or ship owners to eliminate the “chicken or
egg” situation. As publicly controlled entities, ports are
comparatively more likely than ship owners to prioritise
the public interest over commercial profits.
− It is improbable that ship owners would take the
initiative to invest in OPS unless economic effective
incentives, e.g. electricity/fuel prices or inherent
costs, would change dramatically.
- Ports operate on a competitive market; hence
infrastructure investments are matched against
anticipated income, very few ports are willing to
undertake the risk of increased costs without
utilisation of OPS unless it is a strict legal
requirement and somehow subsidised by the
community (e.g. the case of Stena and Color Line
not being able to connect in Kiel).
- It is not a “chicken and egg” situation. It is clear to
the investigators that shipowners can use
shorepower and benefit from it, if provided in port,
however it is unlikely that they would take the
initiative to these investments.
- If the incentives or pressures are strong enough,
ship owners a very likely to adopt OPS. One could
draw parallels between the changes in market
conditions caused by the introduction of the SECAs
and the possible future mandatory OPS in the North
Sea area.
- It makes sense to think of the positive effects of
common European regulation schemes in order to
achive the critical mass for OPS and to avoid
competitive issues that today indirectly prevents
tackling pollution and emissions in Europe.
There is considerable uncertainty amongst ports and
ship owners regarding the future uptake of OPS. In this
situation, the EU and national governments will be key
to any large-scale adoption of the technology by
providing regulations and incentives for investment.
Experience shows that ports and ship owners in the
North Sea region that have concrete experience of
OPS are predominantly positive about the investments,
although some stakeholders question the real
environmental benefit of OPS.
To create a mutually beneficial OPS solution it is
imperative that ports co-operate closely with the ship
owners (as well as with other relevant stakeholders) to
agree on an acceptable business model and technical
solution.
9.5
Type of traffic
The key to finding a viable balance between
commercial interests and reducing the negative
environmental impact of shipping is to ensure that
investments are made where the maximum
environmental benefits are achieved with a minimal
disruption of commercial activity.
In the case of OPS this means that one should focus
primarily on short-sea liner traffic spending a
considerable proportion of their time in port, which in
turn would ensure a high utilisation of the investment.
Due to the limited time in port and the equally limited
calls per year in a given port as well as the significant
power demands (implying great grid infrastructure
investments) of cruise ships, it is questionable whether
the relatively modest environmental benefit motivates
the huge investment. On the other hand, in some
locations the environmental problems are so dire that a
solution must be found, in which case an investment in
OPS still serves a purpose. One possible alternative to
OPS that would not imply any onshore grid investment
would be to employ a power barge to meet the needs
of the cruise liners. In a large port like Hamburg it
could also make sense to combine OPS with the power
barge concept to increase flexibility while reducing
infrastructural investments in the quays.
9.6
The public sector
During the course of this research we have found that
public bodies play a pivotal role in promoting or
forcing through OPS investments in the North Sea
region.
At the intergovernmental level, the EU is an extremely
important stakeholder. The EU has the legislative
power to force through regulations, it may provide
incentives such as tax reductions and it also has the
economic means to promote co-financing for concrete
49
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
OPS projects. It is clear that both DG Mobility and
Transport (MOVE) and DG Environment are in favour of
OPS and there is (and will be) considerable funding
available to promote investments. In interviews with
European Commission officials it has become clear
that OPS is moving up on the EU’s agenda.
In a similar fashion, governments, national and
municipal authorities can also to a large extent shape
the conditions favouring OPS. Sweden is an excellent
example where the national government has used the
power of the “stick” (in the form of strict environmental
legislation) but also the “carrot” (in the form of tax
reductions and some municipal co-funding of OPS). In
Norway and Germany, the public sector is also
promoting OPS.
OPS is an issue requiring considerable co-operative
efforts by a large number of stakeholders, not only in a
given port location, but in the case of liner traffic also
with other ports. Both the shipping industry and to
some extent also the port sector are heterogenous and
do not have a very impressive history of co-operation.
International players such as the EU and/or regional
co-operation bodies can play a very important role in
bringing this fragmented group of stakeholders
together to discuss the issue. The CNSS project itself
is a good example of how EU funding may foster
closer collaboration amongst a range of stakeholders
all joined by the mutual vision of creating a more
environmentally friendly shipping sector.
