Next Article in Journal
Importance of Purchasing Power and Education in the Food Security of Families in Rural Areas—Case Study: Chambo, Ecuador
Next Article in Special Issue
The Importance of Emerging Technologies to the Increasing of Corporate Sustainability in Shipping Companies
Previous Article in Journal
The Cost of Caring: Compassion Fatigue Is a Special Form of Teacher Burnout
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Framework for Adopting a Sustainable Smart Sea Port Index
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 10
10.3390/su14106072
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Barriers and Drivers to the Implementation of Onshore Power Supply—A Literature Review

by
Jon Williamsson
1,*,
Nicole Costa
2,
Vendela Santén
2 and
Sara Rogerson
2
1
Department of Business Administration, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, SE-40530 Gothenburg, Sweden
2
SSPA Sweden AB, SE-40022 Gothenburg, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(10), 6072; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106072
Submission received: 14 April 2022 / Revised: 13 May 2022 / Accepted: 14 May 2022 / Published: 17 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Technology and Innovation in Sustainable Shipping and Ports Management in Post Pandemic Era)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Onshore power supply (OPS) reduces emissions from vessels docked in port. Historically, the uptake of OPS has been low, and research indicates that potential OPS adopters face multiple complex barriers. Based on a systematic literature review, this paper presents a framework for categorizing barriers and drivers to the implementation of OPS and identifies potential areas for future research. The review indicates that research on barriers to OPS was limited until 2019, when interest increased considerably, coinciding with mounting stakeholder concerns and regulatory pressure. The suggested framework divides barriers and drivers divided into four key categories: (i) technology and operations, (ii) institutional elements, (iii) economic elements, and (iv) stakeholder elements. The framework then superimposes those categories on three main areas of concern: port, transmission, and vessel. Research has identified potential solutions to specific barriers, but the complexity of OPS highlights the need for a collaborative approach to OPS. Additionally, as regulatory pressure is rising, more research is needed on the systemic implications of OPS as well as the potential use of incentives, pricing, and business models to tackle the high cost of implementation.

1. Introduction

Onshore power supply (OPS), also known as cold ironing, shore-side electricity, or shore-side power, reduces emissions from ships in port by connecting them to the local electricity grid [1,2]. Among the many technologies that support the development of a more sustainable shipping sector [3], OPS has been identified as one of the most viable routes for local emissions reductions [2] and is believed to become a vital component in a broader push towards the electrification of maritime transport [4]. While ports may consider investing in local production of clean energy [5], the often limited space available for hardware [6] and the high power demand makes it likely that it is the national energy mix that determines the environmental impact of OPS. Assessments of emissions reductions of NOx, SO2, and CO2 while using the national energy mix have shown that in most of the leading maritime nations, the reductions would be considerable [7]. Estimates made in 2016 estimated EUR 2.94 billion in health benefits in 2020 from a complete adoption of OPS in Europe [8]. Later assessments show that total emissions from shipping in Europe could be reduced by 2.2% using 6.4 TWh of electricity, equivalent to 0.2% of Europe’s total output of electricity [9].
From a technical standpoint, the implementation of OPS is a straightforward process of installing compatible hardware in ports and vessels. Yet, the adoption rate of OPS is low. In the European Union (EU), only 31 ports provide high voltage OPS, and the adoption rate among the global vessel fleet varies between different categories, with the highest rate found among cruise ships (8.9%), followed by container ships (8.8%) and roll-on roll-off passenger ferries (1.1%) [10]. The pandemic further complicated the situation. Ship deliveries declined in 2020, and as the world fleet ages [11], the financial challenge to invest in OPS grows for ship owners because fewer remaining years in service will mean that the cost of retrofitting needs to be recovered during a truncated time interval [6]. The decision to include the maritime sector in the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) has increased pressure on the sector to reduce emissions from fossil fuels [12,13]. Furthermore, in the “Fit for 55” package (Deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure: Fit for 55 package), shore-side electricity is indicated as a solution that must be implemented quickly and broadly.
The slow spread of OPS is caused by considerable barriers to adoption [2]. It has been suggested that the comparative cost of fuel versus electricity, the cost of investments in hardware, as well as under-developed standards and weak legislation have formed obstacles that are difficult to overcome for prospective users [14]. An overview of research on OPS indicates that publications mainly discusses anticipated barriers and drivers rather than exploring successful cases [4]. Previous studies also adopt disparate and nonmatching categorizations of barriers. Furthermore, as technology and policy advance, new topics have become increasingly important for the adoption of OPS. A literature review would thus help both researchers and practitioners by compiling and structuring key concerns found in existing research.
Based on the identified research gap and the increased pressure on the maritime sector to adopt OPS, this paper aims to provide a unified categorization of barriers and drivers to the implementation of OPS based on a systematic literature review. The paper also seeks to pinpoint underdeveloped research areas linked to barriers and drivers for the implementation of OPS.
In Section 2, we describe the method used. Section 3 presents a framework for the categorization of barriers and drivers found in the literature, which divides them into four principal categories and three areas of concern. Section 4 discusses the importance of the results and suggestions for future research. Section 5 concludes the paper by summarizing key results.

2. Materials and Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted using Web of Science (WoS). A preliminary list of search terms was compiled based on recent publications on OPS, e.g., [15,16]. The initial reading showed that there are multiple synonyms for OPS. Besides cold ironing —a term originating from the practice of shutting down and letting coal-fired iron engines go cold during long stays in port [14]—terms such as “shore-side electricity” and “shore-side power” appear frequently. While “shore-side electricity” excludes the use on other shore-side provided energy services, such as heating and cooling of vessels, the term accentuates the function of shifting power load from onboard engines to an external power source and enables not only port-to-vessel but also vessel-to-vessel power transfer [2]. From the reading of the terminology, a list of search terms was defined to be used for searches in all fields in WoS: “cold ironing”; OR “shore-side electricity”; OR “onshore power supply”; OR “shore-side power”; AND “port”; OR “barriers”; OR “challenges”. The search terms were chosen to help identify quality publications that described barriers and drivers for the adoption of OPS while eliminating non-OPS related research. In Table 1, the results from each combination of search terms are presented as per December 2021.
All the searches were compared to eliminate duplicates, and out of this process, a total of 82 unique papers were identified. The papers were distributed per year of publication as shown in Figure 1. The figure shows the growth of publications and indicates a recent rise in academic interest.
The papers were published in fifty-one different journals, with only six journals having more than two papers included in the sample. In Figure 2, the six most popular journals in the WoS sample are presented graphically with the number of publications and their percentage share of the total sample.
Once the papers had been identified and accessed, the results were categorized and analysed based on the framework suggested by [17]. Papers not dealing with barriers and drivers were excluded from the next step of the analysis, eliminating 51 papers. Some of the excluded papers are referred to in this review due to their importance in relation to other topics. While analysing the remaining 31 papers, 19 dealt with barriers and challenges associated with the four synonyms used for OPS, while 12 papers studied drivers or success factors associated with OPS. The 31 papers are listed in Appendix A. The literature review identified additional sources which are referred to in this study but which are not included in the statistics found above.

