Applied Energy 285 (2021) 116425

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

The CO2 reduction potential of shore-side electricity in Europe

B. Stolz 1 , M. Held 1 , ∗, G. Georges, K. Boulouchos
ETH Zürich, Institute of Energy Technology, Laboratory of Aerothermochemistry and Combustion Systems, Energy Systems Group, Sonneggstrasse
3, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Shore-side electricity can drastically reduce the emissions from fossil fuel-powered auxiliary engines of ships at
Shore-side electricity berth. Data scarcity on the auxiliary power demand at berth has limited the scope and temporal resolution of
On-shore power supply previous studies to few ports and ships. We establish a novel method to estimate the auxiliary power demand
Cold ironing
at berth for 714 major ports in the European Economic Area (EEA) and the United Kingdom (UK). Therefore,
Auxiliary power
emission report data from the Monitoring, Reporting and Verification scheme of the European Union and ship
MRV emission reporting
CO2 emission reduction
tracking data from the Automatic Identification System are combined.
Annual emissions of 3 Mt (/ 5 Mt) CO2 could be avoided if the auxiliary power demand at berth would
be supplied from national grids (/ from CO2 -neutral electricity). This equals an average reduction of overall
shipping emissions by 2.2% (3.7%), and requires only 0.2% (6.4 TWh) of the current electricity generation
capacity of the EEA and the UK. Using shore-side electricity from the grid can also contribute to substantial
annual local air pollution reductions of 86,431 t NOx , 4,130 t SOx , 1,596 t PM10 , 4,333 t CO, 94 t CH4 , 4,818 t
NMVOC, and 235 t N2 O.

1. Introduction
Within the European Green Deal, the European Union intends to
ratchet up its GHG reduction targets. For the transport sector, it sets
out a GHG reduction target of 90% by 2050 [1]. Thereby, shipping has
increasingly come to the fore by the EU, but also by the International
Maritime Organization (IMO). The IMO aims for a GHG reduction of
‘‘at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008’’ values [2]. The EU demands
in its Directive 2018/410/EU that ‘‘international shipping contributes
its fair share to the efforts to achieve the objective’’ of the Paris
Agreement [3]. Within the European transport sector, 11.2% of the
emissions stem from shipping, with 142 Mt CO2 in 2018 reported in the
Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV2 ) scheme of the EU [4,5].
With an expected tripling of the demand for shipping from 2015 to

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: held@lav.mavt.ethz.ch (M. Held).
1
The authors Boris Stolz and Maximilian Held contributed equally to this work.
2
The MRV includes all ships larger than 5000 GT except fishing vessels, naval vessels, and service vessels operated in port areas.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116425
Received 16 June 2020; Received in revised form 26 December 2020; Accepted 29 December 2020
Available online 21 January 2021
0306-2619/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
B. Stolz et al.
2050 [6], this exemplifies its high importance in a holistic climate
strategy.
1.1. Shore-side electricity as promising measure to reduce emissions at berth
Shore-side electricity (SSE3 ) is an effective CO2 reduction measure
for ocean-going ships [8]. While main engines (ME) are usually shut off
during a ship’s stay at berth,4 the ship’s auxiliary engines (AE) are still
operating to provide electricity, and its auxiliary boilers (AB) to provide
heat. AE power is required for unloading cargo, or to provide hotelling
functions, e.g. for electronic appliances on board cruise ships. AB power
is required to ‘‘keep fuel temperatures and the main engines’ cylinders
warm to avoid damage from low temperature contractions’’ [10], but
also to provide steam for ‘‘ventilation, refrigeration, pumps, commu-
nications and other critical on-board equipment, to maintain essential
function and safety of the ship.’’ [11] In addition, oil tankers need ABs
to generate inert gas [12] required for safe oil handling, and sometimes
‘‘use steam [...] to run their cargo pumps’’ [13].
The electricity demand at berth can be supplied from stationary
electricity generation, e.g. from the grid. Similarly, steam can be pro-
vided from shore [14] to replace heat from ABs, albeit requiring more
infrastructure, or can be produced on board ships with electric steam
boilers [15] powered by SSE.
If the CO2 intensity of the grid electricity is sufficiently low (less
than 784 g CO2 per kWhel , which is equivalent to the emissions of AEs
powered by marine diesel oil (MDO), resulting from an emission factor
of 3.206 kg CO2 per kg MDO [16], a specific fuel consumption (SFC) of
225 g MDO per kWhmech [16], and a generator efficiency of 𝜂mech→el =
92% [17]), CO2 emissions in ports can be reduced by SSE. Furthermore,
SSE offers the opportunity to drastically reduce local air pollution
from non-CO2 emissions, and hence, to contribute to public health and
reduce the number of premature deaths in port areas [18–21]. For
these reasons, the European Commission plans ‘‘to regulate access of
the most polluting ships to EU ports and to oblige docked ships to
use shore-side electricity’’ within its Green Deal [1]. The ‘international
ocean governance’ resolution of the European Parliament stresses ‘‘that
shore-side power has a key role to play in greener shipping [...], thus
eliminating ship engine emissions in port waters, reducing pollutants
and greenhouse gas emissions, and also reducing noise, vibration and
engine wear-and-tear’’ [22].
First SSE equipment has been installed in Gothenburg (Sweden) and
Zeebrugge (Belgium) [23] back in 2000. However, the deployment of
SSE has been slower than expected in the last two decades [24], see
Table A.1 in the Appendix, which lists major ports in the European
Economic Area (EEA) and the United Kingdom (UK) – the scope of this
study – where SSE was available by June 2020.
1.2. Key challenges in assessing the emission reduction potential of SSE
To estimate the CO2 reduction potential of SSE, (a) the auxiliary
power demand (of both AEs and ABs) of ships at berth and (b) the
time ships spend at berth are estimated. We analysed all existing peer-
reviewed studies from the last two decades (17 studies), that assess the
SSE potential in different ports around the world, and compared their
scope (see Table 1) and methodology (see Table B.2, Appendix).
The installed AE power (a) ‘‘is difficult to predict as, in contrast
to main engines, detailed engine specifications of auxiliary engines are
not commonly available’’ [25]. Existing studies address this problem
either by setting the auxiliary power demand constant (4/17 studies),
3
Other common terms for SSE are cold ironing, shore-to-ship power,
alternative maritime power (AMP), on-shore power supply (OPS), and High
Voltage Shore Connection (HVSC) [7].
4 5
Some ships additionally use main engines at berth to generate power, if
auxiliary engine power is insufficient [9].
2
Applied Energy 285 (2021) 116425
or by deriving regression functions of auxiliary power vs. ship size or
category (11/17 studies, see Table B.2, Appendix). However, the cor-
relations between auxiliary power demand at berth and Gross Tonnage
(GT), Deadweight Tonnage (DWT), or ship category are usually based
on a very limited number of data points that have been gathered from
existing databases, on-board surveys, or port authorities. Besides AEs,
only 3 out of 17 studies mention explicit information on the modelling
of ABs.
The time ships spend at berth (b) is usually provided by port author-
ities (7/17 studies), or ‘‘typical’’/ ‘‘hypothetical’’ values or a recurring
operation schedule are assumed (7/17), see Table B.2 (Appendix). Two
recent studies use ship tracking data from the Automatic Identification
System (AIS) to identify the time duration ships spend at berth [26,27].
The scarcity of data limits the scope of all existing studies and the
temporal resolution of their results. Furthermore, there is only ‘‘little
agreement between [SSE] studies as to its CO2 reduction potential’’ [8].
First, existing studies are largely limited to one port (9/17 studies),
or very few (at maximum 25) ports (7/17), see Table 1.5 9 of the 17
studies are furthermore restricted to specific ship categories (mainly
container or cruise ships). Results are mostly reported on a yearly basis
(10/17), only two studies comprise an hourly resolution. Johansson
et al. (2013) point out ‘‘that moderate to high uncertainty can be
associated with harbour emissions within regional emission invento-
ries’’ [25]. However, none of the 17 SSE studies thoroughly assesses
the uncertainty of its input parameters and results.
Two closely related research fields are local air quality studies in
ports (see review in [28]) and emission inventory studies in ports. The
latter are usually limited to one, rarely few, ports. They offer similar
methodological approaches to determine the AE power and the time
of ships at berth and are therefore also relevant in addition to SSE
literature. AE power is mostly drawn from databases and augmented via
a correlation of AE and ME power [29–33]. The time at berth is mostly
gathered from port authorities [30–33] or extracted from AIS data [29].
Few studies, like [34], present on-board surveys on fuel consumption
values and time at berth.
1.3. New approach of this study
Recognizing the need for a more detailed base data, the European
Union adopted the Regulation 2015/757/EU in 2015, and with it the
launch of its MRV system to track the CO2 emissions of the EU’s
shipping activity, starting in 2018 [4].
Our novel approach combines the MRV emission report data with
AIS ship tracking data. This allows us to estimate the emissions of ships
at berth in the EEA and the UK with a substantially higher resolution,
both spatially as well as temporally. This study covers all ports of the
EEA and the UK which received a port call from a ship present in the
MRV report of 2018. Where existing studies covered up to 25 ports, this
study includes 714 ports. It provides the first uncertainty assessment
of all parameters that are crucial for any SSE analysis which has been
largely neglected to date. Besides the auxiliary power of ships at berth,
it presents the corresponding electricity demand at ports (if SSE would
be implemented) and the reduction potential of CO2 emissions at an
hourly resolution. Furthermore, it covers the current SOx , NOx , N2 O,
Particulate Matter (PM10 ), CO, Volatile Organic Compound (VOC), and
CH4 emissions caused by AEs and ABs.
Section 2 explains the novel methodological approach used in this
study to assess the emission reduction potential of SSE. Section 3
discusses the auxiliary power demand of different ship categories, the
resulting SSE demand for countries and ports in the EEA and the UK,
and the reduction potential of CO2 and non-CO2 emissions. Section 4
provides an overview of existing and upcoming legislation and draws
One study is discussing a hypothetical case for the potential of SSE,
without being specific to one port.
B. Stolz et al. Applied Energy 285 (2021) 116425

