IAME 2016 Full Paper 0116-Wilmsmeier-Spengler

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/308764287
Energy Consumption and Energy Efficiency Indicators in Container Terminals

- a national inventory
Conference Paper · August 2016
CITATIONS READS
13 3,161
2 authors:
Thomas Spengler Gordon Wilmsmeier

Hochschule Bremen Los Andes University (Colombia) / Kühne Logistics University (KLU)
8 PUBLICATIONS 82 CITATIONS 135 PUBLICATIONS 3,010 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Gordon Wilmsmeier on 30 September 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IAME 2016 CONFERENCE | HAMBURG
Paper ID 0116
Energy Consumption and Energy Efficiency

Indicators in Container Terminals-
a national inventory
Thomas Spengler
UN-ECLAC, Santiago, Chile

Hochschule Bremen, Germany
thomas.spengler@cepal.org
Gordon WILMSMEIER
UN-ECLAC, Santiago, Chile

Hochschule Bremen, Germany
gordon.wilmsmeier@cepal.org
Abstract
This paper analyses energy consumption patterns of container terminals in Chile between
2010 and 2014 and benchmarks the results against a set of container terminals across the
globe. The paper discusses the need to develop sound indicators for measuring energy
efficiency in the effort to analyse terminal performance in a sustainable context and argues
in favour of using containers as output indicators rather than traditional TEU. The analysis
also reveals the relevance of differentiating container types and shows effects of
technological change on energy consumption pattern in terminals.
Keywords: container terminals, energy efficiency, energy consumption, indicators3.
1. Introduction
In the current economic environment there is significant need to improve the performance of
container terminals to make them not only more competitive and productive, but also more
sustainable. Thus, measuring performance beyond traditional efficiency and productivity
Indicators in Container Terminals
0116
measures is an emerging challenge. In the case of energy consumption, a clear link exists
between sustainability, efficiency, competitiveness and profit of a terminal. This
sustainability efficiency link between energy consumption and performance is still not well
understood or analysed in detail.
Today the container terminal industry is under significant pressure to meet economic and
environmental criteria. In this context energy consumption and the resulting emissions are of
significant relevance, but despite increasing energy consumption and costs, energy
efficiency measures and strategies are rarely present in ports and terminals. Not only in
Latin America energy security is at stake and high on the political agenda, there is an
emerging awareness of consumption, efficiency and associated costs of energy in maritime
trade. Port authorities and terminal operators have started to become aware of the challenge
of energy efficiency, as many of them are increasingly concerned with their emission
profiles, and regulation in port areas have become more stringent, mostly in relation to
sulphur and nitrogen oxides (Acciaro and Wilmsmeier 2016, Acciaro, 2014), but in the
future this will become even more relevant with respect to particulate matters (PM) and
other short-lived climate change gasses. Energy consumption is important in port operation
and port related activities, and with energy costs increasing also on land, port authorities and
terminals are looking for ways to reduce their fuel bills.
Terminals around the world are working to change their dependency on fossil fuel to
electricity. These efforts are accompanied by the development of renewable energy sources
within the port perimeter (Acciaro et al., 2013). While some terminals have taken voluntary
steps, having made investments in energy efficiency technologies, many port authorities and
terminal operators still lack awareness of the relevance of energy consumption and
efficiency in their infrastructures and many times sound strategies to measure energy
consumption and to implement energy efficiency indicators are absent (Wilmsmeier et al.,
2014). Energy management places the port in the middle of a complex web of energy flows,
and requires the terminal operator and port authority at least to be aware of how energy is
used in the port and where it is coming from (Acciaro, 2013). It can be argued that a
coordinated approach can result in energy costs savings, and even be a new source of
business for the port.
This paper analyses the structure and evolution of energy consumption in Chile as part of a
research that establishes a national inventory of port energy consumption. The results of the
national case are contrasted and benchmarked with a set of global container terminals in
IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 2

0116
order to understand future challenges and opportunities to implement energy efficiency

strategies and to further development benchmarking tools for sustainable terminal operation.
2. Methodology
2.1 Measuring Energy Consumption in terminals
Only a small number of publications on energy consumption in container terminal exist (He,
2016; Sha et al., 2016; He, et al., 2015; He, et al. 2015a; Yang, et al, 2013; Yang and Chang,
2013; Geerlings and van Duin, 2011) and in practice very few terminals analyse their energy
consumption pattern in details (e.g. Hamburg, Germany, Arica, Chile and Valencia, Spain).
Wilmsmeier et al. (2014) benchmark energy consumption in 13 container terminals in Latin
America adopting an activity-based cost approach from Lin et al. (2001). The approach
allows a) to identify in what area of operation what amount of energy is consumed; and b) to
allocate of energy consumption to a particular unit within a process or process cluster.
Wilmsmeier et al. (2014) define the following clusters with a container terminal: quay
cranes, lighting, buildings, cooling (reefer containers), horizontal container handling, and
others (cf. Froese and Toeter, 2013). While the authors are able to assign energy
consumption to different process clusters in the case of electricity, a significant share of
energy consumption remains undefined and their data did not provide the necessary detail
for assigning fossil fuels to the corresponding process clusters. Currently, no integrated
approach and recognized set of indicators has been developed for container terminals.
Most of the existing research focuses on electrification and specific processes of equipments
in the terminals. Yang and Chang (2013) analyse the impact of electric rubber-tired gantries
on green port performance were researched in terms of monetary, ecological, energetic and
operational differences between electric and diesel powered Rubber-Tired Gantries (RTGs).
The authors calculate “total energy expenses”, “total number of moves”, “energy cost per
move ([Kilowatt hour (kWh)]/move or litre/move)” and “energy expenses (TWD/kWh or
TWD/litre)”. The article claims that “bus bar-powered RTGs equipped with online braking
can reduce energy consumption by up to 60 percent […].” While Yang and Chang (2013) do
not indicate the source of their information the use the following equations to calculate the
“energy consumption per move” (equation 2.1):
(2.1)
=
The indicator “total energy expense” is calculated by Yang and Chang (2013) as shown in
equation (2.2). An itemized approach to a formula is given in equation (2.3).