In short, at this relatively early stage of technology
deployment, international organisations and national
governments must show the way and provide
incentives for the market to take off. It is likely that
there needs to be a critical mass of ports in a given
region or trade for a large number of ship owners to
voluntarily want to invest in OPS.
Since the benefits of OPS must be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis it is also important for the public
sector to offer technology-neutral incentives to ship
owners, i.e. in the form of lower emissions targets,
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
9.7
Technical aspects
The OPS technology, has been tested and
implemented, is readily available and functionality is
proven in numerous installations. From what we have
gathered, incidents like blackouts are practically
unheard of. From a technical and operational
perspective, all current users are satisfied in terms of
system reliability and general performance. Retrofit of
existing vessels (e.g. with a containerised OPS
solution) or installation on a newbuilt vessel is viable.
One major step towards a wider adoption is the
recently agreed technical standard. Though offering
some flexibility on several key issues (voltage,
frequency, etc) it is vital to have a standardised
installation format in order to roll out the technology
beyond the customised one-operator set-ups like
Stena’s.
As two incompatible A/C frequencies (50 and 60 Hz)
occur regularly, a port considering an OPS installation
has two options – either a customised setup with a
one-frequency installation, or a dual frequency
configuration. Unless an installation is specifically
intended for a limited number of specified vessels
using one frequency, a dual frequency set-up would
be preferred to ensure availability, which would
consequently have a positive impact on utilisation.
Any installation will mainly comprise of standard
components, ensuring availability and relatively low
cost. It is the application and combination of
components that is relatively specialised. The knowhow to design an OPS installation exists with multiple
suppliers, catering for a competitive environment thus
reducing cost.
One possible challenge ports may face is that of
upstream grid capacity. Investments are impossible to
generalise, however any reinforcement is expected to
be costly and requires significant co-ordination and
interaction between the port authority and the grid
owner.
9.8
Commercial / Cost /
Investment aspects
From a ship owner’s perspective an evaluation to
invest in OPS needs to consist of the following
considerations:
− Time at sea vs. time in port
− Cost of bunkers for onboard electricity production
− Cost of maintenance, repairs etc for onboard
electricity production
− Cost of electricity while at berth
− Installation cost
As most sources indicate that onboard production of
electricity costs around one third more than the shoreside grid price, subject to power supplier mark-up, an
investment will pay off. The cost reduction per
consumed kWh needs to be weighed against the
investment, and based on the expected average time
spent at berth a pay-back time can be calculated.
Though different theories exist, it is not unlikely that the
upcoming restrictions on sulphur emissions in the
Baltic Sea will affect the local bunker prices, as
demand for low sulphur fuels will increase drastically.
As electricity prices are unlikely to be similarly
affected, the difference in price will increase even
further, thus making OPS a more attractive solution.
For a port, the investment evaluation will be slightly
different. The port will have an opportunity to profit on
supplying electricity, however too big a mark-up may
affect usage. Depending on the traffic type on the port
and average coverage on the berths, an investment
utilisation can be estimated.
A high proportion of transshipment in a port could
indicate that the port is geared towards primarily
global traffic. On the one hand, this means that vessels
are likely to spend limited time in port in relation to time
at sea, thus reducing the commercial argument for
investing in OPS. On the other hand, vessels engaged
in global liner operation typically trade on fixed routes,
which could lowers the investment threshold.
slightly more complex than that of the ship owner,
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.
The cost for grid re-inforcement will of course be a
central part in any ports’ investment analysis, and as
previously mentioned it will inevitably vary from port to
port.
From a business perspective, a reduction of noise and
emissions from a port could result in expansion of the
port’s activities, whereas it could be difficult to get the
required permissions for such an expansion should
noise and emissions grow along with the port.
9.9
Environmental benefit
A large number of studies from around the world show
that there are significant local environmental gains to
be made from deploying OPS in ports. The
environmental impact is primarily local rather than
global, although if applied on a massive scale OPS will
contribute to a decrease of CO2 emissions.
As research from Hamburg shows, calculating the
potential reduction in emissions to the air specifically
by implementing OPS is extremely complex. There are
a large number of variables that need to be taken into
account (e.g. other sources such as pollution from
road), which requires very advanced modelling tools
and a large amount of accurate data of ship
movements and vessel time at berth. The condition
and age of the ship engine also plays a role, as does
the possible impact of other emission-reducing
technologies onboard such as scrubbing or Selective
Catalytic Reduction.