Table 1
Literature review of the scope of existing shore-side electricity (SSE) studies. The last column indicates whether the uncertainty of the data sources and modelling assumptions has
been assessed (empty circles: no, full circles: yes). Abbreviations: AS: Asia, AU: Australia, EU: Europe, NA: North America, SA: South America, Ro-ro: roll-on/roll-off ship, Ro-pax:
roll-on/roll-off passenger ship, recur. schedule: recurring schedule, PM = PM10 : Particulate Matter, VOC: Volatile Organic Compounds.
Ref. Scope of study Time period Temporal Non-CO2 emissions considered Uncertainty
covered resolution
# Ports Region Ship categories SO2 NOx PM CO VOC CH4 N2 O
[10] – – ro-ro, cruise, – Yearly # # # # #
Container ships
[35] 1 AS Container ships 10-yr. scen. Yearly # # # # # # # #
[36] 1 AS Container ships 15-yr. scen. Yearly # # # # #
[37] 1 AS Container ships 2014 Yearly # # # # # # #
[38] 1 EU Ro-ro ships 1 typical week Weekly # # # # # #
[39] 1 EU Cruise ships 2012 Yearly # # # # #
[40] 1 EU All 11 days (2012) Daily # # # # # # #
[41] 1 EU All 2010–2012 Hourly # # # # #
[23] 1 EU All 2016 Yearly # # # # # #
[42] 1 EU All 2010–2016 Daily # # #a
G
[27] 3 EU, AS All 2011/12 Monthly # # # #
[43] 4 EU, NA, AS, AU All 2013/14/15 Yearly # # # # # #
[44] 6 EU, AS Container ships recur. schedule Hourly # # # # # # # #
[17] 6 EU, NA, AU Container ships 1 year (2011) Yearly # # # # #
[45] 7 EU All 2010, 2020 Yearly # # # # #
[46] 17 EU, NA, SA 1 cruise ship – One port stay # # # # #
[26] 25 NA All 2012/2013–14 Yearly # # # # #
This study 714 EU All 1 year (2018) Hourly
a
A Monte Carlo simulation for the power demand has been performed.

policy implications from our findings. Section 5 summarizes the con-
tribution of this work to existing literature, while Section 6 proposes
future research avenues. Finally, Section 7 discusses how different
stakeholders may use the findings presented in this study.
2. Methodology
2.1. Input data and scope
This study is based on version 200 of the EU MRV scheme [5],
featuring 12,019 ships. This data is combined with hourly AIS data,
which has been purchased from FleetMon [47]. It includes ship iden-
tifiers (IMO and MMSI numbers6 ), position, draught, speed, course,
and heading. Furthermore, FleetMon also provided an extract of ship
register data for each ship, including ship category, year of build, de-
sign draught, dimensions, engine type and rated power, gross tonnage
(GT), DWT, and flag country. Compared to the 12,019 ships in v200
of the MRV, we purchased AIS data at a time when v80 of the MRV
was available. We keep using the MRV version v200 (due to some
data corrections compared to v80). Our scope of ships, however, is
limited to 11,702 ships in v80 of the MRV. From that, 72 ships are
further excluded due to missing AIS data and 920 ships are filtered for
which no commercial port call within the EEA and the UK has been
observed. This determines the scope of this study as 10,710 ships. Note
that throughout this report, ship category (type) definitions are adopted
from the MRV. For a less fragmented visualization of our results,
some ship categories have been merged: Ro-pax ships are included in
passenger ships, combination carriers in bulk carriers, container/ro-
ro cargo ships in ro-ro ships, LNG carriers in gas carriers, general
cargo ships and refrigerated cargo carriers in ‘‘other ship categories’’.
However, all output data is available and discussed in the Appendix for
each category.
6
IMO: International Maritime Organization, MMSI: Maritime Mobile
Service Identity.
2.2. Auxiliary power used by ships at berth
The average AE power, 𝑃̄𝐴𝐸 , used by an individual ship 𝑠 over
all its stays in European ports for the time 𝑡(𝑠) is calculated for the
year 2018. Main engine (ME) use while berthed has been modelled
as part of AE use. The EU MRV scheme publishes 𝐸CO2 (𝑠), the mass
of CO2 emitted at berth per individual ship 𝑠, summed over all ports
in the EEA and the UK over one year. 𝐸CO2 (𝑠) is equal to the average
auxiliary power, 𝑃̄𝑎𝑢𝑥 , during all port stays, multiplied by the specific
fuel consumption, 𝑆𝐹 𝐶𝑎𝑢𝑥 , the emission factor, 𝐸𝐹CO2 , for CO2 , and the
time at berth, 𝑡(𝑠). The auxiliary power 𝑃̄𝑎𝑢𝑥 consists of the AE power,
𝑃̄𝐴𝐸 , and the AB power, 𝑃̄𝐴𝐵 . No time-resolved load factor has been
applied to the AEs to reflect load dependent SFCs, since ‘‘the engine
load of operational auxiliary engines is usually adjusted by switching
multiple engines on or off. The optimum working range of auxiliary
engines is thus maintained by the crew and it is not expected to have
large variability, in contrast to the main engine load’’ [16].
( )
𝐸CO2 (𝑠) = 𝑃̄𝐴𝐸 (𝑠) 𝑆𝐹 𝐶𝐴𝐸 + 𝑃̄𝐴𝐵 (𝑠) 𝑆𝐹 𝐶𝐴𝐵 ⋅ 𝐸𝐹CO2 ⋅ 𝑡(𝑠) (1)
The fuel type used in auxiliary engines and boilers is not specified in
the MRV data. The overall fuel mix over all operation modes (incl. at
sea, at berth, etc.) can be estimated by considering the emission factor
which is equal to the ratio of overall CO2 emissions to the overall fuel
consumption, which are both published as part of the MRV. However,
this EF includes also the operation of the main engine (ME) and cannot
be used to estimate the fuel used for AEs and ABs. Therefore, it is
assumed that all AEs and ABs are powered by MDO, with a constant
specific fuel consumption 𝑆𝐹 𝐶𝐴𝐸 of 225 g MDO per kWhmech , and
𝑆𝐹 𝐶𝐴𝐵 of 305 g MDO per kWhtherm . [16]. The emission factor 𝐸𝐹CO2
of MDO is 3.206 g CO2 per g MDO [16].
𝑡(𝑠) is the time a ship spends at berth during the whole year
following the definition of the MRV: ‘‘securely moored or anchored
in a port falling under the jurisdiction of a Member State while it is
loading, unloading or hotelling, including the time spent when not
engaged in cargo operations’’ [4]. The time at berth is derived from
AIS data. An algorithm was developed to distinguish between different
operation modes (in dock, at berth, at anchor, maneuvering, cruising),
and to allocate the stays at berth to individual ports. Stops are defined
as featuring a speed below 1 kn. Each stop is evaluated in terms of
stop duration, and distance to the next port. For each ship category, a

