According to the International Maritime Organization, shipping was responsible for over 1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in 2018. A significant share of those emissions came from seaport activities, including ship berthing, cargo handling, and transportation within port areas. In response, governments, NGOs, and environmental watchdog groups are sounding alarms and advocating for urgent measures to mitigate pollution at the world’s ports.

One of the most promising solutions for the decarbonization of port operations involves electrifying these facilities. This plan envisions ships plugging into dockside electric power rather than running their diesel-powered auxiliary generators for lighting, cargo handling, heating and cooling, accommodation, and onboard electronics. It would also call for replacing diesel-powered cranes, forklifts, and trucks that move massive shipping containers from ship to shore with battery-powered alternatives.

To delve deeper into this transformative approach, IEEE Spectrum recently spoke with John Prousalidis, a leading advocate for seaport electrification. Prousalidis, a professor of marine electrical engineering at the National Technical University of Athens, has played a pivotal role in developing standards for seaport electrification through his involvement with the IEEE, the International Electrical Commission (IEC), and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). As vice-chair of the IEEE Marine Power Systems Coordinating Committee, he has been instrumental in advancing these ideas. Last year, Prousalidis co-authored a key paper titled “Holistic Energy Transformation of Ports: The Proteus Plan” in IEEE Electrification Magazine. In the paper, Prousalidis and his co-authors outlined their comprehensive vision for the future of port operations. The main points of the Proteus plan have been integrated in the policy document on Smart and Sustainable Ports coordinated by Prousalidis within the European Public Policy Committee Working Group on Energy; the policy document was approved in July 2024 by the IEEE Global Policy Committee.

Professor John ProusalidisJohn Prousalidis

What exactly is “cold ironing?”

John Prousalidis: Cold ironing involves shutting down a ship’s propulsion and auxiliary engines while at port, and instead, using electricity from shore to power onboard systems like air conditioning, cargo handling equipment, kitchens, and lighting. This reduces emissions because electricity from the grid, especially from renewable sources, is more environmentally friendly than burning diesel fuel on site. The technical challenges include matching the ship’s voltage and frequency with that of the local grid, which, in general, varies globally, while tackling grounding issues to protect against short circuits.

IEEE, along with IEC and ISO, have developed a joint standard, 80005, which is a series of three different standards for high-voltage and low-voltage connection. It is perhaps (along with Wi-Fi, the standard for wireless communication) the “hottest” standard because all governmental bodies tend to make laws stipulating that this is the standard that all ports need to follow to supply power to ships.

How broad has adoption of this standard been?

Prousalidis: The European Union has mandated full compliance by January 1, 2030. In the United States, California led the way with similar measures in 2010. This aggressive remediation via electrification is now being adopted globally, with support from the International Maritime Organization.

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

Prousalidis: When lowering shipping containers, cranes in regenerative braking mode convert the kinetic energy into electric charge instead of wasting it as heat. Just like when an electric vehicle is coming to a stop, the energy can be fed back into the crane’s battery, potentially saving up to 50 percent in energy costs—though a conservative estimate would be around 20 percent.

What are the estimated upfront costs for implementing cold ironing at, say, the Port of Los Angeles, which is the largest port in the United States?

Prousalidis: The cost for a turnkey solution is approximately US $1.7 million per megawatt, covering grid upgrades, infrastructure, and equipment. A rough estimate using some established rules of thumb would be about $300 million. The electrification process at that port has already begun. There are, as far as I know, about 60 or more electrical connection points for ships at berths there.

How significant would the carbon reduction from present levels be if there were complete electrification with renewable energy at the world’s 10 biggest and busiest ports?

Prousalidis: If ports fully electrify using renewable energy, the European Union’s policy could achieve a 100-percent reduction in ship emissions in the port areas. According to the IMO’s approach, which considers the energy mix of each country, it could lead to a 60-percent reduction. This significant emission reduction means lower emissions of CO₂, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter, thus reducing shipping’s contribution to global warming and lowering health risks in nearby population centers.

If all goes according to plan, and every country with port operations goes full bore toward electrification, how long do you think it will realistically take to completely decarbonize that aspect of shipping?

Prousalidis: As I said, the European Union is targeting full port electrification by 1 January 2030. However, with around 600 to 700 ports in Europe alone, and the need for grid upgrades, delays are possible. Despite this, we should focus on meeting the 2030 deadline rather than anticipating extensions. This recalls the words of Gemini and Apollo pioneer astronaut, Alan Shepard, when he explained the difference between a test pilot and a normal professional pilot: “Suppose each of them had 10 seconds before crashing. The conventional pilot would think, In 10 seconds I’m going to die. The test pilot would say to himself, I’ve got 10 seconds to save myself and save the craft.” The point is that, in a critical situation like the fight against global warming, we should focus on the time we have to solve the problem, not on what happens after time runs out. But humanity doesn’t have an eject button to press if we don’t make every effort to avoid the detrimental consequences that will come with failure of the “save the planet” projects.

