Onshore Power Supply (OPS) – Project

Susann Dutt, Port of Göteborg, SwedenEnvironmental Controller, Coordinator of the OPS project within World Ports Climate Initiativesusann.dutt@portgot.se, +46 31 731 29 63

Shore-side electricity • Shore-connected electricity supply • Shore power •• Ship-to-shore • Cold ironing • Alternative Maritime Power (AMP)

Content of the presentation Introduction

- The technology- Best practice- Pros and cons- The guidance document

The OPS Project- Participating ports & Goal- The OPS website- Result from the questionnaire

Conclusions How to get involved!

IAPH Africa/Europe Regional Meeting 2009, Hamburg, Germany

6-20kV

6-20kV 20-100kV

onboard transformer

sub station

connection point

6-20kV

Introduction - The technology – high voltage

Connection principlesOPS with high voltage, for a ro/ro-vessel

• OPS replaces onboard generated power from diesel auxiliary engines with electricity generated on-shore (high voltages)

• Growing interest for implementing OPS due to - bad air quality in port cities- the climate crises- predicted rise of oil price

WikipediaCold Ironing is the process of providing shore-side electrical power to a ship at berth while its main and auxiliary engines are turned off. Cold ironing permits emergency equipment, refrigeration, cooling, heating, lighting, and other equipment to receive continuous electrical power while the ship loads or unloads its cargo.

Introduction – Best practice

Connecting a Ro/ro-vessel in Port of Göteborg

- Port of Göteborg first port in the world to offerOPS high voltage for cargo vessels in year2000, in close collaboration with Stora Enso

- About 10 vessels are connecting (ro/ro and ferries), >20 % of the calls- Significant reduction in local air pollutants (NOx, SO2, PM, VOC)

- Additional benefits noise & working conditions- When using a renewable energy sourceemissions of greenhouse gases can be keptto a minimum

- All new quays are prepared with canalizationfor OPS

- Vision to connect all ferries and roro vessels!

Introduction – Best practicePortsGöteborg, Lübeck, Zeebrügge, Ro/ro and/orKotka, Kemi, Oulu FerriesJuneau, Seattle CruiseAntwerp Container Port of Los Angeles Container Port of Long Beach ContainerSan Fransisco, San Diego ...

Ship owner/Goods owner/Line Management NYK, China Shipping, Evergreen, MOL, Princess Cruise, Stena Line, Stora Enso, Wagenborg, TransAtlantic, SOL, TransLumi, Cobelfret …

SuppliersABB, ESL, Cavotec, Siemens, SAM, Terasaki, Patton & Cooke, Callenberg Engineering ....

Port of Göteborg, photo The New York Times/Dean C.K. Cox

Container terminal, Port of Los Angeles

Current cases using OPS (high voltage)

Ports planning/investigating for OPS

Source: Shore-side power supply, A feasibility study and a technical solution for an on-shore electrical infrastructure to supply vessels with electric power while in port, Master of Science Thesis, Patrik Ericsson, Ismir Fazlagic (2008)

Please help us to make the picture complete!

Introduction - Pros and cons

+ Significant reduction of local air emissions+ Elimination of noise and vibration+ Improved working conditions+ When renewable energy or EU el mix is used

greenhouse gases are reduced+ Exemption from the requirement of using

0,1 % sulphur content fuel, 2010+ Economic advantages if the oil price rise

- No environmental benefit during the journey - Ports and vessels have to be retrofitted- Converting 60 Hz / 50 Hz raises the cost

significantly- No existing standard, but under progress

within ISO and IEC

The energy for OPS in Port of Göteborg comes from two wind mills

Introduction - The Guidance Document

• At World Ports Climate Conference in Rotterdam, July 2008- A Guidance document – Onshore Power Supply

The content of the Guidance Document: 1. Background2. Guidance for implementation (Plan, Do, Check, Act) 3. Best practices and case studies4. Pros and cons5. Frequently asked questions

www.portgot.se (Environment-World Ports Climate Initiative)

The OPS Project within WPCI

Overall goal –Reduce local air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions by stimulating as many ports, terminal operators and shipping lines worldwide to implement the technology of OPS where practical and useful.