3
B. Stolz et al. Applied Energy 285 (2021) 116425

lower and upper limit on port call duration was imposed, considering Table 2
Emission factors for pollutants of Auxiliary Engines (AE) in g 𝑝𝑜𝑙 per kg MDO). NOx
the time required to load and unload the respective cargo, as well
Tier 0 includes all ships built before 2000, Tier 1 from 2000 until 2010, and Tier 2
as incorporating known operational patterns (cf. Table C.3 in the after 2010. AEs are assumed to be medium speed diesel engines (MSD).
Appendix). If a stop is shorter than the lower limit, it is denominated as Pollutant species Emission factors of AE and AB Ref.
a stay at anchor, if it is longer than the upper limit, then it is assumed to
SOx 2.64 [16]
be a stay in dock, without associated auxiliary power use. Stops with a NOx (Tier 0) 61.21 [16]
distance of over 40 nm to the closest port (calculated as the distance to NOx (Tier 1) 56.84 [16]
the port coordinates taken from the World Port Index (WPI) [48]) are NOx (Tier 2) 48.96 [16]
labelled as stays at anchor while at sea. Otherwise, they are labelled as N2 O 0.15 [16]
PM 1.02 [16]
stays at berth. At times, a ship makes multiple consecutive stops close
CO 2.77 [16]
to the same port. For this case, stays at anchor and stays at berth have VOC 3.08 [16]
to be distinguished. To do so, we compare three factors for all identified CH4 0.06 [16]
stops: (1) the distance to the port for each stop, (2) the speed variation
during the time period of each stop, (3) the sequence (order) of the
identified stops. If at least two out of these three factors indicate a stop
electricity from this mechanical power is estimated to be 92% [17].
at anchor (or at berth), it is labelled as such.
As the time at berth for a cluster of stops is counted from the first ar- Therefore, only 92% of the respective AE power demand on board ships
rival at berth until the last departure from berth, anchorages as well as has to be supplied from shore through SSE.
transit in between are included in this case [49]. To consider differences
in auxiliary power between operational modes, the respective duration 2.3. Emissions of ships at berth
spent in each operational mode (maneuvering, at berth, at anchor) is
multiplied with the ratio of auxiliary power use between the respective
operational modes (using the auxiliary power demand of operational CO2 emissions resolved by time, ship, ship category, port, and
modes from [50]). Emissions from all operational modes except for country are calculated from the data set of AE power:
stays at berth were removed from the subsequent calculations of the
𝐸CO2 ,𝐴𝐸 (𝑠, 𝑝, 𝑡) = 𝑃̄𝐴𝐸 (𝑠, 𝑝, 𝑡) 𝑡(𝑠, 𝑝) 𝑆𝐹 𝐶𝐴𝐸 𝐸𝐹CO2 ,𝐴𝐸 (5)
SSE potential, as electricity can only be supplied to a ship while it is at
berth. Non-CO2 pollutant emissions by a ship 𝑠 in port 𝑝 for the time 𝑡(𝑠, 𝑝)
The AE power is considered as the share of the total auxiliary power are calculated by applying the respective emission factor, 𝐸𝐹𝑝𝑜𝑙,𝐴𝐸 , in
demand that can be provided easily from shore. As discussed earlier, g 𝑝𝑜𝑙 per kg MDO, see Table 2:
providing steam from shore or producing steam from SSE on board
with retrofitted electric steam boilers is in principle feasible as well, but 𝐸CO2 ,𝑎𝑢𝑥 (𝑠, 𝑝, 𝑡)
𝐸𝑝𝑜𝑙,𝐴𝐸 (𝑠, 𝑝, 𝑡) = 𝐸𝐹𝑝𝑜𝑙,𝐴𝐸 (6)
subject to higher investment costs and technical challenges. To reflect 𝐸𝐹CO2 ,𝐴𝐸
a realistic emission reduction potential, our analysis is limited to SSE
with
for AEs. AB power is excluded hereafter and eliminated from Eq. (1)
using the ratio 𝑟(𝑐, 𝑑𝑤𝑡) between AB and AE power: 𝑝𝑜𝑙 ∈ {SOx , NOx , N2 O, PM10 , CO, VOC, CH4 } (7)
𝑃̄
𝑟(𝑐, 𝑑𝑤𝑡) = 𝐴𝐵 (2)
𝑃̄𝐴𝐸
Values for this ratio have been collected from literature, resolved by 2.4. Emissions of shore-side electricity from the grid
ship category 𝑐 and cargo capacity bin in deadweight tonnes (𝑑𝑤𝑡), see
Appendix I. Assuming that ships of the same type and similar dead- The simplest option to supply SSE at ports is a connection to the
weight tonnage have similar on-board energy demand, we postulate electric grid. Associated emissions from the grid electricity mix can
they have the same 𝑟(𝑐, 𝑑𝑤𝑡) ratio. Hence, Eq. (1) can be solved for be calculated from the total energy requirement for SSE per coun-
𝑃̄𝐴𝐸 (𝑠), see Eq. (3). try, 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑙,𝑆𝑆𝐸 (𝑐𝑡𝑦), which is given by the port stay durations and the
𝐸CO2 (𝑠) auxiliary power demand of ships at berth in the respective country.
𝑃̄𝐴𝐸 (𝑠) = ( ) (3)
𝑆𝐹 𝐶𝐴𝐸 + 𝑟(𝑐, 𝑑𝑤𝑡) 𝑆𝐹 𝐶𝐴𝐵 ⋅ 𝐸𝐹CO2 ⋅ 𝑡(𝑠, 𝑝)
𝐸𝐹CO2 ,𝑆𝑆𝐸
with 𝐸CO2 ,𝑆𝑆𝐸 (𝑐𝑡𝑦) = 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑙,𝑆𝑆𝐸 (𝑐𝑡𝑦) (8)
𝜂𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑
𝑐 ∈ {oil tanker, passenger ship, ro-pax ship,
container ship, chemical tanker, The CO2 intensities (emission factors), 𝐸𝐹CO2 ,𝑆𝑆𝐸 , of electricity gen-
eration in the EEA and the UK is taken from the European Environment
bulk carrier, combination carrier,
(4) Agency for the year 2017 [51]. The transmission losses in the grid are
ro-ro ship, LNG carrier, gas carrier,
included via the grid efficiency 𝜂𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑 , as provided by the International
general cargo ship, vehicle carrier, Energy Agency [52]. Values for the gross electricity generation per
container/ro-ro cargo ship, other ships} country, 𝑐𝑡𝑦, in 2018 have been sourced from Eurostat [53], to compute
the share of energy required for SSE.
Note that 𝑃̄𝐴𝐸 (𝑠) is assumed to be constant or zero, if the ship is not
Currently, there is no comprehensive and up-to-date database on
at berth at time 𝑡. 𝑡(𝑠, 𝑝) is observed in discrete one-hour steps and
given in full hours. For port stays detected at a time that is not equal pollutant emission factors for the electricity generation in the EEA and
to a full hour, e.g. 2.15 pm, the time share of the hourly time step the UK, see Appendix D. This impedes a detailed assessment of the exact
(45/60 min = 0.75) is applied to its power demand. Hence, a power pollutant reduction potential if electricity is provided from the grid. Our
demand of e.g. 1 MW for 45 min will be spread over the whole hour to assessment of the non-CO2 reduction potential is therefore defined as
0.75 MW for the 60 min. The resulting data set contains the AE power the maximally achievable reduction, corresponding to a pollutant-free
resolved by hour, ship, ship category, port, and country. Note that 𝑃̄𝐴𝐸 , electricity source. In any case, SSE alleviates local air pollution in ports,
as calculated here and shown in Appendix I, refers to the mechanical since the emissions from grid electricity generation generally do not
power output of the AEs. The efficiency of the generator producing occur in densely populated coastal areas, but more towards the inland.

4
B. Stolz et al.
Fig. 1. Left column: Time at berth for different ship categories. Middle and right column: Power use of auxiliary engines and auxiliary boilers for different ship categories. Box plots
display the median (vertical line), the interquartile range (box), and the 95% confidence intervals (whiskers). Outliers beyond the whiskers are not depicted for better readability.
2.5. Emission reduction potential of ships at berth
The emissions saved by the implementation of SSE are calculated
by subtracting the emissions during the electricity generation from the
emissions caused by the AE power generation on board ships:
𝐸CO2 ∕𝑝𝑜𝑙,𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑑 = 𝐸CO2 ∕𝑝𝑜𝑙,𝐴𝐸 − 𝐸CO2 ∕𝑝𝑜𝑙,𝑆𝑆𝐸
with 𝐸CO2 ,𝑆𝑆𝐸 as in Eq. (8) and 𝐸𝑝𝑜𝑙,𝑆𝑆𝐸 = 0.
2.6. Validation
While only annual totals for fuel consumption and emissions are
published within the MRV scheme, compliance with it requires submit-
ting emission reports on a per trip basis for most ships. These emission
reports include ship identifier, port, country, and time of departure
and arrival, as well as the respective fuel consumption and fuel type
used. Such detailed emission report data have been acquired for 91
vessels including cruise ships, bulk carriers, oil tankers, and container
ships. The times at berth as well as the emissions reported per port
stay have been compared to the output of our model. This provides
an assessment of the achieved accuracy. An overview of sources of
uncertainty associated with our methodology and a discussion of their
impact on the accuracy of our results can be found in Appendix H.
3. Results & discussion
In this section, the average time at berth as well as the AE power
use at berth is compared to literature values for individual ship cat-
egories. On this basis, the electricity demand of individual ports and
whole countries are presented in different levels of aggregation, on
an hourly, weekly, and annual basis. The emission reduction potential
for SSE from national grids is discussed, followed by an assessment
of uncertainties in input parameters and modelling assumptions. The
section is concluded by a discussion of chances, challenges, and caveats
of SSE. While existing studies have been restricted to a limited number
of ships and ports, the strength of this study is that it covers 10,710
ships.
Applied Energy 285 (2021) 116425
3.1. Time of ships at berth
The calculated time of ships at berth has been evaluated on a per-
trip basis for different ship categories, see Fig. 1. The large majority of
port stays is shorter than 2.5 days. However, the average berthing time
depends heavily on the type of ship, and can be subject to significant
(9)
variance. For bulk carriers, port stays of a few days or even weeks
are common, particularly when transporting dry bulk which cannot be
unloaded during rainy weather conditions. The spread in berthing times
shows that just taking average values (as [34], see Table B.2 in the
Appendix) can result in considerable errors of the SSE potential.
The only comprehensive database on berthing times is published by
the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
which lists median time durations ships spend at ports for different ship
categories per country [54].
3.2. Auxiliary engine power used by ships at berth
The modelled AE power used by container ships at berth is shown
in Fig. 2. Container ships have been chosen since most studies focus
on this ship category. Analogous analyses are provided in Appendix F.
Fig. 2 also shows a comparison to the values from literature. To make
them comparable to our approach, existing correlations (cf. Table B.2
in the Appendix) were applied to the ships in the MRV fleet. E.g.
if a study reports 𝑃𝐴𝐸 = 0.04 ⋅ 𝑃𝑀𝐸 , this function is applied to the
ME power information of all ships present in the MRV fleet and the
resulting 𝑃𝐴𝐸 values are plotted against the corresponding DWT values
for each ship in the MRV. Therefore, all studies providing correlations
and not only single data points from assumptions [44] or surveys [50]
comprise the same number of data points as for the results of our
study, i.e. the 1,645 container ships in the MRV fleet. Where necessary,
twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) were converted to DWT by applying
the regression from [57].
The 𝑃𝐴𝐸 values resulting from this study increase with the ship
size for ships below approximately 100,000 𝐷𝑊 𝑇 , while larger ships
do not show any drastic additional increase. Overall, there is a con-
siderable spread in values: A power function has been fitted to the
5
B. Stolz et al. Applied Energy 285 (2021) 116425

