Appendix I: SWOT analysis

The use of a shore connection rather than auxiliary engines allows all pollution and noise from berthed vessels in the port to be reduced. Of course, to measure total emissions reductions, the entire electricity production supply chain must be taken in consideration, including grid emissions factors. According to Entec report in 2005, power plants have a far higher performance than ship power Auxiliary Engines in terms of pollution. As OPS is used instead of bunker fuel, NOx, SOx, and PM are reduced by around 90% on average even if a fossil fuel power plant provided the shore connection to vessels (Entec, 2005).

Indeed, according to (Arduino et al., 2011), the OPS system allows for the reduction of more than 30% of CO₂ emissions and more than 95% of NOx and particulate matter emissions thanks to its higher performance and pollution limiting capabilities. It has been shown that a cruise ship's emissions fell from 72.2 to 50.1 tons of CO₂, from 1.47 to 0.04 tons of nitrogen oxide, and from 1.23 to 0.04 tons of Sulphur oxide during 10 hours at berth.

Furthermore, emissions from power plants, such as air pollutants, noise and vibrations, are more likely to be emitted in less heavily populated areas than in ports, resulting hence in lower external costs. By contrast, Low-sulfur fuel decreases SOx emissions from ships, but has seemingly no impact on NOx and CO₂.

In order to achieve the maximum reduction of emissions from ships while at berth, the Port of Stockholm, one of the forefront implementing clean technologies to meet the expectations of the city of Stockholm to become fossil fuel free city by 2040. In this context, and in order to contribute to this target as a public port owned by the city, and knowing that the use of OPS rather than Auxiliary engine reduce CO₂ emission by 50% in average (Entec, 2005), the Authority of Stockholm Port get the support from the city to widen the use of OPS facilities aiming to reach the first milestone aiming to decrease by 25% the GHG emissions compared to 2019 which is approximately 8,000 ton of CO₂ reduction in 4 years declared the environmental expert of Stockholm Port: “We need to decrease the CO₂ emissions from shipping activities by 8000 tons during this 4 years’ period”. Once this mission is accomplished, 50% less CO₂ emissions is the next goal to reach by 2030 than aiming to be zero carbon emissions Port by 2040 as the port expert explained in the interview: “We have a target of 25% decrease in CO₂ emissions by 2025 then we plan for 50% decrease by 2030 and aim for zero emission by 2040” (Charlotta Solerud: Stockholm Port Environmental Strategist, interview 2021-07-01).

 

An additional benefit of suppling vessel with shore electricity at berth and switching off the Auxiliary engines, is obviously the elimination of mechanical and exhaust Noise generated together with mechanical vibration resulting from diesel combustion cycle (Entec, 2005). Therefore, for the personnel working in close proximity to the Auxiliary engines or involved in loading/unloading operations, eliminating noise level ranging from 90 to 120 dB is one of the strength of using OPS at ports (Program & Energy, 2019). Although the Port and the city of Stockholm are getting closer and many building are in proximity to the Port areas referring to the expert of Stockholm port, the study conducted shows almost no difference in term of noise level when the ship is connected to OPS or not: “This noise study shows almost no difference in the noise levels when ship is connected and when it is not” (Svante Åberg Gassbo: Electrical Manager Stockholm Port, Interview 2021-07-01). However, the port Authority plan the effect when it comes to cruise ships connected to shore power once the installations are ready in place and compare the results.

A big issue of scaling up Cold Ironing was the lack of international standards for the equipment, which consequently resulted to a jungle of different kind of frequency, transformers, plugs and safety regulations.

IEC, ISO, and IEEE, three international standardization organizations, have collaborated to ensure that ships can connect to shore power in a consistent, quality-assured, secure, and efficient manner. As a result, shore grids specifications have been established that cover both high voltage standards (IEC/ IEEE DIS 80005-1) and low voltage shore connection schemes (IEC/ PAS 80005-3). Besides, (ISO_354, 2003) indicates that a protocol for data transmission for monitoring and control of high and low voltage shore connections has already been released by the standardization organizations under the standard (IEC/ IEEE DIS 80005-2). The High Voltage standard applies to applications requiring more than 1000KVA of power, while the Low Voltage standard applies to applications requiring less than or equal to 1000KVA of power (Bergen og Omland Havnevesen, 2018).