3. Results

The literature suggests multiple possible categorizations of barriers and drivers. In addition, sources identify barriers in specific areas and link them to a general lack of progress in adoption but do not provide a framework for their categorization [2]. It is thus necessary to establish a general categorization, which can be used to map existing research. OPS implementation is generally considered to be influenced by innovation-related factors found in three areas [17]: infrastructure-related conditions required for adoption of OPS that influence investment costs and differ greatly depending on what type of vessel is served; institutional characteristics associated with hard (e.g., the strict legislation in Los Angeles and Long Beach or the lack of standardization of technology) and soft rules (values and incentives); and the ability to negotiate with stakeholders to establish a common goal or lobbying to build political support. However, as this research was based on a general framework for studying innovation, later studies have complemented the results.
Empirical research on the port of Kaohsiung, Taiwan, show that issues linked to three general areas (finance, electricity specific costs, and technology) pose tangible barriers, while more qualitative aspects, such as uncertainty about the future, also delayed decision making [18]. The different areas of concern were grouped into four challenges [18]: the cost of installing OPS in the port, the difficulty of assuring access to power and connectivity, the complexity of design and safety requirements, and the lack of international and national regulation of air emissions. Furthermore, a broad evaluation of the effects of introducing OPS in Europe found barriers in four areas [8]: technical issues both onboard and in port; high costs especially when doing retrofits on vessels but also for investments in ports; potential negative effects on primarily the local electricity transmission system; and the existence of a high carbon content in the energy mix, which would, in certain cases (e.g., Poland and Estonia), actually lead to more emissions. A later literature review with the purpose of identifying potential barriers relevant to the implementation of OPS in a container port established five aspects of OPS with eleven associated barriers [19]: economic (investment cost, operational and maintenance cost, electricity cost); technical (power requirement, frequency and voltage variation, electrocution risks); managerial (port and ship operator’s collaboration, ownership of the facility, sources of funding); regulatory (voluntary character of shore power); and environmental (content of the energy mix).
The aspects identified in the categorizations above partially overlap with the three areas identified by [17]; however, the results from the other classifications show that it is necessary to develop their framework further by putting emphasis on the economic element, which is contained in the soft rules’ element [17] (p. 104). Furthermore, while [19] present environmental factors, i.e., the energy mix, as a separate category, we argue that because the OPS operators may, in certain locations, procure renewable electricity from their suppliers or invest in renewable electricity production themselves, the environmental impact of the electricity should be mainly considered as an aspect of the technological and operational dimension of OPS. It is also important to incorporate technology and operations in a single category of analysis since these factors are inseparable. Hence, our findings are grouped in four categories of elements: (i) technology and operations, (ii) institutional elements, (iii) economic elements, and (iv) stakeholder elements. In Table 2, the categories found in the literature are mapped against the suggested categorization.
Below, we will further refine the categories by adding three areas of concern and then categorize and exemplify barriers and drivers in the framework.

3.1. Technology and Operations

OPS is suggested to consist of three overlapping clusters of components of technological and operational characteristics [17]: the electrical infrastructure of ports; the components and operating decisions necessary for the safe transfer of power; and the electrical infrastructure onboard vessels. The design of systems may vary, but the principal components tied to these three areas both facilitate and hinder implementation of OPS [6,14,15]. In Table 3, the components identified in the literature are categorized in the three clusters.
Each component can be designed to fit specific use cases or demands from stakeholders, such as power requirements, need for mobility, or different degrees of automatization. Each cluster also has its specific associated barriers and drivers for OPS.

3.1.1. Port-Related Barriers and Drivers

Aspects of port design, such as the number and size of berths, impact the cost and complexity of providing OPS services. A case study of the port of Aberdeen showed that space required for sub-stations and cable reels push the limit of what is viable, both from operational and financial perspectives, in ports that need several OPS units in multiple small berths [15].
The lack of standards for connecting shore-to-ship was early on identified as a problem for the spread of OPS, and it was suggested that a broad collaboration between actors such as ship designers and port authorities would facilitate the development of cost-effective solutions [6]. Standards have been developed for specific aspects such as shore power compliance and have been effective in lowering previous barriers [8,20,21].
Limited access to power and especially renewable power are obstacles to adoption since poor access restricts both the potential usage and the actual benefits with regards to emission reductions when OPS is used, putting pressure on energy management and the adoption of smart grid solutions [20,22,23,24,25]. Due to a potential shortage of power, there has been interest in investigating the potential of power generation in ports through solutions such as cogeneration plants using natural gas [26], biogas [27,28], or liquified natural gas (LNG) [28,29,30] with promising results in terms of emission reduction and capacity to meet demand profiles and saving fuel while moored. Replacing fossil fuels with locally produced energy is particularly challenging when renewable sources such as solar and wind are considered. Evaluations have shown a potential for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of ports throughout the year with a renewable energy mix [31,32]. However, trying to power OPS solely by one type of sustainable energy source, for example, through an offshore wind park, would pose a considerable challenge to implementation and indicates that making OPS conditional on the use of a specific source of energy could prove problematic [33,34]. On the other hand, energy storage options, such as lithium batteries, etc., have been evaluated through simulations using real case data to assess cost efficiency and showing promising results, e.g., [32,35,36]. If battery solutions are introduced, the design of the port grid will need to meet additional requirements, or the battery system may itself become a barrier for OPS [16].
The operation of OPS has been investigated from an efficiency and emissions perspective. Practical issues such as delays and disorder in port have been modelled to identify the potential impact on emission reductions from connecting to OPS [37]. Furthermore, work has been done developing models that help port operators to efficiently allocate power and berths for arriving ships, making OPS financially and environmentally more attractive [38,39].

3.1.2. Transmission-Related Barriers and Drivers

The design of port grid infrastructure impacts the viability of OPS. Installing cables and upgrading or installing substations is costly yet important to ensure that the correct voltage and frequency can be supplied [15,40] and so that sufficient power is available for both the port and vessels [6]. The design of the existing grid in and around the port thus impacts the financial and technological viability of OPS [16]. Furthermore, the complexity of port grid design increases due to the need to consider technological, environmental, regulatory, and safety aspects [16].
There are also design aspects of the local system that supplies OPS that may cause issues for the rest of the utility grid and thus needs to be addressed [41]. Technical aspects, such as compatibility of connections, voltage, and frequency, may also cause issues during planning and use [2,8,21,40,42]. There is, however, considerable flexibility when it comes to locating hardware. Equipment such as cables and connection points can be housed in fixed or mobile solutions, such as movable wheel-mounted systems, work barges, or containers [6,15]. The location of such assets, either on shore or on board, will impact the allocation of liabilities and responsibilities between port and vessel operators [16], and the compatibility of such options with existing operating and strategic principles is thus something that has to be taken into consideration.
A key aspect that decides the design of the transmission system is the choice between or combination of high- and low-voltage solutions. This choice will impact several aspects, such as the dimensions of cables, converters, and receptacles, or the need for specific safety protocols and equipment standards [2,21,35]. High-power solutions will improve the capacity to transfer power quickly but increases cost as well as produces negative side-effects, such as heat generation [35].
The cost of investments in the port and the grid spur research that explores the potential of other types of solutions, such as adaptive power sharing among ships through a seaport microgrid that is connected to multiple shipboard microgrids [43] or the application of bi-directional power flows from vessel to port [44]. Innovations such as distributed generation and storage would require the implementation of smart grids, which could be costly but may generate other benefits that may lower total costs [23,45,46].
Operational aspects such as tension on cables, cable movements, safety protocols, etc., not only impact how efficiently connections are made but may also, if not well-designed or -managed, detrimentally impact the loading and discharging of cargo as well as the possibility to embark in the case of an emergency [21,42]. Protocols for operations and safety thus need to be harmonized to improve performance and decrease costs [18]. While automation is a costly solution to many operational challenges associated with especially high-power OPS, the suitable degree of automation needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis [16].