In the North Sea region it is interesting to see that in
some locations noise pollution rather than air quality
seems to have been the main problem driving the
decision to invest in OPS technology. In Stockholm,
noise pollution in residential areas in proximity of the
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
buy renewable power. The main question to keep in
mind when evaluating the environmental benefit is how
many kwh of electricity is generated by renewable
sources onshore instead of by auxiliary engines
onboard. Hence, the longer time in port, the higher
environmental impact of any given OPS installation.
Although some might argue that instead of investing in
OPS it is better to save the money to invest in more
efficient and higher-impact solutions like LNG that will
become commercially viable in the future, it is
imperative to act on all levels to solve the pressing
local and global environmental problems.
Although some might argue that instead of investing in
OPS it is better to save the money to invest in more
efficient and higher-impact solutions like LNG that will
become commercially viable in the future, it is
imperative to act on all levels to solve the pressing
local and global environmental problems. The
alternative fuel LNG in combination with OPS is the
most sustainable and availiable option for the future.
The figure below describes and argues:
9.10 Status in the North Sea Region
In the North Sea region many ports are working hard to
improve their environmental performance and OPS is
one of a range solutions that may improve the
environment. The environment is indeed an important
issue for North Sea ports, however we have found that
OPS is far from the top priority for most ports.
There are currently very few installations in place and
the great majority are located in Sweden, which largely
has to do with strict environmental legislation.
However, many other ports across the region are in
different stages of progress towards implementing
OPS technology. Interesting examples include Norway,
Germany and the Netherlands.
In the great majority of cases it is the port or the local
authorities that have provided the main driving force
behind realising the investments (in Sweden often
based on legal requirements).
In regard to CSR as a primary driver, the FinnoSwedish company Stora Enso has been progressive in
regards to placing demands on its transport supply
chain to provide OPS.
Today CSR probably has a greater impact on the
business of a cruise liner, the customers of which are
holiday-makers, than on that of a
container vessel in the logistics
supply chain, which is further
away from the “end-consumer”.
52
10. Main findings
Shipping continues to significantly contribute to local
pollution and global emissions.
10.1 Regulatory issues
Although the technology has been available for a long
time, only a very small fraction of the ports in the CNSS
region (and globally) provide OPS as an option for
ships during port calls.
- Given the competitive pressures in the shipping
industry, and the lack of sector coordination
amongst ship owners, regulation is the only way
forward if the society requires a large-scale
implementation of ship to shore installations. OPS is
not a “chicken or egg” question and society must
lead the way in solving environmental problems.
There is increasing interest in OPS as an important tool
in combating local pollution, however the results of the
incentives and regulations provided by the public
sector in the North Sea Region has so far been very
poor (with the exception of Sweden).
When comparing OPS with other solutions we need to
have a long-term view of the investments (e.g. to
2050). In this perpsective, OPS makes a lot of sense
considering that fuel oil prices are likely to increase
and that shipping ultimately must take responsibility
(and pay) for its CO2 emissions. In addition, one could
see OPS as part of the general trend of an
“electrification of society” and of transport in particular.
Below follows a list of our main findings, divided into
four main categories, i.e regulatory, environmental,
commercial and technical issues.
- The European Union is committed to promoting OPS
technology and it is expected that the future
implementation of the Directive on Alternative Fuels
will result in wider deployment.
- 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
friendly solutions like OPS, that sometimes require
significant investment.
- In terms of regulation, as far as practically possible,
the same conditions regarding OPS should apply for
all ports to avoid competitive issues that ship
owners can take advantage of.
- 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
favour ship owners that have invested in OPS. Strict
environmental legislation, as in the case of Sweden,
has also proved to be very effective.
- Taxation is also a tool that society can use to make it
more commercially viable for ship owners to choose
shorebased power. The current situation places a
tax obligation on electricity generated on shore while
fuel oil burnt on ships carry no such tax. This might
change very soon though, due to the amendments
to the European Tax Directive.
- Environmental indices like ESI and CSI can be very
effective if developed in line with the future cost of
emissions and pollution. Their design could be
improved to further incentivise the various shipping
stakeholders.