Therefore, ships can now call at various ports without having to make changes to their installed systems thanks to the standardization of shore connection facilities. A standardized system of connecting, in addition to the previously stated advantages of performance and safety, allows for greater use of the existing shore connection systems onboard ship and in port, potentially enhancing the overall economic case and return on investment.

The specifications provided by the international guidelines for the following High Voltage (INTERNATIONAL, 2019) and Low Voltage (Pas, 2008) shore connection installations in terms of design, operation, testing and equipment’s such as:

However, functional elements such as the location of the plug connection on the vessel side are not covered by the standard. Since ships do not have a regular communication point, mobile facilities in ports are needed. The cost of establishing and operating a mobile facility is higher than that of a fixed facility, raising the OPS investment costs (Bergen og Omland Havnevesen, 2018).

Larger auxiliary engines maintenance frequency:

The ship operator's public image is from big importance nowadays not only within the shipping industry but for the customers as well that become as much as a fundamental criterion for the selection of the ship for the charterer for instance to benefit from lower fees and environmental incentives and for the cruise ships as well as the competence is within its high level and influenced by details related to the wellbeing of the people and environment surrounding the Port areas. Thus, by retrofitting their fleet with installation to connect to OPS, ship-owners not only seek public satisfaction as the expert of Stockholm port mention about cruise ship-owners: “The awareness among the cruise shipping companies is quite high now” (Charlotta Solerud: Stockholm Port Environmental Strategist, interview 2021-07-01), but one of the biggest driver will be the lower maintenance costs resulting from the use of electrical power rather than high-priced Low-Sulphur diesel. In this context, ship-owners will kill two birds with one stone so to speak, no diesel consumption while the vessel is laying at berth in addition to the maintenance cost saving from less auxiliary engines function hours. As a result, ship owners will be motivated to use OPS services as much as possible in order to support their investments (Zis, 2019).

It is obvious that infrastructure is a fundamental part in the expansion of any emerging technologies. Thus, Ports have been the subject of incentives and regulations to implement OPS on a European basis. However, those legislations primarily result in strong investment expenditure at the port level, with very little expectation of future profits and the expert of Stockholm port emphasis this point in the interview by claiming that: “I would say that the major barrier to overcome in OPS solution is that it’s very hard to get the investment profitable (Svante Åberg Gassbo: Electrical Manager Stockholm Port, Interview 2021-07-01). As a result, this unprecedented situation in which new OPS infrastructures are needed for ships to reduce in-port pollution poses a burning question: who should be in charge for it? Since there are so many players concerned in various business scenarios in ports such as government, Port Authority, terminal Operators and ship owners, the answer isn't straightforward (Winkel et al., 2016).

Although from the port's view, the OPS investment could result in lower pollution, cleaner air, and a better public perception, however, if the number of ships calling the Port and able to receive shore power is not enough, the advantages of installing OPS at berths would be minimal, and other green investments, such as renewable fuel or speed reduction, could be preferable (Zis, 2019). The preceding analysis reveals that ports share the majority of the financial pressure, which is handled explicitly by regulations to provide facilities for OPS but does not benefit from offset initiatives. In the opposite, it seems that energy producers and suppliers benefit from these laws without having to make any contributions.

If only a small number of ports can provide shore power technology, the ship operator might prefer other alternatives. Therefore, depending on ship and terminal type, this matching could be easier for Ro-Ro ships for instance that only sail between two or a few more ports, or extremely difficult for big containerships that frequent a dozens of ports in their timetable. Besides, the port of Stockholm for instance gives 1 million SEK as incentive to retrofit ship to connect with OPS. However, right now, these incentives are given merely to Ro-Ro ferry ships because those type of ships usually sail between only two ports which make the installation more profitable for the ship (more lay time at berth) as the expert of Stockholm port clearly mention it: “that one million Swedish crowns, that's for the regular traffic. So that's for the Ro-Ro ferry traffic mainly” (Charlotta Solerud: Stockholm Port Environmental Strategist, interview 2021-07-01). This dilemma put the Port Authorities in difficult situation when it comes to scaling up OPS technology in all berths. Stockholm Port Authority for example is in continuous discussion not only with other neighbor Ports such as Helsinki and Copenhagen but also with Cruise ship owners which own cruise ships that sail mainly between those 3 ports, in order to find a compromise on how they can participate partially in the capital cost of the investment to reach a rational agreement to get the ball rolling as it is pointing out by our expert: “the cruise customers have to pay at least a part of the investment” (Charlotta Solerud: Stockholm Port Environmental Strategist, interview 2021-07-01). The previous situation can be viewed as a chicken-and-egg issue, in which ports will not invest until a sufficient number of ships are able to use OPS facilities, and shipping companies will not retrofit vessels until enough ports are able to provide shore electricity (Zis, 2019).