0116
= ∗ ∗ (2.2)
(2.3)
= ∗ ∗
where:
TAEC = Total annual energy consumption (kWh or litre)
TAM = Total annual number of moves
TAEE = Total annual energy expenses
EC = Energy consumption (kWh or litre)
M = Move
TEE = Total energy expenses
TNM = Total number of moves
ECM = Energy cost per move
EE = Energy expenses
ME = Monetary expenses
ECU = Energy consumption per unit (kWh or litre)
A main restriction of existing research is the absence of reliable and detailed data. Existing
work usually relies on average and standard consumption figures to estimate over all energy
consumption or to derive the emission estimates (Geerlings and van Duin, 2011).
In general, two key concepts must be distinguished when analysing energy efficiency, a)
“energy conversion” efficiency, widely referred to as energy efficiency, and b) energy
efficiency per unit of output. Energy conversion efficiency describes the efficiency of the
transformation of energy in its natural form to a form that can be used by humans. Thus, it
can be referred to as the efficiency of a machine. The efficiency of machines depends among
other things on the quality of the consumed energy. “Electrical energy is for example of high
quality and can be converted to movement (mechanical work) with high efficiency, while
energy from fossil fuels performs worse when being converted and is therefore of lower
quality (Horta, 2012)." By way of example diesel engines have an energy conversion
efficiency of about 45 percent (Kuberczyk, 2009), electrical engines can have an energy
conversion efficiency of up to 96 percent (Nozawa, 2009). The difference to the definition of
energy conversion (equation 2.4) and energy efficiency (equation 2.1) is that the latter
measures how much energy is consumed while processing one unit (Horta, 2010).

0116
(2.4)
=
2.2 Definition of Energy Efficiency as an Indicator

Joumard and Gudmundsson (2010) describe the various possibilities how an indicators can
be defined and how the definitions depend to a great extent on the use of the indicator. An
indicator is generally understood to be a tool or a method which can be used to mirror or
measure something in a way that adequately represents what is being measured. In a more
specific context, indicators are defined mainly according to their purpose. Joumard and
Gudmundsson (2010) propose three levels according to the function of the indicator:
• “Level 1: Indicators treated as units measuring particular system properties or

endpoints […] (Cryer et al., 2002)”
• “Level 2: Indicators considered as reporting units in monitoring programs […]
(Strobel, 2000)”
• “Level 3: Indicators treated as decision making units in policy or management
strategies […] (van der Loop, 2006)”
In terms of levels, energy efficiency indicators can be seen as a level three or a level two
indicator as they are used in “policy or management strategies (van der Loop, 2006)”.
However, energy efficiency indicators can also be used in a “monitoring program […]
(Strobel, 2000)”. Moreover, the European Environment Agency (EEA) developed a
typology for indicators. The types range from Type “A” to Type “D” (Smeets and Wetering,
1999).
• “Descriptive indicators (Type A […])” consist of only one variable that mainly
expresses the “quantity”13 and/or “quality” of what is to be measured.
• “Performance indicators (Type B […])” consist of two variables. One is
representing a goal and the other one the actual performance. A performance
indicator measures therefore how far one has come to the set goal.
• “Efficiency indicators (Type C […])”1 consist of two variables. One is
representing the input and the other one the output. “[Efficiency indicators]
provide insight in the efficiency of products and processes.”
• “Total welfare indicators (Type D […])” are not “further investigated”4 by the
EEA. They can however be better described as aggregated indicators not limited
to welfare.
The typology introduced by the EEA allows a clear classification. As the name suggests
energy efficiency is a type C indicator. The input variable is in the case of energy efficiency

0116
the energy consumed and the output variable is a unit and constructs from various types of
consumption of energy sources (fossil and electricity) from different terminal equipments.
The indicator will in any case only measure how much energy is consumed per unit.
Reasons for higher or lower energy efficiency can differ vastly and have to be investigated
on terminal level. It has to be understood that things like productivity, external factors like
temperature or any other factors that might or might not be in the hands of the terminal
operator can influence energy efficiency. These factors must not be understood as
confounding factors but as part of what an energy efficiency indicator is supposed to
measure. It would be misleading and might eventually give wrong incentives to weigh in
any of those factors.
Units as an indicator in the context of energy efficiency have to be seen as a measurement

tool as they do indicate variations along the phenomenon. With regard to levels it clearly is a
level 1 indicator and concerning the typology a type A indicator because a quantity is
expressed. An overview of the identified indicators is given below:
Table 2.1: Indicators relevant for energy efficiency.
Category Level Type

Energy Efficiency Measurement tool Level 2 and 3 Efficiency (Type C)
Decision support tool
Energy Consumption Measurement tool Level 2 Aggregated (Type D)
Unit Measurement tool Level 1 Descriptive (Type A)
Source: Authors
2.3 A Systematic Approach to Identifying Energy Consumers

The matter of energy consumption in terminals can be addressed from two different
perspectives: a) arguing that containers are consuming energy while being handled,
representing an aggregated approach, and b) arguing that equipment is consuming energy
while handling containers. The latter one comes closer to the idea of an activity-based
approach (Lin et al., 2001, Wilmsmeier et al. 2013). The different types of equipment
operating in a terminal are of particular interest for following the activity-based approach.
Figure 2.1 presents the framework for the research of energy consumption in container
terminals applied in this paper.