Fig. 2. Auxiliary engine power of container ships used at berth. The left plot shows individual values from literature (Dai et al. [44], Goldsworthy and Goldsworthy [50]), Tseng
& Pilcher [37], the EPA [55], Starcrest [56], and the IMO [16]. 𝑛 indicates the number of ships used by the respective source. 0 corresponds to studies with assumptions rather
than measurements. The right plot shows the results of this study, and the respective regression curve. As described in the text, the regression has limited explanatory power.
This study recommends to use the detailed auxiliary engine power per individual ship instead of the regression. Analogue figures for other ship categories are provided in the
Supplementary Information.

values, reaching an 𝑅2 value of only 0.15. Removing the upper and

lower 1% of data points, assumed to be outliers, would already result
in an 𝑅2 value of 0.42. However, there is a notable disagreement
between literature values, which is especially high for large ships. 𝑃𝐴𝐸
does not increase linearly with gross tonnage, as assumed by Tseng
& Pilcher [37]. Determining 𝑃𝐴𝐸 as a constant ratio of ME power, as
applied in the EPA study, results in a closer match to the results of
this study. However, plotting auxiliary power as a function of 𝑃𝑀𝐸,𝑚𝑎𝑥
shows that there is a considerable spread as well; fitting a power
function to 𝑃𝐴𝐸 over 𝑃𝑀𝐸,𝑚𝑎𝑥 results in a fit with an 𝑅2 value of only
0.15 (see Appendix F), which is as low as in the case of the function
fitted to 𝑃𝐴𝐸 (𝐷𝑊 𝑇 ). Studies specifying the auxiliary power demand as
a function of capacity bins (IMO [16], Starcrest [56]) fail to reflect the
wide spread of values. An analysis of all ship characteristics available in
ship registers revealed that there is no single, robust predictor for 𝑃𝐴𝐸 :
The variance of the data points of Fig. 2 has been evaluated against
all available information of the ships, among others including ship age,
ship size, ship dimensions, cargo capacity, rated ME power, and ship
category. No parameter from our database could describe the variance
of the data points. The fact that the presented studies are based in
different regions of the world aggravates the scattering of the data Fig. 3. Annual energy demand of ships at berth within the EEA and the UK in 2018,
summed by port. The underlying data for all 714 ports is attached in Appendix 7. The
points.
legend represents discrete, indicative electricity demand steps. The data, however, is
Fig. 1 provides the distributions of AE and AB power as outputs of continuous.
our model. Passenger ships feature the highest AE power requirements,
followed by gas carriers — both with an AE power demand up to
almost 10 MW. Oil tankers and gas carriers have the highest AB power Since a ‘‘sufficiently regular service to EU ports [is necessary] to
demand, e.g. to power steam turbine pumps for cargo handling, as warrant the installation and use of shore-side electricity’’ [58], the
discussed in Section 1. energy demand distribution over all ships is estimated, clustered by
ship category (see Fig. 4). Ships mainly operating in the EEA and the
3.3. Electricity demand at ports in the EEA and the UK UK, which have a high mean power demand at berth, are responsible
for the largest share of the total SSE energy demand. More than
The annual electricity demand for a complete implementation of 50% of the total SSE demand (6.4 TWh) is used by only 10% of all
SSE in all ports of the EEA and the UK is shown in Fig. 3. Unsur- ships, two ship categories (passenger and container ships), 35 ports,
prisingly, Rotterdam and Antwerp feature by far the highest energy or five countries (Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,
demand. Overall, this map agrees widely with the only existing study and France), respectively. The electricity demand for SSE per country
that provides estimations for all major European ports (extrapolated is listed in Table 3.
from a detailed analysis of seven ports [45]); however, it features For the example of Italy, which features the highest cumulative
a higher resolution and reliability, as it does not extrapolate from a energy demand of ships at berth, the weekly energy demand and the
database of seven ports, but is based on data for 714 ports. hourly power demand of ships at berth is shown in Fig. 5 and 6. For

6
B. Stolz et al.
Fig. 4. Top panel: Cumulative share of shore-side electricity (SSE) energy demand for bins of 1,000 ships each. The percentage numbers indicate the share of each bin of the total
AE power demand at berth of all 10,710 ships. Bottom panel: Stacked bars indicate the corresponding shares of all ship categories per bin.
all other countries within the EEA and the UK, similar data is provided
in the Appendix.
Fig. 5 shows the weekly energy demand over the whole year 2018
summed up for all Italian ports. Passenger ships cause a considerable
seasonality, while all other ship types feature a fairly constant weekly
energy demand over the whole year.
Fig. 6 shows the hourly demand for SSE power in Italy during the
first week of 2018, resolved by ship category. The power demand varies
from roughly 60 MW to almost 120 MW. This daily power variation
is primarily caused by passenger ships. If SSE is to be supplied from
renewable sources in the future (e.g. off-shore wind or photovoltaics),
it will be crucial to balance their fluctuations both on a daily and a
seasonal time scale. As each country has a different power demand from
passenger ships (cf. Appendix G), the degree of this variation differs
from country to country.
3.4. CO2 emissions of ships at berth and the reduction potential of SSE
Table 3 lists the demand of electricity for SSE in every coastal
country of the EEA and the UK, as well as its share of the gross domestic
electricity production. The total electricity demand in the EEA and the
UK from SSE amounts to 6.4 TWh per annum. This is only 0.2% of the
yearly electricity production of the EEA and the UK.
The CO2 emissions from the production of electricity required for
SSE are listed in Table 3 and compared to the emissions of ships at
berth. In total, 8.11 Mt CO2 emissions at berth were reported within the
scope of the MRV scheme (AEs and ABs, version 200 [5]), correspond-
ing to 6.1% of emissions reported within the MRV scheme. Of these
emissions, 3 Mt CO2 can be saved by implementing SSE for AEs with
the present electricity mix in the respective countries (5 Mt with CO2 -
neutral electricity). Hence, already now, total CO2 emissions caused by
ships at berth could be reduced by over a third (3.00 from 8.11 Mt
CO2 ).
Supplying the 10 biggest ports in the EEA and the UK with SSE
would already contribute to a CO2 emission reduction of 732 kt or 24%
of the total CO2 reduction potential from SSE within the EEA and the
UK.
7
Applied Energy 285 (2021) 116425
Fig. 7 shows the potential for CO2 emission reduction by provid-
ing SSE from national grids and the corresponding annual electricity
demand, resolved by country. The border between the grey and the
white area represents the maximum CO2 reduction potential, i.e. if
SSE would be supplied by zero-carbon renewable energy sources. It
amounts to 784 g CO2 per kWhel , resulting from an emission factor of
3.206 kg CO2 per kg MDO [16], a SFC of 225 g MDO per kWhmech [16],
and a generator efficiency of 𝜂mech→el = 92% [17].
Countries in the orange area have a coal-dominated (Poland, Esto-
nia) or oil-reliant (Greece, Cyprus) electricity system. Here, SSE would
currently entail only a low CO2 reduction or even an increase of CO2
emissions. However, this can be changed by reducing the CO2 intensity
of the countries’ electricity mix, e.g. by adding dedicated, renewable
electricity capacity. The significance of the emissions of the electricity
production is visible in case of Spain and France: While France has a
45% lower energy demand for SSE implementation, both countries have
a similar CO2 reduction potential, since the specific CO2 emissions of
electricity production in France are lower.
3.5. Overall CO2 reduction potential of SSE compared to total shipping
emissions
Within the variety of CO2 reduction measures for ships, SSE is only
one option. For the assessment of CO2 abatement costs of different
measures, the share of avoidable CO2 emissions by use of SSE of
total shipping emissions defines the CO2 reduction potential of SSE for
shipping.
Literature values are scarce and range from approximately half a
percent to 5%: Winkel et al. state a CO2 reduction potential of 0.44%,
based on operations at seven ports in the EU, assuming carbon inten-
sities of electricity mixes [45]. Chatzinikolaou & Ventikos state a CO2
reduction potential of 0.96% in a study on one oil tanker [59]. Lindstad
et al. state a CO2 reduction potential of roughly 5% for reference ships
of different ship categories in the EU, assuming that SSE supply from
the grid can reduce CO2 emissions by 62% [60].
This study provides the emission reduction potential of SSE per ship
category if electricity would be supplied from the current national grids
B. Stolz et al.
Fig. 5. Weekly energy demand of ships at berth in all 59 Italian ports, from 2018-01-01 until 2018-12-31.
Fig. 6. Hourly power demand of ships at berth in all 59 Italian ports, from Monday, 2018-01-01 00:00, until Sunday, 2018-01-08 00:00.
and if CO2 -neutral electricity would be supplied, see Table 4. Because
of the increased geographical and temporal scope of our methodology,
it provides more detail and certainty on the actual CO2 reduction
potential of SSE.
3.6. Pollutant emissions of ships at berth and the potential for reductions
Surveys with port authorities have shown that ports are more
concerned about local air pollutants than CO2 [61]. ‘‘Past studies have
shown that, depending on geographic and meteorological conditions,
emissions generated hundreds of miles out at sea can reach shore-based
populations’’ [61]. Hence, not only emissions at berth matter for local
air pollution, but also those in close distance to the shore. Existing
studies on the impact of shipping on local air quality in Europe assume
different boundaries, i.e. distances to the coastal line [21].
We find that the AE power use at berth causes annual emissions
of 86,431 t NOx , 4130 t SOx , 1596 t PM10 , 4333 t CO, 94 t CH4 ,
4818 t NMVOC, and 235 t N2 O in all major 714 European ports. Most
of these emissions could be avoided by a switch to SSE. However, no
8
Applied Energy 285 (2021) 116425
up-to-date database on local air pollution in coastal areas in Europe
could be found. Therefore, a case study of the Netherlands exemplifies
how the impact of AE power use at berth on local air quality can
be estimated. The pollutant emissions of ships at all ports of the
Netherlands are compared to the overall reported emissions for the
whole Dutch Continental Shelf7 [62], which are likely to cause most
of the air pollution from shipping relevant for local residents. We find
that 14% of the CO2 emissions from the Dutch Continental Shelf stem
from AE power use at berth, while 11% do for NOx , 10% for SOx , 7%
for PM10 , 11% for CH4 , 23% for NMVOC, 11% for CO, and 28% for
N2 O emissions. These emissions could be avoided by the use of SSE.
7
‘‘The (European) Continental Shelf consists of the area located between
the low water line and a water depth of 200 m, but no more than 200 miles
from the coast’’. [62] - Google translation from Dutch to English.
B. Stolz et al. Applied Energy 285 (2021) 116425

