Preconditions for connecting ships to Onshore Power Supply in the Port of Gothenburg
The translation has partly been financed by the Interreg Project Clean North Sea Shipping.
Contact details
GÖTEBORGS HAMN / PORT OF GOTHENBURG SE-403 38 Göteborg, Sweden [email protected] Tel +46 31 731 2000 www.portgot.se
ABB SE-721 83 Västerås, Sweden [email protected] Tel +46 21 32 50 00 www.abb.se
Ramböll Sverige AB Box 5343 SE-402 27 Göteborg, Sweden Tel +46 10 615 60 00 [email protected]
ii av vi
Preface
Shipping is both the sustainable solution of the future and today’s major environmental challenge. In a local perspective, shipping accounts for a large proportion of the emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particles. However, in the global perspective, emissions of greenhouse gases decrease when transport by sea replaces transport by road. Innovative solutions are therefore needed to reduce local emissions from shipping.
Funding from Vinnova has given Port of Gothenburg, in conjunction with ABB, the opportunity to further develop a technology that will lead to reduced emissions from shipping, namely connecting ships to the electricity supply in port. This technology makes it possible for ships to shut down their auxiliary engines, which normally generate electric current, and thus avoid both emissions into the air and noise.
Development work has taken place in a number of ways. Partly through producing an innovative and flexible technology to supply ships with electricity. We have also been involved in exchanging knowledge in relation to the potential for more widespread use of onshore power in ports throughout the world. In addition, we have participated in the process of developing an international standard for electrical connection.
The project team has consisted of a number key skills: Susann Dutt, economist specialising in the environment and with substantial knowledge within environmental communications, Ismir Fazlagic, electrical engineer with cutting-edge expertise within smart components for electrical connection, Per Lindeberg, electrical engineer and pioneer within development of technical solutions for onshore power supply for ships and Lars-Göran Nilsson, electrician with substantial knowledge of technical applications in marine environments. To assist us we have had capable consultants with Håkan Lindved responsible for the environmental economic analysis and compiling reports, and Karl-Olof Claesson contributing the technical solutions. Furthermore, we have received numerous excellent points of view along the way from the reference group linked to the project.
Having the opportunity to work on power supply for just over two years has been fantastic. This is a technology that just ten years ago met with great scepticism, but that is now praised throughout the world, most recently with the Energy Globe World Award.
The Vinnova project has taken the technology to a new level and interest has been aroused within Sweden as well as throughout the world!
Åsa Wilske Project Manager and Sustainability Manager Port of Gothenburg
Gothenburg 2012-01-31
iii av vi
Table of contents Preface ...... 3 Summary ...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 9 1.1 Purpose...... 9 1.2 Port of Gothenburg ...... 9 1.3 The environmental impact from ships in port ...... 10 1.4 Alternative measures to reduce the environmental impact in port ...... 11 1.5 Onshore power supply for reduced environmental impact ...... 11 1.6 Electrical systems for different types of vessel ...... 13 2. International standard for design of onshore power supply for ships at quayside ...... 15 3. Ongoing initiatives to facilitate connection of ships to onshore electricity ...... 17 3.1 Changed fiscal conditions for onshore electricity for ships in port ...... 17 3.2 Knowledge Transfer ...... 18 4. Onshore power supply in the different sections of Gothenburg port – technical preconditions ...... 22 4.1 Power capacity to the ports in Gothenburg ...... 22 4.2 Existing distribution of power within the port ...... 22 5. Development of a technical solution for onshore power supply ...... 25 5.1 Need to develop the onshore power supply system in port ...... 25 5.2 Considerations ...... 26 5.3 Proposals for developed system ...... 26 6. Proposal for prospective power distribution within different parts of the port ...... 31 7. Analysis of financial position and the environmental impact of onshore power supply in Gothenburg’s port – method description ...... 36 7.1 Preconditions ...... 36 7.2 Analysis – description of method and preconditions ...... 36 8. Costs of adapting vessels for onshore electricity ...... 42 9. Results – costs and benefits of onshore power supply for ships in Port of Gothenburg ...... 45 9.1 Results for Arendalshamnen/Älvsborgshamnen ...... 45 9.2 Results for Skandiahamnen ...... 50 9.3 Results for Skarvikshamnen/Ryahamnen ...... 55 9.4 Results for Torshamnen ...... 57 9.5 Results for Frihamnen ...... 59 9.6 Results for individual berths east of Älvsborg Bridge ...... 60
iv av vi
10. Sensitivity analysis ...... 61 11. Port-related costs and emissions reductions ...... 65 12. Ship-related costs and preconditions ...... 69 13. Conclusions and discussion ...... 72 13.1 Standardisation work ...... 72 13.2 Exchange of experience ...... 72 13.3 Technical development ...... 72 13.4 Technical, economic and environmental preconditions in Port of Gothenburg...... 73 13.5 Torshamnen ...... 76 13.6 Frihamnen ...... 76 13.7 Quays east of Älvsborg Bridge ...... 77 13.8 Conclusion - onshore power supply in Port of Gothenburg ...... 77 14. References ...... 78
Annexes 1. Calculation results for onshore power supply - investment cost 2a. Calculation of operating costs and environmental costs for Arendalshamnen/ Älvsborgshamnen, Skandiahamnen, Skarvikshamnen/Ryahamnen and Torshamnen 2b. Calculation of operating costs and environmental costs for Frihamnen 3. Conditions - air pollution and noise
Abbreviations used in the reports (selection)
ABB ASEA Brown Boveri ASEK Arbetsgruppen for SamhällsEkonomiska Kalkylvärden (Working Group for Socio-Economic Cost Estimates) CAFE Clean Air For Europe EU ETS EU Emissions Trading System GENAB Göteborg Energi Nät AB Hz Hertz LNG Liquefied Natural Gas MGO Marine Gas Oil OPS Onshore Power Supply RoRo Roll on/roll off SIKA Statens Institut för KommunikationsAnalys (the Swedish Institute for Transport and Communication Analysis)
v av vi
vi av vi
Summary
This report constitutes the final presentation of a project funded by Vinnova, Sweden’s innovation agency. The project comprises development of a flexible draft solution for how onshore power supply can be implemented between a port and a vessel that have different frequencies in their electrical networks, and presents a cost benefit analysis for expansion of electrical connections in the Port of Gothenburg. The aim of this project has also been to increase knowledge about and interest in the technology through an exchange of experience between those ports that have onshore power supply and disseminating this information to ports and shipping companies that are interested in the technology. The project has been jointly implemented by Port of Gothenburg and ABB. Ramböll was commissioned to produce technical documentation and compile the report.
Parts of the work have also been presented in a separate study to the Environmental Permit Office at the County Administrative Board in Västra Götaland, which wanted an illustration of: Preconditions and costs to equip all berths in Port of Gothenburg with installations for connecting vessels to the onshore power grid, as well as the environmental consequences of such a connection.
Onshore power supply and other technologies to reduce the environmental impact of ships Connecting ships to the electricity supply means that onshore power supply replaces the diesel- powered marine engines that normally generate electricity while in port. The technology can contribute to a substantial decrease in emissions of air pollution from ships in port. To some extent noise is also reduced as the vessel’s auxiliary engine does not need to be used while at berth.
Onshore power supply for ships in commercial operation has been used since the 1980s, at that time with low voltage. Ferry services were the first to be connected. One reason for this is that the technology is easier for ferries to use as they dock at the same quay every time. This energy transfer technology has now spread to other types of vessel and is available in 20 or so ports in the world. A parallel development within the area has taken place in both the USA and Europe. In Europe most high voltage systems are 11 kV or 6.6 kV with a frequency of 50 Hz, while ports in the USA have high voltage systems that supply 6.6 kV and 60 Hz. A small number of ports can supply both 50 Hz and 60 Hz.
Other technologies to reduce emissions of air pollution from ships in port include changing fuel, primarily to liquid natural gas (LNG), dimethylates (DME) and methanol, and various purification methods, e.g. scrubbers, catalytic purification of exhaust fumes and HAM (humid air motor) technology. Efficient port operations (loading and unloading) that reduce the time ships spend in port is also an important parameter for reduced emissions. The cost-effectiveness of introducing these technologies has not been evaluated within the framework of this study. However, the possibility of there being more cost-effective alternatives among them than onshore power supply cannot be excluded.
Environmental effects The most important environmental effects from ships are noise and emissions of air pollutants, which primarily arise as a result of combustion of fossil fuels such as diesel. Emissions of air pollutants consist of particles (PM10 and PM2.5), nitrogen oxides (NO x), sulphur dioxide (SO 2), fossil carbon dioxide (CO 2) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). The emissions contribute to increased quantities of air pollutants that are regulated by environmental quality standards (EQS) for exterior air, including for SO 2, NO x and PM10. It is particularly difficult to achieve the EQS for
NO x and PM10 in metropolitan areas. In Gothenburg it is hard to comply with the EQS for NO x and
1 of 79
PM10 in central districts, alongside the major traffic routes and at tunnel mouths. Emissions of air pollutants from port operations account for a large proportion of the total emissions in Gothenburg. Onshore power supply for berthed vessels would substantially reduce emissions of air pollutants from the port operation, and be significant for overall air pollution in Gothenburg.
Port of Gothenburg The different parts of Gothenburg’s port have varying amounts of maritime traffic and their requirement will thus vary greatly if ships are going to be connected to an onshore power supply. With its dense container ship traffic, Skandiahamnen has the largest power requirement. Next comes Arendalshamnen/Älvsborgshamnen with a large number of RoRo- and cruise ships. Frihamnen also has a substantial power requirement as cruise ships dock there. The ports with the least power requirement are Torshamnen, with only two berths, though they are for large tankers, and Skarvikshamnen/Ryahamnen, where less tonnage puts in, but at a large number of berths. Stena Line’s ferry- and RoRo services to Denmark and Germany are from Majnabbe, Mastugget and Kvillepiren in Frihamnen. Otherwise, there are individual quays east of the Älvsborg Bridge where a small number of ships berth.
Port of Gothenburg currently has onshore power supply options at berths 700 and 712 in Älvsborgshamnen and at quays 28, 30 and 49, Masthugget and Majnabbe, which are used by Stena Line for ferry services, see Figure 1 Quays with onshore power supply in Port of Gothenburg (marked with a circle) .
Älvsborgshamnen Arendalshamnen
Skarviks- och Ryahamnen Frihamnen Torshamnen
Skandiahamnen
Majnabbe Masthugget Figure 1 Quays with onshore power supply in Port of Gothenburg (marked with a circle)
Work is underway to standardise the design internationally in order to enhance the preconditions for onshore power supply. It is likely that the international standard will be agreed during 2012. Additionally, the proposal for a substantial tax reduction for the electricity supplied to larger vessels within Sweden has been approved and applies from 1 November 2011.
Göteborg Energi, the municipal electricity distribution company, is planning to expand the capacity of the electricity grid in the outer port area during the next 5 year period. This is an essential prerequisite for onshore power supply on a larger scale.
The assessment is that the technical preconditions are in place for a gradual expansion of onshore power supply in the Port of Gothenburg in the future. However, there are not many vessels that are equipped to use the technology. Development of onshore power supply equipment presupposes that there are shipping companies willing to invest in adapting their ships.
2 of 79
Figure 2 Connection of ships to the onshore power supply in Älvsborgshamnen (photo Port of Gothenburg)
Technology for flexible onshore power supply Facilities supplying onshore power to ferries and RoRo ships are available in a number of ports in Europe. Several ports are also considering development for these types of ship. Onshore power supply options for other types of ship such as containers, tankers and cruise ships are very rare and only available in a small number of locations in the world. The technology is therefore not fully tested in container- and oil ports, and needs to be further developed in order to become available for standardised use.
A new technique for onshore power supply has been devised within the study with the aim of producing a flexible solution to enable ships with an onboard frequency of both 60 and 50 Hz to be hooked up at the same berth. The technology is an innovation that has not previously been used, and is based on a central frequency transformation station via a frequency converter with simultaneous power supply to several berths. A centrally located frequency converter that supplies several births entails a financial saving. Moreover, there is less need for space consuming equipment on the quay.
Cost benefit analysis A cost benefit analysis has been conducted in order to assess the costs in relation to the benefit, i.e. reduced environmental consequences. Comparing the option of developing onshore power supply with not doing so makes it possible to obtain an idea of costs and benefits. All relevant investment-, operating- and maintenance costs therefore need to be taken into account in the analysis, both for the option of not developing onshore power supply (the Zero Option) and for various expansion options. In addition, the environmental cost that arises as a result of the environmental impacts of the options must be calculated and constitute a part of the analysis. The environmental impacts that have been addressed in the analysis have been limited to NO x, SO 2,
3 of 79
particles and CO 2. It is important to emphasis that the analysis is subject to major uncertainties, including the environmental cost of air pollutants, it nevertheless does provide guidance for the conditions under which an investment in onshore power supply can deliver adequate environmental benefit. The analysis has been performed for three options:
• Zero Option – the option entails berthed vessels generating electricity with diesel/ heavy fuel oil operation, and no (zero) vessels using onshore power supply.
• Partial Development – the option entails those vessels that dock at Port of Gothenburg 8 or more times being converted for onshore power supply, while other ships continue operating with their own auxiliary engines. In addition it has been assumed that berths with an occupancy rate of >30% are equipped with onshore power supply. The costs that are included are the investment cost to convert ships, maintenance and operating costs to run these ships with electric power, investment and maintenance costs for the high voltage system for berths, operating costs for heavy fuel oil for remaining vessels and the environmental cost (emissions of air pollutants from use of fuel).
• Full Development – the option entails all berthed ships being connected to the onshore power supply. The costs that are included are the investment cost to convert ships (”Port of Gothenburg’s part” – those that dock 8 or more times per year), maintenance and operating costs to run these ships with electric power, as well as investment and maintenance costs for the high voltage system required to supply onshore electricity. This option has thus been calculated on the basis of a future scenario where onshore power supply has been assumed to be generally implemented within the merchant fleet. At the same time, the costs for adapting the majority of the vessels have not been included in the calculations. This means that the option describes a hypothetical case and is not comparable with other options.
Statistics on number of times ships berth, average time spent in dock, average tonnage, type of vessel and average engine capacity have been used for the calculations. The calculation model that has constituted the basis for the calculation is called the ”OPS Calculation Model”. It was developed by a working group consisting of several European ports and is presented at www.onshorepowersupply.org. The working group was led by Port of Gothenburg and was facilitated through partial financing by Vinnova.
The environmental cost has been calculated according to SIKA’s and the Swedish Maritime Administration’s model for marginal costs for air pollutants from port operations (SIKA PM 2010:1) 1.
Results The results of the analysis for each part of the port are set out in the tables on the following pages. Masthugget, Majnabbe and Kvillepiren, where Stena Line operates, were not included in the analysis, partly because the onshore power supply is fully developed there (does not apply to Kvillepiren) and partly because the structure in Port of Gothenburg was different when the study was commenced. The tables present the sections of the port in order according to the greatest environmental benefit in relation to cost. The lower the cost in comparison with the Zero Option, the more justified it becomes to develop onshore power supply. If the development option costs
1 The calculation values were produced by the Working Group for Socio-Economic calculation principles (ASEK).
4 of 79
more than the Zero Option, it is probably not plausible to develop onshore power supply. The analysis shows that the benefit of onshore power supply in relation to the investment costs are greatest in those parts of the port where the same ships frequently berth. This has resulted in the following ranking:
1. Älvsborgshamnen/Arendalshamnen, excl. berths for cruise ships in RoRo Arendal 2. Skandiahamnen, excl. Car Terminal and Quay 644 Container 3. Car Terminal in Skandiahamnen RoRo, car 4. Torshamnen Crude oil, loading 5. The cruise ship terminal in Arendalshamnen Cruises 6. Quay 644 in Skandiahamnen Bitumen, unloading 7. Skarvikhamn and Ryahamn Petroleum products, unloading 8. The cruise ship terminal in Frihamnen Cruises
It is important to emphasise that the cost benefit analysis has only been conducted for the choice of technology related to onshore power supply. The study has not considered other technologies and their costs to obtain the same environmental benefit.
Blue figures in the tables show operating-, maintenance- and investment cost, green figures show environmental cost for air pollutants and red figures the cost for fossil carbon dioxide.
The reason that the costs for the Full Development option are generally lower than for Partial Development is that the running costs for onshore electricity are lower in comparison with electricity production using diesel. However, at present the Full Development option is not realistic as vessels coming into port do not usually have equipment for onshore power supply. The Full Development option should therefore be viewed as a future scenario among other possible measures to reduce the environmental impact from shipping.
Älvsborgshamnen/Arendalshamnen, excl. quays for cruise vessels in Arendal Option Cost (MSEK/year) Comparison with Zero Option (MSEK/year) Zero Option 179.1 (56 +83.7+39.1) Partial Development 64 (47.9+11 +5.1) + 115.1 (8,1 +72.7+34 ) Full Development 44.3 (44.3+0 +0 ) + 134.8 (12 +83.7+39.1)
Skandiahamnen, excl. Car Terminal and Quay 644 Option Cost (MSEK/year) Comparison with Zero Option (MSEK/year) Zero Option 169.9 (53.4+79.4+37.1) Partial Development 121.7 (84.2+25.6+11.9) + 48.2 (-30.8+53.8+25.2) Full Development 85 (85 +0 +0 ) + 84.9 (-22.1+79.4+37.1)
5 of 79
Car Terminal in Skandiahamnen Option Cost (MSEK/year) Comparison with Zero Option (MSEK/year) Zero Option 18.2 (5.7+8.5+ 4) Partial Development 17.9 (9.1+6 +2. + 0.3 (-3.4+2.5+1.2) 8) Full Development 5.9 (5.9+0 +0 ) + 12.3 (-0.2+8.5+4 )
Torshamnen Option Cost (MSEK/year) Comparison with Zero Option (MSEK/year) Zero Option 12 (3.8+5.6+2.6 ) Partial Development 11.5 (10.6+0.6+0. + 0.5 (-6.8+5 +2.3) 3) Full Development 13.1 (13.1+0 +0 ) - 1.1 (-9.3+5.6+2.6)
Cruise ship quays in Arendal Option Cost (MSEK/year) Benefit in comparison with Zero Option (MSEK/year) Zero Option 0.8 (0.3+0.3+0,2 ) Partial Development 5.8 (5.6+0.1+0,1 ) - 5 (-5.3+0.2+0.1) Full Development 5.4 (5.4+0 +0 ) - 4.6 (-5.1+0.3+0.2)
Quay 644 Option Cost (MSEK/year) Comparison with Zero Option (MSEK/year) Zero Option 0.7 (0.2+0.3+0.2) Partial Development 6.3 (6.2+0.1+0 ) - 5.6 (-6+0.2+0.2) Full Development 6.3 (6.3+0 +0 ) - 5.6 (-5.1+0.3+0.2)
Skarvikshamnen/Ryahamnen Option Cost (MSEK/year) Comparison with Zero Option (MSEK/year) Zero Option 43.1 (13.6+20.1+9.4) Partial Development 55.1 (51 +2.9+1.2) - 12 (-37.4+17.2+8.2) Full Development 50.9 (50.9+0 +0 ) - 7.8 (-37.3+20.1+9.4)
Frihamnen Option Cost (MSEK/year) Benefit in comparison with Zero Option (MSEK/year) Zero Option 0.5 (0.2+0.2+0.1) Partial Development 12.8 (12.6+0.1+0.1) - 12.3 (-12.4+0.1+0 ) Full Development 12.6 (12.6+0 +0 ) - 12.1 (-12.4+0.2+0.1)
6 of 79
Conclusions The initial costs for developing onshore power supply options are high and in most cases it is only with a more general introduction of equipment for onshore power supply onboard vessels that a real benefit can be obtained from investing in equipment onshore.
The analysis conducted demonstrates that there is a relevant environmental benefit to be gained in relation to the cost of enabling ships to be connected to an onshore power supply in Älvsborgshamnen/Arendalshamnen. The analysis also shows that, in distinction from other parts of the port, there may also be an overall commercial benefit in Älvsborgshamnen/Arendalshamnen of connecting to onshore electricity (operating, maintenance and investment costs in the Development Option are lower than in the Zero Option). However, in consideration of the large initial costs, this presupposes interest from ship owners/shipping companies and product owners to equip their ships for connection. The analysis does not take account of the fact that there are two berths in the port that are already equipped for onshore power supply (the facilities are old and do not conform with the forthcoming new standard).
The analysis shows that there might be a relevant environmental benefit in terms of the container operation at Skandiahamnen’s container quays in relation to the cost of enabling ships to connect to the electricity supply. However, for onshore power supply to be an effective preventive measure requires that a large proportion of ships that berth are converted for onshore power supply and also connect to onshore electricity. It is therefore important to study the prerequisites for a gradual expansion of onshore power supply in line with a possible adaptation of the fleet.
There is currently no major environmental benefit in relation to the cost of developing onshore power supply in the Car Terminal. However, if/when car transport ships are generally converted for onshore power supply, the environmental benefit in relation to the cost will be more relevant and development of equipment for onshore electricity might possibly then be more justified.