0116
Figure 2.1: Processes in a port. Source:
Source: Authors based on Wilmsmeier et al. 2014
The energy per container is consumed in a discrete manner by the different equipments,
lighting and reefer cooling are exceptions as energy in these process clusters is consumed
during a given period of time and thus has an additional dimension. In order to identify the
energy consumption of terminal equipment, it is necessary to create an inventory of the
existing equipment and the type of energy consumed by each type of equipment.
Furthermore, the output of each equipment type needs to be defined.
The cargo handling equipment of a terminal depends on the implemented container handling
system. Brinkmann (2011) distinguishes between four different systems: “Reachstacker
System with Tractor-Trailer Units”, “Straddle Carrier System”6 “Rubber-Tyred Gantry Crane
System with Tractor-Trailer Units” and “Rail-Mounted Gantry Crane System". The only
common element of the systems are quay cranes. Widely ship-to-shore (STS) cranes are
used. It has to be noted that some ports use regular trucks instead of Tractor-Trailer Units
(TTUs). In some terminals mobile cranes are used either instead of or in addition to STS
cranes (for details Spengler, 2015).

0116
The table below identifies the different equipment types and possible energy sources,
including consumption by buildings, lighting, reefer containers, other port vehicles and
generators.
Table 2.2: Energy consumers inside a container terminal.
Energy Source
Energy Consumer
Petrol Gas
Diesel Electricity
Ship-to-shore cranes ● ●
Mobile cranes ● ●
Rail-mounted gantry cranes ● ●
Rubber-tyred gantry cranes ● ●
Reachstackers ● ●
Straddle carriers ● ●
Tractor-trailer units and lorries ● ● ●
Generators ● ●
Consumption by buildings ●
Lighting ●
Consumption by reefer containers ●
Other port vehicles ● ● ● ●
Source: Authors
2.3.1 TEU or containers

Containers are most commonly referred to in a rather general way. When it comes to
containers as a variable, it has however to be recognized that containers are multi
dimensional variables as one container can have multiple properties. The properties can be
differentiated as follows: full/empty, length, height, trade direction and type of container
(Monios and Wilmsmeier, 2013). Given the different dimensions of the variable “container”
the processes and related activities in a terminal do differ as well. Empty containers are less
time critical than full containers, which is reflected in the dwell times (Merckx, 2005).
Likewise tend reefer containers to have a significant shorter dwell time (Merckx, 2005).
Container lengths vary more than it is commonly acknowledged. Apart from 20, 40 and 45
foot containers there are even more lengths e.g. 30 and 25 foot containers. However, “the
vast majority of ISO containers used on deep sea trade are 20ft and 40ft long [...]” (Monios
and Wilmsmeier, 2013). Container height is important when it comes to hinterland transport
and during the sea transport (Monios and Wilmsmeier, 2013). In container terminals
container heights only have negligible influence over operations, costs and energy
0116
consumption, but the differences between container types (read reefer or dry container) do
have greater impacts on operations and costs. Reefer containers need to be "plugged in",
monitored and thus consume additional energy. Recent research in this field has shown that
the energy consumption also differs between the subcategories of reefers (frozen, chilled).
This shall however not be part of this research. The four dimensions relevant to energy
consumption in ports are displayed below. It is possible to argue that each feasible
combination of the multiple dimensions can be seen as a single product. In the light of
energy efficiency in container terminals it is however more purposeful to analyze which
dimensions have a significant impact on the consumption patterns.
Figure 2.2: Containers as multidimensional variables.
Source: Authors
2.4 Indicator Selection

Energy efficiency indicators do consist out of two individual indicators. The unit and energy
consumption. The screening criteria “integrativity”, “usefulness” and “comparability across
terminals” influence the development of indicators substantially and have to be discussed
before defining the actual indicators. When it comes to integrativity, the question has to be
asked in what other dimension the indicator can be integrated. Usefulness is closely linked
to the question of user needs. A given indicator might be deemed useful depending on the
particular needs of the user.
The two dimensions where integrativity proves to be of particular importance are: a) the
indicator should firstly be integrable into the dimension of the monetary interests of the
container terminal and b) it should be integrable in the dimension of the GHG emissions. To
gain an understanding of what indicators are deemed useful the decision is made to develop
an array of indicators for the stakeholders to chose from.

0116
The input indicator for energy efficiency is naturally a source of energy. However, the
source of energy can be linearly converted into other dimensions. The consumption values
can also be linearly converted into the monetary dimension.
Fossil energy consumption can be made comparable. The lower heating value will be used
for the calculations with reference to the “Energy Data Pilot Project” of the IEA and the
OECD. The values for the lower heating value are taken from “the energy and fuel data
sheet” (Staffell, 2011). For the identified fossil energy sources with their corresponding unit
the lower heating values are the following:
• Diesel: 35.94
!"#$%
• Petrol: 32.70
!"#$%
• LNG: 35.22 !"#$%
• LPG: 24.67
!"#$%
Notwithstanding, the conversion issues of electrical energy, the linear conversion as

described in subsection Error! Reference source not found. for electric energy in kWh to
Megajoule (MJ) will be carried out in some cases. This is primarily done when an
aggregated indicator for total energy consumption is needed. The data currently available
does not allow for a different methodology.
When it comes to displaying the consumption values, different possibilities for the unit exist.
Joule and the corresponding unit prefixes might be widely understood by the scientific
community but no natural understanding can be assumed amongst the different stakeholders
of the terminal. Therefore, the values will not only be presented in Joule but also in diesel
equivalents. The unit diesel equivalent is obtained by dividing the consumption in Joule by
the conversion factor for Diesel in Joule.
TEU is a desirable output indicator, because it is widely used and understood by the
industry. It is also often used for comparisons between terminals when it comes to
throughput. Integrativity into the dimensions of costs and emissions would also be given. A
major weakness of TEU is that it is natively a measurement of volume rather than unit, even
though it can be converted. As it was laid out in the previous section, most activities in a
container terminal are performed per container regardless of its size. Allocating
consumption, emissions or expenses to TEUs would inadvertently lead to a situation where