3.1.3. Vessel-Related Barriers and Drivers

Several factors, such as the size and the type of the main engine, auxiliary engine, or boiler, impact fuel usage. Surveys indicate that different vessel types such as tankers and ferries are sometimes associated with different fuel types and fuel use profiles, which means that they are impacted differently by the use of OPS [31,47]. Vessel type also influences the length of the port calls. A study of Cartagena Port showed that bulk carriers (grain carriers) made the longest calls (average 71.85 h), while cruise ships had the shortest calls (average 8.39 h) [31]. When compared with other emission-reducing technologies, such as LNG, it may thus not be optimal for a ship owner that only makes infrequent and short calls to invest in OPS [30]. Different vessel types are also associated with different auxiliary engines, and thus, load factors, power needs, and emissions vary, while the vessel is at berth [6,31,48]. These results stress the importance for ports to make an inventory of the vessels that make calls to fully assess the potential impact of OPS [15]. Vessel-based solutions such as fuel cells, batteries, or photovoltaics would allow for emissions reductions from the main and auxiliary engines while the ship is anchored but unable to connect to shore [42,49]. The benefits of coupling OPS with reduced speed or a battery-based propulsion would not only be beneficial for near-port operations but also support the implementation of electric short-distance shuttles, which are attractive to sustainability conscious stakeholders [50,51].

3.2. Institutional Elements

The institutional elements that impact the adoption of OPS have been suggested to consist of hard and soft rules [17]. Hard rules, e.g., legislations and standards, such as regional and local requirements, push some ports and ship owners to adopt OPS [17,52]. Historically, a lack of international legislation and technological standards have, however, hindered a broader adoption [17]. Weak national legislation on aspects such as air quality is also a reason for why OPS is not adopted in certain countries [18]. Regulation needs to be more precise in terms of targeting specific shipping segments, taking into account factors such as time in port and share of pollution [53]. The lack of regulatory support still hampers the spread of OPS [16], but by utilizing a perspective on policy making found in the energy sector, it is possible to identify three categories of policy instruments that have been used to support OPS [54]. First, it is possible to use direct regulation, also called command-and-control, by, for example, defining requirements for equipment or practices [54]. Requiring hardware to be installed onboard will make it available for use elsewhere, opening up for a spread of OPS over time [52]. Second, policy makers may design economic incentives, which in this framework is a soft rule through, for example, establishing markets, taxes, or direct subsidies [54]. Third, a more complex and difficult way to design policy is to use a hybrid approach, which specifies certain aspects linked to emissions while allowing actors to identify and pursue the most attractive alternatives as solutions [54]. Furthermore, by keeping track of how OPS is utilized, it is possible to make policy more efficient by targeting only those actors and activities that accelerate adoption [54]. The hybrid category thus accentuates the need for continuously working with both hard and soft rules while keeping stakeholders involved in the design of not only solutions but also institutions.
In aggregate, the policy pressure to adopt OPS has grown over time, and current development in Europe indicates that pressure will continue to rise [9]. The expansion of the EU ETS to include the shipping sector is a major policy move, and this development will strengthen the case for OPS as well as making OPS incrementally more beneficial as the allowance prices increase [13]. The inclusion corrects the previous situation where the electricity produced for OPS was included in the EU ETS, while the energy produced onboard was not [8].

Soft Rules

The successful implementation of OPS has been linked to organizational values and incentives [17] associated with the push for green ports and the sustainability ambitions of ship operators. Findings indicate that besides the financial capacity of the port, the decision to implement a technology such as OPS is influenced by environmental priorities, governmental agendas, and the competence of port authorities [55]. A case study of the Swedish ferry operator Stena Line found that the motives behind voluntary decarbonization of short sea shipping were related to the need to exceed strict regulatory requirements in order to differentiate the company from its competitors [56]. Comparisons between port of Bremen/Bremerhaven (Germany) and three ports located in West Africa (Abidjan, Lagos, and Tema) showed that while the port of Bremen/Bremerhaven had made investments in OPS for inland vessels and considered offering OPS to other segments, the West African ports focused on managerial and administrative development tied to more immediate sustainability issues that were prioritized by local stakeholders, such as waste, pollution, and water ballast management [55]. This suggests that the presence of more urgent environmental issues may lead to OPS being downgraded in terms of priority. It is worth considering that the dependence on fossil fuels for electricity generation in developing countries means that the effects of implementing OPS is not as beneficial from an environmental perspective. Some benefits such as the geographical shift of emissions would occur; yet, it has been suggested that the national energy mix needs to be less carbon-intensive before implementing OPS [57]. Furthermore, since perceptions about future market demand and legislation influence decision making, uncertainty will discourage implementation [18].
Historically, culture and values have not been sufficient to spur a broad adoption of OPS [17]. Incentives thus play an important role in encouraging ship owners to invest in OPS and minimize externalities by supporting incorporation of costs. Yet, such incentives can be designed in a multitude of ways and enacted by actors at different levels from ports (differentiated port fees) to international legislative bodies such as the EU [58]. The strength of the effect of EU ETS on the operations side will also vary depending on ship and route characteristics as well as the source of the electricity being used [13]. There are also regional differences, and currently Northern Europe is moving ahead while other parts of Europe, such as the Mediterranean, trail behind due to weak policies and high costs [13]. The possibility for authorities to enforce or support OPS or related technologies thus varies between countries, regions, and even municipalities. While unilaterally enforcing strict rules may hurt local ports, broad incentive programmes would support adoption by eliminating the need for ports to differentiate their OPS-related fees [52]. These findings show that there is an interplay between soft and hard rules, which needs to be acknowledged.