Large tankers dock in Torshamnen. There is a substantial distance to areas where a lot of people live, and emissions of air pollutants only make a marginal contribution to the quantities in the areas where there is a risk of environmental quality standards being exceeded. There is consequently no pressing need to connect ships to the electricity supply here. With today’s volume and composition of shipping docking at Skarvikshamnen/Ryahamnen, Quay 644, Frihamnen and Arendal’s cruise ship quay, onshore power supply is not considered to be viable. For the individual berths east of the Älvsborg Bridge (Stigbergskajen, Stenpiren and Marieholmskajen), only a small number of large ships dock per year and high voltage connection on these quays is generally not deemed reasonable. On the other hand, if there are impacts from smaller vessels, a low voltage connection might be relevant.
Flexible equipment to supply electricity at both 50 and 60 Hz will make it possible to connect a large proportion of ships that dock. For a high proportion of berthed vessels to connect to onshore power, and a concomitant benefit in relation to the investment, requires the ships to be converted. A tax reduction for electricity supplied to ships may make it profitable for shipping companies to convert vessels, however, the profitability is dependent on how long a ship is in port and on the electricity price. When shipping companies weigh up which preventive measures are suitable, alternative fuels such as LNG, DME, methanol etc., as well as technologies such as scrubbers and catalysers might also be of greater interest.
7 of 79
For an expansion of onshore power supply options in the Port of Gothenburg to deliver any environmental benefit, ships will simultaneously have to be converted. Development must therefore be carried out in close collaboration with the shipping companies that use the port.
Another important prerequisite for continued development of onshore power supply is public support in the form of both financial incentives and resources for technical development. Continuing to inform and hold discussions with shipping interests and other ports on the potential for onshore power supply is also an important aspect.
8 of 79
Introduction
Onshore power supply can considerably reduce emissions of air pollutants in ports. This is achieved by replacing the diesel-powered marine engines that normally generate electricity while in port with onshore electricity. Together with ABB, Port of Gothenburg has been allotted funds by Vinnova, Sweden’s innovation agency, to evaluate technology for onshore power supply and increase knowledge about and interest in the technology on a broad front. This is to be achieved through, among other things, exchange of experience and knowledge between the ports that have onshore power supply and disseminating this information to ports and shipping companies that are interested in the technology. One aspect of the project comprises presenting a flexible draft solution for how onshore power supply can take place between a port and a vessel that have different frequencies in their electrical networks and conducting and presenting a cost benefit analysis for expansion of onshore power supply in the Port of Gothenburg. Port of Gothenburg and ABB have engaged Ramböll Sverige AB to implement the technical investigation of onshore power supply adapted to Port of Gothenburg’s needs, and for the cost benefit analysis.
Purpose The purpose of this investigation is to study the technical, economic and environmental prerequisites for developing onshore power supply options for marine traffic at quays used by Port of Gothenburg. An outline proposal for an onshore power supply system for different parts of the port will be described and costed. A proposal for a system where ships can connect to onshore electricity with varying frequencies at a single berth will be produced. In order to analyse the economic and environmental prerequisites, a cost-benefit analysis will be conducted to assess whether and where it is suitable to develop onshore power supply in Port of Gothenburg.
It should be emphasised that the study will not provide a complete costing to assess the size of the investment. A development in the future must be preceded by a more detailed technical and economic study.
The study uses a method in which the environment is priced, making it possible to incorporate the economic perspective in relation to onshore electricity supply for the different parts of Port of Gothenburg. The analysis of the benefit of onshore power supply includes use of ”Calculation Model OPS”, see section 4.2.
Port of Gothenburg The Port of Gothenburg is Scandinavia’s largest port with 11,000 ships docking and a trade volume of 43.8 million tonnes (2010) per year. The volumes are dominated by oil (60%), followed by container goods and RoRo goods. One third of Swedish foreign trade and 65% of all container traffic goes via Gothenburg’s port. Gothenburg is the only port in Sweden with the capacity to receive the world’s largest container ships. There are a large number of rail shuttles with daily departures, enabling companies throughout Sweden and Norway to make their transportation environmentally compatible through a direct line to the port.
Port of Gothenburg is internationally recognized for its environmental initiatives. Rail shuttles, onshore power supply, environmentally differentiated harbour tariffs, plans for LNG as a future fuel for vessels and a climate neutral company by 2015 are a few examples of the initiatives that have been introduced.
In 2010 the stevedoring operation was placed in terminal companies that are distinct from Port of Gothenburg. The terminal companies will be taken over by various private actors. Port of
9 of 79
Gothenburg’s role is to establish the conditions for an efficient, strong and sustainable Scandinavian goods hub.
The ports for cargo ships are located outside the Älvsborg Bridge, on the Hisingen side. Torshamnen , the crude oil port, is farthest out. Arendalshamnen and Älvsborgshamnen, which handle RoRo- and cruise ships, are located inside the bridge. Followed by Skandiahamnen, which handles container ships and ships for lorry freight. The Oil Port is located immediately outside Älvsborg Bridge and it is primarily petroleum products such as petrol, diesel and heating oil that are loaded and unloaded here. Inside Älvsborg Bridge, on the south side of the river are ferry terminals run by Stena Line. Frihamnen is located in central Gothenburg, with the principal activity currently consisting of cruise ships and Stena Line’s RoRo services.
Figure 3 Port of Gothenburg, map showing the location of the different parts of the port
The environmental impact from ships in port Shipping affects the environment in various ways. The most important environmental effects from ships in seaports include noise and emissions into the air. The impact from emissions of air pollutants mainly arise as a result of combustion of fossil fuels such as diesel and heavy oil. The
emissions consist of particles (exhaust particles, named PM10 and PM2.5), nitrogen oxides (NO x),
sulphur dioxide (SO 2), fossil carbon dioxide (CO 2) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). These air pollutants are regulated by the environmental quality standards for outdoor air, based on EU
directives concerning the limit values for SO 2, NO x, PM10, lead and other substances. The standards have the greatest importance in metropolitan areas.
10 of 79
Pollution from ships is regulated by the IMO in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), which was adopted in 1973. The convention came into force in 1983 and has been continually updated over the years. The convention comprises regulations with the aim of preventing and reducing pollution from ships, both in connection with accidents and during normal operation. MARPOL provides the scope to determine regional Emission Control Areas (ECA). The North Sea and the Baltic Sea have been defined as Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECA). At present the sulphur content in heavy fuel oil within these marine areas may not exceed 1%. The stricter environmental requirements that come into effect on 1 January 2015 mean that MGO with a maximum of 0.1% sulphur will be a base requirement for use in waters that comprise SECAs within the North Sea and the Baltic. Alternatively, purification methods that achieve the same result can be used. This may contribute to greater use of alternative fuels such as LNG (’Liquid Natural Gas’) and development of purification methods. Marine fuel with a sulphur content in excess of 0.1 percentage by weight may not be used within the EU in ships in port (Statute (1998:946) on sulphurous fuel). Onshore power supply, for example, is accepted as an alternative.
Alternative measures to reduce the environmental impact in port There are various possible measures to reduce primarily emissions of air pollutants from ships in port. For example, the shipping industry is introducing liquified natural gas, LNG, as a fuel which produces lower emissions of substances including carbon dioxide, sulphur, nitrogen and particles. With stricter requirements for vessels that use the North Sea and the Baltic, LNG as a fuel may represent an attractive alternative.
Other alternatives are exhaust gas purification through scrubber technology. Scrubbers reduce sulphur and particles etc. This alternative reduces emissions throughout sea transport as a whole.
Another technical solution is catalytic purification of exhaust gases. Catalysers reduce nitrogen oxides etc. by converting them into pure nitrogen gas and water vapour. At present this costs about SEK 10 million per ship. The figure would then come down to approx. 6 grams of NO x/kWh. It is certainly a more expensive investment than installing onshore electricity equipment onboard, but it also delivers an environmental improvement throughout the entire transport process.
Another method is what is known as HAM (Humid Air Motor) technology where emissions of nitrogen oxides are reduced from diesel engines by injecting water vapour into the engine so that the temperature is lowered in the combustion process and less nitrogen oxide occurs.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that research is being conducted into DME, dimethylates, as an alternative to desulphurised heavy fuel oil. DME is manufactured from biomass, and has been shown to work well in a modified diesel engine. Trials/research are also in progress on using methanol. Emissions are reduced, primarily of sulphur, nitrogen oxides and particles.
This enquiry has studied onshore power supply. No comparisons with the alternatives above have been undertaken.
Onshore power supply for reduced environmental impact Ships in port need electrical energy for loading, unloading, heating and lighting and other activities onboard. Electrical power is currently supplied by the ship’s auxiliary engines, which emit carbon dioxide and air pollutants that affect local air quality and the health of both port workers and local residents. The same applies for noise pollution from auxiliary machinery, which also affect the working environment onboard the ship.
11 of 79
As an alternative to onboard power generation, ships can be hooked up to an onshore power supply, i.e. connected to the local electricity grid. Ships’ activities can thus proceed at the same time as local emissions are kept to a minimum. Emissions of air pollutants regionally and globally are dependent on how the electricity is produced. Emissions from electricity produced by, for example, hydroelectric or wind power, are low.
Ports are not normally equipped to supply electricity to ships at quayside. And likewise, ships are not usually equipped to receive power in this way. However, around the world numerous activities have now been initiated in this respect, and interest in the technology is rapidly growing, driven by rising fuel prices and stricter environmental legislation with a greater focus on emissions in ports.
Cost-effective implementation of the technology requires collaboration between a wide spectrum of stakeholders at an early stage, e.g. when planning new quays or ordering new vessels.
Onshore power supply has been in commercial use since the 1980s. Ferry services were the first to be connected. One reason for this is that the technology is easier for ferries to use as they dock at the same quay every time. This energy transfer technology has now spread to other types of vessel and is available in 20 or so ports in the world. A parallel development within the area has taken place in both the USA and Europe. In Europe most high voltage systems are 11 kV or 6.6 kV with a frequency of 50 Hz, while ports in the USA have high voltage systems that supply 6.6 kV and 60 Hz. A small number of ports can supply both 50 Hz and 60 Hz. In Europe it is the port in Antwerp, and also Stena Line together with Port of Gothenburg, that have been the forerunners within the area. No port can currently supply onshore electricity at all berths. Several European ports are intending to introduce onshore power supply within the next few years, and are at various design phases: Trelleborg, Bergen, Tallin, Helsinki, Rotterdam and others. Port of Gothenburg currently has high voltage onshore power supply options at berths 700 and 712 in Älvsborgshamnen and at quays in Masthugget and Majnabbe, which are used by Stena Line, see Figure 4 Quays with onshore power supply in Port of Gothenburg (marked with a circle) .
Figure 4 Quays with onshore power supply in Port of Gothenburg (marked with a circle)
12 of 79
The study has not taken into account the fact that there are already two facilities for onshore power supply in Älvsborgshamnen. The facilities are about 10 years old and the equipment is not fully compatible with the forthcoming international standard. As an extensive conversion is required for the new standard and to be able to handle ships with both 50 and 60Hz systems, no value has been included for the existing facility.
Electrical systems for different types of vessel Different vessels have different power requirements. All ships can be roughly classified in four categories: Container ships, RoRo ships, tankers and cruise ships (passenger ships). There are also intermediates between these categories, for example, RoPax, combined RoRo and passenger ships.
In 2006, Rotterdam port conducted a survey of the energy requirements on berthed container, Ro/ro and tanker vessels that is presented in Table 1 Energy requirements for different types of vessels. The figures for cruise ships are derived from Doves, 2006 and Environ 2005.
Table 1 Energy requirements for different types of vessels Type of ship Voltage system Frequency Power at quayside Container ship 380 V-6.6 kV 50 or 60 Hz Average – 2 MW majority – 440 V Ocean-going ships Maximum – 8 MW 6.6 kV on ships built generally have 60 Hz after 2001 RoRo ship 400-460 V The majority have 60 Hz Usually <2 MW Tanker 380-460 V The majority have 60 Hz Average – 3 MW Cruise ship Various The majority have 60 Hz Usually 10-12 MW and individual ships 20-25 MW
The frequency that the ship’s electrical system uses is of particular importance for choice of onshore power system. A summary is available in table 2.
Table 2 Frequency of the electricity system on different vessels (from Ericsson, P and Fazlagic, I, 2008) Type of ship Frequency 50 Hz Frequency 60 Hz Container ship (< 140 m) 63 % 37 % Container ship (> 140 m) 6 % 94 % Container ship (total) 26 % 74 % RoRo and car ferry 30 % 70 % Tanker 20 % 80 % Cruise ship (< 200 m) 36 % 64 % Cruise ship (> 200 m) - 100 % Cruise ship (total) 17 % 83 %
Cruise ships have a large power requirement, sometimes on a par with a small Swedish town (10,000 inhabitants, 20 MW). Cruise ships are also most frequently in harbour during the day when energy prices are highest, though usually during the summer, when energy prices are lower.
13 of 79
The total power requirement in the different sections of Gothenburg port varies greatly. With its dense container ship traffic, Skandiahamnen has the largest power requirements. Next comes Arendalshamnen/ Älvsborgshamnarna with a large number of RoRo ships and occasional cruise ships. Frihamnen also has a major power requirement due to cruise ships docking. Torshamnen has the least power requirement as there are only two berths there (though with large tankers), along with Skarvikshamnen/ Ryahamnen where less tonnage docks.
14 of 79
International standard for design of onshore power supply for ships at quayside
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) and its preparatory body in environmental protection issues, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), have commissioned a proposal for an international standard for design of onshore power supply for ships at quayside that has been developed and approved by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The proposal is designated ISO/IEC PAS 60092-510:2009 (under change of name to ISO/IEC/IEEE 80005-1) and was published on 29 April 2009. The proposed standard has been submitted for final revision. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has also been involved in the development work on the proposed electrical standard IEEE P1713. In terms of electrical safety classification, there are no obstacles in transferring electricity from shore to ship, as long as there is compliance with the special requirements for the electrical equipment that may be used within a classified electrical safety area (EX-classification). The safety recommendations and the – classification for these connections is however still under investigation in the standardisation body.
The proposed standard IEC/PAS 60092-510:2009 describes the high voltage system for onshore power supply of ships (HVSC Systems) onboard as well as onshore. The standard addresses specification, installation and testing of HVSC System and comprises: high voltage system, quay- to-ship-connection, transformers/reactors, semiconductor converter, the ship’s electrical distribution system, inspection, supervision, interconnection and maintenance system.
RoRo and container vessels will have a high voltage system with 6.6 kV, 7.5 MVA. Only one ship per transformer will be permitted. These vessels usually have a 60Hz frequency onboard which means that a frequency converter is required on shore for this type of vessel in most of the world (with the exception of the USA and half of Japan which have 60Hz in their mains). Cruise ships will have a high voltage 6.6 kV or 11 kV system, depending on the vessel’s electricity requirement. The standard will also require more contact breakers than today’s pilot installations which have varying design and construction.
The standardisation work for onshore power supply has subsequently been divided into three main components:
• IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005-1 The onshore power supply standard • IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005-2 Communication protocol • IEC SC 23H Terminal contacts
The IEC/ISO/IEEE meeting in Oslo in early October was planned to be the last one before voting on an International Standard (IS). However, some countries were negative towards parts of the Standardisation Group’s Committee Draft for Voting (CDV). The IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005-1 working group therefore addressed and considered modifications in the CDV during the Oslo meeting with the aim of enabling the Final Draft International Standard document (FDIS) to become an IS in early 2012. Consensus decisions often consist of compromises, and this was the case during the Oslo meeting.
Following the Oslo meeting in October 2011 the definitive document has undergone a final edit with the intention of dispatching an FDIS for voting in mid-January 2012. The national committees subsequently have two months to submit the results of their voting which can be a ”Yes”, ”No” or ”Abstain”. This means that an IS can be ratified in mid-March 2012 if the outcome of the voting is positive.
15 of 79
The standardisation of terminal contacts for onshore power supply has been implemented as a separate project in committee IEC SC 23H. The work is almost completed, but a number of minor adjustments at a late stage have resulted in a delay to the final standard.
The protocol for communication for onshore power supply is not incorporated in the standard due to lack of time, and in order not to delay the original work with the HVSC standard it was decided that a new project should be started for the work on a new interface. This will be executed in a new working group with the designation IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005-2.
Port of Gothenburg regards being able to take part in the standardisation work and contribute experience from the onshore power supply facilities that have been in operation in Älvsborgshamnen for about 10 years as highly valuable. The standardisation process is time consuming as a large number of points of view have to be taken into account. The fact that one standard seems to be imminent is very positive and entails improved prerequisites for onshore power supply to be realized in more ports.
16 of 79
Ongoing initiatives to facilitate connection of ships to onshore electricity
Changed fiscal conditions for onshore electricity for ships in port In 2020 shipping is expected to account for more than 50% of sulphur and nitrogen emissions in Europe (Swedish Parliament 2009). As a step to reduce emissions of sulphur, a Government bill was put forward in 2010 proposing a lower energy tax for electricity used by ships when in port (Swedish Parliament 2010). The tax was lowered from 28.0 öre and 18.5 öre respectively per kWh (today’s level in southern and northern Sweden respectively) to 0.5 öre per kWh (which is the same energy tax as for manufacturing industry and professional greenhouse cultivation). Use of low-tax electricity for unintended purposes was precluded by applying the tax reduction solely to vessels that have a gross tonnage of at least 400 and electric power with a voltage of at least 380 V. The proposed change in the Energy Tax Act (1994:1776) has now been implemented and came into force on 1 Nov 2011 (SFS 2011:1094).
The EU Commission has studied the effects of using onshore power for ships in port. Based on this, the EU Commission has drawn up a recommendation:
”Member states should consider installation of onshore power for ships at quayside in port, particularly in ports where air quality standards are exceeded or where the public complain of noise from port activities, and in sections of the port that are located close to residential areas.”
The EU commission encourages member states to consider using financial instruments to facilitate onshore power for ships in port, by exploiting the contingencies available in EU legislation.
IVA has conducted a brief environmental analysis of the expected effects of this tax reduction for onshore power for ships in port (Swedish Parliament 2010). Onshore power equivalent to 8.7 million kWh per year is currently used, which is equivalent to just over 2 million litres or 1.7 million kg heavy fuel oil per year. According to IVA’s analysis, this makes an annual contribution to emissions saved from marine fuels equivalent to 11 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, 121 tonnes of nitrous oxides, 1.2 tonnes of particles and 6,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.
The total usage of heavy oil or diesel for production of electricity for ships in port has been calculated at approx. 3% of the total amount of marine fuel sold in Sweden, which is equivalent to approx. 80 million litres of marine fuel per year or some 300 million kWh per year. It is not likely that all ports and ships will be converted for use of onshore power. In its analysis IVA has assumed that 20% of the potential will be taken up, i.e. that approx. 15 million litres (or 12 million kg) of marine fuel will be replaced by approx. 60 million kWh of onshore power per year. If this was the case then air pollution in port areas would decrease by 76 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, 830 tonnes of nitrogen oxides, 8.4 tonnes of particles and 42,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (Swedish Parliament 2010).
Table 3 Saved environmental cost when using onshore electricity in port instead of electricity produced with heavy fuel oil. Calculation based on an assumed transfer of 60 million kWh/year from heavy fuel oil to onshore power. Source: SIKA 2010. presents the calculated value, at 2006 price levels, of reduced local, regional and global effects of air pollutants if approx. 15 million litres of heavy fuel oil per year were to be replaced by 60 million kWh of onshore power per year (according to the Working Group for Socio-Economic Calculatlon Values, ASEK 4). Local effects have been estimated on the basis of population and ventilation factor applicable for Södertälje, i.e. a town with a moderately sized population (57,000 inhabitants) and the lowest possible ventilation factor. This means that the cost of local effects can hardly be regarded as exaggerated. The total
17 of 79
cost saved has been calculated at 175 million SEK/year, which is equivalent to approx. 2.9 SEK/kWh. This should be set in relation to the shortfall in tax revenue of just below 0.28 SEK/kWh.
Table 3 Saved environmental cost when using onshore electricity in port instead of electricity produced with heavy fuel oil. Calculation based on an assumed transfer of 60 million kWh/year from heavy fuel oil to onshore power. Source: SIKA 2010. Saved volume, Valuation, Saved environmental cost, MSEK tonnes/year SEK/kg Particles 8.4 3564 29.9
SO 2 76 129 9.8
NO x 830 87 72.2
CO 2 42000 1,5 63 Total 175 Tax reduction (60 billion kWh x 0.28 SEK) 16.8 Total 158
Knowledge Transfer Both international and national knowledge transfer to and from other ports and stakeholders has been an important aspect within the framework of this Vinnova project. Methods through which this has taken place include production of an international website on onshore power supply, arranging seminars, participation at international conferences, study visits from interested ports/organisations, as well as a study visit to the Port of Antwerp, which was the first to offer onshore power supply with a frequency converter for container vessels.