0116
to much consumption, emissions or expenses would be allocated to 20 foot containers. The

analysis will therefore use the container (box) as unit indicator.
2.5 Applying the Activity-based Approach

The boundaries for researching energy consumption of container terminals are set to the
organizational boundaries of the terminal. By doing so the conversion losses that occur in
power plants (albeit for the conversion from fossil energy to electric energy) are neglected.
In this context the question how electric energy is produced is of particular interest. The
databases of the IEA1 and the Organización Latinoamericana de Energía (OLADE)
database2 provide aggregated data at country level.
As far as the equipment is concerned, the main challenge lies within the different
terminologies used across terminals. Minor technical differences exist between
reachstackers, toplifters and side pickers. The equipment is often referred to as “empty
handlers” or even “forklifts”. The issue is intensified by the fact that even the same
equipment might be referred to differently. By way of example toplifters are also referred to
as toploaders or dedicated container handlers.
In the process cluster of horizontal activities, “Empty Handlers (EH)” and “toplifters” are
introduced as equipment. Generators are also added as an own process cluster as these do
influence the overall consumption to such an extent that adding them as a process cluster
makes sense also for the model.
It is possible to break down the defined process clusters to individual equipment level. In
that context it has to be noted that the already available data was not systematically
disaggregated by individual equipment.
When an aggregated indicator is introduced based on the consumption figures within the
different process clusters, the sum of the individual consumption figures might not always
be the same as the indicated total consumption. “Undefined consumption” is therefore
introduced for cases where the indicated total consumption exceeds the sum of the
individual consumption figures. It has however rather to be understood as a mathematical
necessity then a process cluster. In cases where the sum of the individual consumption
1
International Energy Agency: Chile: Balances for 2012. International Energy Agency (URL:
http://www.iea.org/
statistics/statisticssearch/report/?year=2012&country=CHILE&product=Balances).
2
Access to the OLADE database was gained via Andres Schuschny of the ECLAC

0116
figures exceeds the indicated total consumption, the undefined consumption is assumed to
be zero. Such cases occur for example when individual consumption figures are provided
but no total consumption. The formula for undefined consumption can be seen in the
equation below:
UC = TC-(QCC+HOC+CRC+BC+LC+OC+GEN)
where: UC = Undefined consumption
TC = Total energy consumption from all sources
QCC = Energy consumption from all sources within the process cluster of quay cranes
HOC = Energy consumption from all sources within the process cluster of horizontal operations
CRC = Energy consumption from all sources within the process cluster of reefer cooling
BC = Energy consumption from all sources within the process cluster of buildings
LC =Energy consumption from all sources within the process cluster of lighting
OC =Energy consumption from all sources within the process cluster of others
GEN = Energy consumption from all sources within the process cluster of generators
3. Analysis
3.1 Introduction
The analysis is divided into an explorative and an explanatory part. In the explorative
section descriptive methods are used in order to give an insight in data availability and
energy consumption patterns. Chilean container terminals are in this respect displayed
separately to allow for comparisons.
The explanatory part elaborates on the determining factors for differences in energy
efficiency. It is expected that the following factors can have an influence on energy
efficiency: the operational layout of the terminal, the cargo structure, energy efficiency of
individual equipment and productivity. While each of the factors will be analysed, energy
efficiency of individual equipment will only be analyzed by the example of quay cranes. An
in depth analyses of all cargo handling equipment within the premises of a given terminal
would go far beyond the scope of this research.
Container terminals in this research are defined as those terminals that handle over 95 per
cent of their cargo as containerised. When terminals are compared, data availability with
regard to consumption data is recognized as a crucial factor. By way of example, the
consumption per box data of two terminals are only comparable, given that both terminals
provided data of their most important energy sources.
Data are available from 11 Chilean container terminals, representing up to 83 percent of the
total Chilean container throughput in 2014. The missing 17 percent of container throughput

0116
can mainly be allocated to terminals in the Concepción range. For comparisons data from 56
container terminals worldwide are included. Chilean data are available for the period 2005
and 2010 to 2014 and the data from the other 56 container terminals for 2010 to 2013. A
total throughput of 144 million TEU is represented in the database. The obtained data was
checked for normality and outliers.
The number of total boxes handled per terminal is approximately logarithmic normal
distributed amongst the terminals in the database. Only 25 percent of Chilean terminal
operators supplied information about their diesel consumption in 2005. This number
increased to almost 90 percent by 2013, where Chile reached a level of data availability that
is comparable to those of other terminals in the database.
2013 is therefore considered to be the most appropriate year to compare the performance of
Chilean terminal operators with other terminals operators when diesel plays an important
role in the consumption pattern. The availability of data regarding electricity consumption
started to decrease in Chile from 2012 onwards. The decrease in 2012 and 2013 can be
explained by the fact that some of the terminals, participating in the research for the first
time, did not have the data available. This in turn indicates that the questionnaire as such
helps terminal operators to gain a better understanding of their consumption patterns.
Figure 3.1: Data availability by source in percent.
Source: Authors
Considering the consumption patterns by source, the data suggest that neither gas nor petrol
play an important role. Neither in Chile nor in the rest of the world does the median share of
gas or petrol go beyond 3 percent. Also the maximum shares never reach more than 10

0116
percent. Following elaborations will therefore only focus on the consumption patterns of
diesel and electricity.
3.2 Explorative Analysis - Energy Consumption Patterns