Detailed goal –To stimulate the further use of Onshore Power Supply (OPS) by designing and building a web based application, which provides practical guidance on OPS, available for all ports. The application should also contain information for other stakeholders such as terminal operators and shipping lines.

Project leader: Susann Dutt, Port of Göteborg, susann.dutt@portgot.seWorking group: Amsterdam, Antwerp, Göteborg, Hamburg + IAPH+CE Delft

1. Environment & health- Methods to measure/calculate and maximize

the environmental benefits of OPS- Air quality- Climate- Noise and vibration

2. Costs- Methods to measure/calculate and maximize

the cost effectiveness of OPS- Operational costs- Investments- Technical solutions

3. Step - by - step implementation guide

- Important parameters to consider in eachstep of implementing OPS

- The standard (ISO)- Legal framework/policies

4. Best practice/business cases- Best practice/business cases

(container, ro/ro, cruise..)- Arguments for introducing the technology- Commercial set ups- How to approach/convince/sell the idea to a

terminal operator/shipping company

The OPS Website – Content

5. GeneralFrequently asked questions Glossary Links to other websites with experienceReference to other solutions to improve air quality in ports and control emission of green house gasesLibrary/further reading (feasability studies)

The OPS Website – Important criteria

Clean

Informative

Balanced

Modern

Green/blue

Easy to use/navigate

Something you would like to add?

Please let me know in the Coffee Break!

The OPS Website - GeneralGoal:Stimulate the further use of Onshore Power Supply (OPS) byproviding relevant and practical guidance on OPS via a website

Target group:Primarily portsBut also terminal operators, shipping lines and other stakeholdersNot the electrical experts, they will have the standard!

Time schedule:Second draft of website ready for comments mid January 2010Ready for release by end of February 2010 Promotion of the website via IAPH, ESPO, Ecoports ….

Challenge:How to keep the website updated/maintained in the long runLanguage

Electronic questionnaire on OPS

Spring/summer 2009

Aim:- To get an idea about the current status and future plans regarding OPS- To give important input to the upcoming work within the OPS project- Be reference information when evaluating the project

Was sent out to alla WPCI members + port community via ESPO, Green Port Journal, WPCI website, Port of Göteborg website and via different Port Associations.

Result from OPS questionnaire (1)

53 ports, Europe (41), North America (4), Asia (3), Australia/Oceania (3),Africa (2)

24 out of these 53 ports were WPCI members:Europe (14), North America (4), Asia (3), Australia (3)

17 provide OPS today, 6 high voltage and/or 14 low voltage 85 % answer yes or maybe on the question if they plan to introduce/expand

the technology within 5-10 years A majority, 86%, will invest in OPS high voltage Main arguments for introducing/expanding the technology:

Environmental benefits (85%) Reputation/goodwill (63%)Benefit for the society (48%)Customers (35%)

18 ports are planning to introduce/expand OPS for Container,14 for cruise, 21 for ro/ro and 16 ports for other kind of ships.

Main arguments when introducing OPS (17 ports offering OPS today):

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

License to operate

Economical benefits for the port

Environmental authority

Local citizens

Benefits for society

Reputation/goodwill

Customers

Environmental benefits

WPCI17 ports

WPCI = 9 ports

Is your port planning to introduce/ expand the technology to more quays within 5-10 years?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Yes Maybe No

All ports

All ports not offering OPStoday(36)WPCI

All ports = 53/53All ports not offering OPS today 36/36WPCI = 24/24

Reason for not introducing the technology (8 ports):

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Difficulties in concinving the terminal operator

Difficulties in convincing the ship owner

Lack of information

Lack of interested stakeholders

Environmental benefit is too low

Technological problems

Lack of enough power

Cost effectiveness is too low

No feasibility study has been carried out

Other reason

If you answered yes/maybe what is the main argument/s to introduce/expand the technology?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Economical benefits

License to operate

Local citizens

Environmental authority

Customers

Benefits for society

Reputation/goodwill

Environmental benefits

WPCI40 ports

WPCI = 22/23

Is your port considering other measures to improve the environmental performance from shipping while at berth?

48%52%

YesNo

59% of the ports offering OPS are considering other measures, 10 out of 1770% of the responding WPCI ports are considering other measures, 16 out of 23

Other measures:Environmental differentiated harbour dues to stimulate the clean shipping,Alternative fuels, scrubbers, non-grid based power supply, ESI study,AMECS, environmental ship indexing system, energy efficient equipment in the port….