Production of an international website concerning onshore power supply International collaboration is in progress on climate and air quality issues in relation to shipping and port-related activities within the framework of the World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI), www.wpci.nl. A total of 55 ports throughout the world are participating and Port of Gothenburg is one of them. Within the framework of this collaboration, Port of Gothenburg has led the work on establishing a website concerning onshore power supply, www.onshorepowersupply.org. Vinnova’s support has been important in enabling the development and maintenance of the website. The website offers practical and useful information about onshore power supply within the areas of environment & health, costs, how to introduce onshore power supply – the different steps to consider, good examples from ports that have introduced the technology, questions and answers etc. The website also offers two tools to calculate both environmental benefits and costs linked to the introduction of onshore power supply.
The work has taken place in close cooperation with the ports in Antwerp, Amsterdam, Hamburg and IAPH Europe and has received a very positive response in both the media and other contexts. When the website was launched in spring 2010 the work was noted in four international articles: ”WPCI: achieving wider global recognition, March 2010”, ”Power talks, March 2010”, ”Powered up from ship-to-shore, March 2010” and ”Going green is fashion, March 2010”. The articles are available www.portofgothenburg.com.
18 of 79
Figure 5 From www.onshorepowersupply.org
International conferences/meetings Communication has taken place regarding onshore power supply and the technical innovations that have been achieved within the Vinnova project on a number of occasions, as listed below:
• Climeport Conference, Livorno, Italy, autumn 2010, approx. 100 participants. • Green Port conference, Venice, Italy, February 2011, approx. 200 participants. • European Maritime Day, Gdansk, Poland, May 2011, approx. 100 participants. • Assembly within Clean North Sea Shipping, Newcastle, UK, June 2011, approx. 100 participants. • Green Port Conference, Hamburg, Germany, September 2011, approx. 200 participants.
Seminars etc.
Seminar with Stena Line A seminar on onshore power supply was arranged in connection with the opening of the new onshore power supply facility with a frequency converter from 50/60 Hz at Stena Line’s Germany Terminal, at Majnabbe in Gothenburg in January 2011. Approx. 100 persons took part in the seminar.
19 of 79
Port of Sweden The trade association for ports in Sweden ”Port of Sweden” has an environmental network that visited Port of Gothenburg in May 2011 to, among other things, acquaint itself with the information made available through the Vinnova project. The activity involved some 30 participants.
Other At the national level a large proportion of the knowledge compiled was presented to a number of authorities in the Gothenburg region in connection with a presentation of the preconditions for developing onshore power supply in Port of Gothenburg. This interim report was presented in September 2011.
The knowledge has also been actively communicated through ABB’s sales and marketing organisation. An extract from the presentations is shown below, and can also be downloaded from number of different websites.
20 of 79
Ports & organisations that have made study visits to Port of Gothenburg During the duration of the Vinnova project the following study visits have been made concerning onshore power supply.
Port of Shanghai Personnel from the port in Shanghai visited Port of Gothenburg in May 2010. Exchange of experience in relation to onshore power supply and other environmental issues took place. Shanghai is going to focus on developing the technology and according to information has started by setting aside 4 million RNB for a study.
The Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan The Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan visited the port in February 2011. The following were discussed:
Part 1 (focus Europe) Part 2 (focus Gothenburg) 1 Existing facilities in EU countries 1 Description of facilities for onshore power supply Gothenburg port 2 Investment plans in EU countries 2 Emissions reductions as a result of introduction of onshore power supply in the port 3 Emissions reductions as a result of 3 Legal and institutional frameworks onshore power supply for establishment/operation of facilities for onshore power supply 4 Driving forces for expansion of 4 Commercial work for onshore power supply in major ports establishment/operation of in the world facilities for onshore power supply 5 Questions regarding expansion of 5 Agreements and deviations from facilities for onshore power supply ISO/IEC standard 6 Future prospects for onshore power 6 Observations and experiences of in ports in the world the new facility for onshore power supply for Stena Line (ROPAX)
Ystad Port Ystad Port visited Port of Gothenburg in June 2011 along with a number of Polish shipping company customers. This contributed to Ystad Port deciding to develop the capability for onshore power supply.
Study visits to other ports Antwerp The study visit to Antwerp was implemented in June 2010 with the aim of learning from Antwerp port’s experience of onshore power supply with high voltage and 50/60 Hz frequency converter.
International award In November 2011 Port of Gothenburg was awarded the prestigious Global Energy Award, www.globalenergy.org, within the air category. This has generated, and will continue to generate, interest in the technology throughout the world.
For further information see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWgRKNW-OgM and the press release:http://www.portgot.se/prod/hamnen/ghab/dalis2bs.nsf/vyPublicerade/5CB2DB6F786E1FFE C12578B700450D70?OpenDocument
21 of 79
Onshore power supply in the different sections of Gothenburg port – technical preconditions
Facilities supplying onshore power to ferries and RoRo ships are available in a number of ports in Europe. Several ports are also considering development for these types of ship. Onshore power supply options for other types of ship such as containers, tankers and cruise ships are very rare and only available in a small number of locations in the world. This means that the technology is not fully tested and may need to be further developed in order to become more generally available and for standardised use. With the starting point in the notion of tried and tested technology, the prerequisites for onshore power supply are most favourable in ports for RoRo traffic and ferries.
Onshore power supply requires power distribution both to the port and within the port to be expanded. In addition, equipment is required to supply the electricity to the ships at the right frequency and voltage. This section presents the measures that need to be taken in the different parts of the port to enable ships to be supplied by onshore electricity. As well as the various facilities within the port, the ships must also be converted to enable onshore power supply. This is discussed in section 8.
Power capacity to the ports in Gothenburg The power grid that supplies Port of Gothenburg’s facilities is owned and operated by Göteborg Energi Nät AB (GENAB). At present the power derives from GENAB’s K6 station, which is located in Biskopsgården.
The supply capacity for GENAB’s grid north of the port area is starting to reach its limit. Major projects such as new wind farms and increased loading on the western part of Hisingen mean that the existing 50 kV grid will be demolished and replaced by a new 130 kV grid with a larger transmission capacity. A pressure point in the new 130 kV grid is planned just north of Älvsborgshamnen (at Arken). This development has been planned and will commence in 2014.
The input of electrical energy to the port for onshore power supply means that the current structure will have to be changed. The large amounts of electrical energy that will be used to provide ships with onshore power need to be concentrated at one point in each section of the port.
Existing distribution of power within the port Existing electrical installations are slightly different in each section of the port. The structure and ownership of transformer substations is historically determined, but has changed in the last decade due to deregulation, different ownership conditions within the municipality and successive changes within the port.
Overall it can be said that there is currently not much capacity to supply electricity to ships at quayside in most parts of the port. The ports are planned in line with the fact that the electricity that the ships need at quayside is generated onboard each vessel.
Skandiahamnen In Skandiahamnen two transformer substations are owned by GENAB and the Car and Container Terminals are low voltage subscribers of these stations. The stations supply these sections of the port with electricity for large buildings and to some extent lighting for the area.
The remaining transformer substations are owned and operated by Skandiahamnen and primarily supply the heavier loads such as container cranes, refrigerated container parks and large sections of the lighting for the area.
22 of 79
Arendalshamnen and Älvsborgshamnen Approximately half of the transformer substations within Älvsborgshamnen are owned by GENAB and in these stations Älvsborg RoRo is a low voltage subscriber. Arendalshamnen is supplied in its entirety from the RoRo terminal’s station TS751.
The load within Arendalshamnen primarily consists of area lighting, supply of refrigerated container parks and supply of buildings There are also two onshore power connections in Älvsborgshamnen which supply ships that are berthed at 700 and 712.
Future plans for development between Arendalshamnen and Älvsborgshamnen mean that these ports can be linked together electrically via a new transformer substation that is located in the new section and supplied from TS751 in Arendalshamnen and linked with TS712, TS7526 in Älvs- borgshamnen.
Skarvikshamnen and Ryahamnen Port of Gothenburg has no transformer substations in this part of the port. Supply of power to Port of Gothenburg’s installations takes place via a number of low voltage subscriptions that are supplied from GENAB.
Torshamnen Torshamnen is located farthest out in Gothenburg’s port. This part of the port is also a long way out for power distribution from GENAB’s network.
Supply to Torshamnen and the area inside Torshamnen (Risholmen) that Port of Gothenburg utilizes is via transformer substations owned by GENAB. Supply of power to Port of Gothenburg’s installations is via a number of low voltage subscriptions that are supplied from GENAB.
Frihamnen Port of Gothenburg has a transformer substation (TS106) in this part of the port. It is, however, shutdown. Power supply for lighting etc. is via a low voltage subscription from GENAB.
The existing transformer substation needs to be converted in order to supply cruise ships with onshore electricity. The possibility exists of supplying low voltage onshore power at berths with stationary craft, where fishing boats and the coast guard are located.
Other quays east of Älvsborg Bridge
Other quays east of the Älvsborg Bridge consist of Stigbergskajen, Stenpiren and Marieholm, see figure 6. Stenpiren and Stigbergskajen currently offer the option of onshore power, but it is not normally possible to connect large ships. Connecting large ships requires a different technical solution.
23 of 79
Figure 6 Quays east of Älvsborg Bridge where Port of Gothenburg is responsible - Stigbergskajen, Stenpiren and Marieholm (circled in blue)
Only a small number of ships dock at these quays. During the last five years about 20 ships of over 1,350 GT have berthed.
Marine traffic to the quays at Stigbergskajen, Stenpiren and Marieholm is insignificant and there is consequently no point in looking any further into the preconditions and benefits of onshore power supply.
24 of 79
Development of a technical solution for onshore power supply
Need to develop the onshore power supply system in port Variations in ships’ electricity systems The design of equipment for onshore power supply must take into account the electricity systems that are currently in place on today’s merchant fleet. The bulk of the ocean-going ships have electricity systems that are adapted for electricity with a frequency of 60 Hz. Some ships that only travel within Europe or the Baltic region have electricity systems adapted to 50 Hz. The majority of the ships that berth in the Port of Gothenburg use a 60 Hz system.
Onshore power supply has primarily been developed for quays where ships/ferries have scheduled services. E.g. a 50 Hz system has been installed in Älvsborgshamnen for RoRo vessels that are in regular traffic to the continent. Onshore power supply of 50 and 60 Hz respectively has also been installed at the berths for the ferries to Germany and Denmark in Gothenburg. To be able to supply a ship with high voltage electricity of 60 Hz requires a frequency converter to be installed and such a facility was put in place in Stena Line’s Denmark Terminal in 2011.
Vessels with 50 or 60 Hz electricity systems onboard can put into quays in several parts of Gothenburg’s port. To obtain a high level of connection to onshore power at these quays it is desirable that a single facility can supply high voltage electricity at both 50 and 60 Hz.
Location of onshore power supply equipment At RoRo berths and to some extent at ferry berths it is possible to position onshore electricity equipment at quayside as loading and unloading takes place along fixed roadways and locations. For other quays the berths are more flexible and more space is needed along the quays for cranes, loaders, service vehicles etc. It is consequently not suitable to locate equipment that requires a lot of space at quayside. One option would be to put the equipment under ground, but this would entail relatively large construction costs.
Another challenge is the safety aspects in explosion-classified (EX-classified) areas such as the oil port. These areas require specially designed equipment to comply with the EX-classification rules.
Supplying each individual berth with complete onshore power supply equipment in a port with a large number of berths entails a major expense. Further conditions to consider are the ships’ varying power requirements. Both the requirements of the individual ships and the maximum total power requirement of the port’s sections must be taken into account.
To alleviate the conflicting space requirements at the quayside and reduce the costs it would be desirable to have a centrally situated facility and only small-scale equipment at quayside.
25 of 79
Considerations To be able to connect ships on a large scale, the onshore power supply equipment should be as flexible as possible and have the capacity to connect ships irrespective of which frequency, 50 Hz or 60 Hz, the electricity system is onboard. This could be achieved in two ways:
1. Connect a frequency converter, transformer, switchgear and equipment for onshore power supply rated for the output and voltage that the port or section of the port has as standard at every berth that is equipped with an outlet for onshore power supply. The frequency converter can be controlled so that the frequency is adapted to the vessel that is docked at the berth, 50 or 60 Hz.
2. Construct a new receiving station at each port or section of the port that contains transformers, frequency converters and switchgear that are adapted to cover the load that is estimated to be required for the entire port’s onshore power requirement. The receiving station supplies power to all berths that are to be provided with an onshore power supply. With a somewhat more advanced switchgear solution both 50 Hz and 60 Hz can be supplied to the outlets for onshore power supply that are used.
The major difference between the options is the cost of frequency converters. In facilities for individual berths that have hitherto been built for 60 Hz connections, the cost of the frequency converter is approx. 2/3 of the total investment for all electrical equipment included. Highly expensive equipment is thereby linked to individual berths, even when not in use. A receiving station for an entire port or section of the port entails a slightly more expensive switchgear solution, but a considerably lower investment in frequency converters. The other advantage of a centrally situated receiving station is that considerably less equipment is needed at quayside.
A centrally situated receiving station entails a flexible switchgear solution supplying the berths that are in use. The same frequency converter can simultaneously supply onshore power to multiple berths and it will also be possible to simultaneously supply 50 and 60 Hz if there is a need. The major saving is that the total frequency converter output required is appreciably reduced in the sections of the port as there will be a major sharing effect as not all berths are used at the same time.
More economically advantageous solutions can be selected at berths with fixed locations, e.g. RoRo ramps and regular services, which are used solely by ships with electricity systems of 50 Hz. However, this precludes the flexibility of also being able to connect ships with 60 Hz at these berths.
Proposals for developed system General The need for development described above can be resolved by locating a centrally situated flexible switchgear facility in each port or port section. The switchgear solution is highly flexible and enables supply of 50 or 60 Hz at each berth. A solution consisting of parallel frequency converters and a switchgear with double bus bars makes it possible to simultaneously supply both 50 and 60 Hz at quayside. A diagram of the outline solution is shown in Figure 7 Principle for supplying station and outlet at quayside .
26 of 79
Figure 7 Principle for supplying station and outlet at quayside
10.5 kW and 50 Hz electric power arrives at the port’s internal switchgear from the grid company. Transformers and frequency converters enable electric power to be supplied to quays at 50 and 60 Hz.
Frequency converter The frequency converter equipment is located centrally in the port where it will not come into conflict with other activities. A common frequency converter provides a major opportunity for sharing, with a single frequency converter simultaneously supplying power to several vessels. The cost of frequency conversion for each berth is reduced as the frequency converter can be simultaneously connected to multiple outlets.
This solution entails all electric power going via inverters that can supply 50 Hz or 60 Hz. To enable simultaneous supply of both 50 Hz and 60 Hz to ships at quayside, the central unit is equipped with two frequency converters that supply a ”duplex switchgear” (twin bus bars). This solution makes it possible to select 50 Hz in one bus bar and 60 Hz in the other one, or to supply the same frequency in both bus bars.
Dimensioning of inverters and transformers is executed on the basis of the maximum prospective load for onshore power at a fully developed port. Inverters can be built in modules, which means that they can be supplemented as the load increases.
Outgoing supply of quayside outlets Outgoing supply to outlets at quayside are connected to duplex-switchgear via a supplying transformer and a switchgear that facilitates operation of circuit breakers, isolators and earthing via remote control from the outlet at quayside. Transformers are adapted to the supply voltage and effective output that the port has as standard for onshore power supply.
Connection of outputs to a ”duplex switchgear” makes it possible to select the bus bar (frequency) or outgoing group to which to connect. Connection of onshore power is implemented by the crew onboard the vessel. Operation of high voltage components in supplying switchgear is implemented from the quay, which is also where equipment for monitoring, communication and operation are located.
27 of 79
Figure 8 Principle for supplying station and outlet at quayside
This solution is based on two parallel systems. Power is supplied from Göteborg Energi Nät AB (GENAB) at a voltage of 10.5kV and a frequency of 50 Hz. Two transformers change the voltage level so that it is adapted for the frequency converter installed. The frequency of the power that the respective frequency converter supplies is determined by the requirement in the port.
If there are ships that only require 60 Hz at quayside, the respective frequency converter only supplies 60 Hz. If there is a vessel at quayside that requires 50 Hz and the other ships at quayside require 60 Hz, there is the option of one frequency converter supplying 50 Hz and the other 60 Hz. A limitation might arise here as the respective frequency converter must be able to supply the load that is connected to the bus bar for the respective frequency.
Planning must be implemented for those vessels that dock at each section of the port where the power requirement is ascertained along with which frequency is required and a check that the power is sufficient. In situations where all ships in dock require the same frequency there is no problem. If situations arise where a large number of ships require 60 Hz and one individual ship requires 50 Hz, or vice versa, a shortage of capacity might arise.
Outlets for onshore power supply shall be supplied via a transformer that is adapted to the supply voltage and output that the port has as standard. To ensure safe connection of vessels, it must be possible for each outlet for onshore power supply to be disconnected and earthed when not in use. This requirement is resolved through a switchgear between transformer and outlet that is, in principle, operated remotely by crew on the ships via a device located at the outlet on the quay. Each outlet for onshore power supply is supplied via its own transformer and remotely controlled switchgear.
28 of 79
An example of how a central receiving station can be designed is shown in Figure 9 Example of central receiving and supply station .
Figure 9 Example of central receiving and supply station
Outlets at quayside Outlets for onshore power supply located on the quay should be designed according to the standard in the port. The design of outlets is not affected by the frequency of the onshore power that is to be supplied.
The ship’s location at quayside is based on the prerequisites of production logistics. In, for example, a container terminal, the ships can be at different bollards and be of different lengths. The onshore power supply equipment can also have varying locations on different vessels. To obtain a full onshore power supply, one onshore power supply outlet is needed per 50-60 m of quay as otherwise the cable’s weight becomes unwieldy. However, technical solutions are available to deal with these circumstances that should be particularly considered in connection with any planning that might take place.
29 of 79
Figure 10 Outlet at quayside, Stena’s Denmark Terminal, Gothenburg. The outlet is designed so that the cable can be reached by the crew onboard the vessel. The equipment only supplies 50 Hz.
Safety aspects Risk of explosions exist primarily in oil ports where inflammable gases and liquids are handled (EX- classified areas). Onshore power supply and contact breakers can produce electric arcs, sparks. The centrally situated facility consisting of switchgear, frequency converter and transformers must therefore be positioned outside EX-classified areas. Cables for onshore power supply are separated and earthed, and cannot give rise to sparks. The same rules apply to equipment onboard the vessel as for other electrical equipment onboard.
In the event of a disaster where the vessel has to rapidly leave the quay, the electricity cable can be pulled out. In all probability the connection will be broken and the signal cable will disconnect the electric current. A protective system should be in place so that the voltage in the cable is disconnected.
30 of 79
Proposal for prospective power distribution within different parts of the port
Supply of onshore power equipment for ships will, depending on the level of ambition that is selected, require a separate form of electricity distribution, which will not affect the current electricity distribution network but will use common ducting, routes etc.
It is most likely that the voltage that is used for onshore power supply will be 6.6 kV for tankers and container vessels, while RoRo ships will be connected at 11 kV. The frequency for onshore power supply should be selectable, 50 or 60 Hz. The equipment to provide for this change of ordinary 10.5 kV and 50 Hz supply should be positioned in the same location for each section of the port.
Distribution out to the quay and the respective outlet takes place via high voltage cables, and the frequency in the respective outlet should be selectable, 50 or 60 Hz. Equipment on the quay should take up as little space as possible so that it does not affect the ordinary operations. The practical handling of cable and connection must be simple. These requirements must be fulfilled and at the same time electrical safety must not be compromised.
Torshamnen Location of new receiving station with switchgear, transformers and frequency converter for onshore power should be at Risholmen, perhaps in the area shown in Figure 11 Torshamnen, proposal for location of receiving station Existing supply from Göteborg Energi to the area at Risholmen and Torshamnen for power and lighting will not be sufficient if a new facility for supply of onshore power is installed to cover this part of Gothenburg port.
Ducting route to supply outlets for onshore power supply at each berth from a new station on Risholmen should be mounted on cable runs in parallel with the ducting that is currently present.
Figure 11 Torshamnen, proposal for location of receiving station
31 of 79
Älvsborgshamnen/Arendalshamnen The future development of this section of the port entails an extensive rebuilding of the area which currently separates the ports. Gothenburg Energi also has plans to rebuild and change its 130 kV grid with a new ”pressure point” that will be located in this area.
In the calculations that were performed we view this part of the port as a unit that will have a common supply for onshore power from Göteborg Energi that night be located in the area shown on Figure 12 Älvsborgshamn and Arendalshamn, proposal for location of receiving station Existing supply to Arendalshamnen and Älvsborgshamnen from Göteborg Energi will not be sufficient if a new facility for supply of onshore power is installed to cover this part of Gothenburg port.
There are currently two berths in Älvsborgshamnen, quays 700 and 712, which are fitted with equipment for onshore power supply of existing ships that are adapted for 50 Hz. This equipment can be supplemented and connected to a new receiving station which will provide the possibility of connecting ships with the 60 Hz frequency as well.
To some extent there are prepared ducting routes within Älvsborgshamnen, however, as this ducting is old and poorly documented, new ducting up to each berth has to be anticipated.
Ducting routes within Arendalshamnen are newer and better documented. However, ducting at the berths that are to be connected to onshore power must be supplemented and strengthened farthest out at quayside.
