Reykjavik Harbor System Analysis: Shore Side Electricity ... · Reykjavik Harbor System Analysis:...

Reykjavik Harbor System Analysis: Shore Side Electricity Connections for Containerships in The Eimskip

Terminal

Alfonso Barrenechea

Thesis of 60 ECTS credits Master of Science (MSc) in Sustainable Energy

Science

June 2017


Terminal

Thesis of 60 ECTS credits submitted to the School of Science and Engineering at Reykjavík University in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science (M.Sc.) in Sustainable Energy Science

June 2017

Supervisors:

Dr. David Christian Finger, Professor, Reykjavík University, Iceland

Dr. Hlynur Stefánsson, Professor, Reykjavík University, Iceland Christophe Gaigneux, Shore Connection Project Consultant, Schneider Electric

Examiner:

Kristinn Aspelund CEO, Ankeri , Reykjavik Iceland

Copyright

Alfonso Barrenechea

June 2017


Terminal

Alfonso Barrenechea

June 2017

Abstract While at berth vessels burn marine gas oil in the auxiliary engines to power the ships electrical system. Containership stops range from 12 to 72 hours, meaning that fuel is being constantly burned at the harbor near densely populated areas. Shore side electricity aims to remove the pollutants created from auxiliary engines at the harbor by directly connecting the vessels to the local electricity system. In addition, as fuel prices increase due to stringent maritime regulations the price to power a ship via shore side electricity will be cheaper than through conventional berthing fuels. The Reykjavik harbor gets fed cheap low carbon electricity from the Icelandic energy mix that could in turn produce a cleaner and more profitable harbor. This project analyzes the technical, environmental, and financial aspects related to shore side electricity at the Eimskip terminal. By analyzing the schedules, fuel consumption patterns, and power demands of the three trade lines that visit the Eimskip quay the most per year (each line made of two vessels) an estimated emission factor as well as an estimated net present value was calculated. Three potential retrofit scenarios are presented throughout the project each with a detailed emission total, net present value, as well as recommendations for how to retrofit low voltage vessels in accordance to international shore side electricity standards ISO-80005. This thesis concludes with a final dollar figure on the price per ton of CO2 equivalent abated from the Reykjavik harbor and compares it to other Icelandic projects. Under current assumptions, if shore side electricity is upscaled, the cost effectiveness per ton of carbon dioxide removed would continue to decrease making it a competitive emission abating technology with a relatively low infrastructural cost compared to electric cars and other emission reducing projects.


Terminal

Alfonso Barrenechea

júní 2017

Útdráttur

Reykjavik Harbor System Analysis: Shore Side Electricity for Containerships in The Eimskip Terminal

Alfonso Barrenechea

Thesis of 60 ECTS credits submitted to the School of Science and Engineering at Reykjavík University in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science (M.Sc.) in Sustainable Energy Science

June 2017

Student:

Alfonso Barrenechea

Supervisors:

Professor Dr. Hlynur Stefánsson Professor Dr. David Christian Finger

Examiner:

Kristinn Aspelund , CEO , Ankeri

The undersigned hereby grants permission to the Reykjavík University Library to reproduce single copies of this Thesis entitled “Reykjavik Harbor System Analysis: Shore Side Electricity Connections for Containerships in The Eimskip Terminal” and to lend or sell such copies for private, scholarly or scientific research purposes only. The author reserves all other publication and other rights in association with the copyright in the Thesis, and except as herein before provided, neither the Thesis nor any substantial portion thereof may be printed or otherwise reproduced in any material form whatsoever without the author’s prior written permission.

date

Alfonso Barrenechea Master of Science

Acknowledgements

Thank you to both my advisors Profesor. Dr. David Christian Finger, and Profesor Dr. Hlynur Stefánsson for your infinite time, patience, and guidance throughtout this project. Thanks to Eimskip, Cavotec, and the Reykjavik Port Authority for supplying the necessary data to complete this project. Special thanks to my industry advisor Christophe Gaigneux and Schneider Eletric who cooperated with Fálkin Iceland and Haukur Magnùsson. Thank you for all the expertise, data, and contacts shared throughout the project’s completion. Final thanks to Mabux for providing a price forecast for low Sulphur marine gas oil.

Preface

This dissertation is original work by the author, Alfonso Barrenechea.

xix

Contents

Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................xv

Preface.........................................................................................................................xvii

Contents........................................................................................................................xix

ListofFigures................................................................................................................xxi

ListofTables................................................................................................................xxiii

ListofAbbreviations....................................................................................................xxv

ListofSymbols...........................................................................................................xxvii

1Introduction.................................................................................................................11.1 TheshippingIndustry....................................................................................................11.2 Trade Lines..................................................................................................................61.3 WhatisShoreSideElectricity?.......................................................................................71.4 TechnicalAspects..........................................................................................................8

1.4.1 BarriertoEntry............................................................................................................81.4.2 VesselRetrofitOverviewandRequirements...............................................................91.4.3 VesselRetrofitBreakdown........................................................................................101.4.4 PortRetrofitOverviewandRequirements................................................................11

1.5 EnvironmentalAspect.................................................................................................121.5.1 Emissions...................................................................................................................13

2Methods.....................................................................................................................152.1 TechnicalRequirements..............................................................................................15

2.1.1 FrequencyConvertersandVoltageTransformerselection.......................................162.1.2 EimskipBerthingSchedule........................................................................................18

2.2 MethodologyforQuantifyingEmissions......................................................................202.2.1 MethodologyforEnergyMixEmission......................................................................22

2.3 Financialmethodology................................................................................................232.3.1 ShadowPricing..........................................................................................................26

3Results........................................................................................................................273.1 EnvironmentalResults.................................................................................................273.2 EnergyMixEmissionResults........................................................................................293.3 Fourvesselretrofit......................................................................................................313.4 TwoVesselRetrofit.....................................................................................................353.5 SixVesselRetrofit.......................................................................................................40

4Discussion..................................................................................................................454.1 Discussion...................................................................................................................454.2 Limitations..................................................................................................................484.3 Conclusion...................................................................................................................49

References....................................................................................................................50

Appendix.......................................................................................................................534.4 Appendix1..................................................................................................................53

xx

4.5 Appendix2..................................................................................................................544.6 Appendix3..................................................................................................................54

Glossary........................................................................................................................56

xxi

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 IMO and EU NOx and SOx limit on marine fuel per year and legislation summary [8] ............................................................................................................................................ 2Figure 1.2 Map of Current and Future Emission Control Areas 2015 [9] .............................. 3Figure 1.3 Predicted Fuel Consumption: Gasoil vs Residual Fuel Oil after 2020 legislation [44] .......................................................................................................................................... 4Figure 1.4 Shore Connection Diagram [8] .............................................................................. 7Figure 1.5 Vessel Retrofit Schematic [8] .............................................................................. 10Figure 1.6 Eimskip Electrical Network [10] ......................................................................... 11Figure 2.1 ShoreBox [8] ....................................................................................................... 17Figure 3.1 Shore Side Electricity Abated CO2e comparison: EUvs Iceland ........................ 29Figure 3.2 Four Vessel Sensitivity Analysis: Price of Electricity. Reference values are stated in bold ................................................................................................................................... 32Figure 3.3 Four Vessel Sensitivity Analysis: Price per Metric Ton of Low Sulphur Marine Gasoil. Reference values are stated in bold .......................................................................... 32Figure 3.4 Four Vessel Sensitivity Analysis: Capital Expenditure Price Change: Reference values stated in bold .............................................................................................................. 33Figure 3.5 Two Vessel Sensitivity Analysis: Price of Electricity. Reference values are stated in bold ................................................................................................................................... 36Figure 3.6 Two Vessel Sensitivy Analysis: Price per Metric Ton of Low Sulphur Marine Gasoil. Reference values are stated in bold .......................................................................... 37Figure 3.7 Two Vessel Sensitivity Analysis: Capital Expenditure Price Change: Reference values stated in bold .............................................................................................................. 37Figure 3.8 Six Vessel Sensitivity Analysis: Price of Electricity. Reference values are stated in bold ................................................................................................................................... 41Figure 3.9 Six Vessel Sensitivity Analysis: Price per Metric Ton of Low Sulphur Marine Gasoil. Reference values are stated in bold .......................................................................... 42Figure 3.10 Six Vessel Sensitivity Analysis: Capital Expenditure Price Change: Reference values stated in bold .............................................................................................................. 43Figure 4.1 “Icelandic Projects Cost Comparison (ISK/TonCO2 abated) adapted from “Ísland og loftslagsmál” ........................................................................................................ 46Figure 4.2 “Icelandic Projects Cost Comparison (ISK/TonCO2 abated) adapted from “ Ísland og loftslagsmál” Including 12 Containerships ........................................................... 47Figure 4.3 Power Factor Triangle ......................................................................................... 54Figure 4.4 D.A Cooper Uncertanty Levels Emission Test[37] ............................................. 54

xxiii

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Emission Control Area Legizlation Price Prediction and Actual Price adapted from The IBA .................................................................................................................................... 3Table 1.2 Freight CO2 Emission Comparison of Grams per km-ton transported adapted from International Maritime Organization ........................................................................................ 4Table 1.3 Trade Line Summary ................................................................................................ 6Table 1.4 Maritime Pollutant Summary .................................................................................. 13Table 2.1 Trade Line Electrical Specifications ....................................................................... 15Table 2.2 Voltage and Frequency Converter Comparison ...................................................... 17Table 2.3 Technically Feasible Shippig Line Retrofit Combinations ..................................... 19Table 2.4 Cooper’s Emission Factors [37] ............................................................................. 20Table 2.5 Goldworthy’s Emission Factors [38] ...................................................................... 21Table 2.6 Normalized Emission Factors ................................................................................. 21Table 2.7 Vessel Side Retrofit Cost ....................................................................................... 23Table 2.8 Port Side Retrofit and AMPTainer Costs ............................................................... 24Table 2.9 Shadow Pricing per Ton (USD) .............................................................................. 26Table 3.1 Energy Consumption Per Trade Line at Eimskip Terminal ................................... 27Table 3.2 20 year Trade Line Normalized Emissions ............................................................. 28Table 3.3 Rotterdam 20 year Emissions ................................................................................. 28Table 3.4 Potential Project Abated Emissions Summary ....................................................... 28Table 3.5 Pollutant Percent Change ........................................................................................ 29Table 3.6 Rotterdam CO2 Abated ........................................................................................... 30Table 3.7 Four Vessel Retrofit Cost and Net Present Value Summary .................................. 31Table 3.8 CAPEX,$/mT CO2e Abated Reykjavik .................................................................. 34Table 3.9 CAPEX,$/mT CO2e Abated Reykjavik + Rotterdam ............................................. 34Table 3.10 Four Vesssel Reykjavik Shadow Prices ................................................................ 35Table 3.11 Two Vessel Retrofit Summary ............................................................................. 35Table 3.12 CAPEX,$/mT CO2e Abated Reykjavik ................................................................ 38Table 3.13 CAPEX,$/mT CO2e Abated Reykjavik + Rotterdam ........................................... 39Table 3.14 Two Vessel Reykjavik Shadow Prices ................................................................. 39Table 3.15 Six Four Vessel Retrofit Summary ....................................................................... 40Table 3.16 CAPEX,$/mT CO2e Abated Reykjavik ................................................................ 43Table 3.17 CAPEX,$/mT CO2e Abated Reykjavik + Rotterdam ........................................... 44Table 3.18 Six Vessel Reykjavik Shadow Prices ................................................................... 44

xxv

List of Abbreviations

AC Alternating Current AMP Alternative Marine Power CARB California Air Resource Board CAPEX Capital Expenditure CMS Cable Management System DC Direct Current ECA Emissions Control Areas GFC Grid Frequency Converter HFO Heavy Fuel Oil HVSC High Voltage Shore Connection IBIA International Bunker Industry Association IMO International Maritime Organization LVSC Low Voltage Shore Connection

MARPOL Marine Pollution (International Convention) MGO Marine Gas Oil OGV Ocean Going Vessel OPS Onshore Power Supply SC Shore Connection SECA Sulphur Emissions Control Area TSO Transmission System Operator WPCI World Port Climate Initiative

xxvii

List of Symbols

Symbol Description Value/Units

kW Power Kilowatt

MW

kWh

Power

Energy

Megawatt

Kilowatt hour

MWh Energy Megawatt hour

kVA Aparent Power Kilvolt Amperes

$ Currency U.S Dollars

xxviii

1

Chapter 1

1Introduction

This paper aims to begin the conversation about shore side electricity and its advantages by collaborating with Eimskip, The Reykjavik Port Authorities, Schneider Electric, Mabux, and Cavotec in order to understand the cost effectiveness, infrastructural requirements, and environmental/health benefits that SSE could provide Reykjavik. By analyzing and understanding the costs, benefits, and stakeholders in this value chain one can attempt to tackle the overarching shore side electricity question, feasibility. This project focuses on container ships only, all other forms of ocean going vessels are not taken into account (Roll on Roll off, Bulk Carriers, Tankers, etc). The Reykjavik general area has two main terminals for containerships. Each terminal is operated by a different company one being Samskip and the other one being Eimskip. This project will focus only on the Eimskip terminal as well as six container ships all operated by Eimskip [1]. The terminal is located 4.8 km away from downtown Reykjavik. Three trade lines will be taken into account each containing two container ships with identical schedules and engines per line. The Yellow line, Green line, and Blue line will be analyzed in detail.

