‘Shoreside power…’

Should the Caribbean give it a wide berth?

Air pollution generated by emissions and the noise nuisance from ships (especially cruise ships) using their auxiliary generators while alongside is a concern for many ports worldwide. A few of these ports have addressed this twin problem by installing shoreside power, but does it really make sense for the Caribbean to follow suit? 

Nobody doubts the long-standing commitment of Caribbean ports in working towards a cleaner and greener environment or that they share the same worries about pollution and noise, but is solving them just too expensive for the region – especially as these problems may eventually remedy themselves?

In fact, the case for doing nothing is strong. While it may be nice to have, shoreside power is eye-wateringly expensive to install and the power delivery required so huge that it’s likely to be beyond the finances and existing electricity generation capacity of many islands. Added to which, both cruise ship and container operators are now opting for LNG-powered engines (and concomitant auxiliary generators) for their latest newbuilds, so will shore-power be a relatively short-lived phenomenon and, if installed now, will it ultimately become under-used or unused at some point in the future? The answer – at least for the Caribbean – would seem to be yes.

The provision of shoreside power is not new, and its introduction has mostly been led by destinations with city center berths or where there is a powerful environmental lobby. The first high-voltage shore connection was installed in Gothenburg (for ro/ro vessels) some 20 years ago and this has been followed by others with a particular emphasis on those welcoming cruise ships.

The Alaskan port of Juneau was the first in North America to install shoreside power. Seattle and many others followed, but even these ports only offer electrical power at a very limited number of berths.

When in port, cruise ships typically have an energy consumption of around 7-11 MW and, as a result, require a large capacity connection. This requirement is equal to the average electricity consumption of around 40,000 local households over the same period of a vessel’s stay. But when using their auxiliary engines then this form of electricity production is undoubtedly among the most polluting and it's often noisy. Thankfully and since the introduction of the new low-sulfur diesel rules and with the installation of scrubbers, ships are now less polluting. But scrubbers only reduce emissions of sulfur (SO2) and particles, they do not solve the equally important problems of NOX and CO2 emissions.

As mentioned, the cost of shoreside power is prohibitive. And studies show that all ports have a substantial need for investment support in order to cover installation and running costs. Capital investment costs and then the total electricity price are the main factors when it comes to the business case for shoreside power in ports where electricity charges are relatively low. But in ports where the investment costs and total electricity charges are high (such as most parts of the Caribbean), then it’s thought that a more flexible LNG-power-barge might be a better alternative to a fixed shore installation. But it’s still costly.

Even Husby

To get a better understanding of shoreside power and to get a first-hand perspective of the pros and cons, Caribbean Maritime spoke to Even Husby, Head of Environment at the Port of Bergen (one of the Europe’s most popular cruise destinations) and an acknowledged expert on the development and provision of shoreside power – especially in regard to cruise ships.

Q. What kind of investment is required by port authorities in order to provide alongside vessels with shoreside power?
A. “The investment costs vary a lot, depending on what is available in terms of grid capacity and power lines, and the size of the port area. In order to answer this question, a more detailed survey of the prospective project is required. Port of Bergen has built a comprehensible facility for cruise ships with five supply pits serving up to three ships in parallel with a total capacity of 45 megavolt amperes (MVA). The total investment cost is around US$ 14 million. A more modest installation with 16 MVA serving one ship has been established at Port of Kristiansand in Norway. The investment cost for this type of installation is around US$ 4 million. But European ports need to convert the 50hz frequency in the local grid to the 60hz required by the ships. This step is not necessary in the Caribbean area and represents a cost reduction of up to 50% on the above-mentioned estimates.”

Q. Do you foresee these kinds of investments being financed by regional development banks and suchlike?
A. “The capex for a shore power facility represents a major obstacle. In Norway, two public schemes supporting the reduction of climate impact and air pollution, came to the rescue. The Enova climate fund has a special program dedicated to shoreside power development in ports. The NOX-fund is a major sponsor of ship conversion, supporting the development of shore power interfaces as well as other solutions onboard ships. Both schemes are key drivers behind the development of shoreside electricity in Norway.

The EU has also identified shoreside electricity as a priority for the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) programme. This has been essential for deployment of shore power in several European ports.

I think a regional strategy combined with financial support is a prerequisite for a successful implementation in any region.

Q. On many Caribbean islands and by the very nature of things, locally produced electricity is expensive and not necessarily very environmentally friendly. Do you think that the high price of island electricity will be a barrier to vessels using shore-based power?
A. Based on my impression of energy costs in the Caribbean area, I think the energy price will be a critical barrier. Even so, I see that if the source of electricity represents an environmental improvement compared with onboard production, the ship owners will show a lot of flexibility.