Diesel is the main energy source in container terminals in Chile as well as worldwide
(Figure below). In Chile a substantial decrease in share of electricity can be observed from
2012 onwards.
The consumption patterns of diesel with regard to the equipment differ between terminals
and depend to a wide extent upon the used equipment configurations of each terminal.
Diesel powered mobile cranes account for between 30 percent and 38 percent of the total
diesel consumption in Chilean container terminals, if no STS cranes exist in the terminal. If
no diesel powered mobile cranes are used in a terminal, RTGs are the most prominent
consumer of diesel, followed by TTUs or RS.
Figure 3.2: Consumption shares of diesel and electricity in percent.
Source: Authors
Data: Based on a total of 121 observations.
It has to be noted that only few terminals provided data with regard to the diesel
consumption of their generators. The differences amongst those that provided data however
are huge. The diesel used in generators in these cases ranges between 1 percent and 35
percent of the overall diesel consumption.
The picture is somewhat clearer when the consumption pattern of electricity is investigated.
In Chile, as well as in other countries the main consumer of electricity in the terminals are
reefer containers. In 2012 a median percentage of about 60 percent of the total electricity
0116
consumption in Chilean container terminals can be allocated to reefer containers. The

median percentage of the other terminal operators in the database during the same time
period is 51 percent. The second largest consumer of electricity in terminals are quay cranes,
provided that mainly STS cranes are used. This is followed by electricity for lighting and
buildings which have varying shares depending on the terminal.
Reefer cooling also is of great importance in the total energy consumption. In 2012 it
accounted for 25 percent of the total energy consumption in Chilean container terminals in
median while it only accounted for 17 percent in median in other terminals (2012 was
chosen for comparisons because of the highest sample size). The difference in the
percentage of energy consumption for reefer cooling is persistent over the years. No
statistical significant change of the share of reefer cooling can be observed over the years.
In conclusion, it can be noted that reefer containers do not only have significant influence on
the energy consumption patterns but are also the main consumers of electricity and play an
important role in overall consumption. It also can be noted that the consumption patterns are
to a wide extent influenced by operational differences, technological differences and the
structure of cargo (read the amount of reefer containers). The median percentage of
undefined consumption decreased from 45 percent in 2011 to a mere 6.5 percent by 2014.
3.2.1 Estimating Consumption per Unit

The median amount of diesel equivalent to handle a single dry container in Chilean
terminals was 7 litres in comparison to 5.6 litres in the other terminals in 2013 (see figure
below.

0116
Figure 3.3: Median litres of diesel equivalent consumed for handling one dry box (excluding reefer
consumption).
Source: Authors
The median energy consumption for cooling one reefer box in terminals outside of Chile in
2013 was 189 kWh. In Chile, the median energy consumption per reefer box was 137 kWh
(Figure 3.4). The median energy consumption per reefer box seems to decrease in Chile
while certain variations can be observed in other terminals.
Figure 3.4: Median kWh consumed for one reefer box (excluding handling consumption).
Source: Authors
While Chile has a lower overall median consumption per reefer box handled, the
consumption per storage day proves to be significantly higher than in other terminals (Figure
3.5). Reasons for this can vary and cannot only be thought to be due to the fact that other

0116
terminals have measures implemented to reduce the consumption of reefer containers, such
as shading.
Figure 3.5: Median kWh consumed per storage day of one reefer box (excluding handling consumption).
Source: Authors
The median consumption for vertical activities (STS and mobile cranes) was 0.91 litres of
diesel equivalent for terminals outside of Chile in 2013. in comparison to 1.73 litres of diesel
equivalent in Chile. The large standard deviation is particular noteworthy as consumption
figures can vary significantly and are strongly influenced by the type of crane deployed and
the energy source used. Vertical activities consumed an average of around 13 percent of all
energy in terminals outside of Chile in 2013. In the case of Chile, the consumption of
vertical activities accounted for 15 percent in average with a wide confidence interval.
Figure 3.6: Median litres of diesel equivalent consumed by quay cranes for handling one box.
Source: Authors

0116
The median consumption of horizontal activities was in terminals outside of Chile 3.2 litres
of diesel equivalent per box in 2013 (Figure 3.7). In Chile, the median consumption was
3.95 litres of diesel equivalent. Horizontal activities are principally based on diesel
consumption and often account for the greatest share of energy in terminals; approximately
45 percent in terminals outside of Chile. In Chile, energy consumption of horizontal
activities accounted for 32.7 percent in average. Substantial variations can be observed and
are mostly due to differences in the operational layout of the terminal.
Figure 3.8 depicts the monthly variations of energy consumption can be observed. A strong
correlation seems to exist between the monthly reefer movements and electricity
consumption. The increases and decreases in reefer movements are also linked to the main
harvesting and non-harvesting months respectively. The diesel consumption also seems to
be linked to the amount of reefer containers handled in the terminal. This suggests that a
substantial amount of diesel in consumed in generators, in order to produce electricity for
reefer containers.
Figure 3.7: Median litres of diesel equivalent consumed within horizontal activities for handling one box
Source: Authors

0116
Figure 3.8: Monthly throughput of reefer containers and energy consumption in Chile in 2014
Source: Authors
3.3 Explanatory Analysis

3.3.1 Operational
Energy consumption patterns differ vastly between terminals, depending on their operational
layout. Terminal operators can not only choose between the operational layout as such, but
also have a variety of possibilities of equipment configurations within a given layout. With
regard to energy efficiency in its various dimensions, a key factor is the choice of energy
source. The case of one Chilean terminal is particularly interesting in this respect. The
throughput of terminal A increased by 27 percent between 2011 and 2013. In the same
period, electricity consumption only increased by 18 percent and diesel consumption by 41
percent. Even though the sample size is not sufficient for appropriate testing, there seems to
be an almost linear relationship between the increasing diesel consumption and the
increasing electricity price in the terminal, it has to be noted that the diesel price only
increased by little more than 4 percent under said period while the electricity price increased
by more than 41 percent. Notwithstanding the perception that reducing fossil energy
consumption through electrification is part of the solution for reducing dependence on fossil
fuels, it can be argued that a process of “delectrification” rather than electrification takes
place in this terminal A, due to increasing electricity costs.
This development is however not an isolated phenomenon. While diesel is dominating in the
dimension of emissions and consumption, the dominating source in the monetary dimension