1.1 The shipping Industry In an economy dominated by globalization, the shipping industry controls the vast majority of transnational trade. An estimated 90% of the world trade is carried out by the international shipping industry [2]. The year 2015 was the first time the shipping industry transported more than 10 billion tons around the world, in addition shipments expanded by a historic 2.1% [3]. As economies get bigger and countries’ populations keep expanding the need to move goods safely and efficiently throughout the globe will continue to increase. In addition, the melting of the polar ice caps is completely transforming the shipping industry. Opening new possibilities to navigate the globe through the north pole would dramatically increase shipping as it would open transatlantic trade routes that were considered impossible in the previous decades. Finally, in a one-year span from January 2015 to January 2016 the world fleet grew by 3.5 percent in terms of deadweight tons transported [3]. The shipping industry is continuously increasing in size and finding ways to deliver more goods at a faster and more reliable rate. In 2015 the total number of containers shipped around the world was 184 million, it is estimated for that number to quadruple by 2030 [3]. Historically the shipping industry has not been submitted to rigorous environmental testing and many low grade fuels were used both in the ocean as well as near harbors [4]. In the last two decades growing attention towards sustainability has shined its light on the maritime industry. An ABB Marine study in 2010 determined that 15% of the worlds Nitrous oxide emissions come solely from the shipping industry, as well as an estimated 60,000 premature deaths from cardiopulmonary disorders were found to be related to maritime emissions, most of these deaths were found near coastal regions [5].

2 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Due to this, The International Maritime Organization (IMO) was set up. Many countermeasures have been set up since, and in 2004 the MARPOL Convention placed a limit on the Sulphur oxide emissions by lowering the Sulphur content of marine fuels. The most important provision being Annex VI from the MARPOL Convention in alliance with The EU maritime fuel Sulphur directive, stating that all ships while at berth must use fuel with a Sulphur content less than 0.1% in emission control areas (ECA) [6]. Figure1.1 depicts the short and mid-term reductions on Sulphur and other emissions.

Figure 1.1 IMO and EU NOx and SOx limit on marine fuel per year and legislation summary [8]

Currently when at high seas vessels burn lower grade fuels known as heavy fuel oils (HFO) these fuels need to be heated up and then burned in the main engines, this type of fuel is used since it is a lot cheaper than the higher grade marine gas oil and there are currently no stringent regulations on SOx and NOx emissions at high sea. The 2015 legislation saw a minor change in HFO’s share of the market since SECA’s are near coastal areas and a fuel switch can be simply done only for the auxiliary engines which performed the aforementioned “hoteling needs” as well as maneuvering into the harbor. The year 2020 is a pivotal year for the maritime industry since the IMO has declared that by January first 2020 all marine fuel must have a maximum Sulphur content of 0.5% at high seas, this is a huge change since currently a maximum of 3.5% Sulphur is present in heavy fuel oils. This is a dramatic change for the marine industry as well as the refining industry since todays heavy fuel oil market will become an uncertainty. SOx scrubbers are a pollution reducing technology that cleans the exhaust from vessels allowing for HFO to still be used but the scrubbing technology is expensive, and since the demand for HFO is unknown it is expected that most refineries will opt for the new standard of Low Sulphur marine gas oil (LSMGO), while HFO will be a niche market fuel, studies indicate that in 2020 only 14% of the burned fuels will go through scrubbers, making the argument that the 2020 legislation will transform the marine sector from a fuel oil based transport to a gas oil one [7]. It is vital to understand the importance of how the 2020 legislation will affect future marine technologies as well as future pricing. Predicting the future price changes of marine fuels is nearly impossible, but the general consensus is that prices will continue to increase, the question is at what rate will it rise [8]. By looking at previous IMO legislations and how new rules affected prices one can try and predict a future trend. Emissions Control Areas were assigned in 2015 in an attempt to reduce pollutants from coastal areas. The 2015 legislation states that vessels operating in ECA zones can have a maximum of 0.1% Sulphur content. The ECA zones are the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, and North American coasts extending through all of the US and Canada. Table1.1 shows the predicted prices for 2015 from the International Bunker Association, and next to them are the actual prices.

1.1 THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY 3

Table 1.1 Emission Control Area Legizlation Price Prediction and Actual Price adapted from The IBA

2014 Predicted price (USD)

Actual Price 2015 post ECA (USD)

Heavy Fuel Oil $ 590 $ 245

Marine Gas Oil $ 880 $ 470

The major overestimation of price change for 2015 is due to numerous factors. The single biggest factor is the oil crash of 2015 in which prices reached a low that had not been seen since 2009. This factor single handedly nullified any predictions made as to how legislation could affect marine fuel prices. From 2014 to the benchmark 2015-year oil prices dropped by around 50% [43]. The second most important factor is the fact that this law came into place only for Emission Control Areas (ECA). Figure1.2 shows the affected areas, while still a substantial part of the global trade routes are in emission control areas, the 2020 legislation will require 0.5% maximum Sulphur content regardless of your location on the globe, be it high seas or in a coastal region. This massive change in fuel quality is many times larger than the change that occurred in 2015. The 2015 legislation can still be used to measure potential market changes for the 2020 legislation. Estimations by CE Delft demonstrate a 50% reduction in Sulphur concentrations in the Baltic and North Sea [9], these health benefits are estimated to save between 4.4 and 8 billion euro while the price increase in fuel due to the 2015 regulation was estimated to be around 2.3 billion euro [9] therefore the health benefits due to lower emissions are 1.9 to 3.5 times higher than the 2015 fuel price raise.

Figure 1.2 Map of Current and Future Emission Control Areas 2015 [9]

The main factor the marine industry is focusing on at the moment is how the market share of HFO will decrease and what will fill in the gap. New technologies using liquid natural gas (LNG) are starting to be deployed but they are still expected to be a minority similar to scrubbers. The year 2020 will be the first year in which it is expected for gasoil to be used by the majority of vessels and at all times raising the question of availability of supply. The question that rises is if the refineries will be able to cope with the newly enforced demand of lower Sulphur content fuels. Figure1.3 shows the predicted marine fuel consumption for the first two years after the 2020 legislation comes into place and compares them with the MARPOL baseline 2015.


Figure 1.3 Predicted Fuel Consumption: Gasoil vs Residual Fuel Oil after 2020 legislation [44]

The change is substantial, previous legislations had just forced a switch on fuel quality for auxiliary engines. Currently Marine gasoil (MGO) has a Sulphur content of 1.5% [40], low Sulphur marine gasoil (LSMGO) has a content of 0.1% and is used in all ECA zones unless scrubbers are present on vessel or on shore power supply is provided by the harbor. The world’s fuel switch to a 0.5% Sulphur content fuel will see many different blends of gasoil to provide the 0.5% required [8]. LSMGO will still be required in ECA zones and the price of future gasoil is unknown (any blend 0.5% and lower that is legal for the 2020 MARPOL agreement). Considered the most efficient (tons moved per kilometer per kg polluted) when compared to land based or air transport, the maritime industry is still a heavy polluter on a global scale [3]. Table1.2 compares the grams of CO2 produced/ton-km of different transport modes [10].

Table 1.2 Freight CO2 Emission Comparison of Grams per km-ton transported adapted from International Maritime Organization

Transport CO2/km-ton displaced (grams)

Cargo vessel Over 8,000 dwt 15

Cargo vessel 2,000-8,000 dwt 21

Heavy truck with trailer 50

Air freight 747-400 1,200 km flight 540

At 15g CO2/ton-km, medium to large sized containerships are without a doubt the best way to transport goods over a long distance. Due to the size of these containerships, unimaginable amounts of goods are able to be moved through the water. At 8000 DWT a small vessel can carry around 715 TEU, each twenty-foot equivalent unit is equal to what a single carry truck can transport, this ability to move massive amounts of goods in a single trip is the main factor contributing to advantageous maritime transport, even though the fuel quality is inferior to its road and air transport counterpart. The newest example of this phenomenon is the Maersk Triple-E Class, the largest container ship in the world. It can hold 18,000 TEU (Twenty-foot equivalent unit). That is equivalent to 144 million pairs of shoes. Due to the gargantuan transporting capacity of vessels our globalized economy depends on these ships travelling the world and distributing goods throughout it [11].

1.1 THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY 5

Although the emissions per ton emitted might seem environmentally friendly it is of utmost importance to highlight the magnitude at which goods are being transported around the globe on a daily basis and every possible reduction would be beneficial to the environment. In addition to polluting the high seas, cargo ships are an environmental and a health threat to cities that neighbor ports. Besides greenhouse gas pollutants like CH4, N2O, and CO2 the vessels emit particulate matter, Nitrogen oxides, and Sulphur oxides that are especially dangerous for human beings and other animals, these emissions are mostly dispersed through high density areas since most ports are located near cities. While at berth vessels must keep many operations running, examples range from electronics, radio, refrigeration, to unloading cranes and other safety countermeasures. In order to run these operations most vessels currently turn on their auxiliary engines which burn marine gas oil and power a generator [12]. While legislature like the MARPOL Convention exists, they focus on mitigating the environmental damages current technologies produce. The overarching idea behind shore side electricity is to completely eliminate these emissions from urbanized areas, and depending on the countries’ energy mix one could completely nullify these emissions from the source by supplying sustainably generated electricity to cargo ships.


1.2 Trade Lines This section aims to expand on each trade line figures like size, fuel consumption, power, and hours spent at berth in the port of Reykjavik, as well as deadweight are included. For simplicity a table is available at the bottom of the page for direct comparison between lines. Each line is encompassed by two sister vessels which were assumed to have identical times at berth and fuel consumption per line. Blue Line Encompassing the two biggest sister vessels in this study, Godafoss and Dettifoss are 165 meters long. With each of the sister vessels spending around 1,638 hours at port (68 days) the Blue line spends around 416 tons of Marine Gas Oil while at berth in the Eimskip harbor alone. These two vessels begin their route in Reykjavik and continue to Faroes capital Thorshavn and continue to two major European ports, Rotterdam and Bremerhaven before continuing to Danish port Aarhus and finally returning to Reykjavik. Yellow Line Bakkarfoss and Lagarfoss encompass the line that spends the most time at port. Spending an aggregate of 3,640 hours at port (151 days) the yellow line spends the most time at the Reykjavik Port from the vessels studied. The yellow line calls at smaller british ports, the Faroes capital of Thorshavn and like the Blue line these vessels also call to Rotterdam. Green Line Making up the two smallest vessels in the studied fleet, the green line serves small ports in Canada, USA, and Iceland. Skogafoss and Reykjafoss are the two 127 meter long vessels, this is the line that consumes the least energy per year due to its low hoteling time at the Reykjavik Harbor.

Table 1.3 Trade Line Summary

1 Using MABUX 2017-2023 normalized price per metric ton of Low Sulphur Marine Gasoil

Blue Line Yellow Line Green Line

Length 165 m 140.7 m 127 m

Hours at port 3,276 hours (136.5 days) 3,640 hours (151.6 days) 1,470 hours ( 61.25 days)

Fuel Consumption per vessel

3.04 tons/24 hrs 1.608 Tons/24 hrs 1.904 Tons/hrs

USD/year spent on Reykjavik Port 1

$ 219,259.4 $ 128,524.76 $ 61,458.74

Deadweight (Tons) 14,034 tons 12,254 tons 8,430 tons

Vessel Names Godafoss and Dettifoss Bakkafoss and Lagarfoss Reykjafoss and Skogafoss

1.3 WHAT IS SHORE SIDE ELECTRICITY? 7

1.3 What is Shore Side Electricity? Shore side electricity is one of the measures used to reduce emissions of ships while they are docked. When at berth, the ship is plugged into the local electricity network via cables instead of running the auxiliary engines that then generate electricity. Although commercially, this technology is relatively new, the US Navy has been using cold ironing for decades, in an attempt to save on fuel consumption navy vessels that were docked for months on end would be connected to the electrical grid, this was only possible at few ports that had the matching voltage and frequency that the navy ships had, and in some cases a transformer and converter were necessary to feed these single ships [13]. Commercially, the technology has been around for 16 years. With the first successful implementation of cold ironing, the port of Goteborg [14] started feeding merchant vessels in the year 2000 and the port of Los Angeles followed in 2004.

Figure 1.4 Shore Connection Diagram [8]

Alternative marine power offers a plethora of benefits to the port, ship owners, and the local population. The use of shore side electricity virtually eliminates all emissions from the vessel, by shutting off the auxiliary engines there are none if not minimal (Auxiliary Boiler in certain vessels) emissions coming out of the vessel while harbored, this benefits the surrounding port area as well as dock and vessel personnel. In cases were the electricity fed to the vessels is not coming from a renewable source, the emissions are still greatly reduced since a power plant can more efficiently convert fuel to electricity than an auxiliary engine attached to a small generator, in addition it is important to highlight the fact that when electricity is produced at a power plant it is generally located away from high density areas while a vessel will be producing its electricity at the dock were emissions are more easily dispersed towards urban areas [15].