Different frequencies and voltages for ships calling the Port:

The major challenge to broad Cold Ironing adoption has been the shortage of compatibility between the ship and the Port grid, as there is no international standard for voltage and frequency. This lack of compatibility concerns electricity parameters due to the difference of standards in international yards, Ships have no uniform voltage and frequency requirement. Some vessels use 50 Hz frequency and some use 60 Hz. Furthermore, primary distribution voltage can vary from 440 volts to 11 kilovolts depending on the vessel type and equipment’s need. Load requirement varies from ship to ship and ranges from a few hundred kW in case of car carriers to a dozen or more MW in case of passenger or cruise ships (The et al., 2011).

The European Union grid, for example, use 50 Hz as frequency, while that of the US and Japan is 60Hz. Thus, the frequency used onboard vessels can be either 50 or 60 Hz. Some equipment onboard ships running on 60 Hz, such as lighting and heating, may be able to run on 50 Hz, but this is a minor portion of the ship's overall power demand. However, machinery such as pumps and cranes that are powered by single or three-phase motors that mainly rely on frequency level to determine their speed of operation, would be unable to operate at their design speed and might cause damage to the equipment in case of different frequency use. A ship using 60 Hz electricity will therefore require that the frequency in the European grid be converted from 50 to 60 Hz using frequency convertor before connection to Onshore Power Supply (Ericsson, 2008). The majority of onshore power in Stockholm Port for instance is supplied to vessels with 50Hz frequency while referring to the expert of Stockholm Port, a frequency converter is using to supply 60Hz frequency to some ships and they are planning more frequency converter installations to be able to supply cruise ship in the coming OPS project as he declared in the interview: “We have 60 hertz and the rest of them are 50Hz. But now we're building also for cruise ships, and they are 50/60 Hertz. But otherwise we are going with 50Hz with the Ferry vessels” (Svante Åberg Gassbo: Electrical Manager Stockholm Port, Interview 2021-07-01).

 

One of the criteria considered when evaluating the effectiveness of an investment is the Pay-Back Period. In our case, investing in Onshore Power facilities represent a big challenge for Port Authorities when it comes to the financial aspect. It is extremely difficult for some Ports to engage in implementing this technology without any subsidies or incentives from the government or other non-governmental entities. To explain more this issue, the Port Authorities in Sweden for example are not allowed to sell electricity supplied at berth, therefore, the benefit from installing OPS is limited to the additional Port’s fee required from the ship-owners and the expert of Stockholm Port emphasis this issue by claiming that: “As a public port, we are not allowed to sell the electricity, so we only transfer the same cost, because we have the agreement with the electricity supplier, and then we just transfer the electricity, and the same price that we pay, to the vessel, to the ship company. So we do not get any profit on the electricity, we have just what we call it a service fee, an annual service fee that the shipping company is paying every year for the installation” (Charlotta Solerud: Stockholm Port Environmental Strategist, interview 2020-10-26). As a result, the Pay-Back Period of the Cold Ironing investment is very long compared to other alternative such as the use of LNG. 

 

Notwithstanding the fact that Onshore Power Supply is one of the best alternative to tackle air pollution, GHG emissions, Noise and vibration at Ports, but financing this technology still a big challenge for Port Authorities. In this context, the Port of Stockholm for instance has joined the EU coordinated supply of Onshore power in Baltic seaports projects and has received an EU funding of 2.3 million € (Ports of Stockholm, 2017), in addition to a significant local financial support from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency estimated to 2.7 million € to equip two central quays for cruise ships in Stockholm port with OPS installation which according to the expert of Stockholm Port in our interview is planned to be ready by 2024 as he highlighted: “It's actually larger than the EU funding. When it comes to the Cruise ship OPS investment, the funding from the Swedish national funding is very important and bigger than the EU funding, actually I think it's 2.7 perhaps million Euro” (Svante Åberg Gassbo: Electrical Manager Stockholm Port, Interview 2021-07-01).

A grant of SEK 1 million is offered from the Port of Stockholm to every ship that carries out retrofitting operations to be enable to connect to onshore power supply. This applies for the quays where Ports of Stockholm offers onshore power supply (Ports of Stockholm, 2017). Furthermore, from the interview conducted with an expert from Stockholm Port, she claimed that the ship seeking for this incentive should be in regular traffic for at least 3 years to Stockholm Port as she said: “the ship has to be at least three years in traffic at this quay in Stockholm, in regular traffic, to be able to get this one million” (Charlotta Solerud: Stockholm Port Environmental Strategist, interview 2020-10-26).

To raise the investment profitability of Cold Ironing, the investment expenses must be decreased or the operating time during which Ships are connected to shore electricity, must be increased. In this Context, collaborating with other ports may be beneficial not only for Port Authorities but for Ship-owners too. Therefore, the Stockholm Port has intensified the collaboration with other ports in the Baltic sea such as the Port of Helsinki and Tallinn in order to unify and to ensure the compatibility of the equipment installed in those Ports and onboard ships berthing within those regions as claimed our expert from Stockholm Port: “It’s very important, to have a dialogue with other ports on the other side of the Baltic Sea, such as the Port of Helsinki and the Port of Tallinn. It’s very important that the technique that they are using in that port, is also compatible with our port and with the technique onboard” (Charlotta Solerud: Stockholm Port Environmental Strategist, interview 2021-07-01). 

 

The high price of Marine Diesel Oil MDO, the long stay at berth in addition to the high fuel consumption while at port, result in the emerge demand from many shipping companies to have OPS facilities in place to enable ships to lower fuel consumption and emission as well as benefiting from the Port incentives.   

In this context, the manager of the Port of Stockholm has received after a successful dialogue, a confirmation from six cruise shipping companies that they will retrofit their ships to be able to connect to the shore electricity once it is available in 2023 as the expert said in the interview: “We have that dialogue as well with the customers, so we know that they are prepared and they are willing to use the investment” , “we have letter of support from six cruise shipping companies, that say that, if you in Stockholm, you have this OPS installation in 2023, we will use it when we come with our ships” and “Historically, it has been quite low, the customer demand, but now we can see that it’s increasing. But the low customer demand, has been a challenge before” (Charlotta Solerud: Stockholm Port Environmental Strategist, interview 2020-10-26).

To be more competent compared to the use of fossil fuels by ships at berth, incentives such as tax exemption for electricity supplying power to ships must be preserved by the Swedish government. This exemption is critical in providing a financial incentive to utilize shore-side power. The use of a lower-tax rate would improve the competitiveness of shore-side power in comparison to the tax-free burning of bunker fuels onboard ships at berth. Otherwise, the cost (Euro/kWh) to produce onshore electricity is 2 to 4 times higher than when the ship is using auxiliary engine on HFO or MDO without electricity tax exemption (Program & Energy, 2019). The expert of Stockholm Port confirms this statement in the interview by saying that: “We have an exemption now, in Sweden, to have that reduction. And I think that they are planning to implement this electricity tax exemption in the whole of EU, perhaps in one or two years” (Charlotta Solerud: Stockholm Port Environmental Strategist, interview 2020-10-26).

Installing Onshore Power Supply is highly depending on the abundance of the power supplied to Ports, due to the extra loads needed from the national grid to ensure generating electricity to many Ships berthing simultaneously. Therefore, Port Authority when considering to implement and to scale up OPS technology, should discuss and get consultation from the Local Supplier Company to investigate the impacts of extra electric loads on the Port Local grid possibility to keep providing decent power. The expert from the Port of Stockholm confirm those steps in the interview by pointing out that in  Stadsgården Port for example, they have planned to install OPS facilities with 8 and 16 Megawatts which represent a big power demand and they have to discuss all the details with the grid owner before carrying out any retrofitting operations: “You have to have this very active dialogue with the grid owner so you know that it’s possible to get the power that you need in the port” and “ So the grid owner is very important, because if they say it’s not possible, then it will be very difficult” (Charlotta Solerud: Stockholm Port Environmental Strategist, interview 2020-10-26). It is recommended in some cases to upgrade related equipment such as transformers or cables and to add developed generation units to the local grid namely additional power sub-stations (Tech, 2007).  

In order for the Port Authority to ensure connecting vessels at berth in safe and reliable way, port operators resort to IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005 standards that define the requirements for an efficient and safe connection using compatible shore to ship installation (INTERNATIONAL, 2021). As Highlighted in this international standards, connecting vessels to shore electricity may generate various risks due to the interface area between the shore and the ship which is favorable location for electric shocks. In this context, some concerns regarding not only the safety of the operators for ground fault interferences causing transferred touch potentials, but also the integrity of the vessel to connect that may be subjected to a galvanic corrosion (Ieee & Ieee, 2016).

Among the problems to overcome to make OPS technology more promoting, is the lack of space to retrofit the existing quays with Cold Ironing installations due to the huge equipment needed such as transformers, frequency converters, and cables which consists not only a space problem but also it might affect the aesthetic view of the Port. In addition, it is worthy to be mentioned that the size of those equipment is highly dependent on the power supplied and the type of ships. For instance, this Problem is highlighted by the expert of Stockholm Port when she said that: “the problem is how to make room for this installation in Port of Stadsgården. Because it’s quite big, it requires quite a lot of space. And then we also look at the aesthetic point of view, because it’s a very public area, and I think it will be a problem to have containers standing in the port. It will not look that great” (Charlotta Solerud: Stockholm Port Environmental Strategist, interview 2020-10-26).

 

Many ship-owners still reluctant to invest in retrofitting their fleets to connect to shore power especially when there is no biding regulation so far to comply with. Thus, they stuck with the use of auxiliary engines to generate electricity while at berth in simple and low-cost way. Moreover, emerging solution have gained interest beside OPS, such as the use of Liquefied Natural Gas LNG which can generate power directly when using as fuel or provide electricity that will afterward supply vessels while laying at berth. LNG can be supplied to ships by several ways namely by pipeline to ship, truck to ship or ship to ship. For that reason, LNG Barge technology might present for instance a strong business case compared to OPS technology due to the massive gap when it comes to the cost of infrastructure. Thus, in addition to the significant NOx, SOx and PM emissions reduction due to the deployment of LNG, this latter can generate power either at 50Hz or 60Hz without the need to extend the grid connection, to install additional transformers, or to use frequency converter to get the right frequency. Hence, LNG technology might be relevant when the space at berth are quite limited to install OPS facilities or when there is issue emerging while investigating the extension of national grid for power supply. 

 

Arduino, G., Carrillo Murillo, D. G., & Ferrari, C. (2011). Key Factors and Barriers To the adoption of cold ironing in europe. Scientifica –Messina, 39(0), 16–17.

Bergen og Omland Havnevesen. (2018). Onshore Power Supply for Cruise Vessels - Assessment of opportunities and limitations for connecting cruise vessels to shore power.

Entec. (2005). Task 2 – General Report Final Report August 2005 Entec UK Limited. August.

Ericsson, P. (2008). Shore-Side Power Supply. Department of Energy and Environment Division of Chalmers University Of Technology, 180.

Ieee, S. M., & Ieee, S. M. (2016). Earth or Gronnd. 4–9.

INTERNATIONAL. (2019).

INTERNATIONAL. (2021).

ISO_354. (2003). International Standard International Standard. 61010-1 © Iec:2001, 2003, 13.

Pas, I. E. C. (2008). Publicly Available. 1–5.

Ports of Stockholm. (2017). Ports of Stockholm Annual Report and Sustainability Report.

Program, M., & Energy, S. (2019). Viability Study of Sustainable Shore Side Electricity for Container Vessels in the Port of Rotterdam . March.

Tech, T. (2007). Draft Use of Shore-Side Power for Ocean-Going Vessels.

The, B. T. O., Of, A., Ironing, C., & Europe, I. N. (2011). Key Factors and Barriers To the. 39(0), 16–17.

Winkel, R., Weddige, U., Johnsen, D., Hoen, V., & Papaefthimiou, S. (2016). Shore Side Electricity in Europe: Potential and environmental benefits. Energy Policy, 88(2015), 584–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.07.013

Zis, T. P. V. (2019). Prospects of cold ironing as an emissions reduction option. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 119(January 2010), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.11.003