Shore-Side Electrification Port of Long Beach Perspective Ari Steinberg Senior Program Manager Clean Ships: Advanced Technology for Clean Air February 7-9, 2007, San Diego
Port Operations Pollutant Contribution by Source Rail Locomotives 13% (4,533 tons)
DPM Rail Locomotives 6% (111 tons) Heavy-Duty Vehicles 10% (188 tons) Cargo Handling Equipment 14% (259 tons) Harbor Craft 11% (218 tons)
Ocean-Going Vessel 36% (12,834 tons)
Heavy-Duty Vehicles 26% (9,264 tons)
Cargo Handling Equipment 12% (4,234 tons)
NOx
Harbor Craft 13% (4,603 tons)
Ocean-Going Vessel 59% (1,136 tons)
Cargo Handling Equipment 1% (55 tons) Harbor Craft 6% (520 tons)
Heavy-Duty Vehicles 1% (120 tons)
Rail Locomotives 2% (133 tons)
Source:
Port of Los Angeles Baseline 2001 & Port of Long Beach Baseline 2002
SOx Ocean-Going Vessels 90% (8,019 tons)
Clean Air Action Plan Foundations •
Work cooperatively to minimize adverse environmental impacts of operations
•
Build upon Ports & Tenants existing programs
•
Reduce “Fair Share” of port-related operational emissions
•
Ensure that all new projects meet health risk criteria
•
Action Plan is a “Living Document” which will be updated & improved annually
Path to Cold Ironing • Cost Effectiveness Study – Assess Opportunities and Constraints for “Shore-to-Ship” Electrification and Other Potential Control Options – Identify Necessary Infrastructure on Vessels and Terminals – Estimate Cost-Effectiveness of All Options – Identify Potential Legal, Safety, Regulatory, and Labor Issues
• Green Port Policy – Implementation of environmental covenants through leases – Expansion of environmental practices to tenant facilities – Expansion of Cooperative Efforts with Regulatory Agencies and POLA
Path to Cold Ironing (contd.) • Electrical Infrastructure Program – Manage the strategic planning, development, and improvement of the Port’s electrical infrastructure – Comprehensive Electrical Master Plan – Standardization of Cold Ironing Infrastructure – Identification of Cold Ironing Procedures – Achieve favorable electrical rates
• Engineering Design • Construction
Pier A
Pier C
Pier E
Pier S
Pier T
BP Liquid Bulk
Cruise Terminal Pier G
Sea Launch Pier J
Cold Ironing Commitments Initial 16 Ship Berths (Five Year Program) Total Order of Magnitude Cost $129 Million ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾
Pier A – 1 berth retrofit Pier C – 2 berths retrofit Pier E – 1 berth new build Pier G – 1 berth new build – 2 berths retrofit ¾ Pier J – 1 berth retrofit
¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾
Pier S – 3 berths new build Pier T – 1 berth retrofit BP T121 – 1 berth retrofit Cruise Terminal – 1 berth retrofit Sea Launch – 2 berths retrofit
Future Total of 31 Cold Ironed Berths Total Order of Magnitude Cost $201 Million
Cold Ironing Status Sixteen Berths in 2011 (retrofit of 11 berths, construction of 5 new) Thirty-One Berths in the Future (21 total retrofit, 10 total new build)
• Construction Currently Underway – BP Liquid Bulk Import Terminal at T121 (1 berth) – Pier G Container Terminal (1 berth, 2 additional during 2007)
• Cold Ironing Facilities Currently Being Designed – Pier C Container Terminal (2 berths)
• Environmental Document Preparation in Progress – Pier E Container Terminal (5 berths) – Pier S Container Terminal (3 berths)
New Lease Agreement - Matson Pier C Container Terminal, New Lease Amendment
– Cold-Iron 5 Vessels by 2012 – Phase-Out Steamships – Retrofit Remaining Diesel-Powered Vessels: • Phase I: 80% control • Phase II: 90% control
– Low Sulfur Auxiliary Engine Fuel: • June 2007 – 0.2% Sulfur • January 2008 – 0.1% Sulfur
– Replace all CHE with Tier 4 by September 2011
New Lease Agreement - ITS Pier G Container Terminal, New Master Lease
– Cold-iron 15 Vessels by 2012 – Retrofit Diesel-Powered Vessels: • 50 vessel calls/cold-ironed berth • 100% cold-ironing when all berths retrofitted
– Distillate Auxiliary Engine Fuel: • September 2006 – Replace all CHE with Tier 4 by September 2011
Forecasted Power Demand Container Terminals Individual Loads Non - Coincidence Peak power Demand - Load Profile 100 90
Peak Demand (MVA)
80 70
Wharf Cranes
60
Yard Elec. Reefers
50
Shore-Ship
40
Area Lgt.