53
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
- It is difficult for society to regulate and influence the
shipping sector due to its inherently international
nature. Making OPS mandatory for ships calling at
European ports would be one way to impose more
environmental control over the sector, bringing at
least a part of its emissions under the CO2 trading
system.
10.3 Commercial aspects
- For the ship owner, the key priority is to maintain a
stable revenue stream.
- Ship owners are sensitive to the needs of their cargo
customers. The various shipping indeces could
provide efficient tools to motivate customers to
demand OPS from their transport suppliers.
10.2 Environmental perspective
- OPS is the only clean shipping technology that
reduces all pollutants (NOx, SOx, PM and CO2) and
is compatible with MARPOL Annex VI.
- Local communities can influence the shipping
community by introducing OPS e.g. through the
application of differentiated port fees, which
promotes the use of more sustainable solutions.
- It is clear that the use of OPS will reduce the amount
of local emissions from ships at berth but we
acknowledge that electricity generation may
produce emissions of pollutants elsewhere,
depending on the power mix. Nevertheless, it may
be easier to mitigate emission and pollution from
large land-based power generation stations than
locally onboard ships due to better filtration
techniques and regulation.
- The environmental impact of OPS is dependant on
the size of the ship, the number of hours spent at
berth and the frequency of port calls. It is important
that priority is given to the ships causing the largest
emissions. Hence, it is important to always carry out
a proper environmental cost-benefit analysis.
- OPS is more effective if it is used on a large scale.
To be truly effective ships equipped with the
technology must be able to connect during all (or
most) port calls.
- It is important to bring CO2 on the global emissions
agenda in shipping.
54
- Although the situation varies greatly between
different port locations it is currently difficult to
finance infrastructure in ports without support from
the public sector. Most current OPS installations are
financed through a mix of different sources (local
authorities, EU, ship owners, etc.).
- Differentiated port dues can provide good incentives
for OPS, both for the port and for the ship owner.
- To stimulate investment specifically 0n the ship
owner side, the idea of a European fund, based on
the principle of the Norwegian NOx fund, would be
interesting. Ship owners would then have to pay a
fee based on its emissions (e.g. according to 2021
Tier III level), but then be able to apply for grants
from the fund to pay for investments aimed at
emission reductions. The Norwegian fund has
proved very effective in reaching targeted and
measureable effects and promoted technology
transfer in the industry. Such a fund could be
technology-neutral or specifically aimed to promote
OPS.
- The combination of an emissions fund and
differentiated port dues would have double effect
(providing both the carrot and the stick).
- In a commercial perspective, there are large
differences between different types of traffic, e.g.
cruise ships differ from cargo ships due to higher
power demand, CSR issues are more important
(cruise customers demand “clean” travel) and
public pressure is greater (due to their “visibility” in
local communities).
- Ferries and RoRO (frequent callers) are particularly
suited to use OPS (due to their higher rate of
utilisation)
- Ship owners should seriously consider OPS for both
environmental and economic reasons. Ship owners
must prepare for stricter environmental regulations,
which are highly likely to be enforced in the medium
to long term. In regard to the current price of
auxiliary fuel versus electricity from the onshore grid
it is already now significantly cheaper per kwh.
Provided that shore-side connections are readily
available in ports, the pay-back time for an onboard
installation is relatively short, e.g. about two years
for a 2500 lane meter RoRo vessel with 30% of its
operation in port.150
150
10.4 Technical issues
- The global technical standard is sufficient and has
solved the main incompatibility issues.
- More trade specific standards would be beneficial,
regarding maximum energy output, frequency
harmonization and standards in physical placement
of the HVSC on the ship and the quay respectively.
- Further work is needed to create a communication
protocol standard (safety, training, etc.).
- Three innovations increase the flexibility around
OPS: semi-transferrable systems, containerised OPS
and the power barge (power generation by
alternative fuel, LNG)
Calculated on the Dutch electricity price in 2011 (source, Eurostat)
55
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
11. Findings
11.1 Introduction
The following findings will help us to reach a reduction
in exhaust gas emissions from ships.
11.2 Regulatory issues
- It is generally recommended to increase the OPS
infrastructure investment in harbours by regulation
and effective incentive schemes
- The same tax regime should apply for onshore
power as for fuel oil within all EU / EEA ports.
