A new white paper by ICCT analysts examines the costs and benefits of shore power at the port of Shenzhen which is the world’s third largest container port in China and concludes that it is more costly to use shore power than fuel switching.
Shore power has been installed in more than 10 ports worldwide in the past decade, but its life cycle emissions reduction and cost effectiveness have not been examined in depth. This analysis develops an emissions inventory for container ships at the Port of Shenzhen, China, examines the life cycle emissions savings from using onshore power to supplant diesel consumption from ships, calculates the cost effectiveness of onshore power, and compares the results to the cost effectiveness of using fuel switching that can achieve smaller, yet significant, emissions reductions.
The analysis shows that in 2012 container ships at berth in the Port of Shenzhen emitted 3,400 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 4,200 tonnes of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 400 tonnes of particulate matter (PM), and 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), comparable to emissions from container ships hoteling at the Port of Hong Kong. By purchasing electricity from Hong Kong to use for onshore power at the Port of Shenzhen in 2020, the port will reduce emissions of SO2 by 88%, NO2 by 94%, PM by 95%, and CO2 by 37%. On the other hand, onshore power is expensive when compared with fuel switching. The per-tonne costs of reducing NO2, PM, SO2 and CO2 are close to $56,000, $1.4 million, $290,000, and $2,300, respectively, provided 80% of container ships calling at the Port of Shenzhen use onshore power in 2020. The per-tonne cost will be even higher if fewer ships take advantage of onshore power. In comparison, switching from 0.5% (maximum sulfur content) marine diesel oil to 0.1% marine gas oil (MGO) would lower the cost of reducing PM emissions by 80%, assuming MGO supply is guaranteed. This strategy, however, does not contribute to NOX reduction
This research indicates that for Port of Shenzhen, and potentially the rest of the ports in China, fuel switching is generally taking precedence over onshore power because
(1) it is cheaper and technologically less challenging, and
(2) because PM emissions, for most cities in China, are the largest threat to public health.
The onshore power alternative should only take priority if a low sulfur fuel supply cannot be guaranteed, NOX emissions are dominant concerns, or onshore power infrastructure is already established.
This analysis also highlights the importance of a detailed emissions inventory, without which it is impossible to conduct a cost effectiveness analysis. The Port of Shenzhen still lacks accurate emissions data and inventories for other ship types, which is also an issue for most other Chinese ports. Nevertheless, this research shows that the combination of Automatic Identification System (AIS) data and general ship information for vessels calling at a port can be used as an alternative and are largely available across major ports in China
Learn more by reading the White Paper
Source: Wilson Center