0116
is electricity for Chilean terminals, as well as for the terminals outside of Chile. This in turn
might lead to a situation where terminal operators are faced with opposed objectives. One is
to reduce emissions and the other one is to carry out operations as cost efficient as possible.
3.3.2 Consumption of Equipment by the Example of Quay Cranes

To investigate the influence of technological changes on energy efficiency of container
terminals, the consumption pattern of quay and mobile cranes is analyzed (Figure below),
showing various density plots. It has to be noted that different units are displayed on the x-
axis. For consumption figures the x-axis unit is MJ. For share of mobile cranes, the x-axis
unit is percent. Zero percent of mobile cranes refer to terminals that exclusively use STS
cranes.
Figure 3.9: Density plots of MJ per box consumed by quay cranes and percentage of mobile cranes.
Source: Authors.
Notes: Consumption per box by quay cranes Share of mobile cranes. Data: Based on a total of 90 observations.
A first observation, when it comes to the overall consumption of quay cranes, mobile and
STS cranes (black line) is that the density plot is heavily skewed with a clear maximum at
about 25 MJ. The interpretation of this is that many quay cranes consume about 25 MJ, but
there is also a considerable amount of quay cranes that consume substantially more. In case
of mobile cranes (blue line), a first maximum at 0 underlines that most terminals exclusively
or almost exclusively use STS cranes. The second maximum shows that there is also a
considerable number of terminals that exclusively or almost exclusively use mobile cranes.
The density plot of STS crane energy consumption (yellow line) reveals that the variation in
consumption of this type is relatively low, while the consumption and variation of
consumption of mobile cranes (red line) is significantly higher. The higher energy
consumption of mobile cranes is likely related to the age of the equipment and the energy

0116
consumed when repositioning the mobile crane. Thus, these results give some indications on
the efficiency gains from technological progress.
When the data are divided into a population of terminals with only STS cranes and a
population of terminals with only mobile cranes, following results can be obtained: Mobile
cranes consume in median 3.34 litres of diesel per box with a 95 percent confidence interval
of 2.7 litres and 3.8 litres. STS cranes consume 6.7 kWh per box with a 95 percent
confidence interval of 5.9 kWh and 7.3 kWh.
Considering the consumption per operating hour, STS cranes can be further divided into
post-panamax and panamax cranes. The overall median consumption per operating hour of
all STS cranes is 195.4 kWh with a confidence interval around the mean of 179.0 kWh and
215.8 kWh. Panamax cranes have a median consumption of 182.8 kWh and the median
consumption per operating hour of post-panamax cranes lies even outside the confidence
interval with 216.0 kWh. It should be noted that the panamax cranes in the sample are
approximately 10 years older than the post-panamax cranes. This indicates that presumed
technological advancements could not compensate for the apparent increases of
consumption that are most likely due to the increasing size of cranes. However, the sample
size with regard to the differentiation between post-panamax and panamax cranes is
relatively small.
Apart from draft restrictions, mostly crane outreach can be identified as a limiting factor in
terminals. The utilization of efficiencies of scale by shipping companies on the major lines
between Europe and Asia has is also present on the WCSA routes (Wilmsmeier, 2013). In
the second half of 2009 the first post-panamax vessels entered the WCSA region and by the
second half of 2012 the average ship size was above post-panamax, driving the demand for
post-panamax cranes in the WCSA region as a whole and in Chile in particular.
While shipping companies are often thought to profit from those economies of scale, it can
certainly be argued that these strategies at the same time might cause diseconomies of scale
in container terminals. The persistent increase in ship size and the subsequent required
increase in crane size, accommodated by modernizations of ship cranes appears to influence
productivity of quay cranes.
The number of moves per hour increased from 10.9 to 26.3 in South America between 2005
and 2013. This is certainly due to the substitution of mobile cranes by STS cranes. However,
it is possible to argue that also the substitution of panamax STS cranes by post-panamax

0116
STS cranes has played a role in this development. The here presented findings do not
suggest that this increase in productivity comes hand in hand with an increase of energy
efficiency.
4. Discussion
The presented research and detailed analysis of energy consumption pattern shows the clear
need for differentiating different products in container terminals, namely (full) reefer and
standard container. At the same time the presented approach allows for calculating
emissions of these different products. This differentiated calculation has so far been absent
in literature. While reefer containers only accounted for between 10 and 20% of total box
movements in Chile, reefer cooling represents 60% of the electricity consumption in the
terminals. This in term will also be reflected in the emissions of the respective product. The
emissions per reefer box are relatively low in Chile's main terminals. Dwell times of reefers
boxes are a crucial factor for consumption levels and thus emissions. By way of example
Terminal A, in Chile, calculated emissions (without scope 3) to be 27.57 kg CO2e per box3
(TPS, 2013) in 2013. Applying the differentiation of container types based on the activity
based approach CO2 emissions per standard container are 19.32 kg and 66.18 kg CO2 per
reefer container respectively. This reinforces the argument that reefer and dry containers
should be treated as separate products. Based on this differentiation the question has to be
asked whether the perception that container terminals only account for a marginal share of
emissions in the overall transport chain still holds true.
The significant variations between different quay cranes types and the potential of
technological change to improve the sustainable performance is in line with the product life-
cycle theory. Mobile cranes can be seen at the end of their life cycle as they are more and
more substituted by STS cranes. However, also modification to mobile cranes can be
observed, indicating that crane manufacturers are aiming to extend the life-cycle of mobile
cranes. Such modifications include the retrofitting of twin spreaders or the development of
mobile cranes that operate on electricity or gas rather than diesel.
Some of these modifications aim chiefly on increasing productivity, other aim mostly on
reducing energy costs and consumption. The impact on the consumption can therefore be
thought to vary significantly and is reflected by the substantial variations of consumption per
box by mobile cranes. It has however to be noted that STS cranes are in almost any case
more energy efficient and that a substitution of mobile cranes by STS cranes is desirable not
3
216.94 kg per TEU multiplied with the correct TEU-factor - 1.63 - for this year and terminal