Table 3
Electricity demand for the implementation of SSE. CO2 emissions of ships at berth, and CO2 emissions from the production of the amount of
electricity required to substitute all auxiliary engine power demand at berth through SSE. Country codes following ISO 3166-1 alpha-2.
Country Electricity CO2 emissions
Demand for SSE Gross domestic Share of SSE of electricity of ships at Saved in total Share saved
[GWh] production [TWh] [%] for SSE [kt] berth [kt] by SSE [kt] by SSE [%]
IT 959 289 0.36 266 752 487 65
ES 863 274 0.34 288 672 384 57
GB 713 331 0.23 207 559 352 63
NL 651 114 0.60 309 509 200 39
FR 478 581 0.09 34 374 340 91
BE 429 75 0.61 80 336 257 76
DE 414 642 0.07 180 325 145 45
GR 375 53 0.76 266 293 27 9
SE 244 163 0.16 2 191 189 99
NO 232 147 0.17 5 182 177 97
FI 178 70 0.27 15 140 124 89
PT 142 60 0.26 55 112 57 51
DK 107 30 0.38 17 84 67 80
PL 99 170 0.06 79 77 −2 −3
EE 79 12 0.68 77 62 −16 −26
IE 78 31 0.27 33 61 28 46
MT 63 2 3.34 29 49 20 41
RO 54 65 0.09 16 42 27 63
LV 51 7 0.83 3 40 37 93
HR 44 14 0.36 9 34 25 73
LT 43 3 1.60 3 34 30 90
SI 37 16 0.24 10 29 19 67
BG 34 47 0.08 18 27 9 33
IS 22 20 0.11 0 17 17 100
CY 19 5 0.38 13 15 2 12
Total 6,406 3,221 0.20 2,014 5,015 3,001 60

Fig. 7. Annual electricity demand and CO2 reduction potential for all coastal countries in the EEA and the UK if all energy demand from auxiliary engines at berth was supplied
via shore-side electricity from national grids. As a comparison, the two largest ports are included. The directions of possible impacts are illustrated in the box on the bottom right;
the corresponding discussion is provided in Section 3.7.

3.7. Chances, challenges, and caveats of SSE
This section discusses the main effects that potentially in-/decrease
the energy demand at berth as well as the annual CO2 reduction
potential, see directions of possible impacts in Fig. 7. A more detailed
overview is given in Appendix J.
Arrow ‘I’ in Fig. 7: The electricity demand (and the related reduction
potential) is limited by the market uptake of SSE both on shore and
on board ships [42]. Furthermore, connecting and disconnecting the
power lines from the shore can reduce the time during which SSE
supply is established and hence the overall demand.
Arrow ‘II’ in Fig. 7: The CO2 reduction potential will decrease if
electricity with a high CO2 intensity is supplied. Furthermore, if the on-
shore power supply (dis-)connection leads to a delay in port operations
and a prolonged stay at berth, and if ships make up the lost time by
increased sailing speeds during the trip afterwards, the CO2 reduction
potential decreases as well [44].
Arrow ‘III’ in Fig. 7: The demand for shipping is expected to rise by
a factor of 3 from 2015 to 2050 [6]. Therefore, the electricity demand
(and the related CO2 reduction potential) is likely to increase over time.
Furthermore, if the AB steam demand could be supplied by electric
steam boilers on board ships powered by SSE, the overall electricity
demand for SSE would increase as well.

