Ditching diesel at ports and switching to electrification

According to the International Maritime Organization, shipping was responsible for more than 1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in 2018. A significant portion of these emissions came from port activities, including ship berthing, cargo handling, and transportation within port areas. In response, governments, NGOs, and environmental watchdogs are raising awareness and advocating urgent action to reduce pollution in the world’s ports.

One of the most promising solutions for decarbonizing port operations is electrifying these facilities. The plan envisions ships plugging into dockside power instead of running diesel-powered auxiliary generators for lighting, cargo handling, heating and cooling, accommodations, and shipboard electronics. It also calls for replacing diesel-powered cranes, forklifts, and trucks that move giant shipping containers from ships to shore with battery-powered alternatives.

To learn more about this transformative approach: IEEE Spectrum We recently interviewed John Prosalidis, a leading advocate for port electrification. A professor of marine electrical engineering at the National Technical University of Athens, Prosalidis has played a key role in developing standards for port electrification through his involvement with the IEEE, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). As vice chair of the IEEE Marine Power Systems Steering Committee, he has played a key role in advancing these ideas. Last year, Prosalidis co-authored a seminal paper entitled “Total Energy Transformation of Ports: The Proteus Plan.” Published in IEEE Electrification Magazine. In this paper, Prousalidis and his co-authors outline a comprehensive vision for the future of port operations. Key elements of the Proteus plan were incorporated into a policy document on smart and sustainable ports, coordinated by Prousalidis within the European Public Policy Committee Energy Working Group. The policy document was approved by the IEEE Global Policy Committee in July 2024.

Professor John ProusalidisJohn Prosalidis

What exactly is “cold ironing”?

John Prusalidis: Cold-airing involves turning off the ship’s propulsion and auxiliary engines while in port and instead using shore-based electricity to power onboard systems such as air conditioning, cargo handling equipment, galleys and lighting. This reduces emissions, especially since powering from renewable sources is more environmentally friendly than burning diesel fuel on-site. Technical challenges include matching the ship’s voltage and frequency to those of other local power grids, typically around the world, and addressing grounding issues to prevent short circuits.

IEEE, along with IEC and ISO, developed a joint standard called 80005. This is a series of three different standards for high-voltage and low-voltage connections. This is probably the “most popular” standard (along with Wi-Fi, which is a wireless communication standard), as every government agency tends to make laws that dictate what standards every port must follow to power ships.

How widely adopted has this standard been?

Prusalidis: The European Union has mandated full compliance by January 1, 2030. In the United States, California took a similar lead in 2010. These aggressive electrification improvements are now being adopted globally, with support from the International Maritime Organization.

Let’s talk about another interesting idea that is part of the plan – regenerative braking of cranes. How does it work?

Prusalidis: When unloading a shipping container, the crane in regenerative braking mode converts the kinetic energy into electrical charge instead of wasting it as heat. Just like an electric car when it stops, the energy is fed back into the crane battery, saving up to 50% in energy costs. A conservative estimate is around 20%.

For example, what is the estimated up-front cost of implementing cold ironing at the Port of Los Angeles, the largest port in the United States?

Prusalidis: The cost of a turnkey solution is approximately $1.7 million per megawatt, including grid upgrades, infrastructure and equipment. Using established rules of thumb, a rough estimate would be around $300 million. The electrification process at the port has already begun. As far as I know, there are about 60 or more electrical connection points for ships docked there.

If the world’s 10 largest and busiest ports were fully electrified with renewable energy, how much would carbon emissions be reduced compared to today’s levels?

Prusalidis: If ports were fully electrified using renewable energy, the EU’s policy could reduce ship emissions in port areas by 100%. Under the IMO’s approach, which takes into account each country’s energy mix, this could lead to a 60% reduction. This significant reduction in emissions means a reduction in CO2 emissions.₂By removing nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and particulate matter, ships reduce their contribution to global warming and lower health risks in nearby populated areas.

If everything goes according to plan and every country with a port makes a full commitment to electrification, how long do you think it would realistically take to fully decarbonize that aspect of transport?

Prusalidis: As I said, the EU aims to electrify its ports by January 1, 2030. But there are about 600-700 ports in Europe alone, and they need grid upgrades, so delays are possible. Nevertheless, we should focus on meeting the 2030 deadline rather than expecting an extension. This reminds me of what Alan Shepard, the Gemini and Apollo pioneer, said when he described the difference between a test pilot and a regular professional pilot: “Let’s say each of us has 10 seconds before we crash. The regular pilot thinks, ‘I’m going to go to the next level.’ In 10 seconds I will die. The test pilot will tell himself: I have 10 seconds to save myself and the spaceship..” The point is that in a critical situation like the fight against global warming, we need to focus on the time we have to solve the problem, not what will happen when the time is up. But humanity has no eject button to press if it does not do everything it can to avoid the detrimental consequences of a failed “Save the Planet” project.