OPS just one option to reduce emissions in ports

Iven Krämer,
Dr., Head,
Unit of Port Economy, Infrastructure and Shipping, The Ministry for Science and Ports,
Bremen, Germany

For both, shipping and ports emissions and air quality have become an issue of highest priority and with latest decisions from the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) at the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, a pathway to net zero is clearly set. There are stricter regulations in combination with ambitious goals for a zero emission future that drive the shipping lines and the charterers. At the same time, there is an increasing pressure by local communities to tackle the existing problem of air pollution in urban ports. Therefore, numerous actions and projects are under way for the uptake of sustainable ports and shipping and there is one technical option that promises to be an easy and fast solution Onshore Power Supply or OPS. To date in some 60 global port’s OPS-projects and installations have already been made and more are in planning, but is this the one size fits all solution for the overall emission problem in seaports? No, OPS is just one option to reduce air emissions in ports that furthermore requires power from pure renewable sources.

Onshore power supply as a high voltage shore connection is synonymous with cold ironing, a term used by the US Navy when ships were using coal-fired iron engines, which cooled down during port stays. It requires intense and expensive fixed or mobile installations within the ports and at the same time technical installations and adjustments on the vessels. The investment costs are directly related to the type and size of the ships and thus to the specific power demand. Container ships for example have a power demand between 4 to 8 MW whereas large cruise vessels need more than 12 MW. The power demand is furthermore depending on the individual time spent at berth and the frequency of ship calls. Technical challenges are the cable connectivity especially at berths with a high tidal range. This often requires the implementation of additional cable troughs and shafts, crane arms, lifting platforms, cable management systems and so on. Furthermore, depending on the capacity of the port network and the needed additional OPS-capacity there might be extra investments into substations and new cables necessary. Once realised and operational OPS installations prove to have a positive impact on closed to berth housing areas and the people, which are living and working nearby. Especially in ports with a high frequency of ship-calls and berth locations closed to or even within the city-centre (urban ports), measurements demonstrated the effectiveness of these installations.

These generally positive results in combination with intense marketing efforts for those already existing installations have led to an overwhelming public and political support for OPS. Often it is therefore not mentioned that OPS shifts the responsibility to reduce emissions from the shipping sector towards the ports and that only a smaller proportion of ships is OPS ready yet. As of 2021, not more than ten percent of the global seagoing ships are equipped with on-board OPS installations whereof the majority are full container ships and ferries and the segment with the highest rate are cruise vessels.

For the reduction of emissions from ships, there is the option to improve the vessel-design to reduce specific fuel consumption. There is the upcoming and most promising shift from fossil to synthetic fuels and alternative means of propulsion. And, there is the option for improvement practices during docking periods. The last option focusses on the time spent in ports that is typically not more than 20 percent of a ships lifecycle. As such, OPS is not a solution, which is addressing the overall target of the reduction of shipping emissions. Some shipping lines therefore asses OPS as being negative for the industries plans towards a full zero emission shipping and regard this as a solution for richer countries only.

Even if politically favoured OPS installations remain in most ports high-risk investments since there is so far no legal requirement for the use of the available installations once provided. As a result, so far all existing OPS installations could only be realized by public investments or with a high-rate public subsidy. Based on this only few shipping companies and ports are pushing forward towards a 100 percent distribution of OPS to all berths and those ports that are already providing OPS for seagoing ships typically have only one and none of them has more than ten berths equipped. Taking the still very high and so far in most places uneconomical investment and operational costs into consideration OPS is will in the nearer future be not more than a solution for specific shipping markets like large container vessels, cruise ships and maybe ferries.

To take action against air emissions from ships in general European ports have created an goal-based approach called Zero Emission at berth, though which any technologies available to achieve the gradual emission reduction standards should be accelerated and encouraged. These technologies include not just OPS but also hybrid solutions, hydrogen, ammonia or synthetic fuels. This would give guidance to the shipping sector on the objectives while providing necessary flexibility on the choice of technologies allowing choosing the most effective solutions. For ports, this would be even more beneficial than OPS, as these solutions could also be operational and emission saving while manoeuvring within the ports and on the passageways. The positive effects would not be restricted to the short time at berth and not to just some ports in the western hemisphere.

Expert article 3136

> Back to Baltic Rim Economies 5/2021

To receive the Baltic Rim Economies review free of charge, you may register to the mailing list.
The review is published 4-6 times a year.