Post on 28-Mar-2015
Using International Energy Agency Data to Calculate the Environmental Impact of Connecting Maritime Ships
to Shoreside Power
Dr William HallResearch Fellow in Energy Technology, Coventry University
Introduction
• Ships at berth use auxiliary diesel engines to provide electrical power
• Berthed ships can require up to 11MWe (cruise ships)
• Ships can be connected to shoreside power supply• referred to as ‘shoreside power’ or ‘cold-ironing’
• Effect of shoreside power on CO2 emissions not considered
Existing emissions
• standard unit is: grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour of electricity
• generally accepted that auxiliary engines (AEs) emit 690 – 722 gCO2 kWhe-1
• Cooper1,2 measured emissions from a variety of ships• mean was 718.6 gCO2 kWhe-1
Cooper, D.A., 2001. Exhaust emissions from high speed passenger ferries. Atmos. Environ. 35(24): 4189; Cooper, D.A., 2003. Exhaust emissions from ships at berth. Atmos. Environ. 37(27): 3817;
Shoreside power
High voltage
National gridBerthed ship
440 – 480 V
Methodology
• IEA database on CO2 emissions from combustion sources
• data used was for plant whose main operation is regarded as electricity
generation, including combined heat and power
• IEA database on electricity generation• adjusted for transmission losses
CO2 Reduction
National Grid Power Generation
Country Port Calls /
annuma g CO2 / kWhe Price / unit
(US$) CO2
emissions (%)
China 122150 992 38.2 Japan 106466 461 -35.8
United States 104950 651 0.06 -9.4 United Kingdom 102322 543 0.09 -24.5
Italy 73695 523 0.16 -27.3 South Korea 70683 507 0.06 -29.5 Singapore 65793 598 0.08 -16.8
Spain 64143 447 -37.8 Netherlands 56461 612 -14.9
Norway 52800 3 0.04 -99.5 Indonesia 51026 917 27.6 Germany 42792 612 -14.9 Russia 42447 811 0.03 12.9 France 37677 108 0.05 -84.9
Malaysia 35528 603 -16.1 Taiwan 35098 690 0.06 -3.9 Turkey 33455 565 0.11 -21.3 Belgium 33189 310 -56.9 Brazil 32360 106 -85.3
United Arab Emirates 30971 951 32.3
a: (Lloyds MIU, 2008)
CO2 Reduction
National Grid Power Generation
Country Port Calls /
annuma g CO2 / kWhe Price / unit
(US$) CO2
emissions (%)
China 122150 992 38.2 Japan 106466 461 -35.8
United States 104950 651 0.06 -9.4 United Kingdom 102322 543 0.09 -24.5
Italy 73695 523 0.16 -27.3 South Korea 70683 507 0.06 -29.5 Singapore 65793 598 0.08 -16.8
Spain 64143 447 -37.8 Netherlands 56461 612 -14.9
Norway 52800 3 0.04 -99.5 Indonesia 51026 917 27.6 Germany 42792 612 -14.9 Russia 42447 811 0.03 12.9 France 37677 108 0.05 -84.9
Malaysia 35528 603 -16.1 Taiwan 35098 690 0.06 -3.9 Turkey 33455 565 0.11 -21.3 Belgium 33189 310 -56.9 Brazil 32360 106 -85.3
United Arab Emirates 30971 951 32.3
a: (Lloyds MIU, 2008)
CO2 Reduction
National Grid Power Generation
Country Port Calls /
annuma g CO2 / kWhe Price / unit
(US$) CO2
emissions (%)
China 122150 992 38.2 Japan 106466 461 -35.8
United States 104950 651 0.06 -9.4 United Kingdom 102322 543 0.09 -24.5
Italy 73695 523 0.16 -27.3 South Korea 70683 507 0.06 -29.5 Singapore 65793 598 0.08 -16.8
Spain 64143 447 -37.8 Netherlands 56461 612 -14.9
Norway 52800 3 0.04 -99.5 Indonesia 51026 917 27.6 Germany 42792 612 -14.9 Russia 42447 811 0.03 12.9 France 37677 108 0.05 -84.9
Malaysia 35528 603 -16.1 Taiwan 35098 690 0.06 -3.9 Turkey 33455 565 0.11 -21.3 Belgium 33189 310 -56.9 Brazil 32360 106 -85.3