3.3. Economic Elements

Due to the importance of financial aspects, the economic elements are treated as a separate category rather than a part of soft rules as suggested by [17]. In principle, four central economic barriers stand in the way for OPS [16]: (i) uncertainty about who should invest and own the OPS infrastructure; (ii) the high cost to retrofit vessels; (iii) existing tax systems that favour electricity generation onboard; and (iv) OPS infrastructure that is not suitable from a business model perspective due to for example design choices or outdated technology. The literature thus suggests that costly investments and operations are two key areas of concern, which in turn indicates that it is necessary to make a distinction between capital (CAPEX) and operating expenditures (OPEX) associated with OPS. However, CAPEX and OPEX should be considered as being tightly interlinked. Investment in OPS can be supported through incentives targeting the use of services [8,59]. Additionally, the installation of local energy production or storage enable alternative use cases that, if profitable, support the investment in OPS [26]. Furthermore, while a business model does describe costs, it also needs to describe the value that is created, how it is delivered, and the customer segments it targets [60]. It has been suggested that the “green” properties of OPS can be used when marketing services, potentially generating additional cash flows to operators [2,58]. Both for ports and vessel operators, the availability and the actual use (i.e., the number of calls and the length of calls) form the basis on which investments in OPS is going to be recovered [2]. A business model, also referred to as business case, for OPS needs to encourage connection as well as stimulate investments in ports and vessels [8].

3.3.1. Capital Expenditure

As shown in Table 3, investments are likely to be needed in multiple types of hardware, making costly investments a central barrier to the implementation of OPS [19]. Port-side investments have been suggested to carry a maintenance cost of up to 5 percent per annum of the total investment cost [15]. It is thus important to find methods that reduce investments or link investments to values that make the business model more attractive. While energy taxes target locally produced energy and makes the business case for OPS unappealing, the inclusion of externalities in the calculations increases the attractiveness and generates payback periods between 3.5 to 13.9 years depending on factors such as energy mix and subsidies [15,61]. The high costs of investing in equipment, such as step-down transformers and sub-stations in terminals, are barriers, while tax exemptions on energy and port-fee reductions support the installation and use of OPS [56]. The eco-efficiency of investing in OPS will be dependent on population size, the ship traffic composition such as ship type, hours at berth, and number of calls, all results which point to the need for port specific estimates for a correct estimation [61].
For onboard investments to be financially viable, fuel cost savings meet specific thresholds that vary depending on ship type and factors, such as fuel consumption reductions, fuel price, and the price of the OPS service, which vary due to factors such as grid fees [2,15,56]. As a result, certain ship segments such as ferries and cruise ships have a more attractive operating profile for OPS [2,15]. Furthermore, costly installations onboard potentially create a situation where ships will only use ports where they know their equipment is compatible with the port’s system [42].

3.3.2. Operating Expenditure

The difference between fuel costs and the cost of using electricity is the core economic issue that determines the financial attractiveness of OPS [62]. Reduced fuel cost is a major factor in attracting potential users to OPS, and it has been suggested that some ports, such as the port of Gothenburg, have made the switch to more appealing OPS by providing free electricity [15]. Calculations of costs need to consider all aspects of the systems used for energy production and should thus include installation costs, operations, and maintenance activities to show the true cost of energy production [63]. Being connected to OPS enables the simultaneous maintenance of vessels at berth; yet, there is also the potential increase of wear and tear on port, transmission, and vessel side due to galvanic corrosion. The size of such risks and the potential costs vary considerably between use cases [64]. It is also necessary to consider uncertainties such as fluctuations in the number of ships using OPS, the time spent connected, and the amount of power drawn to assess the financial outcome [65].
Since securing clean energy would raise the cost of OPS, the national energy mix can be a barrier to OPS [15]. Local energy prices will greatly impact how appealing OPS is, making OPS more attractive in countries such as Norway that have cheap and clean electricity [7]. OPS can also charge electrically powered vessels (hybrid or fully electric), and modelling indicates that by combining smart grids and battery storage, the port can offer such services to the customer while obtaining access to energy-management strategies such as peak shaving and price arbitraging, which makes operating OPS more attractive [35,66]. Nevertheless, high regional electricity prices, such as the prices in Southern Europe, effectively function as a localized barrier to adoption [13]. Differentiated port fees based on, for example, emissions and usage of OPS, has been identified as a way to encourage use [58,59]. Furthermore, taking into account factors such as environmental impact and choice of technology emission trading may make OPS more viable in the future [67]. Studies from developing countries indicate that economic barriers there are similar to those found elsewhere. In Djibouti container terminals, costly investments and prohibitive operating costs due to high electricity prices held back OPS [19], while financial capacity stopped investments in West African ports [55].

3.4. Stakeholder Elements

The environmental benefits of OPS accrue to a dispersed number of stakeholders, while the cost of investing in OPS falls on the ports and ship owners, causing an unbalanced cost-benefit calculation for the stakeholders directly involved in the investment decision [9]. Lone actors may drive the implementation of OPS [15], and it has even been suggested that electricity suppliers can bypass the port [8]. Yet, the benefits of cooperation when initiating, propagating, and operating OPS is emphasized [8,16,18,23,38,55,68]. It is also suggested that ports and ship owners located along specific routes should try to coordinate investments and adoption to increase use and reduce payback time [13].
The stakeholders proposed to participate in such a process are public actors such as port authorities, the research community, policy makers, and local authorities [20] as well as private sector actors such as ship owners and terminal operators [16]. Furthermore, local/national grid owners [32,41,59], electricity suppliers [23,67], cargo owners [4], as well as ship and equipment manufacturers [16,69,70] may help creating favourable conditions for OPS. Having the mandate to decide port infrastructure, the port authority plays a central role for the adoption of OPS. Yet, high power demand increases the importance of energy management both in the port and in the local area, making local authorities a player with which the port needs to establish good relations [25]. This need for collaboration demonstrates the complexity of OPS and the difficulty for port authorities to spearhead OPS alone. Furthermore, innovations such as OPS need to fit port stakeholders’ demands and the institutional context in which the port exists [71]. The need for dispersed investments among a network of actors turns OPS implementation into a “chicken or the egg” dilemma characterized by a high degree of uncertainty [8] where ports will not invest unless enough vessels are able to connect, and ship owners refuse to retrofit until the availability of OPS increases [2,72]. Several strategies can be applied to solve the situation, but likely successful solutions are direct governmental support of especially port authorities and the development of attractive business models that capture value from actors that benefit from OPS [2,8]. It is, however, important to identify who has the capacity and interest to act with regards to port investment [2].

3.5. Drawing Lessons from Research on Barriers and Drivers to OPS

Combining the categories and the areas of concern results in a framework for classification of barriers and drivers, which is presented in Table 4. In the framework, the barriers and drivers presented in the literature review conducted above are listed and exemplified with sources.
As shown in Table 4, barriers can be dealt with independently or as part of a broader strategy. An example of a broad approach can be found in an overview of work done at the Port of Gothenburg. It suggests that OPS “calls for ports to: (i) require shoreside power as a condition of new terminal leases or renewals; (ii) invest in infrastructure for electric power; (iii) develop shoreside power for port-operated facilities; (iv) subsidize the development of shoreside power for harbour craft; (v) provide funding to offset the costs of retrofitting ships to accommodate shoreside power” [6]. This list of drivers bundles investment with the use of incentives to support the retrofitting of ships and thus attacks the “chicken or the egg” problem, which is the core barrier for system-dependent innovations such as OPS [8]. However, while these recommendations are for the port, it is necessary to recall that ports may not have the legitimacy, capacity, or funding required to spearhead OPS [55]. While increased pressure from regulators incentivises action, research emphasise collaboration both for the implementation at individual ports and for the spread of OPS to ports positioned along major routes [13].