Result from OPS questionnaire (2)

About 80% of the corresponding ports would like to share experiencewith the OPS project.

All except one port would like to be informed about the progress withinthe WPCI Onshore Power Supply project.

Other comments from the questionnaire:” The lack of standards for the connection has to be solved”” In my opinion standardisation of connectors on ship and shore

as well as frequencies need to be achieved before any significant take upof shore power will occur”” Regarding introduction of OPS we will continously make efforts

to collect information on the trend of the national governmentand other ports in Japan”

Conclusions

• Great interest in the technology

• Main arguments are: Environmental benefits (85%) Reputation/goodwill (63%) Benefit for the society (48%)

• Mainly dealing with local air pollutants, but greenhouse gasescould be kept to a minimum when using alternative energy

• One alternative out of many to grow green, should preferablybe combined with other measures

• The OPS project - about reducing local air pollutants andgreenhouse gas emissions by stimulating as many ports, terminaloperators and shipping lines worldwide to implement thetechnology of OPS where practical and useful.

• A balanced website with good information on OPS will be set upand ready for launch February 2010.

• Great interest in the OPS project as well as sharing experience

How could your port get involved?- Take part of the Guidance document

- Share your own experience

- Keep yourself updated atwww.portgot.sewww.wpci.nl

-Be a pilot port in January2010 for the websiteBremen, Oslo, POLA, IAPH Tokyo, Valencia, Marseilles

- susann.dutt@portgot.se+ 46 31 731 29 63

Thank you for your attention!

Bonus pictures

Environmental benefit

Fuel consumption

onboard the ship

Not a life cycle analysis

Electricityconsumption

onboardthe ship

Transmission of electricity

Electricityproduction

Transportationof oil

Refinementof oil

Transportationof oilExtraction of oil

Transportationof raw material

Extraction of raw material

Pink parts are included in the emission calculated

Electricity for onshore power supply

Oil for using auxiliary engine

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

NOx SO2 PM*10 CO2/100

g/kW

h

Aux 2,7%

Aux 0,1%

OPS EU El mix

OPS Wind power

Environmental benefits

Source: Entec, Shore-side electricity report (2005), Wind power statistics from the local supplier, Din el (2009)

Environmental benefits

Source: Entec, Shore-side electricity report (2005) blue and green bars

NEA, Nuclear Energy Outlook (2008), Methodex Emissions calculator, grey bars

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

NOx SO2 PM*10 CO2/100

g/kW

h OPS CoalAux 2,7%Aux 0,1%OPS EU El mix

Commercial analysis - variables

• Bunker price• Electricity price

- tax• Investment

-Retrofitting or new built ship-Retrofitting or new built port- 50/60 Hz- number of calls

• CO2 – price?• Cost sharing between port

authority, port terminal and shipowner

Development of the bunker price for MGO Marine Gas Oil which is requiered in EU ports from Jan 2010 Source: ICE

ICE Gasoil price development

-

200,00

400,00

600,00

800,00

1 000,00

1 200,00

1 400,0020

07-1

1-01

2007

-12-

01

2008

-01-

01

2008

-02-

01

2008

-03-

01

2008

-04-

01

2008

-05-

01

2008

-06-

01

2008

-07-

01

2008

-08-

01

2008

-09-

01

2008

-10-

01

2008

-11-

01

2008

-12-

01

2009

-01-

01

2009

-02-

01

2009

-03-

01

2009

-04-

01

2009

-05-

01

2009

-06-

01

2009

-07-

01

2009

-08-

01

2009

-09-

01

2009

-10-

01

US$

/MT

Oct 2009 640US$/tonne

Oct 2008 1000US$/tonne

Commercial analysis of OPS vs Auxiliary engineCase ro/ro Sweden-today Oct - 09

Variable dataAux Engine CostsOPS Costs

Port A Port B

2 calls/week 2 calls/week

General dataExchange rate 0,62 €/$Bunker price MGO 0,1% 640 $/MTRetrofitting of quay 200 000 €/quayExternal fundings 60 000 €/quayPower demand 1 200 kWStop over time 14 tim Energy demand 16 800 kWh/callCall per week 4 number/weekBunker consumption per produced energy 0,20 kg/KWhMaintenance cost auxiliary engine 0 €/hMaintenance cost OPS 0 €/quay, yearElectricity cost excl tax 0,060 €/kWhElectricity tax 0,025 €/kWhElectricity cost incl tax 0,085 €/kWhCO2 cost 0,0 €/MTCO2/MT bunker 2,6 MT/MT