The second biggest advantage for SSE is the competitive pricing that renewable energy has against regular marine diesel oil in Iceland in terms of $/kWh. The instability of the fossil fuel market can be detrimental for shipping businesses and although in the last years the oil market’s fluctuation has benefited the shipping industry by keeping fuel prices relatively low, the future will always be uncertain. Another advantage that is commonly overlooked is the noise and vibration reduction that cold ironing implementation can bring to a port. Quality of life for both neighboring residents and port workers is affected negatively not only by emissions but by noise pollution as well [16]. Constant surrounding of noise pollution has been linked to hearing impairment, high anxiety and stress levels, as well as sleep deprivation and performance reduction. With long hoteling times averaging 24 hours one must take

Voltage/Frequency Converter CMS

11 kV/50 hZ 440V/60Hz


into account the constant vibrations produced from diesel generators constantly supplying energy to the ship. A ship running its generators at a harbor can generate up to 120 decibels [8], that is equivalent to a first row loud rock concert and at 125 dB eardrums can begin to experience pain. Via cold ironing one can completely nullify these vibrations by shutting the engines and generators off and feeding the vessel through clean renewable energy.

Finally, shore side electricity offers one final economic incentive. The auxiliary engines on board the ship as well as the generators attached to said engines require very specific maintenance in order to achieve maximum efficiency [17], these checkups occur at different stages of the engines life and can range from oil and valve clean-up to the replacement of specific parts depending on the age of the engine. As price for marine fuel increases and environmental standards intensify the necessity to keep an optimal auxiliary generator will become more rigorous and costly. On average an auxiliary engine has 5 main checkups depending on its age [17]. Shore side electricity could significantly reduce the wear and tear of auxiliary engines by 1.7 dollars per hour spent at berth connected to a shore side connection [8], this will increase the efficiency of the engine as it will wear out slower and decrease the rate at which pieces need to be replaced and as more harbors provide shore side electricity the reduction in maintenance will yield even higher savings.

1.4 Technical Aspects

1.4.1 Barrier to Entry

From a technical and operational standpoint, shore side electricity is a complex system that depends on numerous elements [4]. Shore side electricity infrastructure must be present both on board and at port. From an economic perspective, those vessels equipped with shore side electricity will benefit as more ports implement this technology, in other words the initial retrofit cost will be softened the more often this technology is used. Similarly, port infrastructure price will decrease in an investment to emissions-abated ratio as more vessels adopt this technology and connect to the harbor’s electrical network. The biggest technical barrier of entry for a successful shore side electric connection is one related to a lack of standardized equipment. From an operational point of view, both the port and the connected vessel must have an integrated system that ensures a safe connection to ensure personnel and equipment safety. Ocean Going Vessels are built in different international yards and have no uniform voltage or frequency requirement. When it comes to frequencies, all ships come in two standards, 60 Hertz and 50 Hertz [ 13]. Vessel Voltage also varies ranging from 440 Volts to 11 kiloVolts. Due to the nature of the technology and the voltages it handles, additional standards for safety and operation have to be met by containerships partaking in cold ironing, the standard is the ISO/IEC/IEEE 80005. The ISO/IEC/IEEE 80005 standard “International Standard Utility Connections in Port Systems-General” requirements lays down the foundation for what is required from both a port and cargo ships when it comes to OPS. This standard describes the shore connection systems both onboard the ship and on shore. The goal of this standard is to ensure that a ship built anywhere in the world with different voltage and frequency can still connect safely to any port that supplies shore side electricity.

The standard focuses on proper grounding of faults, opening of circuit breakers on ship and shore when faults occur. As well as the efficient disconnection of the grid during weather emergencies or excessive ship movement relative to the pier. Finally, proper handling of heavy power cables and efficient harbor to ship communication are addressed [18]. The standard does not require a specific design of the shore connection system and there are multiple companies that specialize in standardized turn-key solutions. ABB and Schneider Electric are the two biggest companies offering similar frequency and voltage converters so that a port can have a range of voltages and frequencies in order to accommodate as many ships as possible. The IEEE 80005 standard comes with three variations, 80005-1, 8005-2, and 80005-

1.4 TECHNICAL ASPECTS 9

3. This report will focus on 80005-3 which encompasses a low voltage shore connection LVSC. 8005-2 focuses on medium voltage and 80005-1 focuses on high voltage shore connections. Currently, due to the beginning of standardized solutions being set, we observe two main policy changes that affect global shipping and SSE. The first and oldest regulation is the California Regulation [19] stating that all cruises, containers, and reefer cargos are required to be equipped with berthing equipment by 2020, and that 80% of the power used by berthed ships will have to come from shore side electricity. The California regulation will be the example for all of North American ports to follow while in the case of Europe, the European Parliament has imposed cold ironing related legislation aswell. The European Parliament decided to go forth and require shore side connections at the “Ten-T” Core Network of European ports by December 31st 2025 [20]. The Trans-European Transport Network consists of the 80 most important ports in Europe and is considered the main pillar of the European trading sector. As policy gets stricter more shipping companies will retrofit their vessels due to the environmental, financial, and political incentives.

1.4.2 Vessel Retrofit Overview and Requirements

Since shore side electricity is a new commercial technology most vessels do not have the needed electrical requirements to directly connect to the local grid. Newbuilds are slowly starting to be manufactured with shore side electricity compatibility. Since the six vessels in this study are not newbuilds all vessels would require retrofitting, it is essential to highlight that a newbuild’s cost to incorporate shore side electricity compatibility would be lower than that of retrofitting, in addition retrofitting a vessel takes time, and that time spent retrofitting the vessel can have adverse financial impacts on the owner. Vessel retrofits are a necessity when it comes to older ships adapting to shore side electricity. Having the proper infrastructure both on board and shore side ensures that a safe displacement of electricity takes place in which neither personnel nor equipment are damaged. Different modifications can be made on the vessel depending on numerous factors like voltage, ship size, and frequency, similarly, different solutions come with different costs. Each version of a retrofit has its pros and cons which must be addressed carefully since the investment is expected to last 20 years. Below, detailed instructions with a matching diagram show what is required in order to retrofit a containership in standard with IEC 80005 and make it compatible with shore side electricity, these are the standard retrofits performed to most vessels seeking to connect to the grid via Alternative Marine Power. The first step for containerships would be to install a MV electrical panel in order to receive power {1}, in newer vessels a dedicated cubicle for shore side connections is sometimes already present. Containerships have a very specific set of regulations that need to be followed under IEC 80005. Instead of having a door where cables are fed into the vessel all containerships equipped with SSE technology must have their own cable management system on board and have that be lowered to the SSE connection, these Cable management systems are an expensive barrier to entry for cold ironing. The second step requires containerships to install medium voltage cells {2}, these manage the vessel connection as well as the grounding. The third step is to install a transformer on board to step down the electricity coming from the grid, its most common form in ports is 6.6kV or 11kV {3}. The transformer steps down the electricity to the vessels voltage.


Figure 1.5 Vessel Retrofit Schematic [8]

Modifying the existing main switchboard is also necessary as this retrofit ensures the main switchboard is able to host the reception of the onshore power {4}. Finally, in cases where applicable, a software adaptation is required in the vessel management system, this ensures a smooth shore connection and disconnection {5}. The final two steps shown as steps outside of the vessel are the testing of the equipment and the certification required once the equipment has been properly tested.

1.4.3 Vessel Retrofit Breakdown

When considering individual vessel retrofits there are numerous factors that must be taken into account. The easiest way to start is by understanding the cost of the “retrofit” and what it entails. Vessels can be retrofitted in three main categories all in accordance to international standards. Low Voltage, medium voltage, and high voltage retrofits are all possible for shore side electrical connections. The retrofit depends on the vessel’s size and electrical network commonly (440V, 6.6kV, 11 kV) [13]. The best way to identify a potential retrofit for a vessel is by reading its Electrical Single Line Diagram. Due to data sensitive information in the Electrical Single Line Diagrams from Eimskip, Electrical Single Line Diagrams were not provided but the voltage and frequency of each individual ship was given. Vessel retrofitting can be broken down into four costs. Vessel network modifications (discussed in section 1.4.1), an ISO-80005 approved Cable Management Systems (Cable Crane), the electrical plugs, and finally annual opperations and maintenance (O&M). The vessel’s network cable modifications entails around 60% of the total investment. And depending on the voltage of the vessel the price changes. The lower the voltage the more cables are necessary to transfer electricity therefore a low voltage retrofit running at 440V requiring multiple cables will be more expensive than a medium voltage system running at 6.6 kV. The Electrical plugs are necessary for cable connections, and similarly to O&M, they ensure a smooth electrical transition both during the connection and disconnection phases, both have minimal costs which will be addressed in the financial section. Finally, the Cable management system is required (CMS). Due to IEEE 80005 regulations, containerships, unlike every other ocean going vessel, requires to have a CMS on board in order to connect to the grid. All other OGVs have the option between installing their own cranes to manage the cabling or if the port is fully equipped a shore side crane can lower the cables into the vessel and connect this way. It is for this reason that containership cold ironing has an additional barrier to entry compared to other ships. A standard CMS for a small containership like the ones in this study (ranging between 120m and 170m) is estimated to cost one third of the full vessel retrofit, this is an expensive investment if vessels will only use OPS at one port during the entire year and the individual shipping line schedules must be analyzed and a cost benefit analysis should be performed in order to prove financial viability. A secondary and much more specialized solution exists and under special circumstances it can reduce a project’s cost dramatically. The AMPTainer is a portable Cavotec-made cable management system. This containerized solution comes in a similar size of a standard containership box and it is raised via the port’s crane into the arriving containership, once the AMPTainer is fastened to the vessel the cables now on the containership are lowered in accordance to the IEEE standard and a successful connection ensues. The AMPTainer’s biggest advantage is without a doubt its mobile nature. By having this unit by the pier, arriving vessels with OPS retrofitted infrastructure can have this cable reel installed in a matter of

1.4 TECHNICAL ASPECTS 11

minutes and since it is portable, as vessels get ready for departure the AMPTainer is again lowered to the dock and is ready for its next use. The largest disadvantage by far for the AMPTainer is the fact that this investment which is worth more than a standard containership crane can only be used by one ship at a time. Of course multiple AmpTainers can be purchased but if the costs of a couple of AMPTainers exceed the price of having each vessel installed with a crane then the AMPTainer loses its competitive advantage.

1.4.4 Port Retrofit Overview and Requirements

As important as the vessel retrofit is, shore side connections are only as successful as the port’s infrastructure allows it to be. Transferring the ship’s power load to the shore without disruption of onboard services can only be done after fulfilling certain criteria [21]. Depending on the size of the port, shore side retrofits can be many times more expensive than vessel retrofits. The port’s main task is to supply the adequate voltage and frequency to a vessel that is connecting to the port, and to ensure that this connection is done in a safe and efficient manner. Below a description with a matching diagram of Eimskip’s electrical infrastructure.

Figure 1.6 Eimskip Electrical Network [10]

Veitur, a partner of the largest utility company in Iceland “Orkouveita Reykjavikur”, is selling high voltage electricity to Eimskip at 11 kV 50 Hz {1}. Eimskip then lowers the voltage in their own transformers to a more manageable 440V {2} to perform most of its operations (cranes operate at 11kV {3}), it is essential to highlight the fact that the frequency stays at 50 Hz like in all of Europe regardless of the voltage downstream. The low voltage of 440V is identical to the one needed for the six vessels in the study, the only additional requirement would be to convert 50 Hz into the 60 Hz used by the vessels in question.

Similar to vessel retrofits, the ports can be equipped with different shore side electricity equipment, likewise different equipment comes at a different cost and with different pros and cons. As OPS

{1}

{2}

{3}


technology grows, many companies are designing “turnkey” solutions which provide both frequency and voltage conversions while keeping the system running at its most efficient. For this project there will be a focus on two different frequency and voltage converters, both products of Schneider Electric, the ShoreBox, and the MGE Galaxy 7000 GFC they’re technical and financial viability will be assessed.

1.5 Environmental Aspect The burning of fossil fuels releases numerous pollutants; in the case of the marine industry, the burning of marine fuel has four main pollutants. Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur oxides, particulate matter, and CO2. In addition to these four emissions some tests performed on vessels also reveal low levels of CH4 and N2O, these two pollutants as well as CO2 are considered greenhouse gasses that contribute to the raise in the planet’s temperature. NOx, SOx, and PM2.5 are emissions that can be detrimental to local health and through external factors can also end up affecting the planet’s temperature through the accelerated melting of polar icecaps [22]. The city of Reykjavik plans on being a carbon neutral city by 2040 [23], already its energy mix is 100% renewable so one of the last things left to tackle is transportation. There are several emission mitigating strategies in place but many experts believe that in order to properly address the inefficiencies that are related to fossil fuel burning there must be a “tax” on carbon dioxide emissions or each ton of carbon dioxide emitted must have a fixed price to it [24]. With a planned increase of public transportation usage and greener road transport, most future pollution generated in the city of Reykjavik will come from the harbor. Shore side electricity aims to completely nullify local Reykjavik emissions by producing the electricity that cargo ships need through geothermal and hydropower generation.

1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT 13

1.5.1 Emissions

Table 1.4 Maritime Pollutant Summary

Pollutant Greenhouse Gas Effects

NOx Non Greenhouse Gas Adverse health effects (Cardiopulmonary conditions)

[25]

Adverse Environmental Effects (Acidic Deposition,Particulate

Matter creation) [27]

SOx Non Greenhouse Gas Adverse Health Effects (Cardiopulmonary Conditions)

[28]

Adverse Environmental Effects (Vegetation Damage, Particulate

Matter Creation) [28]

PM2.5 Non Grenhouse Gas Adverse Health Effects (Cardiopulmonary Conditions)

[22]

Adverse Environmental Effects (Lower Icecap Allabedo) [22]

CO2 Grenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential [29]

CH4/N2O Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential [30]

Particulate Matter

Particulate matter (PM) is the mixture of solid particles with liquid droplets found in the air. Some examples of these particles are dust, dirt, soot, and smoke. The size of particulate matter ranges and their health hazards depends on what the compounds particulate matter is made of as well as the size of the particles. Particles like soot are big enough to be seen by the naked eye while smaller sized particles cannot be seen without an electron microscope. This project will focus on particulate matter of 2.5 micrometers or smaller (PM2.5) common forms of particulate matter come in the form of dust mixed with smoke from construction sites and unpaved roads. In the case of cargo vessels particulate matter consists mostly of complex reactions from chemicals emitted from marine fuel combustion like Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The combination of heat and humidity are what cause these reactions to take place. Particulate matter has no direct global warming potential but these emissions should not be overlooked as they are an unfavorable health and environmental hazard. Particulate matter can aid with the melting of the snowcaps since a fine layer of black particulate matter can be carried by the wind and deposited in ice, the black color in particulate matter lowers the icecap’s alabedo in turn accelerating the melting process. Particulate matter contains microscopic solids as well as liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled. Particles that are less than 10 micrometers are especially damaging since they can be so small that they can directly affect your bloodstream or


lungs. The human body is able to handle certain amounts of different particulate matter. For example, the human body has naturally occurring countermeasures to handle the inhaling of dust and miniscule amounts of smoke, the issue arises when these microscopic particles are attached to harmful compounds like NO2 and SO2 that metabolize inside the human system, attacking the cardiorespiratory system [22].

CH4/N2O

Although these compounds are barely emitted by vessels at berth, it is essential to highlight them as greenhouse gasses since both pollutants have higher Global warming potential (GWP) than CO2. GWP is a unit of measurement that allows direct comparisons in greenhouse gases. The GWP measures how much energy the emissions of a gas will absorb in a given period of time relative to the emissions of CO2. CH4 or methane, has a GWP of 32 meaning that it “traps” 32 times as much heat energy as carbon dioxide [30]. Finally, N2O although emitted in a very low quantity has a global warming potential of 298.

15

Chapter 2

2Methods

2.1 Technical Requirements The six vessels chosen for this report are the ones that frequent the Reykjavik Harbor the most and all of their stops are done inside the Eimskip terminal. A bottom up approach was used for this analysis since detailed information regarding the six chosen vessels was provided by Eimskip, including hours spent at berth per vessel, fuel consumption per vessel, as well as technical specifications including average power consumption, and type of fuel used.

In order to properly asses what retrofits would be implemented to the six vessels in question there are several questions that must be answered. Table2.1 aids in displaying this information in an easy to read way.

• What is each shipping line’s voltage, frequency, and power requirements, fuel consumption? • How many ports with OPS are these vessels calling to? • How often will multiple Eimskip vessels be at berth in the same location?

Table 2.1 Trade Line Electrical Specifications

Shipping Line Voltage/Frequency Auxiliary Power Requirements2

OPS Ports

Blue 440 V / 60 Hz 400 kW 2*

Yellow 440 V / 60 Hz 300kW 2*

Green 440 V / 60 Hz 300 kW 1

All six vessels are operating at 440 V and 60 Hz. As mentioned in the “Shipping Line” section, the blue and yellow line call to mainland Europe but none of the ports that are on route offer shore side power yet, although it is expected that Rotterdam a port both the yellow and the blue line call to will offer shore side electricity by 2020.The green line which calls to northern USA and Canada docks in very small ports which also don’t offer shore side electricity. The Reykjavik harbor would be the only port 2 Due to the lack of peak power and average power data an average auxiliary power requirement was given by Eimskip *Lines operating in ports that are expected to offer onshore power supply by 2020

16 CHAPTER 2: METHODS

that would supply OPS for the green line. Since the Cable management system investment is substantial and the cranes would only be used at the same port year round, the AMPTainer technology could have a very positive financial impact on the project. The main issue with the AMPTainer is having multiple berths at the same time rendering one crane useless. The next section explains the technical barriers the port must overcome in order to successfully supply clean electricity to vessels at berth.

2.1.1 Frequency Converters and Voltage Transformer selection

The biggest issue when it comes to standardization is the conversion of voltage and frequency to the desired amount depending on the vessel. Individual transformers and frequency converters can be purchased and connected through cables in order to have a “standardized port” but this can be both capital and personnel intensive. Schneider Electric is one of the companies that offers a modular turn-key solution that simplifies the energy conversion process and efficiently keeps track of all the energy usage of the port terminals. The ShoreBox is a pre designed OPS solution that consists of numerous standard components that can be organized and rearranged in different modules depending on the specific needs. The ShoreBox gets its name since all the components fit inside of one standard shipping container (Box). With a space and cost efficient design the ShoreBox is ideal for old terminals that want to provide shore side power without the need for new building construction, additionally the ShoreBox system is scalable and mobile, meaning that as demand for SSE increases additional boxes can be added and moved around the terminal to ensure the terminal is always functional. The ShoreBox is the larger of the two aforementioned solutions, being able to connect up to four vessels at the same time and has a maximum power supply of 4 MVA, this is more than enough to fulfill the current needs for Eimskip since the maximum number of vessels docked at a time in this project is two (Blue and Green or Yellow and Green) and the maximum power required is 700 kW (Blue line + Green line), assuming a power factor of 0.8 and taking into account Eq (1) the apparent power would be 1.25 MVA, not even close to the ShoreBox limit.

𝑆 = #$%&'((*)

Where: S is apparent power, P is power, and θ is the power factor.

the ShoreBox is ideal for ports in which multiple vessels are at berth at the same time, a smaller and more economical solution exists and is also provided by Schneider Electric, the “MGE Galaxy 7000 GFC”. Figure2.1 shows how the frequency converters, transformers, and control system are all encased inside a weather proof metal casing, this facilitates the transportation of the module and allows it to be repositioned as the port expands.

(1)

2.1 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS 17

Figure 2.1 ShoreBox [8]

Table 2.2 Voltage and Frequency Converter Comparison

ShoreBox MGE Galaxy 7000 GFC

Max connections 4 1

Voltage transformer ü ü

Frequency converter ü ü

Max kVA 4,000 kVA 500 kVA

Price $ 600,000USD $ 80,000 USD

At around a sixth of the cost of a ShoreBox the Galaxy 7000 Grid Frequency Converter performs the same functions at reduced scale. The biggest difference between the ShoreBox and the Galaxy 7000 is the number of electrical outlets available and its maximum power capacity, while the ShoreBox can connect up to four vessels, the Galaxy 7000 is only able to connect a single vessel at a time. With a maximum power of 500 kVa the Galaxy 7000 can withstand the maximum power required by the vessels in this project. The blue line encompassed of Godafoss and Dettifoss consume 400 kW, with an assumed power factor of 0.8 using Eq (1) yeilds the result of 500 kVA. Due to the restrictive nature of the Galaxy 7000 GFC, a well-structured berthing schedule must be taken into account to ensure there are no overlaps present. The section below illustrates the methodology used in order to reach a yearlong schedule of Eimskip’s three shipping lines.


2.1.2 Eimskip Berthing Schedule

Understanding how much energy is going to be needed at a specific time is essential for a successful deployment of shore side electricity. Due to the schedule containing sensitive information, Eimskip was able to only provide a three-month schedule for the Yellow, Blue, and Green Line. Since the trade lines follow the same pattern year long, the three-month period was multiplied by four in order to recreate a yearlong calendar. Although due to these assumptions a kWh/day yearlong calendar was not able to be recreated, the exact number of days in which multiple ships partaking in this study are at berth at the same time is known, this will determine what type of cable management system as well as what voltage and frequency converter is the most beneficial. After examining the three month berthing schedule some patterns were identified. Each line made up of two vessels will never have more than one vessel at berth in any given period of time, this is due to the fact that sister vessels sail against each other, this maximizes the trade lines efficiency. Another essential piece of data found in this three-month period was finding that the Blue line and the Yellow line are also never at berth during the same time period. Only the Green line has occasional clashes with both the Blue and the Yellow line. This means that the two lines that consume the most electricity (Blue and Yellow) will never be stressing Eimskip’s grid. The Green line clashes on 14 days over the three-month period, if we follow our previous assumption and multiply this by four we get the total days per year in which there are more than one shore side electricity vessels connected at the Eimskip harbor, this adds up to 56 days. From these numbers we can determine multiple strategies Eimskip could implement. The options that are considered to be technically unfeasible will be discarded from the environmental and financial sections. Three possible strategies, all considered technically feasible were established and are summarized in the table below. The most expensive strategy that would abate the most pollutants would be a six vessel retrofit, encompassing the three lines (Blue, Yellow, and Green). Due to its 54 clashing days, the possibility of a single Galaxy 7000 is technically unfeasible, this also removes the possibility of having a single cable management system shared by multiple vessels. Having multiple vessels at once due to the green line’s conflicting schedule with other lines. When it comes to a voltage and frequency converter the only possibilities are either two Galaxy 7000 or a ShoreBox which would not live to its full value since it can have up to four connected vessels and these trade lines only clash for a maximum of two vessels at a time. With the four biggest vessels in this study never having conflicting schedules, there is an opportunity to pair the biggest emitters in a cost effective strategy. With a single connection at a time and a maximum power of 500 kVA by the blue line Eq (3) these four vessels could all benefit from shore side electricity with minimal infrastructural requirements, a single Galaxy 7000 as well as a single AMPTainer would be enough for this strategies’ needs if SSE were to be used only at the Icelandic port. Since both the yellow and blue line call to the port of Rotterdam which is expected to have shore side electricty by 2020, a single Galaxy 7000 and individually mounted cable management systems will also be taken into account and their profitability compared in later sections. Lastly, a single line retrofit strategy was chosen, the blue line which has the highest fuel consumption per 24-hour period is the ideal candidate. Due to the cost of a single AMPTainer being higher than the installation of two mounted cable management systems the AMPTainer wont be considered for this last scenario.

2.1 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS 19

Table 2.3 Technically Feasible Shippig Line Retrofit Combinations

Project # retrofitted vessels

Max kVa

CMS Frequency/voltage converters

# Clashing days

Blue/Yellow/Green

Lines

6 1.25 kVA

Mounted Shorebox or 2x Galaxy 7000

54

Blue/Yellow Line 4 500 kVA

Mounted or AMPTainer

Shorebox or Galaxy 7000

0

Blue Line 2 500 kVA

Mounted Shorebox or Galaxy 7000

0

Table2.3 summarizes the technically feasible combinations for this project. Finally, an overall estimate of the electrical consumption per project was calculated. Since the project encompasses the potential retrofit of only six vessels that are considered to be small to medium in terms of size and power required, it is not expected for Veitur or the local grid to suffer from this, it is important to mention that as shore side electrical infrastructure expands and more vessels are connected to the grid at the same time more attention to grid performance and reliability will be required. The Blue line being the most energy intensive line would require 1,310 MWh/year, and the most energy intensive scenario in which the six studied vessels are retroffited the energy demand per year would be 2843 Megawatt hours.


2.2 Methodology for Quantifying Emissions Shipping emits several pollutants that are a function of the carbon content of the fuel, energy density of the fuel, and combustion efficiency [31]. The pollutants that will be addressed in this report are NOx, SOx, CO2, PM2.5, N2O, and CH4. These pollutants will be separated into two categories, GHG (CO2, CH4, N2O) and health detrimental pollutants (/NOx/SOx/PM2.5) a monetary value has been assigned to the GHG as a CO2equivalent but this value of CO2e was not utilized for Net Present Value or profitability calculations except for the final dollar price per Ton of CO2e abated for the project. Shadow pricing provided by CE Delft was used for all non-greenhouse gas pollutants to illustrate the potential savings from not having to deal with these pollutants (Price of pollutant cost). Due to the low international regulations regarding auxiliary engine emissions, it is hard to precisely predict the emissions of specific engines at berth. Many factors go into account when calculating emissions from the vessels exhaust including fuel quality, auxiliary engine maintenance, engine model, and load factor [32]. In order to assess the six vessels in the most accurate manner possible two emissions factors will be taken into account and then averaged out in order to normalize the results. The first and oldest report taken into account is D.A Cooper’s “Exhaust emissions from ships at berth” performed by The Environmental Research Institute of Göteborg in 2003[37] (consult Appendix 4 for uncertainty factor). In Cooper’s paper, five vessels are taken into account ranging from chemical tankers to ferries. All vessels used different fuels and had different sized engines as well as different ship lengths. The vessel chosen for comparison was a 175m x 129m passenger ferry with a similar auxiliary engine size to both the yellow and blue line. The tested AE was running on MGO and the emission’s test encompassed NOx, SOx, PM2.5, and CO2. The emissions test was performed at 59% load.

Table 2.4 Cooper’s Emission Factors [37]

Pollutants g/kWh

NOx SOx CO2 PM2.5

59% Load Auxiliary

Engine Marine Gas

Oil

20.2 g/kWh 0.4 g/kWh 768 g/kWh 0.31 g/kWh

The second emissions test used was an Australian case study called “Modeling of Ship Engine Exhaust Emissions in Ports and Extensive Coastal Waters Based on Terrestrial AIS Data” this 2014 paper by Laurie Goldsworthy and Brett Goldsworthy, and is the newest emissions test that includes auxiliary engines [38]. This report does not specify the emissions per vessel type but instead it is classified by type of engine and fuel quality. A medium stroke diesel auxiliary engine running on 0.5% Sulphur content marine diesel oil was taken into account for this test. Since D.A Cooper’s paper is considered the foundation for maritime auxiliary emission testing, the original paper is referenced several times in Goldsworthy’s report. Since some estimation methodology was similar for this test too, Goldsworthy states that the confidence factors are similar to Cooper’s.