9
B. Stolz et al. Applied Energy 285 (2021) 116425

Table 4 In 2014, the National Policy Frameworks (NPFs) of the Alternative

Overall CO2 reduction potential of SSE compared to total shipping emissions. Averages
Fuel Infrastructure (AFI) Directive (2014/94/EU, Article 4 [67]) marks
are weighted by the amount of emissions per ship category.
the beginning of period 2 as a first step from the individual responsi-
CO2 reduction potential if electricity is supplied from
bility of Member States towards a coordinated European approach. In
...national grids ...renewable electricity
their NPFs, Member States have to report on their progress and targets
Passenger ships 4.9% 9.1% towards the adoption of SSE. For the first time, the AFI directive also
Combination carrier 4.9% 9.1%
indicates a time frame for the adoption of SSE. Member States shall
Ro-pax ships 4.3% 7.1%
Container/ro-ro cargo ships 4.2% 6.4% establish SSE in ports by end of 2025, if the economic or demand
Chemical tankers 2.7% 4.6% situation does not impede it. However, the latest assessment of the NPFs
General cargo ships 2.4% 3.7% from 2019 finds that SSE is ‘‘scarcely covered in the various NPFs and
Vehicle carriers 2.3% 3.7% very few NPF contain any targets or measures for an increase of these
Gas carriers 2.1% 3.3%
alternative fuel sources’’ [68]. Existing legislation has so far failed to
Ro-ro ships 2.0% 3.1%
Bulk carriers 1.7% 2.9% deliver the ‘‘expected uptake of alternatively fuelled [...] vessels and
Oil tankers 1.5% 2.6% the ambitions under the Green Deal’’ [69].
Container ships 1.2% 2.1% As a result, we identify period 3 of an intended ’ratcheting up’ of
Refrigerated cargo carriers 1.1% 2.0%
ambitions and strengthening of existing policies within the European
LNG carriers 0.9% 1.3%
Other ship types 1.9% 2.9%
Green Deal from 2021 on. Most prominently, the European Green Deal
established the overarching initiative FuelEU Maritime that is part of
Average 2.2% 3.7%
the 2020 Commission Work Programme [24] to tackle emissions from
international shipping. It foresees the revision of the Alternative Fuel
Infrastructure Directive [69] and the Energy Taxation Directive [70]. This
Arrow ‘IV’ in Fig. 7: The CO2 reduction potential of SSE can be new round of legislation intends to decrease subsidies for fossil marine
considerably increased if the supplied electricity had a lower CO2 fuels and considers including related emissions into the EU ETS, while
intensity. More renewable generation capacity would translate to an enhancing the competitiveness of SSE [24,69,70]. This will only be
upwards shift of the data points in Fig. 7. If 100% renewable energy effective if the current cost gap between using fossil marine fuels in
is used, the respective points lie on the border to the greyed out area, AEs/ABs and using SSE is reversed. All current drafts of upcoming legis-
as e.g. Sweden and Norway already almost do. While e.g. Germany has lation in 2021 include promising statements to overcome the challenges
an annual CO2 reduction potential of 145 kt based on its current grid identified from the first period of loose action (2003–2016) towards
electricity mix, this potential could be more than doubled, if SSE were more coordinated targets and measures on a European level.
to be supplied from CO2 -neutral sources. In the light of both demand and supply, the findings of this paper
may contribute to a prioritization of SSE installations at ports and
4. Policy implications SSE retrofits for ships on a European level. An orchestrated, European
approach has the potential to maximize the emission reductions over
SSE has the advantage of lowering local air pollution in port areas the next decades. Ports in countries with a low CO2 intensity of the
and can contribute to the CO2 reduction targets of the EU. In both national grid should be prioritized in the short-term, while other coun-
cases, the beneficiaries are diffuse interest groups, i.e. the residents tries may follow in a second wave of SSE infrastructure deployment.
in port areas regarding health-impacting pollutants [18–20] and the All these considerations have to be evaluated against the profitability
global population regarding CO2 reduction. In contrast, those who bear for individual ports and ships, and the concordance of demand and
the costs to install the required technology are concentrated interest supply. Therefore, collaborations between ship operators and ports they
groups, i.e. ports for the supply of SSE equipment and ship owners (and are frequently calling on might contribute to a faster market uptake of
builders) for its demand side. SSE and overall higher emission reductions, e.g. like DFDS did with
Marine fuels are currently exempted from taxation, according to ‘‘the ports of Immingham, Gothenburg, Ghent and six [of their] freight
Article 14 of the Energy Taxation Directive (2003/96/EC [63]). SSE, vessels’’ [71].
however, is not; although Member States can apply for a tax reduction Countries like the United States have already proven the feasibility
under Article 19 of the Energy Taxation Directive (2003/96/EC [63, of stricter legislation, e.g. in California where ‘‘at least half of all
64]). Furthermore, marine fuels are not included in the Emissions container ships’’ are obliged to run on SSE at berth [72]. With the
Trading Scheme of the European Union (EU ETS), laid out in Directive momentum of 189 of the 197 Parties to the United Nations Framework
2003/87/EC [65], whereas electricity generation is. Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) having ratified the Paris
The current setting creates unfavourable market conditions with Agreement in December 2020 [73], the EU’s investment in green
little to no incentives to install SSE in the light of the economically technology could not only boost European climate ambition but could
superior on-board use of marine fuels in AEs and ABs [66]. A solution also create spillovers to other countries worldwide (see also [74]).
for this dilemma is to create (a) a level playing field between marine SSE investments should always be evaluated against all benefits, not
fuels and SSE and (b) business cases for ship operators and ports such limited to CO2 emissions. The case study of the Netherlands has shown
that the installation of infrastructure (supply at ports) and the use of that SSE can reduce toxic pollutants in port areas considerably. SSE
SSE (demand on board ships) becomes favourable on both ends. does not only address climate action (Sustainable Development Goal
The following paragraph summarizes the EU’s approach to promote (SDG) 13), but encompasses a variety of nine SDGs: SDG3 (good health
SSE. A more detailed overview on all relevant EU policies over the last and well-being), SDG6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG7 (affordable
two decades is given in Appendix K. and clean energy), SDG8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG9
We identify three phases of EU policies: Period 1 marks the time (industry, innovation and infrastructure), SDG11 (sustainable cities and
between 2003 and 2016 where Member States have been encouraged communities), SDG13 (climate action), SDG14 (life below water), and
by the European Commission and the European Parliament to take SDG15 (life on land). It is with this wide spectrum of benefits in mind
individual action to promote SSE. Most prominently, this includes the that the value of SSE becomes evident.
Energy Taxation Directive (2003/96/EC, Article 19 [63]) under which Finally, this paper demonstrated that the main impediment for a
Member States have been able to reduce taxes for electricity used on detailed analysis of the emission reduction potential of SSE in European
board ships at berth to a minimum. However, this incentive has not ports is a lack of data on multiple ends. Upcoming legislation should
been sufficient to create a level playing field. consider to include the reporting of data like ship characteristics,

10
B. Stolz et al.
AE and AB power use at berth, corresponding emissions or emission
factors, in order to improve the data basis for further research, but
also to evaluate the impact of future SSE installations, and hence, the
effectiveness of the policy objectives.
5. Conclusions
While ships stay in ports, they run auxiliary engines (AEs) in order
to provide power for cargo handling operations. Replacing the AE
power from the on-board use of fossil fuels with shore-side electricity
(SSE) can reduce CO2 and pollutant emissions. To quantify the emis-
sion reduction potential of SSE, detailed knowledge on the AE power
demand as well as the time ships stay at berth is needed. Due to data
scarcity, existing studies have been limited to few ports (most often
one, at most 25). This work presents a novel method to estimate the
AE power use and corresponding emissions of ships at berth. Ship
tracking data from the Automatic Identification System (AIS) was used
to identify the time ships spend at berth for all ships present in the Mon-
itoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) scheme. The combination
of AIS and MRV data allowed us to create a comprehensive overview
on the AE power demand of those ships at berth, and hence the
emission reduction potential of SSE. The database comprises 222,213
commercial port calls at the major 714 ports in the European Economic
Area (EEA) and the UK from 10,710 ships in 2018. It is resolved on an
hourly basis by individual ships and can be easily aggregated by ship
category (type), port, and country.
Compared to existing literature, this study excels in its broad scope
and its temporal resolution. For the first time, SSE demand estimations
can be reliably made for all ports in the EEA and the UK, due to the
combination of MRV and AIS data. What data scarcity has impeded for
a long time, is now possible with our novel methodology.
2.2% (/ 3.7%) of total CO2 emissions from shipping can be avoided
by the deployment of SSE if the required electricity is supplied from
national grids (/ from CO2 -neutral sources). Passenger ships reveal the
highest AE power demand of all ship categories. Hence, they offer
also the highest CO2 reduction potential of 6.3% (10.2%) of their total
shipping emissions. In the entire EEA and the UK, annual emissions of
3 Mt (5 Mt) CO2 could be avoided if SSE would be supplied from the
grid (from CO2 -neutral sources). Fully utilizing the potential for SSE
would require an increase of the electricity generation capacity of the
EEA and the UK of only 0.20%, or 6.4 TWh. Depending on the CO2
intensity of the national electricity mixes, different CO2 savings can be
expected. For some countries such as Iceland, Norway, and Sweden,
over 95% of the emissions at berth could already be saved now by
implementing SSE, due to the high share of renewables in the national
electricity generation. Other countries like Greece, Poland, and Estonia
that mainly use fossil fuels for power generation, currently feature a
low or even negative CO2 reduction potential.
If SSE would be provided from pollutant-free sources, it would also
avoid considerable amounts of non-CO2 emissions in ports of the EEA
and the UK: 86,431 t NOx , 4,130 t SOx , 1,596 t particulate matter
(PM10 ), 4,333 t CO, 94 t CH4 , 4,818 t non-methane volatile organic
compounds (NMVOC), and 235 t N2 O. While past EU legislation has
failed to deliver the aspired adoption of SSE, the upcoming round of
EU policy-making in the context of the European Green Deal seems
promising at its current state to create a level playing field between
fossil marine fuels and SSE.
6. Outlook
This outlook is structured in two paragraphs: a first about future
research recommendations to improve our novel methodology, and a
second about the future of SSE.
Combining AIS and MRV at-berth emissions data, this study pro-
vides a new methodology to estimate the emission reduction potential
of SSE. Since AIS data is subject to gaps, a more robust determination
11
Applied Energy 285 (2021) 116425
of stays at berth from AIS data promises to lead to even more accurate
results. For detailed studies of individual ports or countries, other data
sources such as port call data can be used. In case of ship operators,
the emission reports on a per trip basis as required for MRV compliance
can be used to directly and accurately predict future emissions at berth.
Using load profiles and distinguishing between loading and unloading
at berth promises an increased reliability of the distribution of power
demand over time and especially multiple ports.
Two aspects are crucial to define emission reduction pathways for
international shipping and to provide scientific evidence for policy-
makers: First, future studies may set our findings in the context of other
CO2 and non-CO2 emission reduction measures. Second, an economic
assessment of the emission abatement costs would complement the
technological analysis of SSE presented in this study. Since the demand
for shipping is expected to rise by a factor of 3 from 2015 to 2050 [6],
future demand for SSE will increase likewise. Battery-electric ferries
will add to this power demand from the shore in the future. At the
same time, the grid electricity is very likely to feature a lower CO2
intensity (and also lower specific non-CO2 emissions) in the future,
thereby increasing the emission reduction benefit from SSE. Having
these future trends in mind, the advantages of SSE become evident.
7. Overview of attached data files
The results of this paper are documented in the following data files:
• AE_emissions_at_berth.csv: Contains the CO2 emissions of auxil-
iary engines on board ships, resolved by port (port ID, name,
latitude and longitude from World Port Index [48] as well as
EPSG:3035 coordinates), ship category (as used in the EU MRV
scheme), and for each hour. Values are reported in tons of CO2
emissions.
• AE_power_use_at_berth.csv: Contains the total power output of
auxiliary engines on board ships, resolved by port (port ID, name,
latitude and longitude from World Port Index [48] as well as
EPSG:3035 coordinates), ship category (as used in the EU MRV
scheme), and for each hour. Values are reported in kW.
The data from this study can serve all stakeholders in the imple-
mentation process of SSE. It can be used by port authorities, who can
assess the extent and patterns of the power demand for SSE and plan
SSE investments based on the positive impacts it would have regarding
local emissions. Ship operators can use the results to assess fuel savings
and possible financial benefits as well as to plan future SSE retrofits for
their fleets.
Researchers modelling emissions of ships both in port and at sea
may use the presented methodology and the detailed data set attached
to this study in the Appendix as a possible improvement to the mod-
elling of auxiliary engine use and emissions, and to apply the same
approach to other regions in the world. The International Maritime
Organization (IMO) could apply this methodology globally using its
Data Collection System (DCS) data instead of the MRV data.
Foremost, however, the high resolution of the emission reduction
impact of SSE (per country, per port, per ship category, etc.) may enable
governments to estimate the health benefits due to decreasing emis-
sions of harmful pollutants, and aid in designing the policies required
for the adaption of SSE. Policymakers may use the data presented in this
study to develop a science-backed SSE deployment strategy, e.g. where
the largest emission reductions can be obtained right now, considering
different emission intensities of national electricity grids.
B. Stolz et al. Applied Energy 285 (2021) 116425