Figure 12 Älvsborgshamn and Arendalshamn, proposal for location of receiving station
32 of 79
Skandiahamnen Location of new receiving station with switchgear, transformers and frequency converter should be in Skandiahamnen’s northern section, provisionally according to Figure 13 Skandiahamnen , proposal for location of receiving station
Existing supply from Göteborg Energi to Skandiahamnen for power and lighting, and for operation of container cranes, will not be sufficient if a new facility for supply of onshore power is installed to cover this part of Gothenburg’s port. The power capacity to the port must therefore be strengthened, and a new, separate high voltage connection that serves both the Container Terminal and the Car Terminal is proposed. There are prepared ducting routes for future cables along Skandiahamnen’s southern quay, berths 610-615 and at the port’s eastern quay, berths 600–602.
Onshore power supply in a container terminal such as Skandiahamnen entails positioning equipment such as outlets and control panels between tracks for container cranes and the quay edge. Existing quays must be supplemented for this and new ducting between outlets at the quay edge and the existing ducting routes must be built.
Figure 13 Skandiahamnen, proposal for location of receiving station
Skarvikhamn and Ryahamn Location of a new receiving station for onshore power that will be common for Skarvikshamn and Ryahamnarna provisionally at the entrance to the area, at port 1, see Figure 14 Skarvikshamnen and Ryahamnen, proposal for location of receiving station
Existing supply to Skarvikhamn and Ryahamn from Göteborg Energi for power and lighting, and for operation of container cranes, will not be sufficient if a new facility for supply of onshore power is installed to cover this part of Gothenburg’s port. The power capacity to the port must therefore be strengthened.
Much of the existing ducting within the Oil Port is via cable runs, cable ducts and to some extent on ”wire”.
33 of 79
No prepared ducting routes are available for future onshore power supply equipment, which means that new ducting routes will have to supplement existing facilities.
Figure 14 Skarvikshamnen and Ryahamnen, proposal for location of receiving station
Frihamnen Frihamnen’s operations have changed during the last decade. It was previously primarily banana boats. For a while ferry services were operated between Gothenburg – Norway – England. In recent years the shipping has comprised cruise ships that have berthed at Gothenburg, primarily at berths 107 and 108.
Berth 112 is used by a large number of smaller vessels, but these cannot be connected to the onshore power supply equipment that is proposed.
The berths that might be relevant for supply of onshore power are 107 and 108, which are primarily used by cruise ships. Location of a new receiving station for onshore power that will be common for berths 107 and 108 provisionally in Frihamnen’s ”north-eastern” section, see Figure 15 Frihamnen , proposal for location of receiving station
34 of 79
Figure 15 Frihamnen, proposal for location of receiving station
Addition of facilities for connection to three-phase 400 V might be relevant depending on future traffic.
Other quays east of Älvsborg Bridge There are already options for onshore power supply at Stenpiren and Stigbergskajen. At other quays for which Port of Gothenburg is responsible east of Älvsborg Bridge there is very limited shipping and the overall benefit of a high voltage connection for the few vessels that might berth at these quays is judged to be minor. Addition of facilities for connection to three-phase 400 V might be relevant depending on future traffic.
35 of 79
Analysis of financial position and the environmental impact of onshore power supply in Gothenburg’s port – method description
The Environmental Code’s rules of consideration contain provisions regarding preventive measures, observing restrictions and using the best possible technology. Connection of ships to onshore electricity can represent such a preventive measure as the emissions, primarily air pollutants from the ship’s machinery, cease. The Environmental Code also includes rules for which preventive measures it is reasonable to take. According to chapter 2, section 7, particular benefits of the measure shall be taken into account compared with the cost.
An analysis of whether it is reasonable to connect ships that call into Port of Gothenburg to onshore electricity entails numerous factors and great uncertainties. Comparing the option of expanding onshore power supply with the option of not doing so can provide an idea of costs and benefits. The analysis consequently needs all relevant costs to be taken into account for both the Zero Option and the various development options. In addition, the environmental costs must be priced in order to be a part of the analysis.
Preconditions In connection with processing the applications from the different sections of Gothenburg’s port, the Environmental Permit Office has decided to use a trial period to defer identifying which conditions should apply for onshore power supply installations. During the trial period Port of Gothenburg will investigate and present a report and proposal for final conditions in accordance with the following:
”Preconditions and costs to equip all berths with installations for onshore power supply, as well as the environmental consequences that apply after 1 January 2010 for such a connection.”
The decision applies to Frihamnen, Skandiahamnen, Älvsborgshamnen, Arendalshamnen, Skarviks- hamnen/ Ryahamnen and Torshamnen.
Otherwise, Port of Gothenburg’s management has decided to offer onshore power supply within a year after a shipping company has asked for the service. However, a cost ceiling of SEK 4 million applies to the offer.
Analysis – description of method and preconditions To assess the costs and benefit of onshore power supply, alternative solutions to supply ships with power have been compared. The following options have been selected:
• Zero Option – the zero option is that ships in port generate electricity with diesel/heavy fuel oil operation.
• Partial Development – the option entails ships that call into the port 8 or more times being converted and supplied with onshore electricity, while other ships continue operating with their own engines. In addition it has been assumed that berths with an occupancy rate of >30% are equipped with onshore power supply. Costs that arise are for converting ships, electricity for these vessels, the cost of investing in the high voltage system for berths with >30% occupancy, the cost of heavy fuel oil for the remaining vessels and the environmental cost (emissions of air pollutants from use of fuel).
• Full Development – the option entails all berthed ships being connected to the electricity supply. The costs consist of converting ships (”Port of Gothenburg’s part” those that dock 8 or more times per year), running costs for electricity for all ships and the cost of investing
36 of 79
in the high voltage system required to supply onshore electricity. This option constitutes a future scenario where onshore power supply has been universally implemented, and where the entire merchant fleet has equipment for onshore power supply.
Costs for power supply and environmental costs have been calculated for each option. The following costs have been taken into account:
1. Cost of the ship generating electricity through its own engines. This cost has been assumed to be equivalent to the cost of the diesel used. 2. Annual cost for installation of onshore power supply. 3. Cost for onshore electricity consumed 4. Cost for emissions of air pollutants 5. Annual cost for conversion of ships for onshore power supply
”Calculation Model OPS” has been used to determine the costs for use of diesel fuel, the investment cost of onshore electricity installations and running costs for electricity for berthed vessels. For further information and to download the calculation model visit: www.onshorepowersupply.org. The calculation has used statistics for each berth produced by Port of Gothenburg on the number of berthings, average time spent at quayside, occupancy, average tonnage, type of vessel and average engine rating. Statistics on ships berthing in 2008 have been used for the calculations as the statistics for 2009 were unusually low due to the recession. However, statistics for cruise ships have been used from 2011 as they are prebooked.
Investment costs for three types of vessel have been calculated: RoRo ships (1.5 MVA connection and 25,000 GT), Container ships (7 MVA connection, 65,000 GT), and Passenger ships (12 MVA connection, 80,000 GT). Tankers have been calculated as container ships. Depending on financing, discounting and time of settlement, a cost per year can subsequently be produced for investment in onshore electricity. An interest rate of 6% and a depreciation period of 10 years has been used to calculate the investment costs, which is what Port of Gothenburg uses in its economic calculations.
The following conditions have been used to calculate the cost of electricity. Port of Gothenburg buys 40% of its electricity at a fixed price (86.35 öre/kWh) and 60% at a variable price. With a tax reduction of 28.3 öre/kWh, a fixed price of 58 öre/kWh has been used in the calculation. Network charges have been estimated according to Göteborg Energi’s new charging model at a price of 3.1 öre per kWh and a power charge based on the highest average power extracted during one hour measured for each month, plus a small annual charge. An electricity price of 61.7 öre/kWh has been used in the calculation.
A heavy fuel oil price of US$ 1,045 per tonne (price from StenaOil, Gothenburg, 26 April 2011, MGO 0.1% S) and an exchange rate of 6.50 SEK/US$ has been used).
The environmental cost has been calculated according to SIKA’s and the Swedish Maritime Administration’s model for marginal costs for air pollutants from port operations. The calculation values for calculating environmental costs contain a large number of uncertainties. However, in this case we have chosen to base the calculations on values produced nationally by the Working Group for Socio-Economic Calculation Principles (ASEK). ASEK is an umbrella group for traffic agencies which regularly submits recommendations on which calculation values and methods should be used in Sweden. The calculation values and analysis methods that ASEK recommends are based on the most recent scientific findings (described and discussed in the scientific literature) and tested
37 of 79
experience. ASEK has kept to the recommendations presented in the EU’s harmonisation project HEATCO (Harmonised European Approaches for Transport Costing and Project Assessments). The number of berthings, average lay days and average value for the ship’s tonnage for each berth have been used in the calculations. The vessel’s energy requirements at quayside are of major significance for the calculation. It is hard to estimate and the calculations are consequently marred by major uncertainties. A method described by the National Swedish Maritime Administration in 2004 has been used where the energy requirement is given as 85% of the main engine’s capacity and a reduction factor of 0.15 at quayside. The cost of diesel or heavy fuel oil has been calculated, as well as the amount of emissions for each berth. The environmental cost for emissions of air pollutants per berth and per section of the port has then been calculated. The model calculates
emissions of air pollutants of CO 2, NO x, SO 2 and PM for diesel or alternatively heavy fuel oil (HFO). A general cost per unit emitted has been used for all parts of the port irrespective of whether a large number of people (e.g. Frihamnen) or a small number of people (e.g. Torshamnen) are exposed to the air pollutants emitted. The values used to calculate the environmental cost are the same as those produced for Södertälje port according to ASEK4 (SIKA PM 2010:1), which are judged to be a median of the prevailing conditions in Gothenburg’s port:
Particles: 3,564 SEK/kg
SO 2: 129 SEK/kg
NO x: 87 SEK/kg
CO 2: 1.5 SEK/kg.
Figure 16 Container ships in Skandiahamnen
When calculating cost effectiveness, the costs are balanced against the total amount by which air pollutants are reduced. The costs for air pollutants have been calculated in two ways. ”Calculation Model OPS” uses the values from a study by AEA. ”Calculation Model OPS” is weighted as follows:
emissions units (tonnes) = 1*NO x (tonnes) + 2.2*SO 2 (tonnes) + 12.8*PM (tonnes), as SO 2 and PM have a greater negative effect. Cost effectiveness is expressed in € per emitted unit.
38 of 79
It is also possible to do the calculations with a price per unit of carbon dioxide emitted, based on the EU’s emissions trading system for carbon dioxide, ETS, which is added as a cost for generation of electricity from diesel/heavy fuel oil operation. The price of ETS is currently approx. 20 € per tonne of CO 2, which has been used as a minimum value in the sensitivity analysis.
The calculations were performed according to the following steps:
1. Calculation of investment and maintenance costs for installation of electricity plus costs for use of electricity A calculation of the cost of installing electricity has been carried out for each berth. Depreciation period plus interest is used to calculate an annual cost for the investment, where a higher rate of interest and a shorter depreciation period produces a higher annual cost. Costs for transformers, cabling and maintenance of electricity terminals at quayside are calculated. These are added together and constitute the investment cost.
The operational costs are calculated on the basis of current electricity price, tax on electricity and electricity consumption. The savings made on maintaining the ship’s electricity generators can also be added. Network charges have been calculated according to Göteborg Energi’s charging model at 3.1 öre per KWh, an annual charge of SEK 8,800 and a power charge of 30 SEK/kW per month. The calculation has assumed an electricity price of 61.7 öre/kWh. These are totalled and comprise the operational running costs for supplying electricity to ships, calculated on the basis of number of berthings and average lay days each time.
The origin of the electricity purchased affects the emissions. OPS has four different alternative origin/generation methods for electricity: natural gas, coal, wind/water/nuclear power, as well as the EU mix, where the EU mix produces the highest emissions, then coal, followed by natural gas, while wind/water/nuclear power have no emissions at all according to the ”Calculation Model OPS”.
The origin wind/water/nuclear power has been used, which in ”Calculation Model OPS” produces no emissions at all, and thus no environmental cost either. Port of Gothenburg has an electricity supply agreement with DinEl, which is owned by Göteborg Energi AB. The electricity is produced from renewable sources of energy, local wind turbines and hydroelectric power stations. Ships in the Ro-Ro Terminal are supplied solely with electricity generated from wind power. We have assumed an electricity price, including mains charge, of 61.7 öre/kWh, as standard price.
The Partial Development option has primarily assumed that berths with more than 30% occupancy are equipped with onshore power supply, while in the Full Development option all berths have onshore power supply (apart from Frihamnen).
2. Calculation of the costs to generate electricity with diesel/heavy fuel oil Based on the number of berthings, average lay days and average engine power, a cost for generating electricity is calculated on the basis of price per unit of MGO (1,045 US$/tonne, price for 0.1% S MGO, StenaOil, Gothenburg, April 2011), plus consumption (tonnes/hour) that is set against the vessel’s average engine power, reduced to 15% engine power at quayside (according to the Swedish Maritime Administration 2004) and converted to the equivalent amount of diesel/ heavy fuel oil. An exchange rate of 6.5 SEK/US$ has been used.
We have anticipated 0.1% S MGO with the following amounts of emissions: CO 2: 3,140 kg/tonne,
NO x: 68 kg/tonne, PM: 2.1 kg/tonne, SO 2: 5 kg/tonne (data derived from ”EMS-protocol Verbrandingsemissies door stilliggende zeeschepen in havens, Adviesdienst Verkeer a Vervoer, 2003”).
39 of 79
40 of 79
3. Calculation of costs to adapt vessels for onshore power supply An assumption has been made of costs to convert ships to enable them to receive onshore electricity. The conversion costs have been assumed to affect those ships that frequently call at Gothenburg’s port. The Partial Development option assumes that ships that call into the Port of Gothenburg on 8 or more occasions per year are included in the calculation. In the Full Development option, where all ships are assumed to be converted for onshore power supply, there are no further additional costs besides Gothenburg’s ”portion” of the conversion cost. Costs for conversion are hard to estimate. They have been generally adapted according to type of vessel and may be a significant source of errors.
4. Calculation of environmental costs The marginal cost of air pollutants when ships are in port and generating electricity with diesel/ heavy fuel oil are calculated according to SIKA’s calculation model for Södertälje port (SIKA 2010:1, The external effects of shipping), table 4.1, at 2006 price level.
5. Results per section of the port The options’ total annual costs for fuel, investment in onshore power supply, use of electricity, investment in ships and environmental cost is presented for each section of the port. By comparing the cost of the different development options with the Zero Option, the benefit can be evaluated. If the cost of the development option is lower than the Zero Option, there may be a benefit in implementing onshore power supply. The lower the cost of the development option, the greater benefit there might be. If, on the other hand, the cost of the development option is higher, there is no benefit in implementing onshore power supply. The results can be used as an initial assessment of whether there is a justification for proceeding with more detailed studies of onshore power supply. It can also be used as a tool to prioritise the order in which parts of the port should be studied in more detail.
41 of 79
Costs of adapting vessels for onshore electricity
”Calculation Model OPS”, which gives the guideline values for the annual investment costs, has been used to calculate costs for conversion of craft so that they can connect to onshore electricity. The calculations use a depreciation period of 10 years and an interest rate of 6%.
The conversions required on ships can be divided into a number of main items:
• Location of outlet for cable that is to be connected between ship and outlet on the quay. The outlet for connection of high voltage does not take much room, approx. 1m 2, but does have to be protected from the weather. • High voltage cable from outlet for cable to high voltage switchgear. • High voltage switchgear for isolating and earthing of outlet onboard. The high voltage switchgear must be in a dry and protected location and requires an area of approx. 1,200 x 2,000 x 1,900 mm (w x h x d). • Transformer that converts the voltage that is supplied as ”onshore power” to the vessel’s distribution voltage. The area required is highly dependent on the power that is to be transferred from quay to ship. Typical dimension for a 2.5 MVA transformer is approx. 3,000 x 3,000 x 2,000 mm (w x h x d). The area must be dry and have good ventilation. • Cable junctions or bus bar between transformer and the vessel’s main distribution board. • Motor-powered circuit-breaker located in the vessel’s main distribution board. The breaker must be fitted with a cover and be controllable via a synchronizer used in the connection.
Table 4 Investment cost to adapt vessels for onshore power supply Type of ship Power Tonnage Total investment* Annual investment requirement (GT) (KSEK) cost* (KSEK) RoRo ship 1.5 MVA 25,000 4,100 560
Container ship 7 MVA 75,000 5,000 680
Tanker 7 MVA 75,000 5,000 680
Cruise ship 15 MVA 80,000 7,700 1,050
*Converted from € to SEK (rate 1 € = 9 SEK), according to Calculation Model OPS, 10 year depreciation period, 6% interest
It is not reasonable to include conversion of all ships that call into Port of Gothenburg in the economic calculation. Only those ships that frequently use the port should be included in the calculation. Statistics on berthings can be used as a starting point for selection of how many conversions in each part of the port should be included in the calculatlon, see table 5.
Table 5 Berthing frequency for ships in Port of Gothenburg Skandiahamnen Times in port 2010 Number of % of total number of Number of Proportion of total ships ships berthings 1 or more 225 100 % 1363 100 % 2 or more 154 68 % 1292 95 % 3 or more 107 48 % 1198 88 % 4 or more 84 37 % 1129 83 % 5 or more 78 35 % 1105 81 %
42 of 79
6 or more 70 31 % 1065 78 % 7 or more 63 28 % 1023 75 % 8 or more 59 26 % 995 73 % 9 or more 53 24 % 947 69 % 10 or more 44 20 % 866 64 % Älvsborg - Arendalshamnen Times in port 2010 Number of % of total number of Number of Proportion of total ships ships berthings 1 or more 51 100 % 1427 100 % 2 or more 26 51 % 1402 98 % 3 or more 23 45 % 1396 98 % 4 or more 21 41 % 1390 97 % 5 or more 20 39 % 1386 97 % 6 or more 19 37 % 1381 97 % 7 or more 17 33 % 1369 96 % 8 or more 16 31 % 1362 95 % 9 or more 16 31 % 1362 95 % 10 or more 16 31 % 1353 95 %
The Oil Ports excl. bunker boats Times in port 2010 Number of % of total number of Number of Proportion of total ships ships berthings 1 or more 446 100 % 1789 100 % 2 or more 240 54 % 1583 88 % 3 or more 158 35 % 1419 79 % 4 or more 106 24 % 1263 71 % 5 or more 77 17 % 1147 64 % 6 or more 66 15 % 1092 61 % 7 or more 57 13 % 1038 58 % 8 or more 50 11 % 989 55 % 9 or more 44 10 % 941 53 % 10 or more 36 8 % 869 49 % Frihamnen Times in port 2010 Number of % of total number of Number of Proportion of total ships ships berthings 1 or more 38 100 % 93 100 % 2 or more 12 32 % 67 72 % 3 or more 8 21 % 59 63 % 4 or more 7 18 % 56 60 % 5 or more 6 16 % 52 56 % 6 or more 6 16 % 52 56 % 7 or more 6 16 % 52 56 % 8 or more 4 11 % 38 41 % 9 or more 1 3 % 14 15 % 10 or more 1 3 % 14 15 %
43 of 79
Ships berthing at the Port of Gothenburg with a high frequency have been assumed to be those that call in 8 or more times per year. These ships have been assumed to be ”Port of Gothenburg’s ships” and the conversion is debited to Port of Gothenburg in a cost benefit analysis. Costs for conversion of other vessels are assumed to debit the cost benefit analysis in other ports.
Estimated annual investment per port section for conversion of ships is set out in table 6.
Table 6 Cost to convert ships for onshore electricity service (assumption for calculation) Section of the port/quay Number of Proportion Annual investment converted ships of cost (MSEK) for calculated for berthings conversion the analysis Älvsborghamnen/Arendalshamnen 16 95 %* 8.9 Arendal Cruise Ship Quay 3 70 % 3.1 Skandiahamnen 59 73 % 40.1 Car Terminal (part of 1 27 % 0.7 Skandiahamnen) Quay 644 (in Skandiahamnen) 5 80 % 3.4 Skarvik/Ryahamnen 50 55 % 34 Torshamnen 3 23 % 2 Frihamnen 4 41 % 4.2
* No account has been taken of the fact that a number of the ships that call into the port are converted for onshore power supply.
44 of 79
Results – costs and benefits of onshore power supply for ships in Port of Gothenburg
The cost of using electricity supply systems for ships in port has been calculated according to the OPS model. The costs for diesel/heavy fuel oil and environmental costs are calculated individually. The totals that are derived are costs per year.
The cost of the options for supplying ships with onshore power has been calculated per berth for the respective section of the port. The calculations of power requirement are based on traffic - statistics for Älvsborgshamnen/Arendalshamnen and Skandiahamnen (2008 statistics), Skarvik-, Rya- and Torshamnen 2010 statistics) and the cruise ship quays in Frihamnen and Arendalshamnen (forecasted berthings for 2011).
The cost of shared equipment, i.e. that which is common for all berths, in the form of transformers, connections, cabling, frequency converters, transformer building etc., has been calculated for each section of the port.
This cost has then been allocated to the respective berth. The costs per berth are therefore higher for parts of the port with a small number of berths. Costs in the form of connection and transformers etc. are additional for each berth.