2.2 METHODOLOGY FOR QUANTIFYING EMISSIONS 21

This report is summarized in table 2.5 and it encompasses the same main four pollutants NOx, SOx, PM2.5, and CO2, but it also includes emissions factors for CH4 and N2O. Greenhouse gasses are measured in “carbon dioxide equivalent” units, each greenhouse gas is assigned a global warming potential (GWP) depending on the heat trapping capabilities of the specific emission. NOx, SOx, and particulate matter where averaged out by adding the two emissions factors of each pollutant and dividing it by two in an attempt to get a normalized emissions factor. CO2 was converted into CO2e. Cooper’s CO2 emission factor remained unchanged, since CO2 was the only greenhouse gas, Cooper’s carbon dioxide factor was assumed to be carbon dioxide equivalent in order to average it out with Goldsworthy’s. Goldsworthy reported three different greenhouse gasses and in order to average them with Cooper’s study, all three pollutants were converted into carbon dioxide equivalent and then aggregated as one CO2e that could be averaged out with Cooper’s report (appendix 3 shows CO2e conversion Eq (10).

Table 2.5 Goldworthy’s Emission Factors [38]

Pollutants g/kWh

NOx SOx CO2 PM2.5 CH4 N2O

Auxiliary Engine 0.5%

sulphur Marine Diesel

13.9 g/kWh 2.12 g/kWh 692 g/kWh 0.29 g/kWh 0.004 g/kWh 0.031 g/kWh

Once both emission tests were in CO2e the results were added and divided by two. With the normalized emissions factors displayed in Table2.6. Eimskip was interviewed and asked for detailed figures regarding each trade line’s power and hours spent at berth in the Reykjavik port. With the power and hours spent at berth provided, calculating the kilowatt hours spent at berth using Eq (2) ensued.

Table 2.6 Normalized Emission Factors

Pollutants

g/kWh

NOx SOx CO2e PM2.5

Normalized emission factor

17 g/kWh 1.26 g/kWh 734 g/kWh 0.3 g/kWh

𝑃 = ./

Where: P is Power, t is time of electricity consumption (in hours) and E is equal to Energy (in kWh).

(2)

22 : METHODS

2.2.1 Methodology for Energy Mix Emission

A shore side electricity project is only as successful as the carbon footprint of the electricity being fed to the vessels [39]. If a power plant generating electricity for vessels is polluting more than the vessels would be emitting through their auxiliary gensets, then SSE is considered inefficient. Iceland is located on a volcanic island that contains numerous advantages for renewable energy generation. With approximately 70% of electric generation coming from hydropower and the remaining 30% coming from geothermal power [33], Iceland is in the unique position to offer fully renewable shore side electricity. In order to properly estimate the emissions saved from vessels generating their own electricity first we must quantify the emissions from electrical generation at a power plant and then compare it to auxiliary engine emissions. Due to its renewable energy generation Iceland has a much lower g/kWh CO2 produced factor than any country in the EU. In order to quantify the emissions generated from shore side electricity the emissions for the Icelandic energy mix have been taken into account and consist of 59g CO2/kWh [34] and plugged into Eq (3), due to the absence of fossil fuel combustion in the Icelandic energy generation system, the emission factors for NOx are nonexistent, and the values PM are minimal [35]. The three configurations mentioned in the technical section will be taken into account, and their emissions through shore side electricity measured, the pollutants generated through electricity generation are then subtracted from the emissions factors at berth to provide a final pollutant abated figure, with a focus on CO2e abated calculated using Eq (4)

E12=E425*Ep

Where: Epe is Energy production emissions, Efem is Energy emission factor of the local energy mix, and Ep is energy produced.

𝐴1 = 𝑒:;;. −𝑒.1=%>

Where: Ap is abated pollutants, eaSSE is emissions abated through shore side electricity, and eEprod is emissions generated through energy production. As addressed in the technical section, this project aims to create three potential scenarios in which Eimskip could take advantage of shore side electricity.

(3)

(4)

2.3 FINANCIAL METHODOLOGY 23

2.3 Financial methodology A successful shore power system requires three basic components working in unison, a reliable shore side electrical system with adequate infrastructure, a cable management system, and a reliable ship side electrical system. The main barrier to entry of alternative marine power is the heavy initial capital cost of standardized equipment and how this cost is divided between ports and ships. In this section a financial analysis is performed on the potential combinations of different trade lines and retrofits. A net present value over a 20-year period is the main indicator of profitability for this study with a goal of using the NPV as a base for a dollar cost per ton of CO2e abated. An interest rate of 5% was used for this calculation. Shore power calculation tools by CE Delft displayed possible interest rates ranged between 2.5% and 8%, a value in the middle was chosen. The financial analysis is divided into port side costs and vessel side costs but unlike other shore side electricity projects this project is assumed to have Eimskip pay for everything, in most cases the port authorities or the legislators in charge of OPS laws offer financial incentives like the case of the Port of Long Beach in California in which vessels connecting to the local grid are not charged for docking , a more quantifiable example is the port of Oakland in which The Oakland Board of Port Commissioners allowed for a 5 million dollar fund in 2011 for shore side equipment and retrofits [15]. The scale at which goods are moved in the Californian ports is much greater than that of the port of Reykjavik, therefore a legislative analysis was not taken into account for this report but this section as well as the discussion and recommendation sections, provides some insight at potential legislative incentives which could dramatically facilitate Eimskip’s transition to a carbon neutral harbor.

Below, a detailed list of equipment and procedures required to successfully retrofit a vessel is presented with its price in dollars. All vessel side equipment prices were gathered from phone calls, emails, and catalogues from Cavotec. The total cost of each vessel retrofit is dependent on the cable management system chosen, while all other figures are a set regardless of CMS. For the port side equipment all information was gathered from Schneider Electric through a face to face meeting, email, and phone calls. The dynamic cable management system (AMPTainer) will be considered a port side cost since this equipment will stay at port when the vessels disconnect from the harbor and no single ship will bear the full cost of the AMPTainer, in scenarios which the AMPTainer is analysed the cost is evenly distributed between the participating vessels.

Table 2.7 Vessel Side Retrofit Cost

Retrofit Cost Total $ 537,158

Retrofit Cost Total (No Cable Management System)

$ 395,112

Annual O&M $ 4,971

Cable insulation/controls installation $ 390,141

Mounted Cable Management System $ 142,046

24 : METHODS

Table 2.8 Port Side Retrofit and AMPTainer Costs

ShoreBox $ 600,000

Galaxy 7000 GFC $ 80,000

AMPTainer $ 350,000

A detailed financial analysis of each of the three scenarios is presented below, each with a Net present value, and a sensitivity analysis performed on the three parameters that have the most impact on the project’s success. These parameters being the price of electricity, the price of retrofit equipment, and the price per ton of LSMGO. A final project USD price per ton of CO2e abated is provided, this was calculated using Eq (5)

𝐶project–C𝐶𝑂2+𝛽𝑁𝑃𝑉𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡TUVW

= 𝐶T$XW

Where: Cproject is project cost, CCO2 is the assigned cost of carbon dioxide, 𝛽Y#Z1=%[2\/ is the net present value of the project, and ACO2 is the total abated carbon dioxide, and CACO2 is the cost per ton of carbon dioxide abated. Some baseline assumptions are the cost of electricity per kWh, Eimskip has a confidential contract with Veitur so the price per kWh will be assumed to be $ 0.10 USD which is equal to 11.15 ISK. The first sensitivity analysis illustrates a change in the price of electricity in terms of $/kWh, although Eimskip buys electricity at a fixed cost a change in the price of electricity could occur due to different reasons. The first one being be a form of subsidy from the government or port authority, this is done in many ports and an example is the port of Rotterdam in which electricity is bought by the port at 8.5 US dollars, the port later sells this electricity at 16 cents and this profit provides an incentive for the port itself to develop SSE infrastructure instead of shipping companies. Even though electricity prices in Iceland are substantially cheaper than The Netherlands, the Dutch port incentivizes onshore power connections through cheap electricity prices. A secondary and more long term reason for decreased electricity prices for Eimskip could be through renegotiating prices with Veitur, currently with the nonexistent shore side electricity infrastructure, no vessel at Eimskip would require additional electricity but as regulations get stricter more vessels will see the profitability in this switch meaning more vessels will have the need to connect to the Eimskip harbor, with more vessels connecting and more electricity being purchased by Eimskip the price per kWh could be renegotiated, similarly when ECA legislation catches up to the technology and all vessels in Iceland are forced to burn LSMGO it will be likely to see foreign vessels asking for shore connections at Reykjavik. the goal behind this is to first of all show the competitive nature of the Icelandic electricity prices but more importantly to demonstrate how Icelandic legislation could help out the local harbor’s health through subsidies. This sensitivity analysis was performed without taking into account Rotterdam electricity prices since those are expected to stay constant. The cash flows for berths in the port of Reykjavik are taken into account for the sensitivity analysis and afterwards the money saved from Rotterdam berths was added to the new “sensitive” cash flows in order to demonstrate a 20 year NPV with possible electricity price changes in Reykjavik without affecting the cash flows from Rotterdam.

(5)

2.3 FINANCIAL METHODOLOGY 25

Given the volatility of the oil market and as a byproduct of this, volatility of marine gas oil, a price forecast was provided by MABUX, a member of the International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) and a normalized price from 2017 to 2023 (See Appendix 1) was used as a baseline for the project, it is important to know that the MABUX prediction is based on current trend lines and the change in supply and demand in 2020 from legislation is not taken into account. Due to the uncertainty of how IMO regulations will affect both supply and demand of marine fuels a sensitivity analysis showing different predicted prices is performed. Since Eimskip buys its fuel from the Rotterdam Spot price and fuel prices tend to work at a global scale (even though through subsidies and mass availability, some ports offer substantially cheaper fuels than others) the cash flows for both the Reykjavik harbor and the Rotterdam port will be taken into account for this sensitivity analysis, and again are displayed over a 20-year period. The expected price of fuel is the normalized price of fuel from 2017 to 2023 provided by Mabux being $525[42]. The current price of $475 will be used as the cheapest option, and the 2014 pre oil crash price of $900/mT MGO will be assigned as the “worst case scenario”. The final sensitivity analysis performed is on the cost of equipment for shore side electricity. This sensitivity analysis holds value since Shore side electricity technology is relatively new in the commercial world. As more ports adapt to this technology one can expect the price of production of the equipment to go down and by default the prices would go down with it aswell. This analysis was performed by reducing the cost of equipment by 5%, 10%, and 15%. Similarily this sensitivity analysis also takes into account an increase in the cost of equipment by the same amount, it is highly unlikely that the prices for OPS equipment go up but nevertheless it is essential to highlight the sensitivity of this project in terms of capital expenditure. The Blue and Yellow line both visit Rotterdam during their routes, Rotterdam is already equipped with shore side electricity infrastructure but is not expected to offer shore connections until 2020, since this project is assumed to start in the year 2020 both the blue line and the yellow line’s NPV will also be include the money saved from these trips. The selling price of electricity in the Rotterdam port will be 16 cents USD. For this project it will be assumed that profitability is dependant on the net present value calculated through Eq (6). Eq (7) through (9) explain how the inputs for the NPV were calculated. When calculating the net cashflow for the blue and yellow line’s $/mTLSMGO sensitivity analysis the Rotterdam prices were taken into account and plugged into the Cfuel equation and later added to the overall NPV function.

𝑁𝑃𝑉 = ]̂ _

`a= _b/c` − 𝐶d

Where: n is the duration of the project (20 years), C0 is initial investment cost, where Fct is net cashflow generated at time t.

𝐹\/ = 𝐶4f2g − 𝐶2g2\ + 𝐶h:ib/ ∗ 𝑇l%/2g − 𝐶X&h

Where: Cfuel is the cost of fuel over a 24-hour period, Celec is the cost of electricity over a 24-hour period, Cmaint is the cost of maintenance per hour hoteling, Thotel is the time spent hotelling (hours), and 𝐶X&h is annual operation and maintenance cost.

𝐶4f2g = 𝐶5n ∗ 𝑟opl%f=&

(6)

(7)

(8)

26 : METHODS

Where: CmT is the cost per metric ton of low Sulphur marine gasoil, and r24hours is the consumption rate per trade line during a 24-hour period.

𝐶2g2\ = 𝑃 ∗ 𝐶qrl

where: CkWh is the cost per kilowatt hour.