- Differentiated port dues should be mandatory and
standardised for all ports in Europe.
- Reduced port fees for OPS users should
compensate for the (potentially) higher price of
electricity generated onshore compared with energy
produced on board.
- Promote same conditions for all ports – better
cooperation between ports to avoid competitive
issues that ship owners can take advantage of.
56
- Extend the SECA’s to the surrounding areas of the
North Sea for environmental reasons and to even the
playing field between ports operating in different
regions.
- New built vessels should be prepared for HVSC
according to required and harmonised standards.
- Introduce a CO2 quota for ships calling at European
ports
- Public bodies should keep the rate of utilisation as
the most important criteria when choosing which
ports should receive co-funding for OPS
investments. Thus, it seems reasonable to focus
their efforts on frequent liner traffic to maximise
system utilisation.
- The public sector at EU, national and regional level
as well as collective port associations have an
important role to play in promoting pragmatic and
solution-oriented co-operation and dialogue
between ports and ship owners to make informed
investment decisions regarding OPS.
11.3 Environmental issues
11.5 Technical issues
- Create an EU standard for NOx and PM emissions
from shipping
- A standard communication protocol needs to be
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
ships with the aim of reducing NOx and PM.
- Each port should implement an Emission
Management Plan which
-
puts priority on the bigger pollution
sources (e.g. cruise, ferries)
-
is based on EcoPorts or an
equivalent approach
11.4 Commercial aspects
- Differentiated port dues should become mandatory
in European ports (see above)
- Further development of the existing Shipping
Indices in relation to OPS
- All new built ships should always be fitted with OPS
- The location of the HVSC connection on the ship
should be standardised
- Ports, shipowners, designers, shipbuilders and
HVSC technology suppliers should continue the
work towards harmonisation of the technology more
intensely globally, considering both retrofit and
newbuilt vessels.
- It is recommended to implement stricter standards,
use and operation of the existing technology, from
used frequency and max output, trade-specific (type
of vessel berth etc), physical placement of
installations to communication protocols for the
phasing in and out of the powergrid on arrival and
departure of the berth.
- Explore the idea of a European clean shipping fund
(similar to the Norwegian NOx-fund), to make
shipping responsible for the costs of pollution and to
stimulate investment in cleaner technologies, incl.
OPS.
57
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
12. Bibliography
“Port of Southampton Master plan 2009-2030”, www.southamptonvts.co.uk
”Port Development Plan to 2025”, p. 82, Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, www.hafen-hamburg.de
AAPA, American Association of Port Authorities, “Port industry statistics”, http://www.aapa-ports.org, 2013-04-29
Arat, L. “Corporate Social Responsibility in Shipping Compnies in the Baltic Sea”, p. 19 The Centre for Maritime
Studies, University of Turku. www.merikotka.fi/julkaisut/CafeCSRraportti_LauraArat.pdf. Accessed on 2013-04-28.
Bankes-Hughes, L. “Iron age – spotlight on cold ironing”, Bunkerspot Aug/Sept. 2009, www.petrospot.com
Bellona, “Fakta om landstrom-prosjektet”. www.bellona.no. Accessed on 2013-04-28.
California Senate Bill No. 234. Accessed through www.legiscan.com. Accessed on 2013-04-28.
Californian Environmental Protection Agency – Air Resources Board.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/shorepower/meetings/10032012/presentation.pdf. Accessed on 2013-11-28
Clean Shipping Coalition, www.cleanshipping.org. Accessed on 2013-04-28.
Council Implementing Decision of 20 June 2011 authorising Sweden to apply a reduced rate of electricity tax to
electricity directly provided to vessels at berth in a port ("shore-side electricity") in accordance with Article 19 of
Directive 2003/96/EC (2011/384/EU). http://eur-lex.europa.eu. Accessed on 2013-12-01
Cruise Forward, www.cruiseforward.org/stories/environmental-stewardshiper Supply”
DNV, “LNG – a fuel for the container ship industry?”, www.dnv.com, 2013-04-29
Dr. Ash Sinha and Dr Martyn Lightfoot (eds). “Policies and Instruments – A baseline of Knowledge”. Report 1
CNSS project, February 2012.
ESPO “Position paper on the taxation of electricity provided through Onshore Power Supply (OPS) systems”,
2010-03-30. www.espo.be. Accessed on 2013-04-28.