These investment costs have been calculated for two different options. The Partial Development option, for berths with 30% occupancy or more, and the Full Development option, for all berths regardless of occupancy.
Finally, the cost of converting ships for onshore power supply has been calculated for some ports.
The analysis has been performed for three options:
• Zero Option – ships in port generate electricity with diesel/bunker fuel operation. The running cost of the fuel is the shipping company’s cost and the environmental cost is a social cost.
• Partial Development – the option entails ships that call into the port 8 or more times being converted and supplied with onshore electricity, while other ships continue operating with their own engines. In addition it has been assumed that berths with an occupancy rate of >30% are equipped with onshore power supply. Costs that arise are for converting ships, electricity for these vessels, the cost of investing in the high voltage system for berths with >30% occupancy, the cost of heavy fuel oil for the remaining vessels and the environmental cost (emissions of air pollutants from use of fuel).
• Full Development – the option entails all berthed ships being connected to the electricity supply. The costs consist of converting ships (”Port of Gothenburg’s part” those that dock 8 or more times per year), running costs for electricity for all ships and the cost of investing in the high voltage system required to supply onshore electricity. This option constitutes a future scenario where onshore power supply has been universally implemented, and where the entire merchant fleet has equipment for onshore power supply.
Results for Arendalshamnen/Älvsborgshamnen Älvsborgshamnen and Arendalshamnen are located in relatively close proximity to residential buildings on the southern bank of the river. Areas that are critical for EQS for outdoor air are, for
45 of 79
example, beside the Lundby Tunnel. Noise from the port entails increased levels at residential buildings on the southern bank of the river.
The main shipping activity within these parts of the port is RoRo traffic. Arendalshamnen has varying types of shipping docking at three berths (750, 750A and 751), with RoRo ships using quay 750. Arendalshamnen is also used by a number of cruise ships at quays 751–752 and there is a separate presentation of these below. This part of the port had 314 berthings in 2008. The lay days have been adjusted using statistics for 2011.
RoRo ships dock in Älvsborgshamnen at 6 berths (700, 702, 710, 711, 712 and 713). This part of the port had 1,054 berthings in 2008, with average lay days of 16.4 hours and average tonnage of approx. 25,000. In Arendalshamnen/Älvsborgshamnen quays 700, 702, 710, 712, 750 will be used for RoRo traffic and 752 for cruise ships.
The ships normally dock at ”fixed” berths where the position of the vessel is determined by the ramp used at the respective berth. The calculations for Full Development have been performed for 6 berths (Arendalshamnen 2 berths and Älvsborgshamnen 4 berths).
Figure 17 Arendalshamnen
The calculation costs for onshore power supply of quays in Älvsborgshamnen and Arendalshamnen do not take account of the fact that there are currently two berths, berths 700 and 712, that are already equipped for onshore power supply. This equipment is approx. 10 years old. The technical solution, consisting of high voltage switchgear, outlets and safety- and control equipment does not really comply with the new standard that will apply in the future. If these berths are also to be adapted to supply 50 and 60 Hz, and have the same technical standard as the planned new ”onshore power supply” in Älvsborgshamnen, it would mean that none of the existing equipment can be retained apart from the container that is located on the quay.
46 of 79
Equipment for frequency conversion, transformers, high voltage switchgear, control equipment and outlets on the quay for these berths will have to rebuilt and new supply cables from a new receiving station out to berths 700 and 712 will have to be laid.
The Partial Development option assumes conversion of 4 berths (1 in Arendalshamnen and 3 in Älvsborgshamnen) and supply of onshore electricity. The reduction in the environmental cost is calculated on the basis that ships docking at these berths connect to onshore electricity.
The annual charge for high voltage has been calculated at SEK 2.6 million for both Full Development and Partial Development.
Table 7 Arendalhamn and Älvsborgshamn - calculation results for alternative developments of onshore power supply Zero Option – Continued generation of electricity onboard with diesel/heavy fuel oil Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost for Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) 56.3 - - 83.7 39.1 - 179.1 Partial Development – Onshore power supply of ships with a high berthing frequency Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost of Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting 16 (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) 7.4 8.8 22.8 11 5.1 8.9 64 Full Development – Onshore power supply for all ships at all berths Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost of Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting 16 (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) - 9.5 25.9 - - 8.9 44.3
47 of 79
Figure 18 Älvsborgshamnen (photo Port of Gothenburg)
The investment cost per berth has been calculated at, respectively 2 and 1.4 MSEK/year in the Partial Development option and the Full Development option (depreciation 10 years, 6% interest).
In a comparison of the options, Partial Development and Full Development have a considerably lower cost. Full Development has a lower cost as more ships are connected to onshore electricity without the costs for conversion burdening the calculation. From an economic perspective, with current traffic it might be profitable to replace or equip additional quays in Älvsborgs- hamnen/Arendalshamnen with onshore power supply.
Arendalshamnen’s cruise ship traffic Equivalent calculations can be carried out for the cruise ships that are planning to berth at Arendalhamnen (quay 751). There are 24 berthings planned in Arendalshamnen for 2011, with planned average lay days of 9.2 hours, by 8 different ships, with 3 ships accounting for 70% of the lay days.
Calculation of the Partial Development option assumes that 3 ships are converted (investment cost of 1,050 KSEK/year and ship) and that 55% of the ships that dock connect to onshore electricity.
The annual charge for high voltage has been estimated at 1/10 of the cost in Arendalshamnen/Älvsborgshamnen, i.e. SEK 0.3 million.
48 of 79
Table 8 Arendalshamnen’s cruise ship quay - calculation results for alternative developments of onshore power supply Zero Option – Continued generation of electricity onboard with diesel/heavy fuel oil Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost for Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore power (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 supply. öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) 0.3 - - 0.3 0.2 - 0.8 Partial Development – Onshore power supply of ships with a high berthing frequency Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost of Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting 3 (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore power (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 supply. öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) 0.2 1.9 0.4 0.1 0.1 3.1 5.8 Full Development – Onshore power supply for all ships Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost of Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting 3 (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore power (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 supply. öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) - 1.9 0.4 - - 3.1 5.4
In a comparison of the options, the Partial Development and Full Development options have a considerably higher cost. From an economic perspective, with current traffic it is thus not profitable to equip additional cruise ship quays in Arendal with onshore power supply.
49 of 79
Results for Skandiahamnen Skandiahamnen is located in relatively close proximity to residential buildings on the southern bank of the river. Areas that are critical for EQS for outdoor air are, for example, beside the Lundby Tunnel. Noise from the port entails increased levels at residential buildings on the southern bank of the river.
Figure 19 Skandiahamnen
50 of 79
The Car Terminal and quay 644 are located in Skandiahamnen. The Car Terminal is an individual unit while Quay 644 is part of the oil ports. Separate calculations have been performed for these quays. Skandiahamnen chiefly has container ships at 10 berths (610-615 and 640-43). In 2008 this part of the port had 1,219 berthings, with average lay days of 17.7 hours and average tonnage of 5,380 tonnes up to 54,000. The calculations have been performed for 10 berths and for an average power of 9.2 MW per 24 hours for the section of the port. The Partial Development option has assumed that 4 berths have been converted and supply onshore electricity. The reduction in the environmental cost is calculated on the basis that ships docking at these berths connect to onshore electricity.
The annual charge for high voltage has been calculated at SEK 3.3 million for Full Development and SEK 2.1 million for Partial Development.
Table 9 Skandiahamnen (excl. Car Terminal and Quay 644)- calculation results for alternative developments of onshore power supply Zero Option – Continued generation of electricity onboard with diesel/heavy fuel oil Running costs Investment Running costs Environmenta Environmenta Cost for Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore l cost l cost carbon converting (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply. öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) 53.4 - - 79.4 37.1 - 169.9 Partial Development – Onshore power supply of ships with a high berthing frequency Running costs Investment Running costs Environmenta Environmenta Cost of Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore l cost l cost carbon converting 59 (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply. öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) 17.2 9.8 17.1 25.6 11.9 40.1 121.7 Full Development – Onshore power supply for all ships at all berths Running costs Investment Running costs Environmenta Environmenta Cost of Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore l cost l cost carbon converting 59 (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply. öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) - 19.5 25.4 - - 40.1 85
Investment cost per berth has been calculated at respectively, 2.5 and 1.8 MSEK/year in the Partial Development option and the Full Development option (depreciation 10 years, 6% interest).
In a comparison of the options, the Partial Development option has a lower cost and Full Development a considerably lower cost. Full Development has a lower cost as more ships are connected to onshore electricity without the costs for conversion burdening the calculation. The
51 of 79
calculation shows that the conditions for expanding onshore power supply might exist at berths in Skandiahamnen.
Separate calculation for berth 601, Car Terminal Calculation of the Partial Development and Full Development options assumes that 1 ship is converted (investment cost at 680 KSEK/year and ship). This ship is assumed to account for 30% of the berthings. The Full Development option has assumed that all ships connect to onshore electricity.
The annual charge for high voltage has been estimated at 1/10 of the cost in Skandiahamnen, i.e. 0.3 and 0.2 MSEK respectively for Full and Partial Development.
Table 1 The Car Terminal - calculation results for alternative developments of onshore power supply Zero Option – Continued generation of electricity onboard with diesel/heavy fuel oil Running costs Investment Running costs Environmenta Environmenta Cost for Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore l cost l cost carbon converting (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) 5.7 - - 8.5 4 - 18.2 Partial Development – Onshore power supply of ships with a high berthing frequency Running costs Investment Running costs Environmenta Environmenta Cost of Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore l cost l cost carbon converting 1 (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) 4 2.5 1.9 6 2.8 0.7 17.9 Full Development – Onshore power supply for all ships Running costs Investment Running costs Environmenta Environmenta Cost of Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore l cost l cost carbon converting 1 (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) - 2.5 2.7 - - 0.7 5.9
52 of 79
Figure 20 Skandiahamnen with the Car Terminal on the right
In a comparison, the Full Development option has a considerably lower cost and if ships are generally provided with onshore power supply facilities in the future, the conditions exist for onshore power supply. However, with current traffic it is doubtful that there are any benefits in providing quay 601 in Skandiahamnen with onshore power supply.
Separate calculation for Quay 644 (the asphalt quay) Asphalt ships dock at quay 644 in Skandiahamnen and the quay is a part of the oil port. 5-6 different ships moor at the quay. Calculation of the Partial Development and Full Development options has assumed that 5 ships will be converted and that these account for 80% of berthings. The Full Development option has assumed that all ships connect to onshore electricity.
The annual charge for high voltage has been estimated at 1/10 of the cost in Skandiahamnen, 0.3 and 0.2 MSEK respectively for Full and Partial Development.
53 of 79
Table 11 Quay 644 - calculation results for alternative developments of onshore power supply Zero Option – Continued generation of electricity onboard with diesel/heavy fuel oil Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost for Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore power (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) 0.2 - - 0.3 0.2 - 0.7 Partial Development – Onshore power supply of ships with a high berthing frequency Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost of Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting 5 (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore power (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) 0.05 2.5 0.3 0.07 0.02 3.4 6.3 Full Development – Onshore power supply for all ships Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost of Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting 5 (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore power (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) - 2.5 0.4 - - 3.4 6.3
In a comparison, the Partial Development and Full Development options have a considerably higher cost. With current traffic there is thus no benefit in providing quay 644 in Skandiahamnen with onshore power supply.
54 of 79
Results for Skarvikshamnen/Ryahamnen Skarvikshamn and Ryahamn are located in relatively close proximity to residential buildings on the southern bank of the river. Areas that are critical for EQS for outdoor air are, for example, beside the Lundby Tunnel. Noise from the port entails increased levels at residential buildings on the southern bank of the river.
Skarvikshamn and Ryahamn are the parts of the oil port that are frequented by smaller tankers, with 14 berths in Skarvikshamnen and one berth in Ryahamnen. Calculations have been performed for 15 berths and for an average power of 7.2 MW per 24 hour period. Skarvikshamnen is primarily frequented by tankers at 14 berths. In 2008 the port section had 3,483 berthings, with average lay days of 12.1 hours and average tonnage of 4,800.
Figure 21 Skarvikshamnen
The Partial Development option has assumed that 7 berths have been converted and supply onshore electricity. The reduction in the environmental cost is calculated on the basis that ships docking at these berths connect to onshore electricity.
The annual charge for high voltage has been calculated at SEK 2.6 million for Full Development and SEK 1.7 million for Partial Development.
55 of 79
Table 12 Skarvikshamnen/Ryahamnen - calculation results for alternative developments of onshore power supply Zero Option – Continued generation of electricity onboard with diesel/heavy fuel oil Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost for Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) 13.6 - - 20.1 9.4 43.1 Partial Development – Onshore power supply of ships with a high berthing frequency Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost of Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting 50 (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) 1.7 8.7 6.6 2.5 1.2 34 55.1 Full Development – Onshore power supply for all ships at all berths Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost of Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting 50 (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) - 13.8 8.2 - - 34 50.9
Investment cost per berth has been calculated at respectively, 1.2 and 0.9 MSEK/year in the Partial Development option and the Full Development option (depreciation, 10 years, 6% interest).
For this calculation to entirely add-up would require more ships to be converted. The 50 ships that call into the oil ports only account for 55% of the traffic, while the reduction anticipated above assumes that 87% of the traffic to Skarvikshamnen and 100% to Ryahamnen is converted for electrical operation. This means that the costs for conversion of ships in the Partial Development and Full Development options are not sufficient, but might actually have to be raised by several million SEK.
Other uncertainties are the ship’s power requirements at quayside. A large proportion of the ships in the port are involved in loading, which means that the product pumps are not used to such a great extent.
In a comparison of the options, the Partial Development and Full Development options have a higher cost. With the current fleet there are problems in obtaining the room for onshore power supply equipment onboard. Otherwise, it is primarily the cost of converting ships that precludes there being conditions for onshore power supply in Skarvikshamn and Ryahamn
56 of 79
Results for Torshamnen Torshamnen is located in an area far away from residential buildings. Ships berthing there do not generate any transportation as their load is pumped in pipelines. Emissions into the air from ships contribute to the background content of air pollutants in Gothenburg, but are not deemed to be of crucial importance for whether an EQS is exceeded or not. Noise from the port is not judged to exceed the guideline values for external industrial noise.
Tankers with crude oil dock at Torshamnen at two berths, 138 times in 2008, with average lay days of 26.6 hours and with tonnage from 36,000 to 62,000. Torshamnen’s location makes onshore power supply relatively expensive. On the other hand, ships with large tonnage and a high power requirement regularly dock at the port. The calculations have been performed for two berths (800 and 801) and for an average power of 6.4 MW per 24 hour period.
Figure 22 Torshamnen
The Partial Development option has assumed that 1 berth has been converted and supplies onshore electricity. The reduction in the environmental cost is calculated on the basis that ships docking at these berths connect to onshore electricity. The cost for conversion of three ships has been included in the calculation.
The annual charge for high voltage has been calculated at SEK 2.3 million for Full Development and SEK 1.4 million for Partial Development.
57 of 79
Table 13 Torshamnen - calculation results for alternative developments of onshore power supply Zero Option – Continued generation of electricity onboard with diesel/heavy fuel oil Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost for Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) 3.8 - - 5.6 2.6 - 12 Partial Development – Onshore power supply of ships with a high berthing frequency Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost of Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting 3 (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) 0.4 5.4 2.8 0.6 0.3 2 11.5 Full Development – Onshore power supply for all ships at all berths Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost of Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting 3 (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) - 7.2 3.9 - - 2 13.1
Investment cost for each quay is respectively, 5.4 and 3.6 MSEK/year in the Partial Development option and the Full Development option (depreciation 10 years, 6% interest).
In a comparison of the options, the Partial Development and Full Development options have an equivalent cost. With the current fleet there are problems in obtaining the room for onshore power supply equipment onboard. All in all, a more detailed study is needed to investigate whether the conditions for onshore power supply exist in Torshamnen. Otherwise, there are no obvious gains from onshore power supply in the form of lower noise levels and lower content of air pollutants where people are present as a result of the port’s location far from the city and settlements.
58 of 79
Results for Frihamnen Frihamnen is centrally situated in Gothenburg in close proximity to both residential buildings and places where a lot of people spend time. There are areas critical for EQS for outdoor air close by. The distance to residential buildings is relatively great.
Frihamnen’s total capacity at present is 14 berths. The occupancy rate for them is very uneven and most of them are used solely by smaller vessels, with short lay times. It is primarily one berth that is regularly frequented by larger cruise ships.
Figure 23 Frihamnen (photo Andreas Gustafson)
It is not possible to calculate cost per berth for Frihamnen in the same way as in other parts of the port. Instead the calculations have been performed according to the estimated figures for cruise ships and passenger ships for 2011. There are 21 planned berthings for Frihamnen by four different ships, with planned average lay days of 11.2 hours. Installation and Running costs for onshore power supply have been calculated for one berth.
The annual charge for high voltage has been calculated at SEK 1.5 million for both Full Development and Partial Development, with an assumption that cruise ship traffic only occurs for six months of the year.
59 of 79
Table 14 Frihamnen - calculation results for alternative developments of onshore power supply Zero Option – Continued generation of electricity onboard with diesel/heavy fuel oil Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost for Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) 0.2 - - 0.2 0.1 - 0.5 Partial Development – Onshore power supply of ships with a high berthing frequency Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost of Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting 4 (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) 0.1 6.8 1.5 0.1 0.1 4.2 12.8 Full Development – Onshore power supply for all ships Running costs Investment Running costs Environmental Environmental Cost of Total cost for electricity cost for for onshore cost cost carbon converting 4 (MSEK/year) generation installation of power supply Air pollution dioxide ships with 0.1% S onshore (58.6 (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) (MSEK/year) MGO (1,045 power supply öre/kWh) + USD/tonne) (MSEK/year) network (MSEK/year) charges (MSEK/year) - 6.8 1.6 - - 4.2 12.6
The investment cost for one quay is 6.8 MSEK/year (depreciation 10 years, 6% interest).
In a comparison of the options, the Partial Development and Full Development options have a considerably higher cost. From an economic perspective, with current traffic it is not profitable to provide Frihamnen with onshore power supply.
Results for individual berths east of Älvsborg Bridge The traffic statistics for the quays east of Älvsborg Bridge show that, according to the concept proposed, there are only a small number of ships that would be relevant in terms of onshore power supply. The bulk of the ships berthing here are better served by a low voltage connection. Connection facilities are available both at Stenpiren and Stigbergskajen. Adding to the facilities might be of interest. Facilities to supply three-phase, 400 V and 63 amp costs approx. 90 KSEK/unit (price from Göteborg Energi, July 2010). Adding more facilities might be of interest if the need arises. The emissions from the relevant vessels primarily have a local effect, and it would be appropriate to decide on development of a facility when the traffic or time spent at a berth increases.
60 of 79
Sensitivity analysis
An analysis of the sensitivity of the model has been conducted to study the impact of different factors and to estimate the uncertainty. The impact of four different factors on the model’s results has been studied:
a) Environmental cost b) Heavy fuel oil price c) Onshore electricity price
d) ETS cost for CO 2 emissions a) Environmental cost In terms of the environmental costs per kg of emissions of different air pollutants, i.e. the calculation values that constitute the basis for calculating the costs, there are alternative studies to use. The problem is that the calculation value for a particular pollutant can vary, in come cases widely, depending on the source or study on which the calculation value is based. Reasons for this might be that different methods are used to produce the calculation value, the aim is to reflect different things, or that there are uncertainties in relation to the calculation. The point of departure might be, for example, that the calculation value should reflect the compensation cost for the pollutant, or that it should reflect the cost of achieving (with cost-effective measures) politically implemented pollution targets.
The calculation values can consequently vary, either because they are based on different points of departure, or that they are based on the same point of departure, e.g. on the cost of measures to achieve politically implemented targets, but that the targets or measures on which the calculations are based, vary. The environmental cost can also vary depending on where the emissions take place. It is therefore important to both clarify which points of departure constituted the basis for production of the calculation values applied in our calculations below, and to perform sensitivity analyses to show what effect the alternative calculation values (points of departure) can have on the calculation results.
Highest and lowest environmental cost calculated on the basis of a comparison of different calculation models (the ASEK4 model, the CAFE model (Clean Air For Europe), the Stern model, from SNV report 6374, Environmental costs for exhaust emissions from shipping 2010, and SIKA PM2010:1) according to Table 15 Environmental cost for emissions into air according to different calculation models (values in SEK/kg) .
Table 15 Environmental cost for emissions into air according to different calculation models (values in SEK/kg) Pollution ASEK4 Low High
NO X 87 28.8 (CAFE) 87 (ASEK) PM 3564 0 (ASEK3) 3564 (ASEK4)
SO 2 129 26.4 (ASEK3) 129 (ASEK4)
CO 2 1.5 0.63 (Stern) 1.5 (ASEK) b) The heavy fuel oil price In terms of the MGO price, there is a general trend that this will keep going up over time as is the case with so many other fossil fuels, as well as a certain volatility depending on how ”the market” reacts. The MGO price is estimated to go up in the long term, primarily as a result of an increased
61 of 79
crude oil price and rising demand. The much debated concept, peak oil , i.e. the fact that the earth’s extractable natural resources of oil are starting to peak, has certainly also contributed to driving up the oil price.