2.3.1 Shadow Pricing

CE Delft’s shadow prices on marine environmental pollutions were taken into account. Shadow prices are the values given to something that is not traded in a market and inherently has no assigned monetary value to it. In this case CE Delft’s shadow prices of pollutants abated is being used. This means that the estimated price per ton of pollutants was calculated by CE Delft by estimating the amount of money it costs the Dutch government to fix the damages caused by these pollutants per ton (health and the environment). The lowest dollar value figures were chosen from a low medium high range of values, the shadow prices according to damage costs are listed below per ton. Given these values are shadow prices it is important to take these numbers with caution, these figures represent the CE Delft’s estimates of what each ton of a pollutant would cost the Dutch government to fix via direct damage from pollutants and also including indirect damage of pollutants. Different weather patterns would yield different price points; the reason these are being used is because they are the only maritime emission based values that can be backed up by a renown environmental consulting company. These numbers will be multiplied by the tons of pollutants abated and quantified as money saved through emissions abated, this dollar figure will not go into any profitability calculation except for CO2 which will be used to determine the price per ton of CO2e abated. All other pollutants will only be used to demonstrate the potential savings on shore power supply brings. Shadow Prices will only be available for Reykjavik stops since a NOx, SOx and PM2.5 emission factor for EU energy mix was not found and proper quantifying of these pollutant reductions would not be very accurate. The main reason for this is that the EU energy mix includes combustion based generation like coal and natural gas which emits NOx, SOx, and PM2.5. Since Iceland only has geothermal and hydro it is assumed that these emissions are reduced by approximately 99%3.

Table 2.9 Shadow Pricing per Ton (USD)

Shadow price NOx SOx PM2.5

Price Per Ton $ 11,606 $ 16,643 $ 119,672

3 See limitations for emission reduction assumptions

(9)

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS 27

Chapter 3

3Results

3.1 Environmental Results Table3.1 illustrates the energy consumption per line calculated using Eq (2), each line encompassed of two sister vessels which were assumed to have identical berthing hours and power therefore dividing each line by two would yield per vessel emissions.

Table 3.1 Energy Consumption Per Trade Line at Eimskip Terminal

kWh/year kWh/ 20 years

Yellow Line 1,092,000 21,840,000

Blue Line 1,310,400 26,208,000

Green Line 441,000 8,820,000

Once converted into kWh, table2.6 was taken into account and used to calculate the pollution of the three trade lines over a 20-year period (expected project lifetime). The emissions over a 20-year period are summarized in table 3.2.

28 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS

Table 3.2 20 year Trade Line Normalized Emissions

20 year emissions NOx SOx CO2e PM2.5

Yellow Line 372.37 Tons 27.52 Tons 16,045.56 Tons 6.55 Tons

Blue Line 446.85 Tons 33.02 Tons 19,254.68 Tons 7.86 Tons

Green Line 150.38 Tons 11.11 Tons 6,479.94 Tons 2.65 Tons

For the Yellow and Blue line which stop in Rotterdam the same methodology was applied to calculate the emissions in the Rotterdam port. The Blue and Yellow line are assumed to stop for two 24 hour periods per month aggregating to an estimated total of 576 hours per year per vessel. Multiplying the annual hours by the power per vessel given by Eimskip the estimated kWh of the vessels in the Rotterdam harbor is then multiplied by the normalized emission factors and summarized in table3.3.

Table 3.3 Rotterdam 20 year Emissions

20 year emissions NOx SOx CO2e PM2.5

Blue Line 157.13 Tons 11.61 Tons 6770.84 Tons 2.76 Tons

Yellow Line 117.85 Tons 8.7 Tons 5078.13 Tons 2.07 Tons

As addressed in the technical section, this project aims to create three potential scenarios in which Eimskip could take advantage of shore side electricity. Table3.4 shows the 20 year emissions abated for the three combinations considered feasible from a technical standpoint.

Table 3.4 Potential Project Abated Emissions Summary

Emissions Abated Project Lifetime

NOx SOx4 CO2e PM

All Lines 969.60 Tons 71.65 Tons 38,957.59 Tons 17.06 Tons

Blue/Yellow 819.22 Tons 60.54 Tons 32,750.26 Tons 14.41 Tons

Blue Line 446.85 Tons 33.02 Tons 17,953 Tons 7.86 Tons

4 Refer to limitations on Sulphur oxides

3.2 ENERGY MIX EMISSION RESULTS 29

3.2 Energy Mix Emission Results This section addresses the environmental performance of potential shore side electrical projets and compares them to the “EU28” energy mix. Table3.5 shows the percentage decrease in emissions due to Iceland’s green energy mix.

Table 3.5 Pollutant Percent Change

Pollutants NOx SOx CO2e PM 2.5

Pollutant reduction

99% ************ 92% 99%

When the figures are compared to the EU28 energy mix emissions (556g/kWh) [36] it is evident that Iceland holds a significant advantage when it comes to emissions generated through industrial energy generation. Figure3.1 compares the CO2e abated from the three proposed retrofit scenarios and compares them to the emissions abated if this identical project would take place in mainland Europe.

Figure 3.1 Shore Side Electricity Abated CO2e comparison: EUvs Iceland

The same methodology was followed to calculate the emissions abated at the port of Rotterdam and is summarized in table3.6. Using the 20 year emissions from the blue and yellow lines at the Rotterdam port in Table 3.3 and subtracting the CO2e generated from the EU energy mix the final tons of CO2 abated is calculated. Due to the EU mix having a combination of different energy sources that include combustion like natural gas and coal, the emission reduction of NOx, SOx and PM2.5 will not be reduced as greatly as with the Icelandic energy sector. Exact figures for the emission factors of these pollutants were not found so when talking about Rotterdam and pollutant reduction there will be a main focus on carbon dioxide equivalence eventhough it is expected that all other pollutants are decreased as well or

17,953.87

4,928.49

32,915.4265

9,035.5705

38,957.5587

10,694.1627

0.00

5,000.00

10,000.00

15,000.00

20,000.00

25,000.00

30,000.00

35,000.00

40,000.00

45,000.00

CO2eabated(to

ns)

ShippingLines

BlueLinesIceland BlueLineEU B/YIceland B/YLinesEU BYGlinesIceland BYGLinesEU


atleast the production of these pollutants has been transferred from the high density Roterdam port to the outskirts where electricity is generated.

Table 3.6 Rotterdam CO2 Abated

20 year Rotterdam Emissions Abated

CO2( Metric Tons)

Blue Line 1,646 mT

Yellow Line 1,235 mT

3.3 FOUR VESSEL RETROFIT 31

3.3 Four vessel retrofit The four vessel retrofit offers Eimskip a unique opportunity of purchasing a single Galaxy 7000 GFC and a movable cable management system (AMPTainer) since none of these four vessels ever coincide in the Eimskip quay. Although this is the most inexpensive CAPEX solution, for this scenario a single AMPTainer prevents these vessels from connecting to any other ports in the future. Due to the fact that both the blue and yellow lines stop in Rotterdam, the opportunity arises for individual cable management systems to be added to each vessel this way the two trade lines would be able to connect to shore side electricity in two ports, dramatically increasing the retrofits value. Table3.1illustrates the CAPEX of a single AMPTainer with its 20 year NPV is compared to the CAPEX of four individual cable management systems with its NPV including the estimated saves of the Rotterdam stops.

Table 3.7 Four Vessel Retrofit Cost and Net Present Value Summary

Four vessel retrofit CMS/retrofit Cost 20 year NPV

AMPTainer $ 1,950,000 $ -734,689

Mounted Cable Reel Amsterdam + Reykjavik stops

$ 2,168,184 $ -726,530

Mounted Cable Reel Reykjavik $ 2,168,184 $ -919,490

Although the AMPTainer offers a more economical initial cost, over time having a mounted cable reel system pays off in great dividends for vessels that connect to shore side electricity in more than one stop. Each blue line vessel saved an estimated $ 96,000 at the Rotterdam harbor over the projects lifetime. The biggest reason being that the blue line consumes nearly twice as much fuel per 24-hour berth period as the yellow line5. Seeing how much more beneficial individual CMS are over a single dynamic cable management system a detailed sensitivity analysis was performed for the mounted cable reel’s NPV. Figure3.2 shows a substantial increase in profitability when the Rotterdam cash flows are taken into account further demonstrating that a main function of onshore power supply success is the number of ports in which it can be used. Furthermore, we can observe that without any form of subsidy on electricity prices in Iceland the NPV for this specific strategy of the blue and yellow line retrofit would still be in the negatives at $-919,490 and with a one cent decrease in the price of electricity the Net present value would increase by around 300,000 USD. The price of electricity is an essential component for a successful onshore power supply implementation but through legislation and agreements the price can be fixed at a specific point and expected to stay relatively the same over the projects lifetime, a much more volatile variable is assessed next, the price of marine fuel.

5 See discussion for details on yellow line cash flows


Figure 3.2 Four Vessel Sensitivity Analysis: Price of Electricity. Reference values are stated in bold

Figure 3.3 Four Vessel Sensitivity Analysis: Price per Metric Ton of Low Sulphur Marine Gasoil. Reference values

are stated in bold

$171,646

$127,746

$277,442 $427,138

$726,530

$1,025,922

$21,314$320,706

$470,402$620,098

$919,490

$1,218,882

1,400,000.00

1,200,000.00

1,000,000.00

800,000.00

600,000.00

400,000.00

200,000.00

0.00

200,000.00

400,000.00

0.07 0.08 0.085 0.09 0.1 0.11

ProjectN

etPresentValue

(USD

)

PriceofElectricityperkWh(USD)

Reykjavik+RotterdamNPV ReykjavikNPV

$1,548,429

$913,730

$38,318

$1,307,715

$2,577,112

$3,846,509

$1,330,701$919,490

$302,674

$519,747

$1,342,168

$2,164,589

2,000,000.00

1,000,000.00

0.00

1,000,000.00

2,000,000.00

3,000,000.00

4,000,000.00

5,000,000.00

475 $525.00 600 700 800 900ProjectN

etPresentValue

(USD

)

PriceperMetricTonofLSMGO(USD)


3.3 FOUR VESSEL RETROFIT 33

As expected the profitability of this project is more dependant on the price of fuel changing over the price of electricity. At current prices and at the normalized 2023 price (does not take into account supply changes) the project is not profitable but with a shift to 600 $/mT the project including Rotterdam cashflows becomes profitable.

Figure 3.4 Four Vessel Sensitivity Analysis: Capital Expenditure Price Change: Reference values stated in bold

The last sensitivity analysis performed on the four vessel retrofit was a change in cost of capital expenditure. Figure 3.4 depicts an approximate of 100,000 USD per 5% decrease in price and a similar increase per 5% rise in price. Finally, a price per ton of CO2e removed is quantified by Eq. (5) yielding two results, the price per ton of CO2e removed from the Reykjavik harbor is summarized in table3.2 and Table3.3 shows the Reykjavik and Rotterdam harbor. Additionally, using CE Delft’s maritime emissions shadow prices, a dollar quantity is placed on the emissions for NOx, SOx, and particulate matter.

679,490.00759,490.00

839,490.00919,490.00

999,490.001,079,490.00

1,159,490.00

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0-15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%

ProjectN

etPresentValue

(USD

)

CAPEXcost(in%change)

FourVesselNPV


Table 3.8 CAPEX,$/mT CO2e Abated Reykjavik

Reykjavik Harbor

Project Cost $ 2,475,457

20 year NPV ( Reykjavik + Rotterdam) $ -726,530

Total CO2e emitted 35,750 mTons

Total CO2e abated 32,915 mTons

Assigned Cost CO2e (per mT) $ 10

$/mT CO2e abated $ 87.28

Table 3.9 CAPEX,$/mT CO2e Abated Reykjavik + Rotterdam

Reykjavik + Rotterdam


20 year NPV ( Reykjavik + Rotterdam) $ -726,530

Total CO2e emitted 47,599mTons

Total CO2e abated 35,797mTons



As more OPS technologies take off, the dollar value per metric ton of carbon dioxide abated will keep shrinking, the cleaner the energy mix that supplies shore side electricity projects the more CO2equivalent units can be abated, as seen in this case the total CO2 emitted drastically increases by around 12,000 metric tons while the CO2e abated only increases by around 3,000 tons.

3.4 TWO VESSEL RETROFIT 35

Table 3.10 Four Vesssel Reykjavik Shadow Prices

Blue + Yellow Line NOx SOx* PM2.5

Price Per Ton $ 11,606 $ 16,643 $ 119672

20 year total cost $ 9,507,848 $ 1,007,575 $ 1,725,000

The shadow price cost of the project is calculated for the Eimskip quay. Over the 20 year project the combined cost of having to deal with these pollutants according to CE Delft would be around 12 million dollars for the Eimskip harbor alone.

3.4 Two Vessel Retrofit The smallest scenario that this project encompasses is the retrofitting of Goddafoss and Dettifoss, sister vessels from the blue line. Due to its relatively poor fuel efficiency compared to the other vessels and the fact that the blue line would serve both the Reykjavik port as well as Rotterdam the unsubsidized financial viability of this project could be a possibility. Due to the fact that a single AMPTainer is more expensive than two mounted cable reels the AMPTainer will not be considered in this financial analysis, aside from this reason the blue line is expected to connect to the Rotterdam electrical network as well meaning that the vessels require mounted cable reel systems. A similar table to the one provided in the four vessel retrofit is presented (Table3.5) showing CAPEX as well as the 20 year NPV with and without Rotterdam cash flows.

Table 3.11 Two Vessel Retrofit Summary

Two Vessel Retrofit CMS Cost 20 year NPV

Mounted Cable Reel Amsterdam + Reykjavik

$284,092 $ 116,503

Mounted Cable Reel Reykjavik $284,092 $ -76,456

Already from the capitl expenditure to net present value comparison we can see the blue line is the ideal candidate for a retrofit. This scenario represents to most profitable strategy but also the one that removes the least carbon dioxide both from the Reykjavik area as well as the port of Rotterdam.


