There’s a stock image of the Shanghai skyline that regular readers of the news will be familiar with. It’s dusk, and across the Huangpu River, the city’s skyscrapers appear as pale silhouettes against a thick grey cloak of smog.
In December 2013, pollution levels in Shanghai were so high that schoolchildren were ordered indoors, construction work across the city was halted and people brave enough to walk outside could see no farther than a few dozen metres down the road.
China’s ports – famous for circulating the country’s cheap consumer goods around the world – had been traditionally overlooked as a source of pollution. But after tourism levels dropped and public alarm about air quality spiked, it was only a matter of time before people started pointing the finger.
Shoreside solutions
Last year, a report by the National Resources Defence Council found that a single container ship cruising along the coast of China emits as much diesel pollution in a day as "500,000 new Chinese trucks". Another report by the Shanghai Transport Commission (STC) found that ships were responsible for 12% of the city’s total SO2 emissions.
It was in response to the STC’s commission – as well as the wider panic – that the government set new targets for the Waigaoqiao port in Shanghai last year. Alongside fines for ships and boats caught discharging sewage at sea, at the heart of its plans was the introduction of shoreside power.
"The use of shoreside power is expected to reduce emissions of NOx by 99%, while particulate matter emissions will be at 3-17% compared with the use of auxiliary engines," said a recent statement from the Shanghai Municipal Development and Reform Commission. "According to a survey by the local authorities, international shipping at Shanghai port – especially at berth – is the main contributor to harmful air pollution, accounting for 90% of the emissions."
The decision of a major Asian city to introduce emission standards and cold ironing technology represents a significant moment for advocates of shoreside power. While the International Maritime Organization is tasked with overseeing environmental regulations across the world, it’s only really in the US and Europe that emission controls and cold ironing have been properly implemented.
Princess was the first cruise operator to introduce the technology, when it partnered with Juneau Port, Alaska, in 2001. Other installations in Seattle, Vancouver, San Francisco and, more recently, Brooklyn, have been the sole focus of the industry and trade press.
According to its advocates, cold ironing means more attractive port facilities and more traffic for the ports that install it. For ships, it means avoiding expensive and wasteful low-sulphur fuel when berthed, and lower operational costs. And for the hundreds of thousands of people living around cruise ships’ ports, facing daily contact with potentially life-threatening emissions, it means a much better quality of life.
But while these things are all positive at face value – the officials of the Shanghai Transport Commission have certainly been convinced – a strong, healthy debate about the effectiveness and viability of shoreside power is still transpiring in the industry.
Complexities in costs
This February, 5,000 miles from the Waigaoqiao port in Shanghai, a debate unfolded in London at a seminar organised by the British Society of Maritime Industries. The topic was the viability of shoreside power, and with leading figures in the industry keen to express their reservations, the seminar was a reminder that the wider cruise sector remains divided.
Unsurprisingly, one of the most significant lingering concerns is cost. According to the fleet director of Royal Caribbean International Cruises, Simon Zielonka – who was present at the London meeting – the cost of investment remains prohibitively high. For Royal Caribbean to get its entire fleet ready for cold ironing, Zielonka argues, it would cost $18 million, with retrofitting requiring ten times more capital than installing the technology on newbuilds would cost.
Zielonka’s argument is well grounded. According to the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) the price of refitting shoreside power on a single vessel can be anywhere between $300,000 and $2 million. It’s a major problem, as Francesco Balbi, former environmental coordinator at MSC cruises, now director of Cruise Operations at Alicante Cruise Terminal, explains.
"The modification process is a complex one," he says. "It involves power management systems, the creation of a new shore power switchboard room, and other safety and automation systems. You’ve also got to train the ship’s technical personnel to use the equipment, which can be challenging. So, I think cruise lines are carefully discussing the pros and cons, studying the best practices and verifying their reproducibility."
And the costs associated with cold ironing do not end with the ship installations that concern Zielonka and Balbi. A complete shoreside infrastructure, with the right cabling solutions and electricity substations, can be incredibly expensive, as is moving electricity from the source to the port terminal. According to the same study by the AAPA, that process alone can cost $1-3 million.
Of course, not everyone agrees with Zielonka’s take on the situation. At the London seminar, Peter Selway, marketing manager of Schneider Electric, argued in favour of cold ironing, pointing out that the costs can be manageable. Connecting a ship to alternative maritime power can take just 15 minutes, he said, and if managed correctly, a company could see return on its investment in just three years.
Hope for the EU
In Europe, a new EU directive on the deployment of alternative fuel infrastructure, passed in April 2014, aims to go some way towards helping with those costs. The legislative resolution primarily targets the adoption of new fuels, but it specifically acknowledges the importance of shoreside electricity for environmental protection.
Ports covered by the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) programme – first established in 2006 to support the improvement of transport infrastructure – will soon be able to access funding to help cover the costs of shoreside power projects, including 50% of the costs of R&D and 20% of implementation.
The EU directive is a positive step, but as well as being limited in scope, it probably won’t be able to answer all the industry’s questions. For some, the rise of new technology such as scrubbers and ultra-low-sulphur fuel means cold ironing is no longer even needed.
In May, Jim Newsome, president and CEO of South Carolina Ports Authority, upset environmental campaigners when he claimed improvements to air quality, made possible by new technology, had rendered shoreside power almost obsolete.
Others accept the utility of shoreside power but take issue with the lack of standardisation. Over the years, the International Standard Organization (ISO), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) have worked hard to articulate an international approach to cold ironing.
In 2012, new requirements on safety, cables and plugs were introduced, and a standard solution for connecting low-voltage vessels is currently being formed. But even with these changes, many claim that a truly international standard for connecting electric equipment is yet to be achieved.
"The standardisation of shoreside power remains an important factor in the development and implementation of the system," Balbi explains. "An itinerary where every port of call had a land-based electrical power facility would be a great incentive for cruise lines to really invest in retrofitting their ships, without having to wait for a return on investment. But at the moment, technical limitations, such as the availability and cost of secure power, the difference in land and onboard power frequency, and the need for frequency conversion, remain unsolved."
Back at the construction site of the Waigaoqiao port in Shanghai, the arguments over cold ironing may seem a little more abstract. As the project – and others like it in the US, Asia and Canada – shows, although the issues of cost and standardisation may be unresolved, things continue to move forwards. Certainly, where there are major environmental concerns – as there are in Shanghai – shoreside power will be looked to as part of the solution.