United Arab Emirates 30971 951 32.3
a: (Lloyds MIU, 2008)
CO2 Reduction
National Grid Power Generation
Country Port Calls /
annuma g CO2 / kWhe Price / unit
(US$) CO2
emissions (%)
China 122150 992 38.2 Japan 106466 461 -35.8
United States 104950 651 0.06 -9.4 United Kingdom 102322 543 0.09 -24.5
Italy 73695 523 0.16 -27.3 South Korea 70683 507 0.06 -29.5 Singapore 65793 598 0.08 -16.8
Spain 64143 447 -37.8 Netherlands 56461 612 -14.9
Norway 52800 3 0.04 -99.5 Indonesia 51026 917 27.6 Germany 42792 612 -14.9 Russia 42447 811 0.03 12.9 France 37677 108 0.05 -84.9
Malaysia 35528 603 -16.1 Taiwan 35098 690 0.06 -3.9 Turkey 33455 565 0.11 -21.3 Belgium 33189 310 -56.9 Brazil 32360 106 -85.3
United Arab Emirates 30971 951 32.3
a: (Lloyds MIU, 2008)
CO2 Reduction
National Grid Power Generation
Country Port Calls /
annuma g CO2 / kWhe Price / unit
(US$) CO2
emissions (%)
China 122150 992 38.2 Japan 106466 461 -35.8
United States 104950 651 0.06 -9.4 United Kingdom 102322 543 0.09 -24.5
Italy 73695 523 0.16 -27.3 South Korea 70683 507 0.06 -29.5 Singapore 65793 598 0.08 -16.8
Spain 64143 447 -37.8 Netherlands 56461 612 -14.9
Norway 52800 3 0.04 -99.5 Indonesia 51026 917 27.6 Germany 42792 612 -14.9 Russia 42447 811 0.03 12.9 France 37677 108 0.05 -84.9
Malaysia 35528 603 -16.1 Taiwan 35098 690 0.06 -3.9 Turkey 33455 565 0.11 -21.3 Belgium 33189 310 -56.9 Brazil 32360 106 -85.3
United Arab Emirates 30971 951 32.3
a: (Lloyds MIU, 2008)
Case study 1: Mediterranean Cruise
Port
time (hr)
gCO2
(kWhe-1)
MWhe
consumed
CO2 from AE
(tonnes)
CO2 from shoreside
(tonnes)
Change in
CO2 (%)
Southampton
12
543
84
60.4
45.6
-24.5
Cadiz 8 447 56 40.2 25.0 -37.8 Piraeus 9 928 63 45.3 58.4 29.1 Naples 10 523 70 50.3 36.6 -27.3 Lisbon
9
611
63
45.3
38.5
-15.0
• emissions reduced by 15.7% (38 tonnes)
• emissions reduced by 21.1% (51 tonnes) if Greece exempt
Case study 2: Baltic cruise
Port
time (hr)
gCO2
(kWhe-1)
MWhe
consumed
CO2 from AE
(tonnes)
CO2 from shoreside
(tonnes)
Change in
CO2 (%)
Southampton
10
543
70
50.3
38.0
-24.5
Oslo 7 4 49 35.2 0.2 -99.5 Copenhagen 10 605 70 50.3 42.3 -15.9 Stockholm 10 56 70 50.3 3.9 -92.2
Tallinn 9 1341 63 45.3 84.5 86.6 St Petersburg 10 811 70 50.3 56.8 12.9
Helsinki 9 309 63 45.3 19.5 -57.0 Zeebrugge
8
310
56
40.2
17.4
-56.9
• Emissions reduced by 28.5% (104 tonnes)
• Emission reduced by 41% (150 tonnes) if Russia and Estonia exempt
Case study 3: Caribbean cruise
Port
time (hr)
gCO2
(kWhe-1)
MWhe
consumed
CO2 from AE
(tonnes)
CO2 from shoreside
(tonnes)
Change in
CO2 (%)
Fort Lauderdale
10
651
70
50.3
45.6
-9.4
Cartagena 6 206 42 30.2 8.7 -71.3 Cristobal 6 333 42 30.2 14.0 -53.6
Limon 11 30 77 55.3 2.3 -95.8 Montego Bay
8
808
56
40.2
45.3
12.5
• emissions reduced by 43.8% (90.4 tonnes)
• emissions reduced by 46.3% (95 tonnes) if Jamaica exempt
Effect of fuel type
26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120C
hang
e in
CO
2 em
issi
ons
(%)
Plant Efficiency (%)
gas coal
Conclusions• Shoreside power can deliver significant CO2 savings
• Not suitable for all Nations (notably China)
• Countries with high renewable or nuclear mix will benefit the most
• Consideration must be made about Countries ability to deliver necessary power (particularly in developing world)