4. Discussion

During 2020, the global maritime trade shrunk by 3.8 per cent due to the impact of the pandemic [11]. Yet, trade was expected to pick up in 2021, and data on CO2 emissions by vessel type indicate that except for some segments such as passenger ships, the levels of emissions are returning to pre-pandemic levels [11]. To comply with the environmental regulations, the need for solutions such as OPS is thus just as great as before the pandemic. While the suggested framework for categorization of barriers and drivers identified can be applied broadly, it is important to emphasise that the institutional and stakeholder aspects make the process of introducing OPS highly contextual. Furthermore, as shown in the literature, the different categories interplay in ways that differ from region to region. Even if specific actors such as a port and ship owners may play a pivotal role for the implementation of OPS in specific cases, the “chicken or the egg” characteristic of OPS adoption [8] implies that collaboration and collective action is necessary to move forward. The emphasis on collective action also appears relevant with regards to policy. Tax regimes that exempt electricity produced on vessels makes it difficult to find attractive business scenarios for OPS [16]. Hence, policy reforms, incentives, and environmental charges are needed to support OPS and to encourage the internalization of costs associated with emissions.
There are several areas where research can be developed. Aspects related to interaction between energy systems as well as the wider systemic effects of specific solutions appear underdeveloped [15,41]. Due to the potential need for large smart-grid [23]-enabled systems, it also appears as if research is needed both on the process of developing and implementing such systems and on practical aspects associated with the introduction of specific features (e.g., smart grids) in existing systems. Research could also explore the need for further standardization in not only technical areas but also port design and operations [2,15]. The introduction of the maritime transport sector in the EU ETS is a contemporary topic [13], and the potential effects of EU ETS on barriers to OPS are important both for ship owners and policy makers looking for market-based solutions for emissions reductions. The economic difficulty of implementing OPS is recognized as a key barrier, e.g., [8,18,56], and recent developments such as the pandemic and the war in Ukraine suggests that there is room for new perspectives. Research on incentives, pricing, and business models would especially help ports in their work with deploying OPS. Additionally, as the results linked to soft rules and to stakeholder relationships show, new detailed case studies may give insight into how organizational and context-specific factors impact competence development as well as stakeholder collaboration, e.g., [23,55], and in turn support the reduction of barriers to OPS.

5. Conclusions

This paper addresses the need for a unified and updated categorization of barriers and drivers to OPS. Based on a review of previous classifications, a framework was compiled that categorizes barriers and drivers using four categories (technology and operations, institutional, economic, and stakeholder elements) and three areas of concern (port, vessel, and transmission). Using the suggested framework, a systematic literature review was conducted where barriers and drivers were identified, categorized, and discussed. By offering an opportunity for mapping and comparing findings between categories and areas of concern, the framework supports further development of OPS. The framework accentuates the interconnectedness of the factors that are involved in the process of putting OPS in place. Furthermore, the framework can also be used as a checklist that can be applied to case studies to identify context-specific barriers. Finally, from the analysis of the barriers identified in the literature, we also point to specific research gaps associated with the systemic aspects of OPS, policy, and business models.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.W., N.C., V.S., S.R.; methodology, J.W.; formal analysis, J.W., N.C.; writing—original draft preparation, J.W.; writing—review and editing, J.W., N.C., V.S., S.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper is based on research funded by the Swedish Transport Administration grant number TRV2019/52793.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

List of Abbreviations and Chemical Formulas

CAPEXCapital expenditure
CO2Carbon dioxide
EU European Union
EU ETSEuropean Union emission trading system
LNGLiquified natural gas
NOx Nitrogen oxide
OPEXOperating expenditures
OPSOnshore power supply
SO2Sulphur dioxide
TWhTerawatt-hours
WoSWeb of Science

Appendix A. Sources Identified and Included in the Review

AuthorsYearArticle TitlePublicationVolumeIssue
Acciaro, M. et al. [25]2014Energy management in seaports: A new role for port authoritiesENERGY POLICY71
Acciaro, M. et al. [71]2014Environmental sustainability in seaports: a framework for successful innovationMARITIME POLICY and MANAGEMENT415
Adamo, F. et al. [40]2014Estimation of ship emissions in the port of TarantoMEASUREMENT47
Arduino, G. et al. [17]2013How to turn an innovative concept into a success? An application to seaport-related innovationRESEARCH IN TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS42
Bailey, D. and Solomon, G. [22]2004Pollution prevention at ports: clearing the airENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW247–8
Bjerkan, K.Y. and Seter, H. [4]2019Reviewing tools and technologies for sustainable ports: Does research enable decision making in ports?TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT72
Chang, C.C. and Wang, C.M. [51]2012Evaluating the effects of green port policy: Case study of Kaohsiung harbor in TaiwanTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT173
Christodoulou, A. and Cullinane, K. [55]2020Potential for, and drivers of, private voluntary initiatives for the decarbonisation of short sea shipping: evidence from a Swedish ferry lineMARITIME ECONOMICS & LOGISTICS
Dai, L. et al. [37]2020Is Shore Side Electricity greener? An environmental analysis and policy implicationsENERGY POLICY137
Dai, L. et al. [67]2019An environmental and techno-economic analysis of shore side electricityTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT75
Gutierrez-Romero, J.E. et al. [31]2019Implementing Onshore Power Supply from renewable energy sources for requirements of ships at berthAPPLIED ENERGY255
Hall, W.J. [7]2010Assessment of CO2 and priority pollutant reduction by installation of shoreside powerRESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING547
Hulskotte, J.H.J. and van der Gon, H. [47]2010Fuel consumption and associated emissions from seagoing ships at berth derived from an on-board surveyATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT449
Innes, A. and Monios, J. [15]2018Identifying the unique challenges of installing cold ironing at small and medium ports—The case of AberdeenTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT62
Iris, C. and Lam, J.S.L. [24]2019A review of energy efficiency in ports: Operational strategies, technologies and energy management systemsRENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS112
Khersonsky, Y. et al. [6]2007Challenges of connecting shipboard marine systems to medium voltage shoreside electrical powerIEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS433
Kumar, J. et al. [16]2019Technical design aspects of harbour area grid for shore to ship power: State of the art and future solutionsINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL POWER & ENERGY SYSTEMS104
Kumar, J. et al. [35]2019Design and Analysis of New Harbour Grid Models to Facilitate Multiple Scenarios of Battery Charging and Onshore Supply for Modern VesselsENERGIES1212
Lawer, E.T. et al. [55]2019Selective Adoption: How Port Authorities in Europe and West Africa Engage with the Globalizing ‘Green Port’ IdeaSUSTAINABILITY1118
Martinez-Lopez, A. et al. [30]2021Assessment of Cold Ironing and LNG as Mitigation Tools of Short Sea Shipping Emissions in Port: A Spanish Case StudyAPPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL115
Martinez-Lopez, A. et al. [59]2021Specific environmental charges to boost Cold Ironing use in the European Short Sea ShippingTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT94
Paul, D. et al. [21]2014Designing Cold Ironing Power SystemsIEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE203
Piccoli, T. et al. [13]2021Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Aspects of Cold Ironing Planning for a Maritime Route in the Adriatic SeaENERGIES1418
Radwan, M.E. et al. [19]2019Critical barriers to the introduction of shore power supply for green port development: case of Djibouti container terminalsCLEAN TECHNOLOGIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY216
Sembler, W.J. et al. [42]2009Fuel Cells as an Alternative to Cold IroningJOURNAL OF FUEL CELL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY63
Stolz, B. et al. [9]2021The CO2 reduction potential of shore-side electricity in EuropeAPPLIED ENERGY285
Sulligoi, G. et al. [69]2015Shore-to-Ship PowerPROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE10312
Tseng, P.H. and Pilcher, N. [18]2015A study of the potential of shore power for the port of Kaohsiung, Taiwan: To introduce or not to introduce?RESEARCH IN TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT17
Winkel, R. et al. [8]2016Shore Side Electricity in Europe: Potential and environmental benefitsENERGY POLICY88
Yu, J.J. et al. [72]2019Strategy development for retrofitting ships for implementing shore side electricityTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT74
Zis, T.P.V. [2]2019Prospects of cold ironing as an emissions reduction optionTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART A-POLICY AND PRACTICE119