In July, two companies announced a collaboration aimed at helping to decarbonize maritime fuel technology. The companies, Brooklyn-based Amogy and Osaka-based Yanmar, say they plan to combine their respective areas of expertise to develop power plants for ships that use Amogy’s advanced technology for cracking ammonia to produce hydrogen fuel for Yanmar’s hydrogen internal combustion engines.

This partnership responds directly to the maritime industry’s ambitious goals to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has set stringent targets. It is calling for a 40 percent reduction in shipping’s carbon emissions from 2008 levels by 2030. But will the companies have a commercially available reformer-engine unit available in time for shipping fleet owners to launch vessels featuring this technology by the IMO’s deadline? The urgency is there, but so are the technical hurdles that come with new technologies.

Shipping accounts for less than 3 percent of global human-caused CO₂ emissions, but decarbonizing the industry would still have a profound impact on global efforts to combat climate change. According to the IMO’s 2020 Fourth Greenhouse Gas Study, shipping produced 1,056 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2018.

Amogy and Yanmar did not respond to IEEE Spectrum‘s requests for comment about the specifics of how they plan to synergize their areas of focus. But John Prousalidis, a professor at the National Technical University of Athens’s School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, spoke with Spectrum to help put the announcement in context.

“We have a long way to go. I don’t mean to sound like a pessimist, but we have to be very cautious.” —John Prousalidis, National Technical University of Athens

Prousalidis is among a group of researchers pushing for electrification of seaport activities as a means of cutting greenhouse gas emissions and reducing the amount of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides being spewed into the air by ships at berth and by the cranes, forklifts, and trucks that handle shipping containers in ports. He acknowledged that he hasn’t seen any information specific to Amogy and Yanmar’s technical ideas for using ammonia as ships’ primary fuel source for propulsion, but he has studied maritime sector trends long enough—and helped create standards for the IEEE, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)—in order to have a strong sense of how things will likely play out.

“We have a long way to go,” Prousalidis says. “I don’t mean to sound like a pessimist, but we have to be very cautious.” He points to NASA’s Artemis project, which is using hydrogen as its primary fuel for its rockets.

“The planned missile launch for a flight to the moon was repeatedly postponed because of a hydrogen leak that could not be well traced,” Prousalidis says. “If such a problem took place with one spaceship that is the singular focus of dozens of people who are paying attention to the most minor detail, imagine what could happen on any of the 100,000 ships sailing across the world?”

What’s more, he says, bold but ultimately unsubstantiated announcements from companies are fairly common. Amogy and Yanmar aren’t the first companies to suggest tapping into ammonia for cargo ships—the industry is no stranger to plans to adopt the fuel to move massive ships across the world’s oceans.

“A couple of big pioneering companies have announced that they’re going to have ammonia-fueled ship propulsion pretty soon,” Prousalidis says. “Originally, they announced that it would be available at the end of 2022. Then they said the end of 2023. Now they’re saying something about 2025.”

Shipping produced 1,056 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2018.

Prousalidis adds, “Everybody keeps claiming that ‘in a couple of years’ we’ll have [these alternatives to diesel for marine propulsion] ready. We periodically get these announcements about engines that will be hydrogen-ready or ammonia-ready. But I’m not sure what will happen during real operation. I’m sure that they performed several running tests in their industrial units. But in most cases, according to Murphy’s Law, failures will take place at the worst moment that we can imagine.”

All that notwithstanding, Prousalidis says he believes these technical hurdles will someday be solved, and engines running on alternative fuels will replace their diesel-fueled counterparts eventually. But he says he sees the rollout likely mirroring the introduction of natural gas. At the point when a few machines capable of running on that type of fuel were ready, the rest of the logistics chain was not. “We need to have all these brand-new pieces of equipment, including piping, that must be able to withstand the toxicity and combustibility of these new fuels. This is a big challenge, but it means that all engineers have work to do.”

Spectrum also reached out to researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy with several questions about what Amogy and Yanmar say they are looking to pull off. The DOE’s e-mail response: “Theoretically possible, but we don’t have enough technical details (temperature of coupling engine to cracker, difficulty of manifolding, startup dynamics, controls, etc.) to say for certain and if it is a good idea or not.”

This article was updated on 5 August 2024 to correct global shipping emission data.