This article was published in the December 2010 issue of World Port Development. To receive a pdf of the article in its original format including charts and pictures please send an email to archive@worldportdevelopment.com
Solve one problem… get another
During the Ports & the Environment conference held at the beginning of December in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, the subject of on-shore electricity to reduce air pollution was discussed. But implementing such a system may not be so easy as Sheila Moloney reports…
As reported in our November issue at the beginning of October the Port of San Francisco became the first in California to connect a cruise ship to on-shore electricity to reduce air pollution. Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Pacific Southwest Regional Administrator, joined San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and others at a
ceremony at Pier 27 where the Island Princess became the first cruise ship to plug in to shore-side power.
But the numerous terms used to describe the replacement of power [read electricity] generated onboard from diesel auxiliary engines with electricity generated on-shore can be confusing. Fer van de Laar, European Director of the IAPH office based in the Netherlands shed some light on this during his presentation at the December event: “You can call it what you want; shore-side electricity, shore-connected electricity supply, shore power, ship-to-shore power, cold ironing, e-Shore or Alternative Maritime Power (AMP) – bearing in mind that AMP is registered trademark. Effectively, there are two ways to provide a ship with electricity from shore. From the ship down to the quay or from the quay up to the ship,” van de Laar explained. “Simple plug-in connection from the shore side with interlocking to prevent the plug-in connection from being opened during operation provides personal safety and is guaranteed by a safe interlocking system. The connection is automated, so that people without special training can operate it safely; mooring personnel must be able to make the connection. Automatic start-up of the on-shore power supply released by the ship when the plug-in connection is ready and the ship maintains the command over the shore side power supply – effectively it controls start and stop and synchronisation.” The benefits of on-shore electricity are obvious says van de Laar. “It offers major reductions in local emissions (air pollutants and greenhouse gases), reduction in noise levels (improves working and living conditions), reduction in vibration levels (improves working and living conditions) and improves the company image,” van de Laar added. But he warned that the system has some drawbacks. “The emission reductions are only achieved when a ship is at berth. Also electrical frequencies differ between regions, different systems have and are being installed and the implementation of OPS requires large investments on the quay and on the ship.”
Benefits
The benefit of the shore-side power system project in San Francisco is to improve air quality by providing clean energy to cruise ships docked in the port. Diesel-burning generators that power cruise ships at berth can spew 140 pounds of particulates and more than one tonnes of smog-forming nitrogen oxides in a single, 10-hour visit. “There are 9,000 premature deaths in California every year from air pollution. This innovative green technology is an exciting step forward in the fight against climate change and will take aim at serious health problems facing Bay Area residents,” said Jared Blumenfeld, US EPA’s Administrator for the Pacific Southwest region. “The significant diesel emission reductions from this electric shore-power connection will result in fewer incidences of asthma, cardiopulmonary diseases, lost school and work days, and premature deaths directly linked to diesel pollution.” Plugging in to the local grid will allow docked passenger ships to switch from running on diesel, one of the dirtiest fossil fuels, to clean renewable energy from the City’s Hetch Hetchy hydro-electric dam in Yosemite National Park. The USD 5.2 million on-shore electricity project is expected to remove more than a tonnes of deadly particulates from the air each year. The new system is only the fourth in the world, with others in Juneau, Alaska, Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia. Although the new technology requires an initial investment of about USD 1 million per ship, cruise ship owners expect to see significant savings of about USD 16,000 a day per ship in reduced energy costs.
Drawbacks
As van de Laar pointed out one of the drawbacks is the large investment needed to provide on-shore power to the ships. In San Francisco, much of the USD 5.2 million budget went towards the giant cables, spool and 27-foot tall metal arm that physically connect a ship’s power supply to the city’s infrastructure. Funding was also provided for upgrades to the electrical grid in order to accommodate the additional 6 to 12 megawatt demand from each passenger ship. Usage for the entire city of San Francisco, for comparison, usually falls between 900 and 1,000 megawatts. “The Port explored a number of funding options for shore-side power,” explained Port Executive Director Monique Moyer, “and found initial success with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Carl Moyer Program, and later with the Environmental Protection Agency and San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission. We couldn’t have done this without them.” Another speaker at the Ports & Environment Seminar, Rob Witte, Director at DGMR Consultants, the Netherlands, pointed out with his presentation that although the numerous benefits of using on-shore power are obvious there might be a sting in the tail when you discuss a reduction of noise emissions by using on-shore power supply. It would be obvious when a ship turns its engines off that there will be a reduction of noise but what would be the final result? Of course, noise emission depends heavily on the type and size of ship e.g. RoRo, bulk, container or general cargo vessel – but emissions remain an issue for many ports. DGMR Consultants are specialised in noise emissions and have been commissioned together with Royal Haskoning by the Port of Amsterdam to do research in the field of noise emissions from ships while in port. In particular, the port wanted to evaluate the noise emissions from a moored ship at a container terminal in Amsterdam in a 1km catch area. Witte also gave some other examples of ports that have encountered the problem of noise emissions, such as the port of Rotterdam, which is looking at a newly employed vessel at a RoRo terminal and a banned tanker in Vlissingen. Outside the Netherlands there are similar issues, for example in Denmark an investigation is on its way on sea-going vessels from a particular company, while Copenhagen port authorities are looking for a ‘different’ cruise terminal because of noise emissions. Another ‘noisy’ case is in the French port of Nice. Although each ship has different engines, are different in size and are equipped with numerous auxiliary engines, Witte made it clear to the audience that there is a clear difference in sound power levels [in decibels] depending on the ships’ use and its size. For bulk ships noise is often created by exhausts and ventilation, while for oil tankers there are additional ‘noise creators’ such as continuously running pumps and for container ships this could be reefer containers. During his concluding remarks Witte pointed out that initial findings showed that by using on-shore power for a 25,000dwt tanker and RoRo vesse,l no noise reduction was achieved, while for a 35,000dwt container vessels a 5% reduction in noise emissions was achieved, for a 5,800dwt general cargo ship this was 8% and for a 75,000dwt bulk carrier a reduction of 10% was achieved. Although the project is still on-going it clearly shows that on-shore power doesn’t eliminate noise emissions in all cases and although the environmental benefits depend on various factors, such as engine performance, fuel used, the length of time a ship is at
berth on-shore power might still cause an issue with port authorities.
Where is the electricity coming from?
There might also be another problem to consider and that is where the electricity is coming from and what source is being used? In Gothenburg, Sweden, the port authority adopted an on-shore power system that cuts emissions by 94-97% for ships at berth. It has done this by using renewable energy from wind turbines to power the ships at berth. Gothenburg currently has 5 quays supporting this technology and is building its new quays to anticipate an expansion of demand for shore-side power. This includes canalisation of the new quays, which reduces costs when future systems are installed. Once established, the systems require no extra manpower and ships at berth operate silently, reducing noise pollution. By using wind turbines, as is the case in Gothenburg, you can put things in perspective and argue the case how the electricity is being generated for the on-shore power system. A recent study shows that Norway, where they use hydro-electric power station to generate electricity, the total system (generating electricity and supply) would be reflect zero emissions, while coal-fired power stations in Italy would generate three times as much CO2 compared to nuclear power-friendly stations in France. Therefore consideration has to be given on how electricity is being generated to make such a system an ‘all-rounder’ to be called environmental friendly.