References

  1. Zis, T.; North, R.J.; Angeloudis, P.; Ochieng, W.Y.; Harrison Bell, M.G. Evaluation of cold ironing and speed reduction policies to reduce ship emissions near and at ports. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2014, 16, 371–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zis, T.P.V. Prospects of cold ironing as an emissions reduction option. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 119, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Wan, Z.; El Makhloufi, A.; Chen, Y.; Tang, J. Decarbonizing the international shipping industry: Solutions and policy recommendations. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 126, 428–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Bjerkan, K.Y.; Seter, H. Reviewing tools and technologies for sustainable ports: Does research enable decision making in ports? Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 72, 243–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, X.; Yuen, K.F.; Wong, Y.D.; Li, K.X. How can the maritime industry meet Sustainable Development Goals? An analysis of sustainability reports from the social entrepreneurship perspective. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 78, 102173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Khersonsky, Y.; Islam, M.; Peterson, K. Challenges of Connecting Shipboard Marine Systems to Medium Voltage Shoreside Electrical Power. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2007, 43, 838–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hall, W.J. Assessment of CO2 and priority pollutant reduction by installation of shoreside power. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 462–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Winkel, R.; Weddige, U.; Johnsen, D.; Hoen, V.; Papaefthimiou, S. Shore Side Electricity in Europe: Potential and environmental benefits. Energy Policy 2016, 88, 584–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Stolz, B.; Held, M.; Georges, G.; Boulouchos, K. The CO2 reduction potential of shore-side electricity in Europe. Appl. Energy 2021, 285, 116425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. European Maritime Safety Agency; European Environment Agency. European Maritime Transport Environmental Report 2021. 2021. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/maritime-transport/ (accessed on 13 April 2022).
  11. UNCTAD. Review of Maritime Transport 2021; United Nations: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  12. Wang, S.; Zhen, L.; Psaraftis, H.N.; Yan, R. Implications of the EU’s Inclusion of Maritime Transport in the Emissions Trading System for Shipping Companies. Engineering 2021, 7, 554–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Piccoli, T.; Fermeglia, M.; Bosich, D.; Bevilacqua, P.; Sulligoi, G. Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Aspects of Cold Ironing Planning for a Maritime Route in the Adriatic Sea. Energies 2021, 14, 5836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Arduino, G.; Murillo, D.G.C.; Ferrari, C. Key factors and barriers to the adoption of cold ironing in Europe. In Proceedings of the Società Italiana di Economia dei Trasporti e della Logistica-XIII Riunione Scientifica–Messina, Messina, Italy, 16–17 June 2011. [Google Scholar]
  15. Innes, A.; Monios, J. Identifying the unique challenges of installing cold ironing at small and medium ports–The case of aberdeen. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 62, 298–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kumar, J.; Kumpulainen, L.; Kauhaniemi, K. Technical design aspects of harbour area grid for shore to ship power: State of the art and future solutions. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2019, 104, 840–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Arduino, G.; Aronietis, R.; Crozet, Y.; Frouws, K.; Ferrari, C.; Guihéry, L.; Kapros, S.; Kourounioti, I.; Laroche, F.; Lambrou, M.; et al. How to turn an innovative concept into a success? An application to seaport-related innovation. Res. Transp. Econ. 2013, 42, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tseng, P.-H.; Pilcher, N. A study of the potential of shore power for the port of Kaohsiung, Taiwan: To introduce or not to introduce? Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2015, 17, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Radwan, M.E.; Chen, J.; Wan, Z.; Zheng, T.; Hua, C.; Huang, X. Critical barriers to the introduction of shore power supply for green port development: Case of Djibouti container terminals. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2019, 21, 1293–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nguyen, D.-H.; Lin, C.; Cheruiyot, N.K.; Hsu, J.-Y.; Cho, M.-Y.; Hsu, S.-H.; Yeh, C.-K. Reduction of NOx and SO2 Emissions by Shore Power Adoption. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2021, 21, 210100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Paul, D.; Peterson, K.; Chavdarian, P.R. Designing Cold Ironing Power Systems: Electrical Safety During Ship Berthing. IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag. 2014, 20, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bailey, D.; Solomon, G. Pollution prevention at ports: Clearing the air. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2004, 24, 749–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Iris, Ç.; Lam, J.S.L. Optimal energy management and operations planning in seaports with smart grid while harnessing renewable energy under uncertainty. Omega 2021, 103, 102445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Iris, Ç.; Lam, J.S.L. A review of energy efficiency in ports: Operational strategies, technologies and energy management systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 112, 170–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Acciaro, M.; Ghiara, H.; Cusano, M.I. Energy management in seaports: A new role for port authorities. Energy Policy 2014, 71, 4–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Colarossi, D.; Principi, P. Technical analysis and economic evaluation of a complex shore-to-ship power supply system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2020, 181, 115988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Karimpour, R.; Ballini, F.; Ölcer, A.I. Circular economy approach to facilitate the transition of the port cities into self-sustainable energy ports—A case study in Copenhagen-Malmö Port (CMP). WMU J. Marit. Aff. 2019, 18, 225–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tarnapowicz, D.; German-Galkin, S. The use of generating sets with LNG gas engines in “shore to ship” systems. Manag. Syst. Prod. Eng. 2016, 23, 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Borelli, D.; Devia, F.; Schenone, C.; Silenzi, F.; Tagliafico, L.A. Dynamic Modelling of LNG Powered Combined Energy Systems in Port Areas. Energies 2021, 14, 3640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Martínez-López, A.; Romero, A.; Orosa, J.A. Assessment of Cold Ironing and LNG as Mitigation Tools of Short Sea Shipping Emissions in Port: A Spanish Case Study. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gutierrez-Romero, J.E.; Esteve-Pérez, J.; Zamora, B. Implementing Onshore Power Supply from renewable energy sources for requirements of ships at berth. Appl. Energy 2019, 255, 113883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kotrikla, A.M.; Lilas, T.; Nikitakos, N. Abatement of air pollution at an aegean island port utilizing shore side electricity and renewable energy. Mar. Policy 2017, 75, 238–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Raileanu, A.B.; Onea, F.; Rusu, E. Implementation of Offshore Wind Turbines to Reduce Air Pollution in Coastal Areas—Case Study Constanta Harbour in the Black Sea. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rolan, A.; Manteca, P.; Oktar, R.; Siano, P. Integration of Cold Ironing and Renewable Sources in the Barcelona Smart Port. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2019, 55, 7198–7206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kumar, J.; Memon, A.A.; Kumpulainen, L.; Kauhaniemi, K.; Palizban, O. Design and Analysis of New Harbour Grid Models to Facilitate Multiple Scenarios of Battery Charging and Onshore Supply for Modern Vessels. Energies 2019, 12, 2354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Kumar, J.; Parthasarathy, C.; Västi, M.; Laaksonen, H.; Shafie-Khah, M.; Kauhaniemi, K. Sizing and Allocation of Battery Energy Storage Systems in Åland Islands for Large-Scale Integration of Renewables and Electric Ferry Charging Stations. Energies 2020, 13, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Dai, L.; Hu, H.; Wang, Z. Is Shore Side Electricity greener? An environmental analysis and policy implications. Energy Policy 2020, 137, 111144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Peng, Y.; Dong, M.; Li, X.; Liu, H.; Wang, W. Cooperative optimization of shore power allocation and berth allocation: A balance between cost and environmental benefit. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Peng, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, W.; Wei, Z.; Bing, X.; Song, X. A method for determining the allocation strategy of on-shore power supply from a green container terminal perspective. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 167, 158–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Adamo, F.; Andria, G.; Cavone, G.; De Capua, C.; Lanzolla, A.M.L.; Morello, R.; Spadavecchia, M. Estimation of ship emissions in the port of Taranto. Measurement 2014, 47, 982–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sciberras, E.A.; Zahawi, B.; Atkinson, D.J. Electrical characteristics of cold ironing energy supply for berthed ships. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2015, 39, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Sembler, W.J.; Kumar, S.; Palmer, D. Fuel Cells as an Alternative to Cold Ironing. J. Fuel Cell Sci. Technol. 2009, 6, 031009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mutarraf, M.U.; Terriche, Y.; Nasir, M.; Guan, Y.; Su, C.-L.; Vasquez, J.C.; Guerrero, J.M. A Communication-Less Multimode Control Approach for Adaptive Power Sharing in Ship-Based Seaport Microgrid. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2021, 7, 3070–3082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Reusser, C.A.; Pérez, J.R. Evaluation of the Emission Impact of Cold-Ironing Power Systems, Using a Bi-Directional Power Flow Control Strategy. Sustainability 2020, 13, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Roy, A.; Auger, F.; Olivier, J.-C.; Schaeffer, E.; Auvity, B. Design, Sizing, and Energy Management of Microgrids in Harbor Areas: A Review. Energies 2020, 13, 5314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yiğit, K.; Acarkan, B. A new ship energy management algorithm to the smart electricity grid system. Int. J. Energy Res. 2018, 42, 2741–2756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hulskotte, J.H.J.; Denier van der Gon, H.A.C. Fuel consumption and associated emissions from seagoing ships at berth derived from an on-board survey. Atmos. Environ. 2010, 44, 1229–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. McArthur, D.P.; Osland, L. Ships in a city harbour: An economic valuation of atmospheric emissions. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2013, 21, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tang, R.; Wu, Z.; Li, X. Optimal operation of photovoltaic/battery/diesel/cold-ironing hybrid energy system for maritime application. Energy 2018, 162, 697–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Williamsson, J.; Rogerson, S.; Santén, V. Business models for dedicated container freight on Swedish inland waterways. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2020, 35, 100466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chang, C.-C.; Wang, C.-M. Evaluating the effects of green port policy: Case study of Kaohsiung harbor in Taiwan. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2012, 17, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Torbitt, A.; Hildreth, R. International Treaties and U.S. Laws as Tools to Regulate the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships and Ports. Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law 2010, 25, 347–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tichavska, M.; Tovar, B.; Gritsenko, D.; Johansson, L.; Jalkanen, J.P. Air emissions from ships in port: Does regulation make a difference? Transp. Policy 2019, 75, 128–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, Y.; Ding, W.; Dai, L.; Hu, H.; Jing, D. How would government subsidize the port on shore side electricity usage improvement? J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lawer, E.T.; Herbeck, J.; Flitner, M. Selective Adoption: How Port Authorities in Europe and West Africa Engage with the Globalizing ‘Green Port’ Idea. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Christodoulou, A.; Cullinane, K. Potential for, and drivers of, private voluntary initiatives for the decarbonisation of short sea shipping: Evidence from a Swedish ferry line. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2020, 23, 632–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lathwal, P.; Vaishnav, P.; Morgan, M.G. Environmental and health consequences of shore power for vessels calling at major ports in India. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 064042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tzannatos, E. Cost assessment of ship emission reduction methods at berth: The case of the Port of Piraeus, Greece. Marit. Policy Manag. 2010, 37, 427–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Martínez-López, A.; Romero-Filgueira, A.; Chica, M. Specific environmental charges to boost Cold Ironing use in the European Short Sea Shipping. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 94, 102775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Teece, D.J. Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 172–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Spengler, T.; Tovar, B. Potential of cold-ironing for the reduction of externalities from in-port shipping emissions: The state-owned Spanish port system case. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 279, 111807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Seddiek, I.S. Two-step strategies towards fuel saving and emissions reduction onboard ships. Ships Offshore Struct. 2015, 11, 791–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Seddiek, I.S. Application of fuel-saving strategies onboard high-speed passenger ships. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2016, 21, 493–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kozak, M.; Chmiel, J. Cold Ironing Galvanic Corrosion Issues with Regard to a Shore-to-Ship Medium Voltage Connection. Energies 2020, 13, 5372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Song, T.; Li, Y.; Zhang, X.-P.; Wu, C.; Li, J.; Guo, Y.; Gu, H. Integrated port energy system considering integrated demand response and energy interconnection. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2020, 117, 105654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sadiq, M.; Ali, S.W.; Terriche, Y.; Mutarraf, M.U.; Hassan, M.A.; Hamid, K.; Ali, Z.; Sze, J.Y.; Su, C.-L.; Guerrero, J.M. Future Greener Seaports: A Review of New Infrastructure, Challenges, and Energy Efficiency Measures. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 75568–75587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Dai, L.; Hu, H.; Wang, Z.; Shi, Y.; Ding, W. An environmental and techno-economic analysis of shore side electricity. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 75, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zhao, X.; Liu, L.; Di, Z.; Xu, L. Subsidy or punishment: An analysis of evolutionary game on implementing shore-side electricity. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2021, 48, 102010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sulligoi, G.; Bosich, D.; Pelaschiar, R.; Lipardi, G.; Tosato, F. Shore-to-Ship Power. Proc. IEEE 2015, 103, 2381–2400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lee, H.; Pham, H.T.; Chen, M.; Choo, S.; Kim, D.-K. Bottom-Up Approach Ship Emission Inventory in Port of Incheon Based on VTS Data. J. Adv. Transp. 2021, 2021, 5568777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Acciaro, M.; Vanelslander, T.; Sys, C.; Ferrari, C.; Roumboutsos, A.; Giuliano, G.; Lam, J.S.L.; Kapros, S. Environmental sustainability in seaports: A framework for successful innovation. Marit. Policy Manag. 2014, 41, 480–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Yu, J.; Voß, S.; Tang, G. Strategy development for retrofitting ships for implementing shore side electricity. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 74, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 06072 g001 550
Figure 1. Publications per year 2000–2021.
Figure 1. Publications per year 2000–2021.
Sustainability 14 06072 g001
Sustainability 14 06072 g002 550
Figure 2. The distribution of publications among the six most popular journals.
Figure 2. The distribution of publications among the six most popular journals.
Sustainability 14 06072 g002
Table
Table 1. Results from Web of Science, December 2021.
Table 1. Results from Web of Science, December 2021.
PortBarriersChallenges
Cold ironing7145210
Shore-side electricity221954
Onshore power supply201516
Shore-side power9601
Table
Table 2. Categories of barriers and drivers.
Table 2. Categories of barriers and drivers.
SourceCommentTechnology
and Operations		Institutional
Elements 		Economic
Elements		Stakeholder
Elements
Arduino et al., 2013 [17]Not primarily designed for OPSInfrastructureInstitutionalPart of institutional factorsStakeholders
Kumar, et al., 2019 [16]Focuses on the port’s perspectiveTechnicalPolicy and legislationBusiness caseLack of support from local and regional governments
Piccoli et al., 2021 [13]Categorization not an aim of the paperEnvironmentalLegalEconomic-
Radwan et al., 2019 [19]Focuses on the port’s perspectiveTechnical, EnvironmentalRegulatory, ManagerialEconomic-
Tseng and Pilcher, 2015 [18] Provides case-based categoriesTechnology-Finance (cost), Electricity costs-
Winkel et al., 2016 [8]Offers no framework for categorization Technical, Electricity system, EnvironmentalWeak incentivesCosts, Business case, TaxesOwnership of OPS
Zis, 2019 [2]No systematic categorizationTechnicalRegulatoryCost-
Table
Table 3. Components associated with port, transmission, and vessel.
Table 3. Components associated with port, transmission, and vessel.
PortTransmissionVessel
Key components Berth design—space for sub-stations, cable reels, etc.
Positioning of connection point(s).
Local power production and storage.		Main substation (connecting to national grid).
Port grid.
Shore-side substation.
Fixed or mobile connection point at berth.
Cable (dimensions, and length) and cable reel at berth.
Converter
Safety protocols		Cable
Cable-management system
Switchboard
Final step-down transformer
Table
Table 4. Barriers and drivers with examples from the literature.
Table 4. Barriers and drivers with examples from the literature.
PortVesselTransmission
Technology and operationsFinding space and a suitable design [15].
Preparing quay side for cables and mobile solutions [6,15].
Need for locally produced renewable power [26,34].
Operational optimization to minimize disruption of other activities such as loading/unloading [21,42].		Location of contacts, OPS building, cables, converters, etc. [6,8,16].
Retrofit design of buildings onboard [16,40].
Efficiency when connecting/disconnecting [21,42].
Compatibility of onboard solutions and transmission systems [8,21,42].
Availability of OPS at ports [2,52].		Limited capacity in terms of access to renewable energy or sufficient power [20,22,23,24,25].
Compatibility of connections and associated systems [8,21,40].
Energy management (e.g., demand timing) and smart grids [20,22,23,24,25].
Need for step-down transformers, sub-stations, frequency converters, and additional cables, etc. [15,40].
Upgrading the distribution system outside the port area [16].
Compliance with regulations, safety, and environmental protocols [16,18].
InstitutionalRegulation and policy support [16,17,18,52].
Uncertainty about the future [18].
Priorities and organizational agenda [4,55].
Lack of competence [4,55].		Regulation and policy [2].
Standardization of technology and operations [2,14,15].
Strategic focus [56].		Regulation and policy support [16,18,54].
Standardization of technology and operations [2,14,15].
EconomicInvestments in port infrastructure [14,15,16].
Operating costs, including maintenance [2,15,68].
Finding an attractive business model [8,16].
Designing pricing to entice use while covering costs [8].
Incentives and subsidies [2,8,58].		Investments in new vessels or the retrofitting of old vessels [16,40,72].
The comparative cost of energy (fuel vs. electricity) [14,62].
Tax systems favouring vessel-based power generation [2,8].
Weak incentives and subsidies [2,8].
Operating costs, including maintenance [15,59].		Costly investments and uncertainty about who should take on the investments [14,15,16].
High operating costs driven by high electricity prices, grid fees, taxes, etc. [19,63].
StakeholderCollaboration between ports and with stakeholders such as ship owners and authorities [8,13,25].Collaboration with ports, other ship owners, manufacturers, and cargo owners [2,4,8,13,69].
Collaboration with utilities, grid owners, and authorities [24,32].
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Williamsson, J.; Costa, N.; Santén, V.; Rogerson, S. Barriers and Drivers to the Implementation of Onshore Power Supply—A Literature Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6072. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106072

AMA Style

Williamsson J, Costa N, Santén V, Rogerson S. Barriers and Drivers to the Implementation of Onshore Power Supply—A Literature Review. Sustainability. 2022; 14(10):6072. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106072

Chicago/Turabian Style

Williamsson, Jon, Nicole Costa, Vendela Santén, and Sara Rogerson. 2022. "Barriers and Drivers to the Implementation of Onshore Power Supply—A Literature Review" Sustainability 14, no. 10: 6072. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106072

APA Style

Williamsson, J., Costa, N., Santén, V., & Rogerson, S. (2022). Barriers and Drivers to the Implementation of Onshore Power Supply—A Literature Review. Sustainability, 14(10), 6072. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106072

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop