3 minute read
Opinion
ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY WHERE IT MAKES SENSE
In the 2019 European Parliament, Vice President Timmermans clearly voiced his intention to tackle shipping emissions at berth in ports, writes Isabelle Ryckbost, secretary general, ESPO
In the Green Deal Communication which followed two months later, the Commission clearly stated that it will take action in maritime transport by obliging docked ships to use on shore power supply.
We do not know at this point what will come out of the Commission's pen but one thing is clear: The Commission will make existing requirements for on shore power supply (OPS) more stringent.
STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS
Current legislation does not set out requirements for the use of OPS by ships. For ports (the supply side), the 2014 AFID Directive obliges Members States to assess the need for OPS for both inland waterway and seagoing vessels in seaports and to ensure that OPS is installed as a priority in TEN-T core ports and in other ports by end of 2025, unless there is no demand and the costs are disproportionate to the benefits, including the environmental benefits.
SmartBooking allows processes to be further streamlined leading to a more efficient logistics ecosystem and an overall reduction in carbon footprint
As ESPO, we have been working closely with our members to identify how legislation can ensure that OPS helps deliver maximal emission reductions in the most cost-effective way. Based on a thorough assessment made by our member ports and intensive exchanges: Europe' ports want more OPS where it makes sense.
Many ports in Europe are therefore stepping up their efforts to deploy more OPS. But in doing so, ports want (and need) to prioritise their OPS investments where it makes most sense. The cost of installing OPS varies from port to port and from location to location in the port but one thing is clear, the price tag of OPS is very high. There is not one project known where OPS has been installed without public funding or support.
Let us then look at where OPS makes sense.
INDIVIDUAL BASIS
There are certain considerations which have to be made by each port individually: Location of the berth and of the port, berth size and layout to match the vessel connection, access to (public) funding, available grid capacity and access to renewable energy and space on the berth to integrate the OPS infrastructure.
Looking at shipping segments, one could think of prioritising shipping segments where the gain in terms of emissions reduction is the largest, such as ultra large container vessels. for each of these segments, one cannot consider them as a standalone criterium. Other considerations must be taken into account.
To illustrate this, cruise ships usually call on ports during a short season during the year, where several large cruise ships
8 Isabelle Ryckbost
can suddenly demand very high levels of grid capacity. Coming down from this peak, there can be an absence of demand for OPS during low season, which risks making OPS a non-starter for certain ports or in certain locations.
Europe's ports need a legislative framework that supports OPS where it makes sense. In order to deliver real emission reductions in a cost-effective manner, make the investment worth the while, and to avoid wasting (public) money, ESPO pleads for an intelligent approach.
Certain shipping segments could be put forward if they can be accompanied by the necessary conditions/considerations as explained above. On top of that, ports should have the possibility to make their own assessment on well-defined considerations taking into account the other available technologies within the same time limit. Moreover, OPS should be seen as a tool for greening shipping, not as an end in itself.
Photo: Hamburg Port Authority 8 ESPO says OPS