In relative terms, this price increase will be higher at 0.1%S MGO in line with an increased requirement to use low-sulphur oil. The effect of the heavy fuel oil price was studied by setting the MGO at the lowest value, 200 US$ per tonne, and having a fictitious highest value of 2,000 US$ per tonne, i.e. five times lower and two times higher respectively than the current market price.
c) The onshore electricity price See section 2.2 above regarding the Government bill on a tax reduction for electricity for ships. The effect of the onshore electricity price has been studied by comparing the model’s results of a lowest price of 58.6 öre, with a tax reduction, and a highest price of 86.3, without a tax reduction 28.5 öre/kWh.
Grid prices on 1 January 2010, depending on type of customer, were on average 5.9– 6.9% higher than at the same time the previous year. The variable price that was offered in September 2010 was, depending on type of customer, 6.6– 6.7 öre/kWh (11.1– 13.8%) higher than in June 2010 (SCB, 2011). Electricity prices vary depending on season, with greater demand in the winter and higher prices.
Forecasts of future electricity prices in the longer term are very hard to make with any certainty. Thus far, electricity prices have followed other energy prices, and it is likely that this will continue to be the case in the longer term.
d) ETS price for carbon dioxide emissions In terms of the future price within the EU’s ETS, the second trading period comes to an end in 2012 and from phase three (2013-2020) more sectors will be included, the ceiling will be tightened up, the allocation will be centralised, and full auctioning will be introduced for the energy sector. In order to establish a plausible span for the future carbon dioxide price, we have studied models where demand for emissions and the range of emissions trading rights are used to provide an estimate of the future price within the EU’s ETS based on climate objective, technical development, etc. At present, one tonne of emissions costs approx. SEK 180 (20 €) within EU ETS. Most forecasts for the price in 2020 are around SEK 360–810 (40-90€), see Table 16. Forecast for the price of an emissions credit within EU ETS 2020 (source: van Bahr et al. 2010) . We have used a maximum price of SEK 855 (95€) per tonne of carbon dioxide in this sensitivity analysis.
Table 16. Forecast for the price of an emissions credit within EU ETS 2020 (source: van Bahr et al. 2010) Forecaster Forecast Barclay Capital (2010) SEK 360 New Carbon Finance (2009) SEK 396-567 IFC International (2009) SEK 630 Point Carbon (2009) SEK 225–540 (2016) Société Générale ( 2008) SEK 405-837
62 of 79
Results from the sensitivity analysis The effect of the four different factors on the model’s results has been calculated for Port of Gothenburg and is presented below. a) Environmental cost With different environmental cost calculations, see Table 15 Environmental cost for emissions into air according to different calculation models (values in SEK/kg) , this cost varies widely and is approximately four times greater. It is primarily the valuation of particles (PM) that substantially drives up the environmental cost.
Table 17. Variations in environmental cost with different initial values, Zero Option for some parts of the port Port section Lowest cost (MSEK) Highest cost (MSEK) Arendal/Älvsborg 34 200 Skandiahamnen incl. Car Terminal 35 160 Skarvik/Ryahamnen 8 37 Torshamnen 2 10 Total 79 407
The costs vary widely depending on the initial values for different air pollutants. The values selected are of major significance for whether there is any benefit to be gained from an onshore power supply.
b) Heavy fuel oil price The sensitivity analysis for heavy fuel oil produces a total span of 10 times the cost, from SEK 35.3 million to SEK 353 million, for all parts of the port. The forecast for the heavy fuel oil price does not currently produce any major price changes in the short term, up to 2012. With a higher heavy fuel oil price in the longer term, the running cost of diesel rapidly increases, and becomes 220-300% more expensive.
Viewed over a period of ten years, the cost of fuel for shipping has increased considerably. During summer 2008 the highest level thus far was noted, with a crude oil price of approx. 135 US$/barrel. In December the same year the price fell to approx. 40 US$/barrel. This was primarily due to the financial crisis and the resulting recession. Since then the price has recovered and is currently (January 2011) at around 80 US$/barrel. The International Energy Agency (IEA) anticipates that the crude oil price will be around 100 US$/barrel in 2015.
Statistics for sales of MGO (0.1–0.2% S) show that the price level follows the crude oil price in a relatively linear fashion up to a price of approx. 580 US$/tonne. At higher price levels the statistics show that the price difference between crude oil and MGO increases exponentially. At a price level for crude oil of 100 US$/barrel or approx. 730 US$/tonne, MGO costs around 1,100 US$/tonne during 2008.
c) Onshore electricity price With a tax reduction bringing the price of electricity down to 61.7 öre/kWh, the total cost of the Full Development option for Arendalshamnen/Älvsborgshamnen, Skandiahamnen, Skarviks- hamnen/Ryahamnen and Torshamnen is SEK 55 million, without a tax reduction (89.5 öre/kWh) the cost of electricity rises to SEK 79 million.
63 of 79
Table 18 Variations in the running costs of electricity depending on whether there is a tax reduction or not Port section Running cost of Running cost of electricity with tax electricity without tax reduction (MSEK) reduction (MSEK) Arendalshamnen/Älvsborghamnen 23 34 Skandiahamnen incl. Car 24 35 Terminal Skarvik/Ryahamnen 6 8 Torshamnen 1.6 2.3
The running costs for electricity at quayside increase by approx. 40% without a tax reduction.
d) ETS cost for CO 2 emissions
The impact of the ETS cost is less. With a higher ETS price per tonne of CO 2, the fuel costs increase depending on fuel consumption, number of berthings and time at quayside.
The results from the sensitivity analysis show that there are primarily two important factors that have an effect. Calculation of the environmental cost and the onshore electricity price. The diesel/heavy fuel oil price has no appreciable effect as long as the tax reduction on onshore electricity goes through. The ETS price for carbon dioxide emissions has no appreciable effect on the costs.
64 of 79
Port-related costs and emissions reductions
Port-related costs consist of investments in equipment on shore and costs for maintenance. How these costs are distributed between port company and terminal operator can vary, however in Gothenburg it is currently the norm that the port company stands for the costs for the equipment up to a cost ceiling for standard equipment. The shipping company generally stands for the energy cost, which for onshore power supply consists of electricity costs. In a costs-revenues analysis, goodwill and good image should be included on the revenues side, however, they are hard to quantify in money.
A comparison of costs between conventional energy supply and onshore power supply varies due to factors including electricity price and oil price. From the viewpoint of business economics, these costs are of major importance when assessing whether a measure is reasonable or not.
Provided that ships docking have equipment for onshore power and do actually connect to onshore power, costs for connection and reduction in emissions can be compiled from the calculations in section 7, see table 19.
Table 19 Port of Gothenburg’s cost for onshore power supply in the port with estimated emissions reductions if all ships connect to onshore electricity Port section Investment cost for Emissions reduction (tonnes/year) and cost development of for the emissions reduction (KSEK/tonnes onshore power and year)
supply CO 2 NO X PM SO 2 (MSEK/year) Älvsborgshamnen 26,000 560 17 40 9,5 /Arendalshamnen 0.37 17 560 240 Arendal Cruise 140 3 0.1 0.2 1,8* Ship Quay 13 600 18,000 9,000 Skandiahamnen, 24,700 540 17 40 excl. Car Terminal 17 0.69 31 1,000 420 and Quay 644 Car Terminal 2,700 60 2 4 2,5* 0.93 42 1,200 600 Skarviks-/Rya- 6,300 140 4 10 13,8 hamnen 2.2 99 3,400 1,400 Torshamnen 1,800 40 1 3 7,2 4 180 7,200 2,400 Quay 644 100 2 0 0 2,5* major major 25 1,200 cost cost Frihamnen 100 2 0.1 0.1 6,8 70 3,400 69,000 69,000 All parts of the 61,800 1,350 41 97 61,1 port 0.99 45 1,500 630 *The cost is dependent on a simultaneous development in the relevant section of the port
65 of 79
Table 19 gives an idea of the maximum potential for emissions reductions if all ships docking in Gothenburg port connect to onshore electricity. In addition it sets out what the emission reduction costs per section of the port for Port of Gothenburg are if the majority of ships connect to onshore electricity.
The Environmental Administration in Gothenburg was commissioned by Port of Gothenburg to calculate the size of the emissions reduction at Majnabbe and Masthugget, where onshore power is largely available, see Table 20 Emissions of air pollutants at Majnabbe and Masthugget today and without onshore power supply.
Table 20 Emissions of air pollutants at Majnabbe and Masthugget today and without onshore power supply today without electricity
NO x (tonnes/year) (tonnes/year) Majnabbe 5.0 31.7 Masthuggskajen 31.7 129.7
today without electricity
SO 2 (tonnes/year) (tonnes/year) Majnabbe 0.2 7.2 Masthuggskajen 1.7 5.4
today without electricity VOC (tonnes/year) (tonnes/year) Majnabbe 0.1 0.5 Masthuggskajen 0.6 2.4
today without electricity PM10 (tonnes/year) (tonnes/year) Majnabbe 0.1 1.0 Masthuggskajen 0.9 2.3
today without electricity
CO 2 (tonnes/year) (tonnes/year) Majnabbe 251 6219 Masthuggskajen 3041 9512
A gradual development in the different sections of the port entails higher initial costs per quay, which subsequently fall as development takes place. The tables below give an idea of how costs and environmental benefit develop with a gradual expansion in the different parts of the port. In this calculation it is assumed that the emissions reduction takes place at the same rate as expansion of the number of quays with onshore power supply.
66 of 79
Table 21 Arendalshamnen and Älvsborgshamnen Number of Cost per Cost total Reduced emissions (tonnes/year) quays quay MSEK/year CO 2 NO X PM SO 2 developed MSEK/year 1 6.6 6.6 5,200 110 3 8 2 3.7 7.4 10,400 220 7 16 3 2.7 8.1 15,600 340 10 24 4 2.2 8.8 20,800 450 14 32 5 1.9 9.5 26,000 560 17 40
Table 22 Arendal cruise ship quay Number of Cost per Cost total Reduced emissions (tonnes/year) quays quay MSEK/year CO 2 NO X PM SO 2 developed MSEK/year 1 1.8* 1.8* 140 3 0.1 0.2 *The cost is dependent on a simultaneous expansion in Arendalshamnen/Älvsborgshamnen
Table 23 Skandiahamn excl. Car Terminal and Quay 644 Number of Cost per Cost total Reduced emissions (tonnes/year) quays quay MSEK/year CO 2 NO X PM SO 2 developed MSEK/year 1 6.9 6.9 2,500 50 2 4 2 3.9 7.9 4,900 110 3 8 3 2.9 8.8 7,400 160 5 12 4 2.5 9.8 9,900 220 7 16 5 2.2 10.8 12,400 270 8 20 6 2.0 11.7 14,800 320 10 24 7 1.8 12.7 17,300 380 12 28 8 1.7 13.7 19,800 430 14 32 9 1.6 14.6 22,200 490 15 36 10 1.6 15.6 24,700 540 17 40
Table 24 Car Terminal, Skandiahamnen Number of Cost per Cost total Reduced emissions (tonnes/year) quays quay MSEK/year CO 2 NO X PM SO 2 developed MSEK/year 1 2.5* 2.5* 2,700 600 2 4 *The cost is dependent on a simultaneous expansion in Skandiahamnen
67 of 79
Table 25 Skarvikhamn and Ryahamn Number of Cost per Cost total Reduced emissions (tonnes/year) quays quay MSEK/year CO 2 NO X PM SO 2 developed MSEK/year 1 4.9 4.9 400 10 0.3 0.7 2 2.8 5.6 800 20 0.5 1.3 3 2.1 6.2 1,300 30 0.8 2 4 1.7 6.8 1,700 40 1.1 2.7 5 1.5 7.5 2,100 50 1.3 3.3 6 1.3 8.1 2,500 60 1.6 4 7 1.2 8.7 2,900 70 2.3 4.7 8 1.2 9.4 3,400 70 2.1 5.3 9 1.1 10.0 3,800 80 2.4 6 10 1.1 10.6 4,200 90 2.7 6.7 11 1.0 11.3 4,600 100 2.9 7.3 12 1.0 11.9 5,000 110 3.2 8 13 1.0 12.5 5,500 120 3.5 8.7 14 0.9 13.2 5,900 130 3.7 9.3 15 0.9 13.8 6,300 140 4 10
Table 26 Torshamnen Number of Cost per Cost total Reduced emissions (tonnes/year) quays quay MSEK/year CO 2 NO X PM SO 2 developed MSEK/year 1 5.4 5.4 900 20 0.5 1.5 2 3.6 7.2 1,800 40 1 3
Table 27 Frihamnen Number of Cost per Cost total Reduced emissions (tonnes/year) quays quay MSEK/year CO 2 NO X PM SO 2 developed MSEK/year 1 6.9 6.9 100 2 0.1 0.1
68 of 79
Ship-related costs and preconditions
For the shipping companies, onshore power supply is only part of a larger system. The shipping companies’ operations encompass more than simply time spent at quayside and the costs for installation of technology for onshore power supply are therefore weighed up against the costs of other technical solutions that might have other benefits.
Alternative fuels and purification equipment Traditionally, shipping has used heavy oils as fuel as there have not been any reasonable alternatives. In recent years, liquid natural gas, LNG, has started to be used as a fuel for coastal shipping in Norway. The use of LNG instead of oil has resulted in substantially lower emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur, nitrogen oxides etc. Within a few years several international agreements will come into force that set limits on various emissions from shipping in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. LNG offers one possibility to fulfil these requirements. In the long term, use of LNG as a marine fuel enables the admixture of renewable biogas in the form of liquid biogas, LBG.
Multi-fuel engines offer environmental benefits and advantageous operating costs. The ships can flexibly use different types of fuel in the same engine. For example, heavy oil can be used initially, with a subsequent change to natural gas when the distribution network has been developed, or to biofuel. The stricter environmental requirements that enter into force on 1 January 2015 with a maximum of 0.1% sulphur, will be a base requirement for traffic within the North Sea and the Baltic with retention of oil as fuel. This will make a substantial contribution to making small-scale LNG an attractive alternative marine fuel.
Other fuels that might be relevant in the future are dimethylates, DME, which are made from biomass and methanol. These fuels do not contain sulphur.
The shipping companies are competing in a market where transportation costs have to be continually minimised. It is therefore difficult for an individual shipping company to change to a more expensive and environmentally-friendly type of fuel, unless the competitors do the same. Control instruments and policy tools, e.g. legislation, or a common market for emissions credits are consequently more suitable as they change the situation equally for all actors competing in a market.
Another technical solution is catalytic purification of marine engines. At present this costs about
SEK 10 million per ship. The emissions are reduced down to about 6 grams of NO x/kWh. It is certainly a more expensive investment than installing onshore electricity equipment onboard, but it also delivers an environmental improvement throughout the entire transportation process.
Converting vessels In terms of converting ships, an important factor is having room for the equipment required for onshore power supply. According to a shipping company that accounts for a large proportion of the tanker traffic in Port of Gothenburg, there is no space available for the equipment on vessels such as tankers, not even when designing new ships. In general, shipping companies recommend that ships have a 60 Hz solution. However, there are many shipping companies, above all those that operate within coastal traffic in European waters, that see no benefits in changing to 60 Hz or designing new vessels at 60 Hz, but rather prefer 50 Hz. 50 Hz electricity systems are considered to provide more ”harmony” in terms of running, engine speed etc. on the ships. In addition, spare parts and peripheral equipment are cheaper and easily available in Europe. Several of the tankers in the tanker fleet that operates within European coastal traffic are what are known as ”German
69 of 79
boats”, i.e. built with a 400 V 50 Hz electricity system. Adaptation to 440 V is easy, however, supplying them with 60 Hz current is not as satisfactory.
Running costs with onshore electricity To illustrate the differences in running costs for a ship at quayside with diesel operation and onshore electricity respectively, a numerical example has been produced for a container ship that frequently docks in Port of Gothenburg:
The calculations have been conducted with the OPS model as point of departure and the following preconditions:
• Electricity price: 59 öre kWh • Heavy fuel oil price: 1,045 USD/tonne = 6,792 SEK/tonne (1 USD= SEK 6.50) • Main engine output – 20,000 kW • Power requirement at quayside: 85% of the main engine’s output and 15% power utility (reduction factor) • Conversion factor electricity to diesel/heavy fuel oil: 0,22/1000 • 10 berthings per year • 20 hours at quayside for each berthing
The calculations do not include network charges for onshore electricity. Where subscription fees are included, these charges are dependent on the highest average power for high voltage and it is not simple to include them in the total electricity price. A rough measurement is that the network charge amounts to approx. 4 öre/kWh.
Costs for onshore electricity The cost of electricity for the vessel is:
number of berthings * average time per berthing * main engine output * reduction factor * cost per kWh = 10*20*20,000*0.18*0.58 = SEK 296,000
Costs for diesel/heavy fuel oil Cost of generating electricity onboard with the engine is:
number of berthings * average time per berthing * main engine output * reduction factor * conversion factor * diesel/heavy fuel oil price per tonne = 10*20*20,000*0.85*0.15*0.22/1,000*6,792 = SEK 762,000
Option Annual cost with 10 berthings and 20 hours at each berthing Electricity generation with own diesel-powered auxiliary engine SEK 762,000 Onshore electricity SEK 296,000 Annual saving with onshore power supply SEK 466,000
When calculating the shipping company’s operating costs for diesel/heavy fuel oil in comparison with the operating cost for onshore power, the number of occasions that a ship calls into port and connects to onshore power and the lay-days are crucial for whether an investment in equipment for onshore power is profitable eller not. The calculation example above assumes that the annual investment cost to provide the ship with onshore power equipment is SEK 680,000, which makes
70 of 79
conversion economically advantageous if the ship berths 15 times (20 hours lay-days), see also Figure 24 Diagram illustrating when it can be profitable for ships to connect to onshore electricity with a reduced tax rate. .
Figure 24 Diagram illustrating when it can be profitable for ships to connect to onshore electricity with a reduced tax rate.
At current energy prices and costs to convert ships, the assessment is that it is already profitable for the shipping companies to connect some ships to onshore electricity provided that there is an onshore power supply in the majority of the ports visited. However, getting the shipping companies involved in the change-over to onshore power supply also requires that a tax reduction is implemented in other countries and that onshore power supply is developed in more ports. Other policy instruments might also be required, e.g. legislation and/or a market to trade carbon credits, which indirectly increase the costs of using diesel/heavy fuel oil.
71 of 79
Conclusions and discussion
In this section an overall assessment is made of the preconditions for onshore power supply and an evaluation of costs and benefits in each section of the port.
Standardisation work Standardisation of onshore power supply equipment is a prerequisite to enable ships to connect to onshore electricity independent of the port at which they dock. Standardised solutions entail long- term thinking that increases the will to equip new vessels and to invest in conversion of existing ones. A standard now appears to be imminent. This is deemed to be an important piece in the puzzle in enabling implementation of a more widespread connection of ships to onshore power.
Exchange of experience The investments in onshore power supply equipment on ships are relatively major and for a shipping company to achieve profitability in such an investment probably requires the vessel to be able to connect to onshore electricity in the majority of ports in which it docks. For onshore power supply to be implemented requires an expansion in ports both within the EU and internationally. A success factor in this work is information and exchange of experience. Contacts and channels for exchange of experience have been put in place, and in this phase, once development of facilities takes off, it is important that this work can continue.
Technical development Practical difficulties with regard to technology are an important element in why an expansion in onshore power supply has not been implemented on a wide front. Among other things, ships’ different electricity systems with 50 and 60 Hz respectively, have comprised an obstacle to different types of ship docking at one quay. In addition, there is limited space at quayside and extensive equipment for onshore power supply obstructs cranes, loaders etc.
The type of facility for onshore power supply that is presented in this report, i.e. a centrally situated station with the possibility of supplying quays with both 50 and 60 Hz frequencies, mean that a number of the technical difficulties can be resolved. To be able to evaluate whether a facility can function in practice, it has to be designed and costed in order to resolve any further technical difficulties, and then constructed and put into operation.
Introduction of new technology is often costly and the first facilities that are built often have a higher cost and experience operational problems to start with. Moreover, it is unreasonable that a single party should stand for the entire cost of the public benefit that connecting ships to the onshore electricity supply entails in some parts of the port. Continued support for technical development is therefore needed to facilitate a change in technology.
72 of 79
Technical, economic and environmental preconditions in Port of Gothenburg
Arendalshamnen/Älvsborgshamnen, excl. cruise ship quays in Arendal According to the calculations in section 6, a benefit exists in relation to the size of the investment in connecting ships in Arendalshamnen/Älvsborgshamnen to onshore electricity.
Option Cost (MSEK/year) Benefit in comparison with Zero Option (MSEK/year) Zero Option 179.1 Partial Development – onshore power supply 64 + 115.1 for ships berthing 8 or more times at Arendal/Älvsborg Full Development – onshore power supply at 44.3 + 134.8 all quays and for all ships
Onshore power supply in Arendalshamnen/Älvsborgshamnen can reduce the ship’s noise and impact on the surroundings. In addition, the chances of fulfilling the Environmental Code’s standards for air pollutants in Gothenburg city in general and in the immediate surroundings of Arendalshamnen/Älvsborgshamnen in particular are enhanced. The crucial factor for the economic benefit of investing in equipment for onshore power supply is whether the shipping companies will convert ships and utilise onshore electricity. Many of the ships that dock in Älvsborgshamnen/Arendalshamnen are regular services and frequently return to the port. The assessment is that at current electricity prices it is already profitable for many ships to connect to onshore electricity. A tax reduction on the electricity will make it even more profitable.