8. Glossary our port call recognition algorithm. We appreciate the support of Dr.
Petrissa Eckle (sus.lab, ETH Zurich), Alexander Langguth (Übermorgen
AB Auxiliary Boiler Ventures), and all other experts that reviewed our work. Finally, we
AE Auxiliary Engine would like to thank the Audi AG for the financial support to this work.
AIS Automatic Identification System
AMP Alternative Maritime Power Appendix A. Supplementary data
BC Black Carbon
DCS Data Collection System (IMO) Supplementary material related to this article can be found online
EU European Union at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116425.
EU ETS Emissions Trading Scheme of the European
Union References
EEA European Economic Area
EEDI Energy Efficiency Design Index [1] European Commission. The European Green Deal: Communication from the
GHG Greenhouse Gas Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Coun-
HFO Heavy Fuel Oil cil, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions. Brussels; 2019, URL https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/
HVSC High Voltage Shore Connection
communication-european-green-deal_en.
IMO International Maritime Organization [2] International Maritime Organization (IMO). Annex 11, resolution MEPC.304(72):
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Initial IMO strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships. 2018, URL
Change http://www.imo.org.
LOCODE United Nations Code for Trade and [3] European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive (EU)
2018/410 of 14 2018 - amending directive 2003/ 87/ EC to enhance cost-
Transport Locations (UN/LOCODE)
effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments, and decision (EU)
MDO Marine Diesel Oil 2015/ 1814. Off J Eur Union 2018. URL https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.
ME Main Engine html.
MMSI Maritime Mobile Service Identity [4] European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU)
MRV Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of 2015/757 of 29 2015 on the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon
dioxide emissions from maritime transport, and amending directive 2009/16/EC.
CO2 Emissions from Maritime Transport, Off J Eur Union 2015. URL https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html.
see EU Regulation 2015/757 [5] European Maritime Safety Agency, THETIS-MRV, v200. URL https://mrv.emsa.
MSD Medium Speed Diesel engine europa.eu/#public/emission-report.
NPF National Policy Framework [6] ITF/OECD. ITF Transport Outlook 2019. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2019, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1787/transp_outlook-en-2019-en.
OPS On-shore Power Supply
[7] Kumar J, Kumpulainen L, Kauhaniemi K. Technical design aspects of harbour
PM Particulate Matter area grid for shore to ship power: State of the art and future solutions. Int J
SSE Shore-Side Electricity Electr Power Energy Syst 2019;104:840–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.
STEAM Ship Traffic Emission Assessment Model 2018.07.051.
TEN-T Trans-European Network for Transport [8] Bouman EA, Lindstad E, Rialland AI, Strømman AH. State-of-the-art technologies,
measures, and potential for reducing GHG emissions from shipping – a review.
UN United Nations
Transp Res D: Transp Environ 2017;52:408–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and 2017.03.022.
Development [9] Cooper D. Exhaust emissions from ships at berth. Atmos Environ
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on 2003;37(27):3817–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(03)00446-1.
Climate Change [10] Zis TP. Prospects of cold ironing as an emissions reduction option. Transp Res
A: Policy Pract 2019;119(1):82–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.11.003.
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
[11] Tetra Tech. Harbors navigation and environment committee of the american
association of port authorities. Use of shore-side power for ocean-going vessels:
White paper draft, 2007, URL http://www.aapa-ports.org/Industry/content.cfm?
CRediT authorship contribution statement ItemNumber=900&navItemNumber=551.
[12] International Maritime Organization (IMO). Module 5 (ship-port interface for
energy efficiency) of the imo train the trainer (ttt) course on energy effi-
B. Stolz: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation,
cient ship operation. London, UK; 2016, URL http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/
Writing - original draft, Visualization. M. Held: Conceptualization, Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Default.aspx.
Methodology, Writing - original draft, Visualization, Supervision, [13] Winnes H, Parsmo R. Emissions from ships in faxaflóahafnir 2016. Stockholm,
Project administration. G. Georges: Writing - review & editing, Sweden: IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute; 2017, URL www.ivl.se.
Project administration, Supervision. K. Boulouchos: Writing - review [14] On the MoS Way. On shore power supply and LNG. 2015, URL https://www.
onthemosway.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2-OPS-LNG-.pdf.
& editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.
[15] PARAT. Marine boilers from a world class boiler manufacturer. 2020, URL
https://www.parat.no/media/79258/marine-boilers.pdf.
Declaration of competing interest [16] International Maritime Organization (IMO). Third IMO GHG study
2014. April 2015th ed.. London, UK; 2015, URL http://www.imo.org/
en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Documents/
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
ThirdGreenhouseGasStudy/GHG3ExecutiveSummaryandReport.pdf.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to [17] Zis T, North RJ, Angeloudis P, Ochieng WY, Harrison Bell MG. Evaluation of cold
influence the work reported in this paper. ironing and speed reduction policies to reduce ship emissions near and at ports.
Marit Econ Logist 2014;16(4):371–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/mel.2014.6.
Acknowledgements [18] Liu H, Fu M, Jin X, Shang Y, Shindell D, Faluvegi G, Shindell C, He K. Health
and climate impacts of ocean-going vessels in East Asia. Nature Clim Change
2016;6(11):1037–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3083.
We would like to thank Thenamaris (Ships Management) Inc., Carni- [19] Sofiev M, Winebrake JJ, Johansson L, Carr EW, Prank M, Soares J, Vira J,
val Maritime GmbH, and one anonymous shipping operator for sharing Kouznetsov R, Jalkanen J-P, Corbett JJ. Cleaner fuels for ships provide public
their MRV emission reports for the validation of our modelling ap- health benefits with climate tradeoffs. Nature Commun 2018;9(1):406. http:
proach. We would also like to thank FleetMon.com, JAKOTA Cruise //dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02774-9.
[20] Viana M, Rizza V, Tobías A, Carr E, Corbett J, Sofiev M, Karanasiou A,
Systems GmbH (Rostock, Germany), for providing us AIS and ship Buonanno G, Fann N. Estimated health impacts from maritime transport in the
specification data on Dec 17, 2019, and the anonymous port authority mediterranean region and benefits from the use of cleaner fuels. Environ Int
of one of the largest ports in Europe for enabling the validation of 2020;138:105670. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105670.