The total cost of a ship’s port stay will be an important element in this discussion. If there is an opportunity to incentivize users of shoreside power, you may be able to balance the costs. Several Norwegian cruise ports have implemented incentive schemes based on the “polluter pays” principle. Good performers (e.g. shoreside power users) are rewarded while the “lesser performers” have an increase in fees.

Q. What are the environmental benefits of shoreside power; keeping in mind that many Caribbean islands still use far-from-clean primary energy generation?
A. In terms of climate impact, it does not make sense to replace one carbon-based source with another.
Having said that, I think shoreside power, regardless of source, may be a good solution for removing air pollution and noise from a port. By centralising the power production, a society can control the emission at one location outside the port city rather than dealing with a range of sources in the city. This scenario also makes it easier to introduce a cleaner energy mix if an alternative energy source is made available later.

Q. Do you believe that the cruise shipping industry is on-side with shoreside power (especially if it costs more than auxiliary generators)?
A. I believe the ship owners are dedicated to finding good environmental solutions, and a shoreside power interface is certainly on the agenda for European cruise ships. Around 60% of the cruise calls planned for 2022 in Bergen will be ships with a shore-power interface. This is a development which proves that there is a real transformation taking place.

Q. Does the use of low-sulfur fuel/scrubbers and the comparatively recent introduction of LNG-power for cruiseships (and with more on the way) reduce the environmental case for shoreside power and the need for smaller destinations to invest in such facilities?
A. The advent of LNG-ships will for sure represent a huge improvement regarding air pollution. My thinking is that we should not look at shoreside power as the only means for improvement. If ships are equipped with the best available technology and can prove it is utilised efficiently while at port, this should be recognized as an important contribution.

I stress the word “prove”. A ship may carry technology but chose not to use it. One of the key projects among Norwegian ports in recent years has been the development of an environmental reporting solution for cruise ships, named Environmental Port Index (EPI). Each time a cruise ship leaves a Norwegian cruise port it delivers an environmental report. This gives ports a valuable insight into the impact of the ship and enables us to establish incentive schemes based on actual data for the port call (www.epiport.org).

Q. On the face of it, the supply of shoreside power may have certain environmental benefits but does it really make any economic sense? It may be OK for a wealthy country such as Norway where the cost may not be a critical factor, but is this the right move for a small island economy and one which probably suffers far worse pollution from various local activities?

A. Maybe not, depending on the business case. The question we should ask is rather: How can a small island economy reduce the environmental impact of the cruise industry? The discussion in our region revolves around a lot of different topics including more tight regulation of emissions to air and sea, ways and means of limiting the number of ships and passengers and the size of the ship, priority for the better performers, development of services such as LNG bunkering and sewage reception, and more. The way ahead should be a coordinated regional strategy which covers funding schemes, incentive schemes, improvement of local energy production, optimization of local fee systems and improved national regulation.

Q. What lessons can others learn from what the Port of Bergen has done in terms of its plans for shoreside power?

A. A successful implementation depends a lot on how the project is organised. The development of shoreside power in Bergen is built around a partnership between the port and the regional power production company BKK. A joint company, Plug Bergen (www.plugport.no), owns and develops the solution. This approach gives a close link to the strategy of the overall energy production system in the region and it brings relevant competence into the planning and operation of the facility.

Cold ironing

Shore-to-ship power or alternative maritime power (are different names for the same process. That is, providing shoreside electrical power to a vessel at berth while its main and auxiliary engines are switched off. This was once known as cold-ironing. Cold ironing permits emergency equipment, refrigeration, cooling, heating, lighting and other equipment to receive continuous electrical power while the ship is in port.  Cold ironing is an old maritime term that was first used in the days of coal-fired ships. At that time and when a ship was alongside there was no need to fire the engines and the iron would, as a consequence, cool down and then become cold and hence cold ironing.

Air Pollution

Arabelle Bentley, executive secretary of the Shetland Islands-based Kommunernes International Miljøorganisation (KIMO) or Local Authorities International Environmental Organization, told Caribbean Maritime: “When using auxiliary power in port, vessels generate air pollution and noise emissions that affect the health of both the ship’s crew and people working and living near the port.  These effects can be significant and scientific research has shown that long-term exposure to particulate matter and nitrogen oxides (NOx) have a significant effect on human health.”

PortMiami shore power program

Miami-Dade County and Carnival Cruise Line have together launched a new shore power pilot program at PortMiami in an effort to reduce in-harbor emissions. At the same time, the CEOs of Carnival Cruise Lines, Disney Cruise Line, MSC Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Lines, and Virgin Voyages, Royal Caribbean have announced they support efforts to bring shore power to PortMiami.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has allocated US$2 million for the PortMiami and Carnival shore power program at the new Cruise Terminal F starting in 2023. This marks the first step in making shore power a reality for cruise ships at Port Miami. But if the world’s biggest and busiest cruise port is only just starting to implement and install shoreside power, what hope for small Caribbean island destinations?