0116
only in order to reduce energy consumption but also in order to make energy consumption
more predictable.
However, while equipping terminals with STS cranes, would be a rather expensive
undertaking, equipping the existing mobile cranes with twin spreaders would be less cost
intensive and could increase energy efficiency and productivity substantially in terminals
where a considerable amount of 20 foot containers is handled.
Another key issue of this research is the choice of output indicators. Historically, TEU and
boxes have been used within the industry and academia in an almost interchangeable fashion
and differences between these two indicators are to a wide extent neglected or not
understood. This by itself raises the question on which grounds operational and
environmental decisions are based in some container terminals. One area of application of
energy efficiency indicators in container terminals is the allocation of consumption and
emissions to individual containers in order to determine the carbon footprint that a container
terminal adds to a container (and even to a given product inside the container). Activities in
a container terminal mostly performed per container independent of its size. This in turn
means that allocating consumption and emissions to TEUs would subsequently lead to
incorrect results as twice the amount of energy and emissions of a 20-foot container would
be allocated to 40 foot containers.
5. Conclusions
The findings in relation to the current energy consumption of container terminals show the
need for action, and are highly relevant for industry and policymakers, given the urgent need
to address competitiveness, energy security and climate change and to analyse terminal
performance in a more integrated sustainable approach.
This work sets out to fill certain gaps in literature and research showing the relevance of
energy consumption as a basis for identifying energy efficiency potentials and improving
carbon footprint calculations. A challenge in previous research was the allocation of fossil
fuels to process clusters. It was possible to fill this gap almost completely by following the
activity-based approach more consistently. The total amount of undefined consumption
dropped from 45 percent to 6.5 percent.
The analyzed energy consumption patterns showed that significant potential exists to reap
the benefits for technological change, electrification and policy incentives. By way of
example, the amount of diesel litres consumed per handled box in Chilean container

0116
terminals was equivalent to 17.6 km travelled by a fully laden truck' in 2013. In total more
than 10.5 million litres of diesel were consumed. This underlines the importance of
consumption in container terminals also with regard to emissions. 'Truck is estimated to
consume 35 litres of diesel per 100 km.
It was possible to compare of the dimension of costs and emissions. This comparison
showed that some terminal operators are faced with opposed objectives as they often can
choose between either cost or emission reduction. This in turn points towards the need for
policy incentives that can be implemented by the described stakeholders in subsection.
Policymakers and port authorities should therefore support the ports and terminals in
reducing energy consumption and emissions in various ways. These include helping
terminals and other operators to establish green technologies; developing differentiated port
and terminal charges related to energy consumption, implementing energy management for
ports as a whole to enable load shedding and smart grid (macro grid) applications, energy
brokerage to allow for environmentally friendly and economical contracts with providers,
and developing an energy mix including own energy production using wind farms, solar
panel installations, tidal energy, and others.
Two limitations have to be mentioned in regard to energy consumption and emissions. One
is the comparison of electric energy with fossil energy. The linear conversion of electric
energy was carried out. This implied to neglect the conversion losses. The share of electric
energy can therefore generally be thought to be higher as it was indicated in this work. The
comparison in the dimension of emissions is more exact as conversion losses are here taken
into consideration. The limitation in that respect is that only emission factors aggregated for
whole countries are available for electric energy.
The findings as discussed in the paper have the following three main implications for
terminal operators and policy makers: a) terminal operators can influence their energy
consumption patterns by either technological advancement, operational decisions or a
combination of both. b) Expenses appear to be the driving factor in the decision making process
of terminal operators. The development towards less energy costs does however not necessarily
come hand in hand with the reduction of emissions. Policy measures are needed in order to
internalize emissions; at least to a certain extent. c) Considering the allocation of energy
consumption, emissions or expenses to a unit, it has to be noted that this allocation has to be
done to boxes with a differentiation between at least reefer and dry containers and thus,

0116
container terminals are multi-product entities which is commonly neglected when

productivity is investigated.
The last finding is however not limited to terminal operators and policy makers but also
have to be understood as contribution to the existing body of research. The consumption
pattern between dry and reefer containers differ so immensely that it is hardly possible to
argue in any further research that the handling of those two types of containers is still the
same product. This is not limited to container terminals but also has to be applied to any
research of the consumption and emission patterns of container ships that transport a
considerable amount of full reefer boxes. The use of boxes as unit indicator is not limited to
researches related to energy efficiency but should also be applied in other related research.
References
Acciaro, M., Ghiara, H., Cusano, I (2013) The Role of Ports as Energy Managers. the
International Association of Maritime Economics (IAME) annual conference, Marseille.
Acciaro, Michele (2013) Fully sustainable energy management: The port as an energy hub.
presentation at Managing Environmental Performance for Ports and Terminals, London.
Acciaro, Michele (2014) A Real Option Application to Investment in Low Sulphur Maritime
Transport. Vol. 6. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics
Brinkmann, B. (2011) Operations Systems of Container Terminals: A Compendious

Overview. Springer Science+Business Media, URL: http://www.springer.com/978-1-4419-
8407-4.
Geerlings, H., van Duin, R., 2011. A new method for assessing CO2-emissions from
container terminals: a promising approach applied in Rotterdam. Journal of Cleaner
Production 19, 657–666.
He, J., Huang, Y., Yan, W., 2015. Yard crane scheduling in a container terminal for the
trade-off between efficiency and energy consumption. Advanced Engineering Informatics
29, 59–75.
He, J., Huang, Y., Yan, W., Wang, S., 2015. Integrated internal truck, yard crane and quay
crane scheduling in a container terminal considering energy consumption. Expert Systems
with Applications 42, 2464–2487.