30
Misc.
20 10 0 2010
2015
2020 Year
2025
2030
Forecasted Power Demand Total load - Container & Non-container Terminals Non-concident Peak Power Demand - Load Profile 250
Total
200 Peak Power (MVA)
Container Non-Container 150
100
50
0 2010
2015
2020 Year
2025
2030
Forecasted Power Demand
Demand (MVA)
All Terminals - Total POLB Coincident Peak
200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Peak Average
2006
2010
2015
2020 Year
2025
2030
Container Terminal Cold Ironing • Project Challenges – Construction constraints – Integration of cold ironing into terminal operations – Electrical design requirements
• Specific Shore-Ship Electrical Elements • Lessons Learned
BP Liquid Bulk Terminal • Project Challenges – Construction constraints – Integration of cold ironing into terminal operations – Electrical design requirements
• Specific Shore-Ship Electrical Elements – Load Tap Changing (LTC) transformer – Bumpless power transformer – Control cable
• Cable Management System Platform Placement • Lessons Learned
Thank You
BP Shipping
A general overview of some of the technical aspects of ‘Cold-Ironing’ for LNG Carriers and Oil Tankers
Nick Tinsley Marine Engineer Technical Assurance Group BP Shipping (USA)
Where is BP? Gas Carriers • Provision for Cold-Ironing is being made on the ‘GEM’ Class 155,000m3 HHI new build Gas Carriers • Provision for Cold-Ironing is being made at the proposed Crown Landing LNG terminal for 50% of cargos
Where is BP? Oil tankers • Provision for Cold-Ironing is being made at Port Of Long Beach Berth 121 • BP has committed to Cold-Iron 120 discharges over a ten year period of the Alaska Class 185,000mt DWT oil tankers operated by ATC at POLB Berth 121
Where is BP? • BP Shipping has submitted their “Guideline for Onshore Power Supply Systems For Tanker Vessel Shore Power” to ISO & OCIMF for consideration and is contributing to working groups run by both organisations. • BP Shipping is leading the effort to establish the LNG Cold Ironing standard via the ISO TC8/SC3.
Interface requirements − Power Cable; − Cable Management System; − Shipboard Connection Location; − Personnel Safety; − Power Transfer Requirements; − Voltage Considerations; − Control, Signal, and Alarm Interface; − Bonding, Grounding, and Ground Fault Indication; − Emergency Cable Disconnect and ESD Philosophy for Onshore Power Supply;
Cable Management Systems Oil Tanker
LNG Carrier
Shipboard Connection Locations LNG Carrier
Oil Tanker
POSSIBLE COLD IRONING LOCATIONS SHOWN IN GREY 155K GEM Class Port = 117.0 m Stbd = 111.5 m
Power Transfer Requirements and Voltage Considerations • Shore side supply reliability − The shore supply is the equivalent of running a single onboard generator while discharging − There is inherently a single point of failure − There are a number of standby generators available onboard • The shore supply and the cold ironing equipment needs to be very reliable • The shore powering facility shall be sized to continuously deliver [7.5 MVA] (minimum) of power at nominal transmission voltages of 6.6 kV
Control, Signal, and Alarm Interface − Vessel Power Management System will provide automatic synchronising facility for power transfer without black-out • The above control signals will require a dedicated copper control cable or a fibre optic control cable built within the power cable
Emergency Cable Disconnect and ESD Philosophy for Onshore Power Supply • Example In Line Coupler (Pigtail) with Break Away Bolt and Nut
Any Questions?
Cavotec Alternative Maritime Power supply Clean Ships Conference – San Diego February 7 – 9, 2007
By Ottonel Popesco, CEO of Cavotec MSL Holdings Ltd.
1
Alternative Maritime Power Alternative Maritime Power
Cavotec AMP and MoorMaster Systems Solutions for a clean environment
2
Alternative Maritime Power Shore-to-Ship power
Shore-to-Ship power is not a new technology, and it has been installed on different type of ships since many years. The Cavotec MSL Group has now more than 19 years of experience in this technology, helping the maritime industry to find new solutions to solve the technical problems and to follow the evolution of the ships.