Auxiliary engineBunker cost 277 316 €/yearMaintenance cost 0 €/yearCO2 cost 0 €/yearSum 277 316 €/year

OPS on ShipCost to retrofit the vessel 400 000 €Number of ships 1Total investment cost 400 000 €Pay off time 10 YearInterest 6,0%Capital cost 54 347 €/yearElectricity cost 297 024 €/yearSum 351 371 €/year

OPS in PortNumber of quays 2Investment for all quays 280 000 €Pay off time 10 YearInvestment interest 6,0%Capital cost 38 043 €/yearMaintenance cost 0 €/yearSum 38 043 €/yearTotal Cost/Saving -112 099

Bunker

Ship invest

Port invest

Electricity

El. tax

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

250 000

300 000

350 000

400 000

450 000

500 000

Cos

t €/y

ear

Aux Engine OPS

Case ro/ro Sweden-today Oct - 09

Bunker: 640 $/tonneCost: 110 000 €/year

Case ro/ro Sweden-yesterday Oct - 08

Bunker: 1 000 $/tonneSaving: 44 000 €/year

Bunker

Ship invest

Port invest

Electricity

El.tax

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

250 000

300 000

350 000

400 000

450 000

500 000

Cos

t €/y

ear

Aux Engine OPS

Case ro/ro Sweden- tomorrow? Oct -XX

Bunker: 640 $/tonne, no electricity tax

Cost: 25 000 €/year

Ship invest

Bunker

Port invest

Electricity

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

250 000

300 000

350 000

400 000

450 000

500 000

Cos

t €/y

ear

Aux Engine OPS

Case ro/ro Sweden- tomorrow? Oct -XX

Bunker: 640 $/tonne, no electricity tax, predicted CO2 price 15 €/tonne

Cost saving: 2 500 €/year

Ship invest

Bunker

Port invest

Electricity

CO2

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

250 000

300 000

350 000

400 000

450 000

500 000

Cos

t €/y

ear

Aux Engine OPS

Case ro/ro Sweden- tomorrow? Oct -XX

Bunker: 1 000 $/tonne, no electricity tax, predicted CO2 price 15 €/tonne

Cost saving: 160 000 €/year

Bunker

Ship invest

Port invest

Electricity

CO2

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

250 000

300 000

350 000

400 000

450 000

500 000

Cos

t €/y

ear

Aux Engine OPS

050 000

100 000150 000200 000250 000300 000350 000400 000450 000500 000

500

540

580

620

660

700

740

780

820

860

900

940

980

1020

Bunker price $/tonne

€/ye

ar

AUX+CO2AUXOPSOPS excl tax

Break even points

External and internal/direct costs

Comparison of external and internal costs for onboard and shore-side generation of electricity for a roro case using Gasoil 0,1% and EU el. mixSource: Entec, Shore-side Electricity report for EU Comission DG Env (2005), Holland Mike and Watkiss Paul, Estimates of the marginal external costs of air pollution in Europe BeTa version E 1.02a (2002)

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

Aux 0,1 OPS

€/kW

h External costDirect cost

Using wind power will make it evenmore favourable!

Experiences so far

• Operative since 2000 without anymajor incidents or problems

• Maintenance costs for aux engineskept to a minimum

• Reduced CO2 emissions by ~2 500 tons per vessel and year

• Noise reduction positive for the environment and crew

• Cost effective

Running cost for a connected shipdata from Stora Enso 2008

Shore powerInvestment• ~200 000€ per vessel• ~500 000€ per port

Running costs• ~70 000€ power supply per vessel

Savings• ~60 000€ MGO in port

• Extra cost per year 90 000€• Extra cost per day 246€• Extra cost per lm: 0,18€ 2.5€ per trailer

Connecting a Ro/ro-vessel in Port of Göteborg

Cable connected to the vessel

– Brödtext

Connection point at the quay

Outlet at the quay, connection point