More than half the ships at Älvsborgshamnen/Arendalshamnen dock at quays 700 and 712, where it is already possible to connect. The options for onshore power supply at these berths should remain in place. An expansion of onshore power supply to more quays can be advantageous if a simultaneous conversion of ships is undertaken.
Cruise ship quays in Arendal According to the calculations in section 6, no benefit exists in relation to the investment in onshore power supply at the cruise ship quays in Arendal.
Option Cost (MSEK/year) Benefit in comparison with Zero Option (MSEK/year) Zero Option 0.8 Partial Development – onshore power supply 5.8 - 5 for ships berthing 8 or more times at Arendal’s cruise ship quay Full Development – onshore power supply at 5.4 - 4.6 all quays and for all ships
Onshore power supply improves the chances of fulfilling the Environmental Code’s standards for air pollutants in Gothenburg city in general. There is currently no benefit in investing in equipment for onshore power supply. A relatively small number of cruise ships dock at Arendal and they are primarily scheduled in the summer months when there is normally less problem with air pollutants in the city.
73 of 79
Cruise traffic is increasing and more ships can be expected to berth, it might therefore be relevant to study the possibilities for onshore power supply in the future. The symbolic value of connecting large energy-intensive ships to onshore electricity should also be considered.
Skandiahamnen, excl. Car Terminal and Quay 644 According to the calculations in section 6, a benefit exists in relation to the investment in connecting container ships in Skandiahamnen to onshore electricity.
Option Cost (MSEK/year) Benefit in comparison with Zero Option (MSEK/year) Zero Option 169.9 Partial Development – onshore power supply 121.7 + 48.2 for ships berthing 8 or more times at Skandiahamnen Full Development – onshore power supply at 85 + 84.9 all quays and for all ships
Onshore power supply in Skandiahamnen can reduce the ship’s noise and impact on the surroundings. In addition, the chances of fulfilling the Environmental Code’s standards for air pollutants in Gothenburg city in general and in the immediate surroundings of Skandiahamnen in particular are enhanced. The crucial factor for the economic benefit of investing in equipment for onshore power supply is whether the shipping companies will convert ships and utilise onshore electricity.
Car Terminal in Skandiahamnen According to the calculations in section 6, a benefit might exist in relation to the investment in connecting car transport ships in Skandiahamnen to onshore electricity.
Option Cost (MSEK/year) Benefit in comparison with Zero Option (MSEK/year) Zero Option 18.2 Partial Development – onshore power supply 17.9 + 0.3 for ships berthing 8 or more times at Skandiahamnen Full Development – onshore power supply at 5.9 + 12.3 all quays and for all ships
Onshore power supply in the Car Terminal can reduce the ship’s noise and impact on the surroundings. In addition, the chances of fulfilling the Environmental Code’s standards for air pollutants in Gothenburg city in general and in the immediate surroundings of Skandiahamnen in particular are enhanced. The crucial factor for the economic benefit of investing in equipment for onshore power supply is whether the shipping companies will convert ships and utilise onshore electricity. There is currently no major benefit in relation to the investment in developing onshore power supply in the Car Terminal. If, or when, car transport ships are generally converted, there would be benefits in developing onshore electricity in the port.
74 of 79
Quay 644 in Skandiahamnen According to the calculations in section 6, no benefit exists in relation to the investment in connecting asphalt ships at quay 644 to onshore electricity.
Option Cost (MSEK/year) Benefit in comparison with Zero Option (MSEK/year) Zero Option 0.7 Partial Development – onshore power supply 6.3 - 5.4 for ships berthing 8 or more times at Skarvikshamnen/Ryahamnen Full Development – onshore power supply at 6.3 - 5.4 all quays and for all ships
Onshore power supply at quay 644 can reduce the ship’s noise and impact on the surroundings. In addition, the chances of fulfilling the Environmental Code’s standards for air pollutants in Gothenburg city in general and in the immediate surroundings of Skandiahamnen in particular are enhanced. However, there is currently no benefit in investing in equipment for onshore power supply.
Overall, the assessment is that a development of onshore power supply at quay 644 is not currently a priority.
Skarvikshamnen/Ryahamnen According to the calculations in section 6, no benefit exists in relation to the investment in connecting tankers in Skarvikshamnen/Ryahamnen to onshore electricity.
Option Cost (MSEK/year) Benefit in comparison with Zero Option (MSEK/year) Zero Option 43.1 Partial Development – onshore power supply 55.1 - 12 for ships berthing 8 or more times at Skarvikshamnen/Ryahamnen Full Development – onshore power supply at 50.9 - 7.8 all quays and for all ships
Onshore power supply in Skarvikshamnen/Ryahamnen can reduce the ship’s noise and impact on the surroundings. In addition, the chances of fulfilling the Environmental Code’s standards for air pollutants in Gothenburg city in general and in the immediate surroundings of Skarvikshamnen/Ryahamnen in particular are enhanced. However, there is currently no benefit in investing in equipment for onshore power supply.
Overall, the assessment is that a development of onshore power supply in Skarvikshamnen/Ryahamnen is not currently a priority.
75 of 79
Torshamnen According to the calculations in section 6, it is doubtful whether there is any benefit in relation to the investment in connecting tankers to onshore electricity in Torshamnen.
Option Cost (MSEK/year) Benefit in comparison with Zero Option (MSEK/year) Zero Option 12 Partial Development – onshore power supply 11.5 + 0.5 for ships berthing 8 or more times at Torshamnen Full Development – onshore power supply at 13.1 - 1.1 all quays and for all ships
Torshamnen’s location far away from residential buildings and the centre of Gothenburg means that there are no significant local benefits of onshore power supply in Torshamnen. Emissions into the air from the ships contribute to some extent to the background content of air pollutants, but are not deemed to make a major contribution here to fulfilling the environmental quality standard for air pollutants in Gothenburg city. There might be a minor benefit in investing in equipment for onshore power supply, but more detailed studies are required. Overall, however, the assessment is that providing the berths in Torshamnen with onshore electricity is not a priority.
Frihamnen According to the calculations in section 6, no benefit exists in relation to the investment in connecting cruise ships in Frihamnen to onshore electricity.
Option Cost (MSEK/year) Benefit in comparison with Zero Option (MSEK/year) Zero Option 0.5 Partial Development – onshore power supply 12.8 - 12.3 for ships berthing 8 or more times at Frihamnen Full Development – onshore power supply at 12.6 - 12.1 all quays and for all ships
Onshore power supply enhances the chances of fulfilling the Environmental Code’s standards for air pollutants in Gothenburg city in general and in the immediate surroundings of Frihamnen in particular. There is currently no benefit in investing in equipment for onshore power supply. A relatively small number of ships dock at Frihamnen and they are primarily scheduled in the summer months when there is normally less problem with air pollutants in the city.
Cruise traffic is increasing and more ships can be expected to dock. Depending on whether these dock at Frihamnen or not, it might be relevant to study the options for onshore power supply in the future. The symbolic value of connecting large energy-intensive ships to onshore electricity should also be considered.
76 of 79
Quays east of Älvsborg Bridge The traffic statistics for the quays east of Älvsborg Bridge show that, according to the concept proposed, there are only a small number of ships that would be relevant in terms of onshore power supply. Facilities for low voltage connections are available at both Stenpiren and Stigbergskajen. An addition to the facilities for low voltage connection might be relevant. The emissions from the relevant vessels primarily have a local effect, and it would be appropriate to decide on development of a facility when the traffic or time spent at a berth increases.
Conclusion - onshore power supply in Port of Gothenburg The analysis performed shows that there might be some benefit in relation to the investments in connecting ships primarily in Skandiahamnen and Älvsborgshamnen/Arendalshamnen to onshore electricity. For a more reliable result an analysis needs to be undertaken with calculations for a concrete, practical case with reference to a specific shipping company with a large number of ships berthing in a section of the port.
Flexible equipment to supply electricity at both 50 and 60 Hz will make it possible to connect a large proportion of ships that dock. For a high proportion of berthed vessels to connect to onshore power, and a concomitant benefit, requires the ships to be converted to enable connection. A tax reduction for supplying electricity to ships may make it profitable for shipping companies to convert vessels, however, it is dependent on how long a ship is in dock and on an advantageous electricity price. A tax reduction for onshore electricity might therefore also need to be implemented in other countries for it to be profitable for shipping companies to convert ships.
Development of onshore power supply in a port entails a major investment and it is not clear how the costs will be distributed between port and shipping company. New technology can initially be costly and it often requires a running-in period for satisfactory functions and routines. At present the shipping companies have a greater focus on fuel as a result of more stringent rules for the sulphur content in oil. A change in technology with regard to onshore power supply will probably require some form of incentive, e.g. that funds are made available for practical realisation of a new facility and development of the technology.
77 of 79
References
Reports etc. • Berglund, C. M. och Eriksson, R., 2003. På väg mot marginalkostnads-prissättning inom sjötransportsektorn. VTI meddelande 956. • Doves, S. 2006. Alternative maritime power in the port of Rotterdam. Rotterdam. • Elforsk. 2011. Miljövärdering av el – med fokus på utsläpp av koldioxid. (http://www.elforsk.se/Documents/Trycksaker%20och%20broschyrer/miljovardering_elan vand.pdf) • Environ. 2005. Shoreside power feasibility study for cruise ships berthed at Port of San Francisco. San Francisco. • Ericsson, P och Fazlagic, I, 2008, Shore-Side Power Supply, Chalmers, Department of Energy and Environment
• Grundström, M., Linderholm, H.W., Klingberg, J. och Pleijel, H. 2011. Urban NO 2 and NO pollution in relation to the North Atlantic Oscillation NAO. Atmospheric Environment 45: 883-888. • Gothenburg City Council website - http://www.goteborg.se/wps/portal • IMO, 2009. Second IMO GHG study 2009; International Maritime Organization (IMO) London. • Kartläggning och beräkning av antal bullerexponerade enligt förordning om omgivnings- buller - SFS 2004:675, Miljöförvaltningen Göteborg, 2007 • Container-, Bil- och Ro/ro terminalerna samt Oljeterminalerna, Utredning av buller från Container- och Bilterminalerna (Skandiahamnen) och Ro/ro terminalerna (Älvsborgsham- nen och Arendal) samt oljehamnarna (Tors-, Skarviks- och Ryahamnen). Ingemanssons 2002 • Göteborgs Hamn, Externbullerutredning 2007, Ingemanssons, 2007, rev 2008 • SCB, 2011. Prisutveckling på el och naturgas samt leverantörsbyten, tredje kvartalet 2010. SCB Statistiska meddelanden EN 24 SM 1004. • Sjöfartsverket, 2003. Sjöfartens marginalkostnader; Lägesrapport med fokus på godstrans- porter. Delredovisning av regeringsuppdrag, 2003-05, Tillgänglig på:
78 of 79
Views from the shipping industry Views have been obtained from the shipping industry through conversations with Anders Bejre, Sirius Rederi, and Carl Carlsson, Swedish Shipowners’ Association.
Anders Bejre gave his views on aspects including the fact there is not much space for onshore power supply equipment on tankers, that exhaust gases are needed to keep certain grades of oil warm so that they can be unloaded and that catalysers and gas propulsion are of more interest for tankers. Furthermore, consideration must be taken to safety aspects and the oil companies’ requirements. It would also be appropriate to introduce new technology simultaneously, e.g. through legislation, so that it does not affect competition.
The Swedish Shipowners’ Association is very positive towards the onshore electricity project and feels that projects which promote ”clean shipping” are a good thing. It is positive if it is possible to get the stakeholders to work together and create win-win situations. Carl Carlsson has received indications that catalyser purification and gas propulsion are good new technologies, but does not feel that this excludes onshore power supply in the ports. Purification of exhaust gases with scrubber technology can also be relevant.
Views from Göteborg Energi Nät AB Views have been obtained through a conversation with Jan Kärnestedt. Expansion of the grid and capacity to the ports can be implemented a few years after being ordered. There will be better conditions for expansion after 2014 as a new network will be installed through the area.
Supporting data from Port of Gothenburg Traffic data for Port of Gothenburg was compiled by Joachim Gunmalm, Port of Gothenburg.
The working group within the Vinnova project Views from the working group and the reference group within the Vinnova Project were incorporated in the reports. The following have submitted points of view:
Åsa Wilske, Port of Gothenburg Erik Krona, Port of Gothenburg Susann Dutt, Port of Gothenburg Lars-Göran Nilsson, Port of Gothenburg Jan Inganäs, Port of Gothenburg Björn Sigström, Port of Gothenburg Kajsa Asker, Port of Gothenburg Per Lindeberg, Skandia Container Terminal AB /Göteborg Energi Bengt Cederman, Skandia Container Terminal AB Ismir Fazlagic, ABB AB Ola Norén, ABB AB
Preparation of report, participants from Ramböll Sweden AB: Håkan Lindved (project manager), Karl-Olof Claesson and Mats Svensson (administrator), Teresia Kling (reviewer)
79 of 79
Appendix 1
Calculation results for onshore power supply - investment costs and running costs
In general the electrical equipment for onshore supply for all parts of the port primarily consists of five parts:
Switchgear equipment 12 kV, 50 Hz for incoming power from GENAB. The size of incoming switchgear is determined by the design output for ”onshore power” that the respective part of the port is expected to consume.
Frequency converters and transformers for frequency converters. The ambition that it should be possible to simultaneously supply 50Hz and 60 Hz entails doubling frequency converters and transformers for frequency converters. The frequency that is selected for the respective frequency converter is determined by the requirement in the port. If the need for onshore power, e.g. 60 Hz, is greater than what a frequency converter can supply, the operation is changed so that both frequency converters supply 60 Hz. During the period GHAB is not able to supply 50 Hz in the relevant section of the port. Total output for installed converters and transformers is determined by the design output for ”onshore power” which each part of the port is expected to consume.
Switchgear equipment (duplex switchgear) for onshore power. High voltage switchgear is developed with twin bus bars where it is possible to supply 50 Hz and 60 Hz ”onshore power” from each bus bar. Outgoing groups to quays are connected to the respective bus bar via motor-driven isolators.
Transformers and switchgear equipment for outlets on quays. All outlets on quays must be supplied from their own transformer. They must also be dead, disconnected and earthed when connecting to a ship. To achieve this, a transformer, dimensioned for the respective outlets on quayside, is connected to the above ”duplex switchgear”. A small high voltage switchgear which is remotely controlled from the outlet on the quay is installed after the transformer.
All the above electrical equipment is to be placed in the same building. Proposals for location of this building are set out in the description for each part of the port.
Cables for ”onshore power” and communication- and security cables from this centrally situated building are installed to each berth that is equipped with an outlet for ”onshore power”. An outlet for ”onshore power” and a control cabinet for operation of supplying switchgear is to be located at each berth
The calculations are presented for two alternatives: o Partial Development , which means that there is the option of onshore power supply at the berths that are used most frequently, and o Full development , all berths have onshore power supply.
Arendal- och Älvsborgshamnen Partial Development
@ price Common equipment Qty (SEK) Total Incoming switchgear 1250A Incoming compartment 3 300 000 900 000 Measurement 1 100 000 100 000 Transformer compartment 2 350 000 700 000 Transformer 10 MVA 10.5/3.7 kV 2 2 300 000 4 600 000 16 700 000 Control equipment 1 pc 1 000 000 1 000 000 Building 15x30 m 450 sqm 12 000 5 400 000 Connection charge GENAB 15 MVA 1 4 000 000 4 000 000 Frequency converter 7,500 kVA 2 13 500 000 27 000 000 Total 43 700 000 SEK
@ price Quay Berth General Qty (SEK) Total Sockets. 1 pc 100 000 100 000 Cable AXKJ 3x240 approx. 1,000 m 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 Part of ducting 1000 m 2 000 2 000 000 Fibre optic cable 1000 m 50 50 000 Switchgear operation 1 pc 450 000 450 000 Transformer 2.5 MVA 3.7/6.6 kV 1 pc 800 000 800 000 Control equipment operation 1 pc 300 000 300 000 Compartment in "duplex switchgear" 1 pc 500 000 500 000 5 200 000 SEK
Number of quay berths 5
Cost / Quay berth Total 13 940 000 SEK
Cost per year per berth 10 year 6% interest 1 893 999 SEK Cost per year for part of port, Partial development 9 469 997 SEK
2 of 11
Arendal- och Älvsborgshamnen Full Development
@ price Common equipment Qty (SEK) Total Incoming switchgear 1250A Incoming compartment 3 300 000 900 000 Measurement 1 100 000 100 000 Transformer compartment 2 350 000 700 000 Transformer 10 MVA 10.5/3.7 kV 2 2 300 000 4 600 000 16 700 000 Control equipment 1 pc 1 000 000 1 000 000 Building 15x30 m 450 sqm 12 000 5 400 000 Connection charge GENAB 15 MVA 1 4 000 000 4 000 000 13 500 Frequency converter 7,500 kVA 2 000 27 000 000 Total 43 700 000 SEK
@ price Quay Berth General Qty (SEK) Total Sockets. 1 pc 100 000 100 000 Cable AXKJ 3x240 approx. 1,000 m 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 Part of ducting 1000 m 2 000 2 000 000 Fibre optic cable 1000 m 50 50 000 Switchgear operation 1 pc 450 000 450 000 Transformer 2.5 MVA 3.7/6.6 kV 1 pc 800 000 800 000 Control equipment operation 1 pc 300 000 300 000 Compartment in "duplex switchgear" 1 pc 500 000 500 000 5 200 000 SEK
Number of quay berths 5
Cost / Quay berth Total 13 940 000 SEK
Cost per year per berth 10 year 6% interest 1 893 999 SEK Cost per year for part of port, Full development 9 469 997 SEK
Skandiahamnen Partial Development
@ price Common equipment Qty (SEK) Total Incoming switchgear 1250A Incoming compartment 3 300 000 900 000 Measurement 1 100 000 100 000 Transformer compartment 2 350 000 700 000 Transformer 10 MVA 10.5/3.7 kV 2 2 300 000 4 600 000 16 700 000 Control equipment 1 pc 1 000 000 1 000 000 Building 15x30 m 450 sqm 12 000 5 400 000 Connection charge GENAB 15 MVA 1 4 000 000 4 000 000 Frequency converter 7,500 kVA 2 13 500 000 27 000 000 43 700 Total 000 SEK
@ price Quay Berth General Qty (SEK) Total Sockets. 2 pc 100 000 200 000 Cable AXKJ 3x240 approx. 500 m 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 Part of ducting 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 Switchgear for two outgoing
cables 1 pc 1 100 000 1 100 000 Fibre optic cable 500 m 50 25 000 Transformer 7.5 MVA 3.7/6.6 kV 1 pc 2 500 000 2 500 000 Control equipment operation 1 pc 300 000 300 000 Compartment in "duplex switchgear" 2 pc 500 000 1 000 000 7 125 000 SEK
Number of quay berths 4
Cost / Quay berth 18 050 Total 000 SEK
Cost per year per berth 10 year 6% interest 2 452 417 SEK Cost per year for part of port, Partial development 9 809 667 SEK
4 of 11
Skandiahamnen Full Development
@ price Common equipment Qty (SEK) Total Incoming switchgear 1250A Incoming compartment 4 300 000 1 200 000 Measurement 1 100 000 100 000 Transformer compartment 2 350 000 700 000 Transformer 15 MVA 10.5/3.7 kV 2 3 500 000 7 000 000 21 300 000 Control equipment 1 pc 1 000 000 1 000 000 Building 15x35 m 525 sqm 12 000 6 300 000 Connection charge GENAB 24 MVA 1 5 000 000 5 000 000 Frequency converter 12,500 kVA 2 22 000 000 44 000 000 Total 65 300 000 SEK
@ price Quay Berth General Qty (SEK) Total Sockets. 2 pc 100 000 200 000 Cable AXKJ 3x240 approx. 500 m 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 Part of ducting 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 Switchgear for two outgoing cables 1 pc 1 100 000 1 100 000 Fibre optic cable 500 m 50 25 000 Transformer 7.5 MVA 3.7/6.6 kV 1 pc 2 500 000 2 500 000 Control equipment operation 1 pc 300 000 300 000 Compartment in "duplex switchgear" 2 pc 500 000 1 000 000 7 125 000 SEK
Number of quay berths 11
Cost / Quay berth Total 13 061 364 SEK
Cost per year per berth 10 year 6% interest 1 774 621 SEK Cost per year for part of port, Full development 19 520 829 SEK
Skarviks- och Ryahamnen Partial Development
@ price Common equipment Qty (SEK) Total Incoming switchgear 1250A Incoming compartment 2 300 000 600 000 Measurement 1 100 000 100 000 Transformer compartment 2 350 000 700 000 Transformer 7.5 MVA 10.5/3.7 kV 2 2 000 000 4 000 000 15 900 000 Control equipment 1 pc 700 000 700 000 Building 15x35 m 400 sqm 12 000 4 800 000 Connection charge GENAB 12 MVA 1 5 000 000 5 000 000 Frequency converter 6,500 kVA 2 7 800 000 15 600 000 Total 31 500 000
@ price Quay Berth General Qty (SEK) Total Sockets. 1 pc 100 000 100 000 Cable AXKJ 3x240 approx. 500 m 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 Part of ducting 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 Switchgear for outgoing cables 1 pc 450 000 450 000 Fibre optic cable 500 m 50 25 000 Transformer 2.5 MVA 3.7/6.6 kV 1 pc 800 000 800 000 Control equipment operation 1 pc 300 000 300 000 Compartment in "duplex switchgear" 2 pc 500 000 1 000 000 4 675 000
Number of quay berths 7
Cost / Quay berth Total 9 175 000
Cost per year per berth 10 year 6% interest 1 246 589 SEK Cost per year for part of port, Partial development 8 726 120 SEK
6 of 11
Skarviks- och Ryahamnen Full Development
@ price Common equipment Qty (SEK) Total Incoming switchgear 1250A Incoming compartment 2 300 000 600 000 Measurement 1 100 000 100 000 Transformer compartment 2 350 000 700 000 Transformer 7.5 MVA 2 000 10.5/3.7 kV 2 000 4 000 000 15 900 000 Control equipment 1 pc 700 000 700 000 Building 15x35 m 400 sqm 12 000 4 800 000 Connection charge GENAB 12 5 000 MVA 1 000 5 000 000 Frequency converter 6,500 7 800 kVA 2 000 15 600 000 Total 31 500 000 SEK
@ price Quay Berth General Qty (SEK) Total Sockets. 1 pc 100 000 100 000 Cable AXKJ 3x240 approx.