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 EU’s maritime transport policy until 2018 /* COM/2009/0008 final”, www.eurlex.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/tent-implementation/priority-projects/doc/pp21.pdf. Accessed on 2013-04-28.
European Commission, press article, Siim Kallas, 2013-11-19
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_20102014/kallas/headlines/news/2013/11/cef_en.htm. Accessed on 2013-12-01
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, 2011EU-21002-P” www.tentea.ec.europa.eu. Accessed on 2013-04-28
European Commission. “Connecting Europe Facility: Commission adopts plan for€50 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/sustainability2009/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/wpcontent/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.
Norén, 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 Post’s 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 Skattenedsättning för 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
13. List of interviewees and references
Port authorities, municipal and regional authorities
Stockholm
Rotterdam
• Gun Rudeberg, Head of Environmental Affairs, Port
of Stockholm
• Ilka Ringdahl, Technical Manager, Port of Stockholm
• Per Blomstrand, Deputy CEO, Stockholm Stad AB
• Maurits Prinssen, Project manager Sustainable
Development, Port of Rotterdam
Gothenburg
• Susanne Dutt, Sustainability Manager, Port of
Gothenburg
Ystad
• Björn Boström, CEO, Port of Ystad
• Cecilia Ejlertsson, Environmental Manager, Port of
Ystad
Trelleborg
• Ulf Sonesson, Technical manager, Port of Trelleborg
• Sten Björck, local politician (Social Democratic
Party), City of Trelleborg
Skåne Regional Council
• Thomas Ney, Infrastructure strategist
Wallhamn
• Tedd Juhlin, Port Captain
60
Copenhagen / Malmö
• Bengt-Olof Jansson, Chief Technical Officer,
Copenhagen/Malmö Port Authority (CMP)
Hamburg
• Kay-Uwe Mathiessen, Dept. for Emission Control
and Firms, Ministry of Urban Development and
Environment (BSU)
• Hendrik Hollstein, Environmental Strategy, Hamburg
Port Authority
• Ines Bewersdorff-Behrens, Dept. for Emission
Control and Firms, Ministry of Urban Development
and Environment (BSU)
• Klaus de Buhr, Dept. for Emission Control and
Firms, Ministry of Urban Development and
Environment (BSU)
• Suzanna Fistric, Cruise ship consultant, Ministry of
Economy Transport and Innovation
• Hape Schneider, Executive Assistant, HafenCity
Hamburg Gmbh
European Union
Ship owners
• Pieter de Meyer, Policy Officer (Ports and Inland
Navigation), Directorate General for Mobility and
Transport (MOVE), European Commission
• Frederik Neuwahl, Policy Officer (Industrial
Emissions, Air Quality & Noise), Directorate General
for Environment (ENV), European Commission
• Ingemar Sörensson, Stena Line Scandinavia, Ship
Management
• Dick van der Ent, Stena Line Rotterdam
• Leif Holmberg, Transatlantic, Technical Manager
• Joachim Lund, Thun Tankers, Chartering Manager
• Hans Lindgren, Furetank Chartering, Operations
• Josefin Lundgren, Maersk Tankers, Technical
Superintendent
• Ken Dorn Hansen, Maersk Tankers, Fleet Group
Manager
• Gustav Lind, Maersk Tankers, Operations
• Jorgen Hansen, Maersk Line, ex Maersk Marine
Technology
• Gert Jakobsen, DFDS
Research
• Volker Matthias, Head of Department, Chemistry
Transport Modelling, Helmholz-Centrum Institute of
Coastal Research
• Armin Aulinger, Scientist, Chemistry Transport
Modelling, Helmholz-Centrum Institute of Coastal
Research
• Alan Murphy, Newcastle University
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 Kärnestedt, Gothenburg Energi
Göran Lundgren, GL Add Wise
Erik Lindén, Remigium AB
Tomas Lust, Marine Global Group
Ingemar Gustavsson, Processkontroll Elektriska
Lorene Grandidier, Schneider Electric.
61
Photo: Volker Matthias
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY (OPS) SURVEY
62
63
FINAL REPORT KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CNSS: Competitive Marine Transport
Services and Reduction of Emissions
– a North Sea Model
www.cnss.no
Photo front XXXXXX
LEAD
BENEFICIARY