0116
Horta, L.A. (2010) Indicadores de políticas públicas en materia de eficiencia energética en

América Latina y el Caribe. ECLAC
International Energy Agency: Energy Efficiency Market Report 2013. International Energy
Agency, 2013
Joumard, R., Gudmundsson, H. (2010) Indicators of environmental sustainability in

transport. Institut national de recherche sur les transports et leur sécurité.
Lin, B., Collins, J., Su, R.K. (2001) Supply chain costing: an activity-based perspective.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management.
Merckx, Filip: The issue of dwell time charges to optimize container terminal capacity.
paper presented at the IAME Annual Conference, Limassol, Cyprus, 2005
Ministerio de Energía: National Energy Strategy 2012-2030. Gobierno de Chile (URL:

http://www. centralenergia.cl/uploads/2012/06/National-Energy-Strategy-Chile.pdf), 29
May 2015.
Monios, J., Wilmsmeier, G. (2013) The operational dynamics of container types in regional
British port development strategies. paper presented at the IAME Annual Conference,
Marseille, France
National Institute of Standards and Technology: NIST Guide to SI. (URL: http://physics.
nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec04.html), 10 Apr. 2015.
Nozawa, Tetsuo: Tokai University Unveils 100W DC Motor with 96 percent Efficiency.
Nikkei Electronics, 2009 (URL:
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20090403/168295/).
Sha, M., Zhang, T., Lan, Y., Zhou, X., Qin, T., Yu, D., Chen, K., n.d. Scheduling
Optimization of Yard Cranes with Minimal Energy Consumption at Container Terminals.
Computers & Industrial Engineering.
Smeets, E., Weterings, R. (1999): Environmental indicators: Typology and overview.

European Environment Agency, 1999 (URL:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/TEC25), 23 Apr. 2015.
Staffell, I. (2011) The Energy and Fuel Data Sheet. Revision 1 edition. University of
Birmingham, 2011 (URL: http://wogone.com/science/the_energy_and_fuel_data_sheet.pdf).

0116
Wilmsmeier, G., Froese, J. Zotz, A.K. (2014) Energy Consumption and Efficiency:
Emerging Challenges from Reefer Trade in South American Container Terminals. FAL
Bulletin 329. ECLAC.
Wilmsmeier, G., Monios, J. (2015) Institutional structure and agency in the governance of
spatial diversification of port system evolution in Latin America. J. Transport Geography.
Wilmsmeier, G., Monios, J. Pérez-Salas, G. (2014) Port system evolution - the case of Latin
America and the Caribbean. Journal of Transport Geography.
Wilmsmeier, G., Tovar, B., Sánchez, R. (2013) The evolution of container terminal
productivity and efficiency under changing economic environments. Research in
Transportation Business & Management.
Yang, Y.-C., Lin, C.-L., 2013. Performance analysis of cargo-handling equipment from a
green container terminal perspective. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment 23, 9–11.
Yang, Y-C, Chang, W-M (2013) Impacts of electric rubber-tired gantries on green port
performance. Research in Transportation Business & Management.
He, J., 2016. Berth allocation and quay crane assignment in a container terminal for the
trade-off between time-saving and energy-saving. Advanced Engineering Informatics 30,
390–405. doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2016.04.006
View publication stats

IAME 2016 Full Paper 0116-Wilmsmeier-Spengler

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IAME 2016 Full Paper 0116-Wilmsmeier-Spengler

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Energy Consumption and Energy Efﬁciency Indicators in Container Terminals

Conference Paper · August 2016

Thomas Spengler Gordon Wilmsmeier

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Energy Consumption and Energy Efficiency

UN-ECLAC, Santiago, Chile

UN-ECLAC, Santiago, Chile

Keywords: container terminals, energy efficiency, energy consumption, indicators3.

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 2

order to understand future challenges and opportunities to implement energy efficiency

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 3

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 4

2.2 Definition of Energy Efficiency as an Indicator

• “Level 1: Indicators treated as units measuring particular system properties or

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 5

Units as an indicator in the context of energy efficiency have to be seen as a measurement

Table 2.1: Indicators relevant for energy efficiency.

Category Level Type

2.3 A Systematic Approach to Identifying Energy Consumers

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 6

Figure 2.1: Processes in a port. Source:

Source: Authors based on Wilmsmeier et al. 2014

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 7

Table 2.2: Energy consumers inside a container terminal.

2.3.1 TEU or containers

Figure 2.2: Containers as multidimensional variables.

2.4 Indicator Selection

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 9

• LNG: 35.22 !"#$%

Notwithstanding, the conversion issues of electrical energy, the linear conversion as

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 10

to much consumption, emissions or expenses would be allocated to 20 foot containers. The

2.5 Applying the Activity-based Approach

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 11

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 12

Figure 3.1: Data availability by source in percent.

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 13

3.2 Explorative Analysis - Energy Consumption Patterns

Figure 3.2: Consumption shares of diesel and electricity in percent.

consumption in Chilean container terminals can be allocated to reefer containers. The

3.2.1 Estimating Consumption per Unit

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 15

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 16

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 17

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 18

3.3 Explanatory Analysis

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 19

3.3.2 Consumption of Equipment by the Example of Quay Cranes

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 20

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 21

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 22

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 23

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 24

container terminals are multi-product entities which is commonly neglected when

Brinkmann, B. (2011) Operations Systems of Container Terminals: A Compendious

IAME 2016 Conference | August 23 - 26, 2016 | Hamburg, Germany 25

Horta, L.A. (2010) Indicadores de políticas públicas en materia de eficiencia energética en

Joumard, R., Gudmundsson, H. (2010) Indicators of environmental sustainability in

Ministerio de Energía: National Energy Strategy 2012-2030. Gobierno de Chile (URL:

Smeets, E., Weterings, R. (1999): Environmental indicators: Typology and overview.