Home » Electrification and maritime decarbonization: Key barriers and drivers

Electrification and maritime decarbonization: Key barriers and drivers

by admin

Onshore power is seen as a long-term solution because of its ability to support the industry’s decarbonization efforts and the dual role it can play in charging battery-powered short sea transportation. In addition, port electrification can contribute to significant and rapid reductions in local air pollution and noise as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

S.Hoapower is essentially the use of giant electrical plugs that allow ships (from cruise ships to container ships to tugs) to connect to green power while in dock, and diesel while at berth. Eliminates the need to run the engine. Both the pier infrastructure and the vessel itself must be equipped with the ability (and plugs) to use shore power.

The British Chamber of Commerce has been active in shore power for the past three years. “We conducted a survey to understand our members’ views on onshore power and how they see the role of technology in decarbonization strategies. Identified significant barriers that members felt were hindering the deployment of power, with nearly 80% of respondents citing lack of port infrastructure as one of the barriers and planning to install shore power technology on ships The cost of refurbishment (45% of respondents) was identified as the second barrier, and regulatory requirements (41%) as the third barrier. In a recent interview, Mrs Anna Ziou, Safety and Environmental Policy Director at the British Chamber of Shipping, explained:

Electrification is expected to play a key role in decarbonizing the industry. This is because all industry segments present an excellent opportunity to reduce berth emissions and improve air quality in port areas. “We are calling on the UK government to accelerate action by developing a national framework for the widespread adoption of onshore power, infrastructure and operations in UK ports by 2030. As the pace and extent will vary across sectors, the UK Chamber of Commerce has called for: A frame that first targets sectors with the most achievable impact on predictable port and berth emissions reductions For work. Sectors such as container ships, passenger ships, tugboats and offshore vessels,” added Mr Ziou.

In addition, the European Ports Organization (ESPO) and the European Association of Civilian Ports and Terminals (FEPORT) agree that onshore power sources (OPS) “make the most place.

According to a newly published white paper by The ModOPS Project: The big question for onshore power is: “What should its investment plan include to minimize the risk of creating ‘stranded assets’ that will become obsolete as decarbonization options mature?”

In that regard, it is important to consider the following points:

  • supply security – Will the port have access to sufficient energy and power to meet the needs of visiting vessels and port facilities during periods of high demand?
  • compatibility – How will the onshore power facility interact with other fuel systems required at the port (such as bunkering)?
  • cost – Will ship operators be willing to pay the price of port-provided energy given future pressures on the fuel market?
  • risk – Is there a significant risk of technology obsolescence or failure to meet future safety standards?
  • efficiency – Losses incurred in converting port procured energy resources to onboard energy determine costs and increase required supply chain capacity.

Direct electrical connection of the onshore power system to the port grid connection is the default solution, but several alternative options are being considered.

• Electrical connection to harbor battery storage.

• Hydrogen in-port energy storage that converts to electrical energy.

• In-port energy storage of methanol for conversion to electrical energy.

• Diesel, HVO or DME in-port energy storage to convert to electrical energy.

The paper notes that ports lacking convenient access to energy with capacity determined by shore power demand have far more limited options. Battery storage can maximize onshore power capacity from a fixed grid-connected capacity, especially when servicing vessels that impose highly intermittent loads. However, long-term increases in onshore power demand are very likely to exceed the limits of most ports’ existing grid connections.

If an all-electric solution is not feasible or attractive, the project concludes that on-site power generation using fuel transported to the port is an alternative option, suggesting converting hydrogen to liquid fuels such as methanol. Add (ideally on a large scale) to minimize additional process costs) are more cost-effective as liquid fuels can be safely transported and stored using proven technology. seems like an expensive solution. Hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) is also a useful transitional fuel as a drop-in alternative to diesel. Liquid fuels such as HVO and methanol can be conveniently burned in conventional diesel engines (with minor modifications for 100% methanol or aquamethanol) with significantly lower emissions than diesel.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has also published an evaluation of power technology in U.S. ports. The report shows that for large vessels (excluding tugs and fishing vessels) there are only 10 ports offering high voltage power. 7 ports/terminals with onshore power for cruise ships, 4 providing power for container ships and 2 ports/terminals providing power for tankers or reefer vessels.

According to the report, under the right conditions, when ships are connected to shore power, using electricity from the local grid can reduce overall pollutant emissions by up to 98% (depending on the combination of energy sources). it’s different).

Potential emissions reductions can be estimated for a given ship at berth connected to shore power. Factors such as hours actually connected, rate of power consumption, energy costs and total time at berth are included in the rating and are related to the overall availability of onshore power. Total emission reductions may vary as these factors must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

This assessment suggests that shore power may be most effective when applied to terminals and ports with a high percentage of vessels returning frequently, such as cruise ships and container ships.

The US EPA concludes that onshore power requires shoreside infrastructure, grid improvements, and vessel modifications. When fuel costs are higher than electricity costs, the relative costs of using shore power instead of the ship’s own fuel source are more attractive.

You may also like

Leave a Comment