12
B. Stolz et al.
[21] European Environment Agency (EEA). The impact of international shipping on
European air quality and climate forcing. eea techni ed.. Copenhagen, Denmark:
Publications Office of the European Union; 2013, URL https://www.eea.europa.
eu/publications/the-impact-of-international-shipping/file.
[22] European Parliament. International ocean governance: an agenda for the future
of our oceans in the context of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals -
European Parliament resolution of 16 2018 on international ocean governance:
an agenda for the future of our oceans i. Off J Eur Union 2018. URL https:
//ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/ocean-governance{_}en.
[23] Innes A, Monios J. Identifying the unique challenges of installing cold ironing at
small and medium ports – the case of Aberdeen. Transp Res D: Transp Environ
2018;62:298–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.02.004.
[24] European Commission. Inception impact assessment: FuelEU Maritime - Green
European maritime space (legislative proposal). 2020, URL https://eur-lex.
europa.eu.
[25] Johansson L, Jalkanen J-P, Kalli J, Kukkonen J. The evolution of shipping emis-
sions and the costs of regulation changes in the Northern EU area. Atmos Chem
Phys 2013;13(22):11375–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-11375-2013.
[26] Vaishnav P, Fischbeck PS, Morgan MG, Corbett JJ. Shore power for vessels
calling at U.S. ports: benefits and costs. Environ Sci Technol 2016;50(3):1102–10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04860.
[27] Tichavska M, Tovar B, Gritsenko D, Johansson L, Jalkanen JP. Air emissions from
ships in port: Does regulation make a difference?. Transp Policy 2019;75:128–40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.03.003.
[28] Sorte S, Rodrigues V, Borrego C, Monteiro A. Impact of harbour activities on
local air quality: A review. Environ Pollut 2020;257:113542. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113542.
[29] Weng J, Shi K, Gan X, Li G, Huang Z. Ship emission estimation with high spatial–
temporal resolution in the yangtze river estuary using AIS data. J Cleaner Prod
2020;248:119297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119297.
[30] Cullinane K, Tseng P-H, Wilmsmeier G. Estimation of container ship emissions
at berth in Taiwan. Int J Sustain Transp 2016;10(5):466–74. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/15568318.2014.975303.
[31] Papaefthimiou S, Maragkogianni A, Andriosopoulos K. Evaluation of cruise
ships emissions in the mediterranean basin: The case of Greek ports. Int J
Sustain Transp 2016;10(10):985–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2016.
1185484.
[32] Alver F, Saraç BA, Şahin Ü Alver. Estimating of shipping emissions in the Samsun
port from 2010 to 2015. Atmos Pollut Res 2010;9(5):822–8. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.apr.2018.02.003.
[33] Dragović B, Tzannatos E, Tselentis V, Meštrović R, Škurić M. Ship emis-
sions and their externalities in cruise ports. Transp Res D: Transp Environ
2018;61:289–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.11.007.
[34] Hulskotte J, Denier van der Gon H. Fuel consumption and associated emissions
from seagoing ships at berth derived from an on-board survey. Atmos Environ
2010;44(9):1229–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.10.018.
[35] Dai L, Hu H, Wang Z, Shi Y, Ding W. An environmental and techno-economic
analysis of shore side electricity. Transp Res D: Transp Environ 2019;75:223–35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.09.002.
[36] Yu J, Voß S, Tang G. Strategy development for retrofitting ships for implementing
shore side electricity. Transp Res D: Transp Environ 2019;74:201–13. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.08.004.
[37] 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.09.001.
[38] Sciberras EA, Zahawi B, Atkinson DJ, Juandó A, Sarasquete A. Cold ironing
and onshore generation for airborne emission reductions in ports. Proc Inst
Mech Eng M: J Eng Marit Environ 2016;230(1):67–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/1475090214532451.
[39] Ballini F, Bozzo R. Air pollution from ships in ports: the socio-economic benefit
of cold-ironing technology. Res Transp Bus Manag 2015;17:92–8. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.10.007.
[40] Kotrikla AM, Lilas T, Nikitakos N. Abatement of air pollution at an Aegean
island port utilizing shore side electricity and renewable energy. Mar Policy
2017;75:238–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.01.026.
[41] Adamo F, Andria G, Cavone G, De Capua C, Lanzolla AML, Morello R, Spa-
davecchia M. Estimation of ship emissions in the port of Taranto. Measurement
2014;47(1):982–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2013.09.012.
[42] Gutierrez-Romero JE, Esteve-Pérez J, Zamora B. Implementing onshore power
supply from renewable energy sources for requirements of ships at berth. Appl
Energy 2019;255:113883. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113883.
[43] Styhre L, Winnes H, Black J, Lee J, Le-Griffin H. Greenhouse gas emissions from
ships in ports – case studies in four continents. Transp Res D: Transp Environ
2017;54:212–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.033.
[44] Dai L, Hu H, Wang Z. Is shore side electricity greener? An environmental analysis
and policy implications. Energy Policy 2020;137:111144. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.enpol.2019.111144.
[45] Winkel R, Weddige U, Johnsen D, Hoen V, Papaefthimiou S. Shore side electricity
in Europe: potential and environmental benefits. Energy Policy 2016;88:584–93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.07.013.
13
Applied Energy 285 (2021) 116425
[46] Hall WJ. Assessment of CO2 and priority pollutant reduction by installation of
shoreside power. Resour Conserv Recy 2010;54(7):462–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.resconrec.2009.10.002.
[47] FleetMon. Ais data from Jakota Cruise Systems GmbH. 2020, URL https://www.
fleetmon.com/.
[48] US National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. World Port Index. 150 (retrieved
from Maritime Safety Information webpage); 2019, URL https://msi.nga.mil/
Publications/WPI.
[49] European Commission. Guidance/best practices document on monitoring and
reporting of fuel consumption, CO2 emissions and other relevant parameters
pursuant to Regulation 2015/757 on monitoring, reporting and verification
emissions from maritime transport. Part of a series of documents prepared
by experts under the umbrella of the ‘‘European Sustainable Shipping Forum
(ESSF)’’, 2017, URL https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/shipping_en#
tab-0-1.
[50] Goldsworthy B, Goldsworthy L. Assigning machinery power values for estimating
ship exhaust emissions: comparison of auxiliary power schemes. Sci Total Environ
2019;657:963–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.014.
[51] European Environment Agency (EEA). EEA 2017 CO2 Emission intensity of
electricity generation. 2020, URL https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/
data/co2-intensity-of-electricity-generation.
[52] IEA (International Energy Agency). Electric power transmission and distribution
losses (% of output). 2018, URL https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.
LOSS.ZS.
[53] Eurostat. Simplified energy balances (nrg_bal_s). 2018, URL https://appsso.
eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nrg_bal_s&lang=en.
[54] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Port call and perfor-
mance statistics: number of arrivals, time spent in ports, vessel age and size,
annual. 2018, URL https://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.
aspx?ReportId=170027.
[55] US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ICF international, current method-
ologies in preparing mobile source port-related emission inventories. Final re-
port, 2009, URL https://www.epa.gov/moves/current-methodologies-preparing-
mobile-source-port-related-emission-inventories-final-report.
[56] Starcrest Consulting Group. Port of Los Angeles inventory of air emissions -
2018. 2019, URL https://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment/air-quality/air-
emissions-inventory.
[57] Abramowski T, Cepowski T, Zvolenský P. Determination of regression formulas
for key design characteristics of container ships at preliminary design stage. New
Trends Prod Eng 2018;1(1):247–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/ntpe-2018-0031.
[58] Entec. European Commission Directorate General Environment, service contract
on ship emissions: assignment, abatement and market-based instruments. (Task
2a-shore-side electricity, final report), Northwich; 2005, URL https://ec.europa.
eu/environment/air/pdf/task2_shoreside.pdf.
[59] Chatzinikolaou S, Ventikos N. Assessment of ship emissions in a life cycle per-
spective. In: 3rd International Energy, Life Cycle Assessment, and Sustainability
Workshop & Symposium (ELCAS3), 7-9 July. Nisyros, Greece, Nisyros, Greece;
2013, URL https://www.elcasnet.com/.
[60] Lindstad H, Verbeek R, Blok M, Van Zyl S, Hübscher A, Kramer H, Purwanto J,
Ivanova O, Boonman H. GHG emission reduction potential of eu-related maritime
transport and on its impacts. (Ref: CLIMA.B.3/ETU/2013/0015), Tech. rep.,
2015.
[61] International Maritime Organization (IMO). Study of emission control and energy
efficiency measures for ships in the port area. London, UK; 2015, URL www.imo.
org.
[62] CBS Statline (Statistics Netherlands). Emissions to air on Dutch territory; mo-
bile sources, 1990-2018. 2019, URL https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/
dataset/7062/table?ts=1591627050285.
[63] Council of the European Union. Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 2003
restructuring the community framework for the taxation of energy products and
electricity. Off J Eur Union 2003. URL https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html.
[64] European Parliament. Answer given by Ms Bulc on behalf of the European
Commission. Parliamentary questions: answer to question no E-002668/19,
2019, URL https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2019-002668-
ASW_EN.html#ref3.
[65] European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive
2003/87/EC of 13 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emis-
sion allowance trading within the community and amending council directive
96/61/EC. Off J Eur Union 2003. URL https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html.
[66] Tang R, Li X, Lai J. A novel optimal energy-management strategy for a maritime
hybrid energy system based on large-scale global optimization. Appl Energy
2018;228:254–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.Apenergy.2018.06.092.
[67] European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive
2014/94/EU Of 22 2014 on the deployment of Alternative Fuels Infrastructure.
Off J Eur Union 2014. URL https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html.
[68] European Commission. Commission staff working document: Report on the
assessment of the member states national policy frameworks for the development
of the market as regards alternative fuels in the transport sector and the
deployment of the relevant infrastructure. Brussels; 2019, URL https://ec.europa.
eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/swd20190029.pdf.
B. Stolz et al.
[69] European Commission. Combined evaluation roadmap/inception impact assess-
ment: revision of the Directive 2014/94/EU on the deployment of alternative fuel
infrastructure (legislative proposal). 2020, URL https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1590235348406&uri=pi_com:ares(2020)1948408.
[70] European Commission. Inception Impact Assessment: revision of Direc-
tive 2003/96/EC restructuring the community framework for the tax-
ation of energy products and electricity (legislative initiative). 2020,
URL https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/
12227-Revision-Of-The-Energy-Tax-Directive-.
[71] DFDS. DFDS invests in on-shore power supply. 2018, URL https://www.dfds.
com/en/about/media/news/dfds-invests-in-onshore-power-supply.
14
Applied Energy 285 (2021) 116425
[72] Port of Long Beach. Shore power - ships at berth can plug into landside
electricity, drastically reducing emissions. 2020, URL https://www.polb.com/
environment/shore-power/#shore-power-program-details.
[73] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Paris
agreement - status of ratification. 2020, URL https://unfccc.int/process/the-
paris-agreement/status-of-ratification.
[74] Schmidt TS, Sewerin S. Technology as a driver of climate and energy politics.
Nat Energy 2017;2(6):17084. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.84.