500 m 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 Part of ducting 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 Switchgear for outgoing cables 1 pc 450 000 450 000 Fibre optic cable 500 m 50 25 000 Transformer 2.5 MVA 3.7/6.6 kV 1 pc 800 000 800 000 Control equipment operation 1 pc 300 000 300 000 Compartment in "duplex switchgear" 2 pc 500 000 1 000 000 4 675 000 SEK
Number of quay berths 15
Cost / Quay berth Total 6 775 000 SEK
Cost per year per berth 10 year 6% interest 920 505 SEK Cost per year for part of port, Full development 13 807 581 SEK
Torshamnen
Partial Development
@ price Common equipment Qty (SEK) Total Incoming switchgear 1250A Incoming compartment 2 300 000 600 000 Measurement 1 100 000 100 000 Transformer compartment 2 350 000 700 000 Transformer 7.5 MVA 10.5/3.7 kV 2 2 000 000 4 000 000 14 900 000 Control equipment 1 pc 700 000 700 000 Building 15x35 m 400 sqm 12 000 4 800 000 Connection charge GENAB 10 MVA 1 4 000 000 4 000 000 Frequency converter 5,000 kVA 2 9 000 000 18 000 000 Total 32 900 000
@ price Quay Berth General Qty (SEK) Total Sockets. 2 pc 100 000 200 000 Cable AXKJ 3x240 approx. 500 m 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 Part of ducting 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 Switchgear for two outgoing cables 1 pc 1 100 000 1 100 000 Fibre optic cable 500 m 50 25 000 Transformer 7.5 MVA 3.7/6.6 kV 1 pc 2 500 000 2 500 000 Control equipment operation 1 pc 300 000 300 000 Compartment in "duplex switchgear" 2 pc 500 000 1 000 000 7 125 000 SEK
Number of Quay berths 1
Cost / Quay berth Total 40 025 000 SEK
Cost per year per berth 10 year 6% interest 5 438 115 SEK Cost per year for part of port, Partial development 5 438 115 SEK
8 of 11
Torshamnen
Full Development
@ price Common equipment Qty (SEK) Total Incoming switchgear 1250A Incoming compartment 2 300 000 600 000 Measurement 1 100 000 100 000 Transformer compartment 2 350 000 700 000 Transformer 7.5 MVA 10.5/3.7 kV 2 2 000 000 4 000 000 15 900 000 Control equipment 1 pc 700 000 700 000 Building 15x35 m 400 sqm 12 000 4 800 000 Connection charge GENAB 12 MVA 1 5 000 000 5 000 000 Frequency converter 6,500 kVA 2 11 440 000 22 880 000 Total 38 780 000 SEK
@ price Quay Berth General Qty (SEK) Total Sockets. 2 pc 100 000 200 000 Cable AXKJ 3x240 approx. 500 m 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 Part of ducting 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 Switchgear for two outgoing cables 1 pc 1 100 000 1 100 000 Fibre optic cable 500 m 50 25 000 Transformer 7.5 MVA 3.7/6.6 kV 1 pc 2 500 000 2 500 000 Control equipment operation 1 pc 300 000 300 000 Compartment in "duplex switchgear" 2 pc 500 000 1 000 000 7 125 000 SEK
Number of Quay berths 2
Cost / Quay berth Total 26 515 000 SEK
Cost per year per berth 10 year 6% interest 3 602 539 SEK Cost per year for part of port, Full development 7 205 078 SEK
Frihamnen
Partial Development
@ price Common equipment Qty (SEK) Total Incoming switchgear 1250A Incoming compartment 2 300 000 600 000
Measurement 1 100 000 100 000
Transformer compartment 2 350 000 700 000 16 900 000 Transformer 7.5 MVA 10.5/3.7 kV 2 2 500 000 5 000 000 Control equipment 1 pc 700 000 700 000 Building 15x35 m 400 sqm 12 000 4 800 000 Connection charge GENAB 15MVA 1 5 000 000 5 000 000 Frequency converter 7,500 kVA 2 13 200 000 26 400 000 Total 43 300 000
@ price Quay Berth General Qty (SEK) Total Sockets. 2 pc 100 000 200 000 Cable AXKJ 3x240 approx. 500 m 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 Part of ducting 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 Switchgear for 2 outgoing cables 1 pc 1 100 000 1 100 000 Fibre optic cable 500 m 50 25 000 Transformer 7.5 MVA 3.7/6.6 kV 1 pc 2 500 000 2 500 000 Control equipment operation 1 pc 300 000 300 000 Compartment in "duplex switchgear" 2 pc 500 000 1 000 000 7 125 000
Number of quay berths 1
Cost / Quay berth Total 50 425 000
Cost per year per berth 10 year 6% interest 6 851 142 SEK Cost per year for part of port, alt. 2 6 851 142 SEK
10 of 11
Frihamnen
Full Development
@ price Common equipment Qty (SEK) Total Incoming switchgear 1250A Incoming compartment 2 300 000 600 000
Measurement 1 100 000 100 000
Transformer compartment 2 350 000 700 000 2 500 16 900 000 Transformer 7.5 MVA 10.5/3.7 kV 2 000 5 000 000 Control equipment 1 pc 700 000 700 000 Building 15x35 m 400 sqm 12 000 4 800 000 5 000 Connection charge GENAB 15MVA 1 000 5 000 000 Frequency converter 7,500 kVA 2 ###### 26 400 000 Total 43 300 000
@ price Quay Berth General Qty (SEK) Total Sockets. 2 pc 100 000 200 000 Cable AXKJ 3x240 approx. 500 m 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 Part of ducting 1000 m 1 000 1 000 000 1 100
Switchgear for 2 outgoing cables 1 pc 000 1 100 000 Fibre optic cable 500 m 50 25 000 2 500 Transformer 7.5 MVA 3.7/6.6 kV 1 pc 000 2 500 000 Control equipment operation 1 pc 300 000 300 000 Compartment in "duplex switchgear" 2 pc 500 000 1 000 000 7 125 000
Number of quay berths 1
Cost / Quay berth Total 50 425 000
Cost per year per berth 10 year 6% interest 6 851 142 SEK Cost per year for part of port, alt. 2 6 851 142 SEK
2 of 2
Appendix 3
Förutsättningar avseende luftföroreningar och buller
(Beställare)
Fel! Hittar inte referenskälla.
Gothenburg 2012-01-24
Fel! Hittar inte referenskälla.
Förutsättningar avseende luftföroreningar och buller
Date 2012-01-24 Assignment number 61471042299000 Issue/Status
LINDVED HÅKAN Mats Svensson Project manager Administrator
Ramböll Sverige AB Box 5343, Vädursgatan 6 SE 402 27 GöteborgbSweden
Tel: +46 (0)10-615 60 00 Fax: +46 (0)31-40 39 52 www.ramboll.se
Unr 61471042299000 Corp. ID no. 556133-0506
Table of contents 1. Specific conditions regarding air pollution and noise in Gothenburg ..... 1 1.1 Air pollution ...... 1 1.2 Noise ...... 2 2. Air pollution and noise as a result of activities in Port of Gothenburg .... 3 2.1 Air pollution from Port of Gothenburg ...... 4 2.2 Noise emissions from Port of Gothenburg ...... 5 2.2.1 Estimation of how much noise can be reduced ...... 9
3)[1] final.docx - urg_january_2012_(with_appendices_1 feasibility_study_onshore_power_supply_port_of_gothenb \ engelsk version \ rapport \ vinnova \ i elanslutning \ sustainability
\ Förutsättningar avseende luftföroreningar och buller ghab
\ Fel! Hittar inte referenskälla. y: Unr 61471042299000
Onshore power supply for ships Conditions with regard to air pollution and noise
1. Specific conditions regarding air pollution and noise in Gothenburg
Onshore power for ships in port can above all reduce emissions of air pollution from port operations. In addition noise can be reduced to some extent. To assess the benefit of onshore power, the general situation regarding air and noise in the vicinity of the port is described below.
1.1 Air pollution Nitrogen dioxide is the air pollutant for which it is most difficult to meet the environmental quality standard in Gothenburg and which moreover is a good indicator for the general air quality. It is also the air pollutant which normally determines whether the environmental quality standard (EQS) for outdoor air is exceeded or not. In conjunction with the Town Planning Department and the Traffic Office, the Environmental Administration in Gothenburg is conducting the project Clean City Air 2 which includes production of dispersion diagrams for nitric oxides at the end of every year. These dispersion diagrams show the locations in Gothenburg where the contents of nitric oxides exceed EQS. Red areas represent
places where environmental quality standards for nitrogen dioxide are exceeded, while orange and yellow areas represent respectively the upper and lower evaluation threshold. 3)[1] final.docx - urg_january_2012_(with_appendices_1
Mean annual value NOx in 2009 feasibility_study_onshore_power_supply_port_of_gothenb \ engelsk version \ rapport \ 2 vinnova \ http://www.goteborg.se/wps/portal 1 of 10 elanslutning \ sustainability
\ Förutsättningar avseende luftföroreningar och buller ghab
\ Fel! Hittar inte referenskälla. y: Unr 61471042299000
Mean daily value NOx in 2009
3)[1] final.docx -
Mean hourly value NOx in 2009 Figure 3 Contents of nitric oxides in Gothenburg city in 2009, from Clean City Air, Gothenburg municipality. 012_(with_appendices_1
The dispersion diagrams Figure 3 show that the contents are highest along the major through routes – E6, E20, Oskarsleden, Lundbyleden, the mouths of the Tingstad and Lundby tunnels, and the city centre, but also at the Skandiahamnen and Älvsborghamnen ports.
1.2 Noise The Environmental Administration in Gothenburg has commissioned a survey and 3 calculation of the number of people exposed to noise in Gothenburg municipality . dy_onshore_power_supply_port_of_gothenburg_january_2 The survey comprises noise from road and rail traffic. An assessment of IPPC
facilities and major ports and airports was included in the assessment. The feasibility_stu \
engelsk version \ 3 Survey and calculation of number of people exposed to noise according to the Ordinance rapport \ on Noise from the Surroundings - SFS 2004:675, Gothenburg Environmental Administration, vinnova 2007 \ 2 of 10 elanslutning \ sustainability
Förutsättningar avseende luftföroreningar och buller \ ghab
Fel! Hittar inte referenskälla. \ y: Unr 61471042299000
measurements used to assess the exposure are the two new EU-wide measurements:
• LDEN - a mean value over 24 hours with a higher evaluation of the noise during evening- and night-time and • LNIGHT a mean value for the night (22-06).
Noise levels calculated from road traffic are shown in Figure 4. The colour chart that is used to present noise levels is on the right.
3)[1] final.docx - urg_january_2012_(with_appendices_1
Figure 4 Survey of noise from road traffic in Gothenburg 2007
2. Air pollution and noise as a result of activities in Port of Gothenburg
Among the most important environmental aspects to consider in port operations is feasibility_study_onshore_power_supply_port_of_gothenb \ emissions of air pollution and noise. These aspects are also the most important for the activities in Port of Gothenburg, where parts of the operation are located in
engelsk version such a way as to contribute to the air pollution situation and noise exposure in \ relation to housing. rapport \ vinnova \ 3 of 10 elanslutning \ sustainability
\ Förutsättningar avseende luftföroreningar och buller ghab
\ Fel! Hittar inte referenskälla. y: Unr 61471042299000
2.1 Air pollution from Port of Gothenburg The Environmental Administration monitors the air in Gothenburg partly through measurements, and partly through calculations. The air pollution control
programme calculates emissions of nitric oxides (NOX) in Gothenburg municipality. The emissions include road traffic, industrial energy/heating (including energy from waste plants), shipping, work vehicles and other sources (agriculture and motor vehicles), see Figure 5 The figures are derived from Gothenburg City's annual environmental report for 2007. The calculations were carried out by the Environmental Administration in Gothenburg in 2008.
Sources of Tonne/year emissions Road traffic 2100 Industry 945 Energy/Heating 452 Shipping 5004 Work vehicles 1690 Other 304 Total 10,495 Figure 5 Calculation of nitrogen oxide emissions in Gothenburg in 2007, carried out by the Environmental Administration in Gothenburg.
Emissions from quays in Port of Gothenburg, 2008 (which also includes the Stena
terminals) are shown in Figure 6 and Table 2. The NO X emissions that have been calculated are an extract from the calculation on which the ship emissions in the 3)[1] final.docx municipality is based. It is based on calculations of the port's registered dockings. - Everything that is discharged within the municipality's borders is included. The power used by the ships out at sea and when manoeuvring is often greater than when in port. This also means that the emissions in port can constitute a smaller proportion of the total emissions. The emissions at quayside are based on lay-days 012_(with_appendices_1 (minute value) with power extracted for auxiliary engines, output of auxiliary engines, type of fuel and emissions factors. It is compensated for existing
electrical connection and any NO X certificate. dy_onshore_power_supply_port_of_gothenburg_january_2 feasibility_stu \ engelsk version \ rapport \ vinnova \ 4 of 10 elanslutning \ sustainability
Förutsättningar avseende luftföroreningar och buller \ ghab
Fel! Hittar inte referenskälla. \ y: Unr 61471042299000
Figure 6. Estimated emissions from ships at Port of Gothenburg's berths for 2008, carried out by the Environmental Administration, Gothenburg
Table 2 Emissions into the air of NOx, SO2, CO2, PM10 and VOC, at the different
3)[1] final.docx parts of Port of Gothenburg. - Quay Quay Quay Quay Quay emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions NOx SO 2 CO 2 PM 10 VOC Port section (tonne) (tonne) (tonne) (tonne) (tonne) Arendal 19.2 4.2 3225 0.47 0.36 Frihamnen 48.9 3.2 2447 0.36 0.71 urg_january_2012_(with_appendices_1 Ryahamnen 23.8 1.5 1188 0.17 0.34 Skandiahamnen 354.6 23.1 17733 2.57 5.14 Skarvikshamnen 209.8 13.7 10490 1.52 3.04 Torshamnen 73.8 4.8 3688 0.54 1.07 Älvsborgshamnen 112.9 15.9 12218 1.77 2.8
2.2 Noise emissions from Port of Gothenburg Prior to GHAB's permit application in 2002, Ingemansson Technology conducted a
feasibility_study_onshore_power_supply_port_of_gothenb complete external noise study. The sound levels were measured at a number of \ check points: In addition, the sound levels were calculated at these points with data from near field measurements in connection with the various noise sources. engelsk version \ rapport
\ It was also possible to establish the individual contributions of noise from sources, which is necessary for assessing the prospects of alleviating the noise. Figure vinnova \ 5 of 10 elanslutning \ sustainability
\ Förutsättningar avseende luftföroreningar och buller ghab
\ Fel! Hittar inte referenskälla. y: Unr 61471042299000
shows the sound levels to which activities in the port and the actual ships gave rise in the surroundings in connection with the maximum output calculated in production. However, the sound levels can vary depending on which ships are docked in the different parts of the port. The noise study relates to night-time, 00.00-07.00.
3)[1] final.docx Figure 5 Noise distribution from the operations in Skandiahamnen and - Älvsborghamnen ports, 00-07, from Ingemansson's report 12-00094-A, 2002-03- 15
As shown in Figure , the noise spreads southwards to the southern shore of the 012_(with_appendices_1 river where housing is located. Sound levels presented refer to normal activities in the port. A northerly wind direction is assumed on the southern shore, despite the fact that it is only in exceptional cases that the wind comes from the north. With other wind directions the sound levels are lower. The parts of the port that produce the most noise in connection with housing are the Skandiahamnen and Älvsborgshamn ports. High sound levels occur at Arken, which however is not housing but a hotel and conference facility.
Noise from ships has been studied specifically and is shown in Figure 7. dy_onshore_power_supply_port_of_gothenburg_january_2 feasibility_stu \ engelsk version \ rapport \ vinnova \ 6 of 10 elanslutning \ sustainability
Förutsättningar avseende luftföroreningar och buller \ ghab
Fel! Hittar inte referenskälla. \ y: Unr 61471042299000
3)[1] final.docx -
Figure 7 Estimated equivalent sound levels from sources of noise measured at ships at quayside, from Ingemansson's report 12-02540 rev. 2008.
The noise calculations show that ships account for a major part of the noise from the port operation. urg_january_2012_(with_appendices_1 feasibility_study_onshore_power_supply_port_of_gothenb \ engelsk version \ rapport \ vinnova \ 7 of 10 elanslutning \ sustainability
\ Förutsättningar avseende luftföroreningar och buller ghab
\ Fel! Hittar inte referenskälla. y: Unr 61471042299000
Figure 7 Noise distribution from all oil ports, 24 hours a day, from Ingemansson's report 12-00094-A, 2002-03-15
Noise from the oil ports is shown in Figure . Noise from Torshamnen port is deemed not to give rise to any significant nuisance. The operation in Ryahamnen port is small and not considered to represent significant disturbance either. The 3)[1] final.docx operation in Skarvikshamnen port has been specifically studied and is shown in - Figure
012_(with_appendices_1 dy_onshore_power_supply_port_of_gothenburg_january_2 feasibility_stu \ engelsk version \ rapport \ vinnova \ 8 of 10 elanslutning \ sustainability
Förutsättningar avseende luftföroreningar och buller \ ghab
Fel! Hittar inte referenskälla. \ y: Unr 61471042299000
Figure 8 Estimated equivalent sound levels from sources of noise from all activities 3)[1] final.docx - within the oil ports, from Ingemansson's report 12-02540 rev. 2008
Noise from ships is the predominant source and there are difficulties in meeting the guideline values for external industrial noise from the operation.
The noise levels can vary from day to day depending on which activity is
urg_january_2012_(with_appendices_1 underway and which ship is in dock. As shown by the above results, noise from both loading and unloading operations and the ships must be suppressed if it is to be possible to appreciably reduce sound levels in the surroundings. In many cases the ships' auxiliary machinery causes low-frequency sound disturbance in the vicinity.
2.2.1 Estimation of how much noise can be reduced Supplying onshore power to ships will not eliminate all noise from the port operation. A large proportion of the port's noise arises in connection with loading and unloading, transportation etc. In terms of noise from ships, several sources of feasibility_study_onshore_power_supply_port_of_gothenb \ noise will remain, e.g. cargo hold ventilation, noise from pumps and other sources that are powered by the ships' electrical systems. engelsk version \ rapport
\ The Stena Line shipping company has conducted its own noise study concerning onshore power for the ship STENA DANICA (verbal communication with Cecilia vinnova \ 9 of 10 elanslutning \ sustainability
\ Förutsättningar avseende luftföroreningar och buller ghab
\ Fel! Hittar inte referenskälla. y: Unr 61471042299000
Svensson, Environmental Controller, Stena Line, Gothenburg, January 2011). The results for this ship showed that onshore power reduced the noise by an average of -5dB(A) at the houses closest to the ship's berth. However, the size of the reduction is different for different ships, which auxiliary engines and systems they have running etc. Stena Line's permit application includes an appendix concerning noise with noise maps that show the scenario before connection to an onshore supply. The study that shows -5dB(A) with onshore power is under completion.
3)[1] final.docx - 012_(with_appendices_1 dy_onshore_power_supply_port_of_gothenburg_january_2 feasibility_stu \ engelsk version \ rapport \ vinnova \ 10 of 10 elanslutning \ sustainability
Förutsättningar avseende luftföroreningar och buller \ ghab
Fel! Hittar inte referenskälla. \ y: Unr 61471042299000