3
Alternative Maritime Power Our Experience – Shore based system
Our experience started with Low Voltage Shore-to-Ship connection with a low power demand as: Ferries
GĂśteborg Port -Sweden- 1988 4
Alternative Maritime Power Our Experience – Shore based system
Our experience started with Low Voltage Shore-to-Ship connection with a low power demand as: Ferries Icebreakers
Various Ports since 1992 5
Alternative Maritime Power Our Experience – Barge System
In 2003 we worked together with POLA in developing a new system for an electrical Shore-to-Ship connection with new technical challenges:
High Voltage power supplied from the wharf
Low Voltage supplied to the ship
No space available on the wharf
Increased power supply (4 MVA)
Barge – POLA Pier 100 - 2004 6
Alternative Maritime Power Our Experience – Barge System
What did we learn from the experience with the Barge System
‰
Reduce number of cables using a High Voltage connection to the ship
7
Alternative Maritime Power Our Experience – Barge System
What did we learn from the experience with the Barge System
Reduce number of cables using an High Voltage connection to the ship Avoid to lift up the cables: too labor intensive
8
Alternative Maritime Power Our Experience – Barge System
What did we learn from the experience with the Barge System
Reduce number of cables using an High Voltage connection to the ship
Avoid to lift up the cables: too labor intensive
Reduce size of the plugs. They must be easy to handle
9
Alternative Maritime Power Our Experience – Barge System
We did we learn from the experience with the Barge System
Reduce number of cables using an High Voltage connection to the ship
Avoid to lift up the cables: too labor intensive
Reduce size of the plugs. They must be easy to handle
Screw type plug/socket is too difficult to handle 10
Alternative Maritime Power Our experience: Ship based System
The solution to improve the Barge System was to develop a Ship Based System with following technical characteristics:
Shore-to-ship power 6,6 kV up to 8 MVA
Cable Management System installed on deck of the ship. One or two cables depending from the Ship size
Shore JB with 2 receptacles up to 350A each
Push-pull system for plug/socket connection
F.O. communication integrated in the power Plug/socket
11
Alternative Maritime Power Ship based system – Our equipments
Cable Management System installed on Deck
Two cables up to 8 MVA
One cable up to 4 MVA 12
Alternative Maritime Power Ship based system – Our equipments on ship
Cable Management System installed on Deck
Retractile cable arm to avoid interference with ship hull
Compact construction of Power and F.O. collector (waterproof) to reduce installation space
Reduced drum size to permit installation between decks or in a container
13
Alternative Maritime Power Ship Based System : MSC Rania
14
Alternative Maritime Power Ship based system – Our equipments on shore
Plug/Socket Type PC5
Max current capacity 350A
Housing in tempered cast marine grade aluminium
Weight less than 15 Lbs
IP 66 when connected and properly closed
F.O. integrated in the plug housing
Under test in UL for application up to 7,2 kV
Standard in POLA/POLB 15
Alternative Maritime Power Ship based system – Our equipments on shore
Shore Junction Box
Two push-pull receptacles: Red and Blue
Kirk-Key safety interlocking system
Fibre Optic receptacle
Electric static discharger
16
Alternative Maritime Power Present situation
Container ships newbuildings, in units From 2005 to 2008 the newbuildings over 5.000 TEU capacity to be delivered ,are 360 ships, of which 51 ships with AMP systems
14%
AMP No AMP
17
Alternative Maritime Power Present situation Ocean going carriers committed/fitted with AMP • NYK Japan • CSL China • Peter Doehle Germany • NSB-Conti Germany • Evergreen Taiwan • MSC Switzerland • CP Offen Germany for P&O • Patjens Germany for P&O • Yang Ming Taiwan • B & N Transocean Finland • Hansa Shipping • Italia Marittima • K-Lines • MOL Total 97 container ships delivered , on order or prepared for AMP 18
Automatic Mooring A step in the future
A reduction of the air pollution in Port area can be achieved by:
Shortening the time needed by the mooring operation permitting the ship: • to be shore connected faster • to reduce fuel consumption • No tug use on case of wind
Increasing Cargo operation efficiency: shorter port stay means less pollution 19
Automatic Mooring A step in the future MoorMaster the Vacuum Mooring System is a solution to help the environment
20
Automatic Mooring A step in the future MoorMaster reduces the time needed to approach the berth and to secure the ship when moored
‰
Secures ships in less than 15 seconds
‰
Let go the ship in less than 5 seconds
21
Alternative Maritime Power Shore Connection Solution for Aircrafts
For aircrafts Shore Power Supply is a standard since 40 years.