Figure 3.5 Two Vessel Sensitivity Analysis: Price of Electricity. Reference values are stated in bold

Figure 3.4 demonstrates that unlike the four vessel retrofit a single cent reduction in the Eimskip harbor’s price per kWh could already lead to profitability, and if the Rotterdam cash flows are added then an even larger value is aggregated at $279,808. As mentioned before the price of electricity would be set before any project is accepted therefore a more important sensitivity analysis for the price of low Sulphur marine gas oil is shown below.

$606,418

$443,113$361,460

$279,808

$116,503

$46,802

$413,458

$250,153$168,500

$86,848

$76,457$239,762300,000.00

200,000.00

100,000.00

0.00

100,000.00

200,000.00

300,000.00

400,000.00

500,000.00

600,000.00

700,000.00

0.07 0.08 0.085 0.09 0.1 0.11

ProjectN

etPresentValue

(USD

)




Figure 3.6 Two Vessel Sensitivy Analysis: Price per Metric Ton of Low Sulphur Marine Gasoil. Reference values are

stated in bold

Due to its higher fuel consumption, the blue line will be more price sensitive to fuel prices than the other vessels, since it is expected for prices to go up, the net present value of this retrofit would increase in profitability.

Figure 3.7 Two Vessel Sensitivity Analysis: Capital Expenditure Price Change: Reference values stated in bold

$335,703$76,457

$312,413 $830,905$1,349,398

$1,867,891

$289,047

$116,503

$724,829

$1,535,929

$2,347,030

$3,158,131

-1000000 -500000

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

475 $525.00 600 700 800 900

ProjectN

etPresentValue

(USD

)



43,543.00

3,543.00

36,456.00

76,456.00

116,456.00

156,456.00

196,456.00

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0

50,000

100,000

-15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%

ProjectN

etPresentValue

(USD

)


TwoVesselNPV


Figure3.7 represents the last sensitivity analysis performed for the blue line study in which Capital Expenditure is reduced up to 15% as well as increased 15%. At assumed fuel price and electricity prices The blue line retrofit could be profitable if there is a 10% decrease in the cost of OPS equipment. Since less vessels are retrofitted in comparison to the other two projects the NPV increase per 5% change is not as large as in the other scenarios, regardless it shows promise of profitability. Having the lowest CAPEX to emissions ratio, an unsubsidized retrofit of the blue line would result in a 56-dollar price per ton of CO2e removed from the Reykjavik general area. If the Rotterdam stops are taken into account, the price per ton removed drops to 54 dollars.


Reykjavik Harbor


20 year NPV ( Reykjavik + Rotterdam) $ 116,503









20 year NPV ( Reykjavik + Rotterdam) $ 116,503


Total CO2e abated 19,600mTons



Table 3.14 Two Vessel Reykjavik Shadow Prices

Blue Line NOx SOx* PM2.5

Price Per Ton $ 11,606 $ 16,643 $ 119672

20 year total cost $ 5,186,099 $ 549,586 $ 940,909


3.5 Six Vessel Retrofit The most ambitious combination in this study would be retrofitting the three studied trade lines. Incurring the largest total cost this strategy would also remove the most pollutants from the Reykjavik general area. This combination would see a maximum of two vessels at a time at berth, being a green and a blue vessel as well as a green and a yellow vessel depending on the day of the week. Multiple vessels at berth nullify the possibility of a single cable management system which is shared throughout the vessels so for this scenario each vessel would have its own cable management system, this proves beneficial since both the yellow and the blue line stop at Rotterdam which plans to retrofit their harbor to accommodate shore side powered vessels. From the Eimskip harbor perspective one of two opportunities arise, due to the simultaneous berths a single Galaxy 7000 GFC is not enough to power the harbor’s needs, but a ShoreBox would provide more than double the required power. The possibility for the purchase two Galaxy 7000 GFCs and connect them in series would the most cost effective solution for this dilemma. Two Galaxy 7000 GFCs suffice in terms of power demand for the scope of this project so a Net Present Value using two Galaxy 7000 GFCs as well as an NPV calculated through the purchase of a ShoreBox are performed for this specific variation since Eimskip’s future OPS future is uncertain. Following the assumption that Eimskip and Iceland in general adhere to cold ironing technology it is expected for more vessels to dock at the port of Reykjavik and require shore side electricity, in this case a ShoreBox is the only technically viable solution since the Galaxy 7000 GFC has a maximum power of 500 kVA which is barely enough for the vessels in this project which are considered small to medium sized in terms of all containerships.

Table 3.15 Six Four Vessel Retrofit Summary

Six Vessel Retrofit Port Side Capex 20 year NPV

2x Galaxy 7000 GFC $ 160,000 $ -1,636,865

ShoreBox $ 600,000 $ -2,156,865

This project is assuming that only these vessels will be retrofitted for the near future. Since the assumption is that a maximum of two vessels will be docked at the same time the economical configuration of two Galaxy 7000 GFC’s was taken into account for the sensitivity analysis.

3.5 SIX VESSEL RETROFIT 41

Figure 3.8 Six Vessel Sensitivity Analysis: Price of Electricity. Reference values are stated in bold

Due to the large initial CAPEX and the relatively fewer hours spent at port by the Green line, the net present values for this scenario would remain negative regardless of the price. Comparable to the other two projects the net present value constantly increases as the electricity prices go down.

$573,814

$928,165$1,105,340

$1,282,515

$1,636,866

$1,991,216

$766,774

$1,121,125$1,298,300

$1,475,475

$1,829,826

$2,184,176-2500000

-2000000

-1500000

-1000000

-500000

00.07 0.08 0.085 0.09 0.1 0.11

ProjectN

etPresentValue

(USD

)



42

Figure 3.9 Six Vessel Sensitivity Analysis: Price per Metric Ton of Low Sulphur Marine Gasoil. Reference values are

stated in bold

Unlike the other two retrofit scenarios this project would not reach the break-even point until the low Sulphur marine gas oil reaches 700 dollars per metric ton. This is due to the fact that the green line does not spend as much time and fuel at the Reykjavik harbor and the Green line currently calls to no other ports that offers OPS. Figure 3.10 illustrates the Net Present Value change as Capital Expenditure increases or decreases. This sensitivity analysis establishes that the six vessel retrofit is the most sensitive to capital expenditure costs, this is due to the fact that every vessel requires OPS equipment and as prices per retroffited vessel go down it is more profitable to retrofit more vessels. Eventhough a 15% decrease in the cost of equipment would still not make this scenario profitable it does decrease its cost by an approximate 360,000 USD.

$2,313,704

$1,829,826$1,104,009

$136,254

$831,502

$1,799,257

$2,531,432

$1,488,834$763,017

$651,714

$2,066,446

$3,481,177

3,000,000.00

2,000,000.00

1,000,000.00

0.00

1,000,000.00

2,000,000.00

3,000,000.00

4,000,000.00

475 $525.00 600 700 800 900

ProjectN

etPresentValue

(USD

)



43

Figure 3.10 Six Vessel Sensitivity Analysis: Capital Expenditure Price Change: Reference values stated in bold


Reykjavik Harbor


20 year NPV ( Reykjavik + Rotterdam) $ -1,638,865





1,469,825.001,589,825.00

1,709,825.001,829,825.00

1,949,825.002,069,825.00

2,189,825.00

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0-15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%

ProjectN

etPresentValue

(USD

)


SixVesselNPV

44




20 year NPV ( Reykjavik + Rotterdam) $ -1,638,865





With the highest cost per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalence abated this most ambitious scenario for Eimskip would also see the most emissions abated. The large increase in price per ton comes mostly due to the green line, its time spent in Reykjavik is not much and the smaller size of these vessels compared to the blue line emit less.

Table 3.18 Six Vessel Reykjavik Shadow Prices

Blue, Yellow, Green Lines

NOx SOx* PM2.5

Price Per Ton $ 11,606 $ 16,643 $ 119672

20 year total cost $ 11,253,170 $ 1,192,532 $ 2,041,652

Finally, the shadow prices for pollutants are quantified for this scenario aswell. As expected the emissions from the six vessels are the greatest in the project therefore the shadow prices will also be the most expensive.

45

Chapter 4

4Discussion

4.1 Discussion From an infrastructural point of view, Iceland is an ideal candidate for small scale shore side electricity. With direct access to high voltage electricity from Veitur, Eimskip’s terminal is also equipped with transformers that can downstream the voltage to the desired level. Currently ISO 80005-3 standrads (LVSC) can already be met with the addition of a frequency converter since as shown in the technical section Eimskip operates most machines at 440V. Other common voltages for ISO 8005-2 and 8005-3 are 6.6kV and 11kV all within the ranges that Eimskip already operates. From an electrical standpoint aside from the frequency converters Iceland could supply electricity at the three mentioned voltages all in accordance to the standards. It is important to highlight that frequency converterts can convert frequency to the needed one but it can only do that for the same voltage. In other words, a ShoreBox could convert the frequency to the desired one for up to four vessels assuming all vessels are running at 11kV. Environmentally speaking, this project does offer Reykjavik a relatively cost efficient approach at removing pollutants from urban areas. By taking advantage of its low carbon energy generation, Iceland could remove an estimated 39,000 Tons of carbon dioxide equivalence from the Reykjavik general area by only retrofitting six vessels. Figure4.1 illustrates other Icelandic projects and compares their cost per ton of CO2 removed as well as total carbon dioxed removed over a 15-year period. Although these three scenarios would abate 39,000 Tons, 19,600 Tons, and 32,000 tons of CO2e over a twenty-year period as opposed to a 15-year period this graph can still shed light on the viability of shore side electricity. With estimated $/CO2e ton removed of $123, $87, and $56, for the six vessel, four vessels, and two vessel retrofit (respectively) all three potential projects would range between 5,000 ISK and 13,000 ISK per ton removed placing them close to the x axis near other projects that abate anywhere from 20 to 40 thousand tons of CO2. A couple of things can be taken away after analyzing and comparing the graph, the main thing being shore side electricity scalability. This project encompasses six out of all the vessels that call to Reykjavik per year. A high initial capex for only six vessels would decrease the profitability as opposed to a similar capex (replacing the single vessel frequency converter with the ShoreBox) where multiple vessels are constantly being connected. Iceland is one of the countries that is currently not encompassed in an emission control area, if that changes the possibility for other nations to use shore side electricity in Reykjavik would increase and with it the profitability of this project as well as the tons of emissions abated.

46

Figure 4.1 “Icelandic Projects Cost Comparison (ISK/TonCO2 abated) adapted from “Ísland og loftslagsmál”

As previously mentioned this project only takes into account one of the two largest shipping companies in Iceland, if it is assumed that Samskip aswell as Eimskip were to retrofit their three main trade lines as well as their terminals, the amount of CO2e and other pollutants abated would increase in a cost efficient manner. Figure4.2 shows the assumption that an identical project to the one proposed in this thesis is also done by Samskip, in other words the two Reykjavik container terminals would be retrofitted and in addition Samskip would retrofit their equivalent 6 vessels for the blue, yellow, and green line. Scaling this project to 12 container ships increases the CO2e abated to 79 thousand tons over a twenty year period while keeping the cost per ton at around 107 dollars per ton or 10,556 ISK per ton placing it near the proposed E85 (Ethanol 85%) car fleet. The main takeaway of Figure4.2 is the scalability potential for shore side electricity projects in Reykjavik. With only 12 vessels in the scope of Figure4.2 the pollutants abated are substantial and every additional vessel that is able to connect to the Icelandic energy mix would reduce the cost per ton removed and increase the total CO2e abated.

Diesel cars

Electric Car fleet

Hydrogen Car Fleet

Blue Line

4 vessels 6 vessels

Biodiesel blend

47

Figure 4.2 “Icelandic Projects Cost Comparison (ISK/TonCO2 abated) adapted from “ Ísland og loftslagsmál”

Including 12 Containerships

Without any additional subsidies the Eimskip terminal already has access to electricity costing 10 cents per kWh, making it an advantageous location for shore side electricity when compared to the rest of the world. In this project it was assumed that Eimskip would incur both vessel side and port side costs. Commonly the port side costs are split between the port authority and the tenant (in this case Eimskip). The sensitivity analysis for electricity demonstrates how a small legislative subsidy could dramatically increase the profitability of onshore power supplies. With even cheaper electricity prices like the 8.5 cent price in the Rotterdam port, Eimskip could even profit from selling electricity to other vessels which could be an additional financial benefit for Eimskip and the port’s health. The second and evidently much more important sensitivity analysis is the price of fuel. In the last couple of months there has been a slight decrease in marine gas oil prices. It is expected that late 2017 and towards the MARPOL 2020 legislation that fuel prices will increase as legislation forces a demand increase. Currently ECA zones must use LSMGO that contains 0.1% Sulphur, MARPOL 2020 legizlation states that all non ECA zones (highseas or berth) will require a maximum of 0.5% Sulphur as opposed to the current 3.5%, this jump from 3.5% to 0.5% is expected to trigger a price increase. As more coastal regions adopt LSMGO combined with the increase in marine gas oil prices due to the forced demand increases the price for gas oils as a whole will increase while their market share increases as well. This is where it is expected for shore side electricity to make the big savings in addition of cleaning the local air.

48

4.2 Limitations The emissions methodology for auxiliary engines could be improved. With the lack of enforced marine auxiliary engine emission tests it is hard to determine the exact pollutants coming from each vessel. Both Goldsworthy and Cooper refer to this in their emission reports and although their reports entail a high level of accuracy, every vessel will pollute differently depending on age, maintenance, temperature, and other factors. For this reason, it is recommended that if Eimskip or The Reykjavik Port Authority are to consider shore side electricity, a more accurate emissions database could be gathererd by performing emission tests on Icelandic vessels instead of using emission factor indexes. In addition, the Icelandic energy mix is known to have virtually no nitrogen oxide emissions but due to geothermal activity some Sulphur oxide emissions are reported, there is no available SOx emission for Iceland but the emission generated even from the dirtiest geothermal powerplant would be minimal compared to the vessel burning fuel, for that reason the emission reduction for SOx is marked with an asterisk, it is expected for the SOx emissions to go down dramatically aswell but not at the rate of nitrogen oxides. Many assumptions were taken into consideration and in some cases these could limit the accuracy of the project. Eimskip provided the power, fuel consumption, and hours at berth per vessel but the number of refrigerated containers was not disclosed. Reefers or refrigerated containers require additional power to stay cool and this could change the power demand per vessel which in turn could change the infrastructural requirements (larger grid frequency converter). The price of electricity at the Eimskip harbor was also assumed to be 10 cents USD since the official price could not be disclosed by Eimskip, in addition the five percent interest rate for net present value was taken from CE Delft not from Eimskip since this was also a classified figure. An increased accuracy for the NPV and price per ton of CO2e abated could be reached if more accurate data is supplied. The project is assumed to last 20 years, if the calculated figures are to hold a value the vessels must still be in operation by Eimskip and follow the same trade lines as described in the project. Ideally Eq (7) can be applied to new potential purchases or retrofits but if Eimskip were to sell, modify or decommission any of the studied vessels the figures would have to be recalculated. Likewise, vessels have maintenance schedules to adhere to which could remove some days from their trade lines also altering the NPV, similarily unaccounted for accidents or extra days at certain stops could modify the figures too. In addition, the infrastructure calculated for this project was just taking into account these six vessels and for that reason a single or multiple grid frequency converetrs were suggested over the ShoreBox, if Eimskip would have enough vessels being able to connect to the grid the only solution would be multiple ShoreBoxes since their rated capacity is a lot higher and they offer up to four vessel connections. Finally, it should be addressed that Eimskip is planning to modify their terminal by 2020. By closing their small quay and creating a larger one with newer infrastructure shore side electricity projects could benefit. All port side equipment mentioned in this project is considered dynamic equipment that can easily be reinstalled and relocated depending on the terminal projects (not taking into account underground cabling). If the larger quay is built with access to up to five vessels, then proper planning on where to berth shore side electrical friendly vessels and non retroffited vessels could cause problems in the future.

49

4.3 Conclusion Shore side electricity aims to remove vessel generated pollutants from the harbor at berth by connecting ships to the local grid. Heavy initial investment costs and the lack of standardization in terms of voltage and frequency are the largest barriers to entry regarding onshore power supply. As international legislation comes into play in the year 2020, the forced demand switch into a cleaner burning fuel is expected to increase the price of marine gasoil. Similarily as environmental pressures tighten, more ports will begin to offer and in certain cases demand the use of shore side electricity. Iceland offers a unique competitive advantage in the fact that their emissions per kWh generated are estimated around 10 times lower than the EU28 mix. Coupled with the fact that Iceland offers lower electricity prices than most countries, under the right circumstances Reykjavik is an ideal candidate for inexpensive and effective onshore power supply. Currently, in an unsubsidized market and taking into account existing marine fuel prices, shore side electricity would likely not be profitable for Eimskip. A retrofit of the blue line alone has the potential for some profitability and reduction of emissions in the Reykjavik area, but any other unsubsidized combination would incur loses for Eimskip. The volatility of the fuel market is a hinderence to this project since there is no accurate way of predicting how the International Maritime Organization’s 2020 sulphur cap will affect current prices. Multiple price points were demonstrated and profitability is possible if the price of fuel exceeds 600 dollars per metric ton for most cases, only the six vessel retrofit would require the price to reach around 700 dollars in order to make this project profitable. It is essential to highlight the fact that before the 2014 oil crash the average price per metric ton of marine gas oil was around 800 dollars. The price per ton of carbon dioxide removed is competitive when compared to other projects and when shore side electricity is scaled up, the potential for environmental and financial benefits for a low infrastructure cost surpass many projects displayed in Figure4.1. In order to maximize the heavy initial investment cost’s effieciency, there are several factors that can be improved. From an operations perspective a detailed log with time spent per containership at port as well as a database with voltage and frequency of each vessel is recommended. A detailed berthing schedule would also make sense since the combination of time at berth and electrical requirements per vessel would facilitate the use of the equipment. In other words, knowing that there will be multiple vessels with differing voltages at the same time in the Eimskip terminal would require different transformers to be purchased. Since this project was focusing on a low voltage system that problem was avoided but it is highly unlikely that every containership that calls to Reykjavik has the same electrical requirements. From an environmental point of view emissions tests could remove any uncertainty that this project’s methodology could not solve. Although emission testing every single vessel at berth in the Eimskip terminal is expensive and unlikely an average of what a small, medium, and large containership with different cargo emits would be a much better indicator than assuming all vessels emit the same pollutants at the same rate as the normalized results from Goldsworthy’s and Cooper’s emission tests. Finally, a legislative approach could dramatically facilitate the uptake of shore side electricity. As Figures3.6, Figure3.4, and Figure3.2 suggest the price of electricity which can be directly influenced by legislation can add a financial incentive to incur heavy initial capital costs as was the case in Rotterdam or in the Port of Longbeach in California.As shore side electricity technology takes off and more ports offer this environmentally friendly alternative, the overall cost of the projects as well as the price per ton of pollutants abated will continue to decrease, similarily the more vessels connected to the same port throughout a year would decrease the price per ton abated.

50

References

[1] International Chamber of Shipping “International Chamber of ShippingAnnual Review”,2016 [2] Helgi. Laxdal “Reykjavik Harbor Manifest” The Reykjavik Port Authority, 2016 [3] Deniz. Barki and Lucy. Deleze-Black, “Review of Maritime Transport 2016,” United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2016. [4] Giullia. Arduino, David. Carrillo Murillo, Claudio. Ferrari “Key Factors and Barriers to The Adoption of Cold Ironing In Europe.” "dipartimento di economia e metodi quiantitivi, universita degli studi di Genova. [5] James Corbett, James Winebrake, Prasad Kasibhatla, Veronika Eyring “Mortality from Ship Emissions, A Global Assessment” Environmental Science and Technology, 2007 [6] Daniel Radu , Lorene Grandidier “Shore Connection Technology: Environmental Benefits and Best Practices" Schneider Electric, July 2012 [7] Ned.Molloy “The IMO’s 2020 Global Sulfur Cap What a 2020 Sulfur Constrained World Means for Shipping Lines, Refineries, and Bunker Suppliers” S&P Global Platts. October 2016 [8] Schneider Eletric Industries “ShoreBox Shore connection for ships at berth”, 2011 [9] Eelco den Boer “SECA Assesment: Impacts of 2015 SECA marine fuel Sulphur limits”, CE Delft, 2016 [10] Sophie.Rahm “The Costly Future of Green Shipping” Schroders, 2016 [11] Maersk " The worlds largest ship" internet :http://www.maersk.com/en/hardware/triple-e/the-hard-facts/the-worlds-largest-ship 2015, accessed [February 2017] [12] World Ports Climate Initiative, “WPCI - OPS - What is OPS?” Internet: http://www.ops.wpci.nl/what-is-ops- [October 2016] [13] Thane. Gilman, “Standardisation of Ship and Shore-Based Power Supply" United States Coast Guard [14] Asa. Wilkse, “Examining Commercial Viability of Cold Ironing.” Port of Göteborg

[15] Papoutsoglou Theodoros, “A cold Ironing Study on Modern Ports, Implementation and benefits thriving for worldwide ports" National Technical University of Athens 2012

[16] Entec UK Limited “Quantification of emissions from ships associated with ship movements between ports in The European Community” European Commission, 2002 [17] M. Sanguri “Maintenance Schedule for Marine Auxiliary Diesel Engines” Bright Hub

51

Engineering, 2011 [18] Daniel. Radu, R. Jeannot, and M. Megdiche “Protection Plan and Safety Issues in the Shore Connection Applications.” American Bureau of Shipping, 2011. [19] Alliance of the Ports of Canada, the Caribbean, Latin America, and The United States “Use of Shore-Side Power for Ocean-Going Vessels” Tetra Tech Inc. 2011 [20] Science for Environment Policy European Comission DG Environment News Alert Service "Shore Side Electricity: Key policy recommendations for uptake" 2015 [21] Alliance of the Ports of Canada, The Caribbean, Latin America, and the United States, "Use of Shore Side Power for Ocean Going Vessels” 2007 [22] US Environmental Protection Agency “Particulate Matter Basics internet: https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#effects,2016 accessed [February 2017] [23] Vala. Hafstad “Reykjavik Carbon Neutral by 2040” The Iceland Review, 2016 [24] Frances. Moore, Delavane. Diaz “Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy” Nature Climate Change. 2015 [25] Louis. Browning, Kathleen. Bailey (2006) “Current Methodologies and Best Practices for Preparing Port Emission Inventories” U.S EPA ICF International Published [26] US Environmental Protection Agency “Basic Information about NO2” internet: https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basic-information-about-no2 ,2016 accessed [February 2017] [27] US Environmental Protection Agency “Effects of Acid Rain” internet: https://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects-acid-rain,2016 accessed [February 2017] [28] US Environmental Protection Agency “Sulfur Dioxide Basics” internet: https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxide-basics#what%20is%20so2,2016 accessed [February 2017] [29] US Environmental Protection Agency Overview of Greenhouse Gases, Carbon Dioxide” internet: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases, 2016 accessed [February 2017] [30] EPA “Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Understanding Global Warming Potentials” internet: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials accessed [February 2017] [31] James.Corbett, Haifeng.Wang, James.Winebrake "The effectiveness and costs of speed reductions on emissions from international shipping" University of Delaware, 2009 [32] Apollonia.Miola, Biagio.Ciuffo, Emiliano.Giovine, Marleen.Marra. “Regulating Air Emissions from Ships: The State of the Art on Methodologies, Technologies, and Policy Options” JRC Reference Reports (2010) [33] Orkustofnun, National Energy Authority “Primary Energy Usage in Iceland” 2016

52

[34] Haskoli Islands "Iceland and climate", 2017 [35] Geothermal Energy Association “Promoting Geothermal Energy: Air Emissions Comparison and Externality Analysis”, May 2013 [36] European Environment Agency, "Overview for Electricity Production and Use in Europe"internet: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/overview-of-the-electricity-production-1/assessment, 2015 accessed [February 2017] [37] David. Cooper “Exhaust emissions from ships at berth” Environmental Research Institute, 2003 Göteborg, Sweden [38] Laurie. Goldsworthy, Brett. Goldsworthy “Modelling of ship engine exhause emissions in ports and extensive coastal waters based on terrestrial AIS data- An Austrial caste study” (2014) Australian Maritime Collece, University of Tasmania, Australia [39] R. Winkel, U. Weddige, D. Johnsen “Shore Side Electricity in Europe: Potential and environmental benefits” Ecofys, 2015 https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#effects,2016 accessed [February 2017] [40] Monique. Vermeire “Everything You Need to Know About Marine Fuels”, Chevron2012 [41] Sander De Bruyn, Marisa Korteland, Agniezka Markowska “Valuation and weighting of emissions and environmental impacts” CE Delft, March 2010 [42] Mabux “Price Forecast USD/mTon” 2017: accessed [January 2017] internet: http://mabux.com/mabux/index.jsp?NewLogin=true&popup=1&actions=view [43] Hannah Breul “Daily Crude Oil Spot Prices” Energy Information Administration internet: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=24432 [44] International Energy Agency "Oil-Based Marine Fuel Consumption Gasoil vs Residual Fuel Oil" from The IMO's 2020 Global Sulfur Cap

53

Appendix

4.4 Appendix 1

Price Prediction per year and 2023 Normalized MABUX DATA[42]

2017 $ 509.64

2018 $ 515.25

2019 $ 518.67

2020 $ 526.17

2021 $ 531.83

2022 $ 539.33

2023 $ 548.92

Normalized Price $ 527.11

54

4.5 Appendix 2

Figure 4.3 Power Factor Triangle

4.6 Appendix 3

Figure 4.4 D.A Cooper Uncertanty Levels Emission Test[37]

56

Glossary

Alabedo: The proportion of the incident light or radiation that is reflected by a surface. Berth: Noun: a ship’s allotted place at a dock Verb: moor (a ship) in its allocated place Hotelling needs: electrical activities performed by a vessel at berth generally via auxiliary engines, these include but are not limited to radio, GPS, cranes, lighting, safety features, and cooling. Net Present Value: the value in the present of a sum of money, in contrast to some future value it will have when it has been invested at compound interest. Shadow Pricing: constructed prices for goods or production factors that are not traded in actual markets. Quay: a concrete, stone, or metal platform lying alongside or projecting into water for loading and unloading if ships.

School of Science and Engineering Reykjavík University Menntavegur 1 101 Reykjavík, Iceland Tel. +354 599 6200 Fax +354 599 6201 www.ru.is

Reykjavik Harbor System Analysis: Shore Side Electricity ... · Reykjavik Harbor System Analysis:...

Documents

Transcript of Reykjavik Harbor System Analysis: Shore Side Electricity ... · Reykjavik Harbor System Analysis:...