Cavotec Connectors 2 x 260A
22
Alternative Maritime Power Airbus A 380 with Cavotec‌ AMP: Power is 360 KW ,shore 200 V to aicraft 200 V
23
Alternative Maritime Power
The environment concerns all of us Sea Lions “resting “in the environmental advanced Ports of LA and LB
Thank You !
24
Shore-Side Electrification
Swedish perspective
Sweden Photo: Christer Fuglesang
Clean Ships: Advanced Technology for Clean Air Conference, San Diego, 7-9 February 2007
Shore-Side Electrification ร sa Wilske, Port of Gรถteborg, asa.wilske@portgot.se, www.portgot.se
Shore-Side Electrification
Swedish perspective • Introduction to Swedish Ports and Port of Göteborg • Experiences from Göteborg • How to get further development? • General comments & conclusions
Ports of Sweden Piteå
Stockholm
Göteborg
Visby Helsingborg
• 52 ports • 85 % of the export goods • 4 ports have shore-side electrification • About 20 vessels using shore-side electricity (roro and ferries)
Port of Göteborg Facts in short • Number one in Scandinavia • Oil, Roro, Container, Cars, Passenger, Cruise • The terminal operation and the Port Authority in one company • 1100 employees • 820 000 TEU/year • 11 Ship to shore cranes • 100 Roro calls/week • On-dock rail • North America 3 sailings/week • Container Security Initiative, CSI
Port of Gรถteborg AB ร lesund
Bergen
Kotka Helsinki
Oslo
Stavanger Brevik/Fredrikstad Tallinn Kristiansand
Gรถteborg Riga
Aarhus Klaipeda Gdynia
Gรถteborg the obvious and the green hub
St Petersburg
Environmental benefits/constraints Comparison of external and internal costs 0,50
Valuated Environmental costs 0,40
E u ro /k W h
Direct costs 0,30
0,20
0,10
Onboard generated power - HFO
Shore power
• Reduction of air emissions in the port • Noise reduction • Society is a winner • Offer a fossil free alternative • No benefit on the journey in between ports
Shore-side electrification for ships in Göteborg • First equipment for high voltage was installed in year 2000 • Wind powered • About 10 vessels are connecting • Ferries and Roro vessels so far • All new quays are prepared with canalization for shore-side electricity • Involved in the standardization work within ISO (wg Ferries)
Connection principles in Gรถteborg onboard transformer
sub station
6-20kV connection 6-20kV point
6-20kV
20-100kV
Cable connected to the vessel
Connection point at the quay
Outlet at the quay, connection point
Experiences so far • No functional problems • No extra personnel • Noise reduction appreciated by the personnel on board and in the port • No restrictions
How to get further? • Standardization • Economic incentives - tax exemption in Sweden - EU-recommendation • Sulphur directive (EU) In year 2010 shore-side electricity will be an alternative to 0,1% sulphur at berth • US and EU play an important role • Interest from Asia • Collaboration the way to success!
Offering Shore Side Electricity in Europe today Göteborg, Helsingborg, Piteå, Stockholm, Zeebrugge…
Shore-Side Electrification • not a universal measure • most effective for vessels that call frequently and have rather long port stops • combine it with other measures…
www.cleanshippingproject.se
Comments & conclusions • • • •
Available technique for a reasonable cost Not a universal measure For certain application: large environmental benefit The external costs not using SSE are high compared with internal cost for using SSE • Standardization needed and has started • Collaboration and economic incentives for further development • For further information www.portgot.se www.cleanshippingproject.se www.mariterm.se/nedladdningsbara_rapporter.html (shore-side electricity for ships report 2004) http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/pdf/task2_shoreside.pdf
Thank you for your attention!
Cost for energy generation Power generation cost 2006 incl2006 energy taxes Power generation kWh cost 0,160
Onboard generated power HFO
Onboard generated power MGO
0,140
0,120
Euro/kWh
0,100
0,080
0,060
0,040
0,020
0,000
Stena Line
Cobelfret
Shore power
tons emissions during port stop / year
Vessels calling Port of Gรถteborg 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 NO2
PM*10
99% of the vessels
S
1% of the vessels
tons emissions during port stop / year
Vessels calling Port of Gรถteborg 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 NO2
PM*10
99% of the vessels
S
1% of the vessels