Back to roadmapBack to list

MAGPIE Shore Power Peak Shaving demo

Shore Power Peak Shaving uses onboard batteries to reduce power peaks, lower emissions, and improve shore power efficiency in ports. This is demo 3 within the MAGPIE project.

Electrification

Introduction

Shore Power Peak Shaving is a strategy to reduce grid congestion and emissions in ports by integrating battery systems on vessels. This demonstration focuses on using a battery on a heavy lift vessel to shave power peaks during crane operations, thereby optimizing the use of existing shore power infrastructure in the Port of Rotterdam. The approach aims to lower electricity costs, reduce environmental noise and emissions, and improve the feasibility of shore power systems for high-demand vessels. The solution addresses both offshore and port-side challenges, including economic feasibility, regulatory uncertainty, and infrastructure limitations. By aligning vessel operational profiles with smart energy systems, Shore Power Peak Shaving contributes to a more sustainable and efficient port energy ecosystem.

Value proposition

  • Batteries on vessels enable peak shaving, reducing grid load and electricity costs.

  • Shore power is the cheapest method for CO₂ reduction (MAC) compared to fuel.

  • Potential for electricity trading and smart system integration. Lower peak power usage results in cheaper electricity fees per month.

  • Lower chance of net congestion.

  • 5% fuel savings.

Problem: • High peak electricity demand from vessels strains grid infrastructure. • Low occupancy rates of charging infrastructure reduce cost-effectiveness. • Regulatory uncertainty and lack of supportive contract forms hinder adoption. • Cultural reluctance and immature market conditions slow implementation.

Port applicability

• Large Container Ports/Hub Ports: Highly applicable due to high energy demand and potential for grid optimization. Shore power systems can reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency. • Ferry Terminals: Moderately applicable; benefits depend on operational profiles and peak demand patterns. • Industrial Ports: Strong applicability where heavy lift operations or high-power vessels are common. Battery integration can support grid stability and reduce emissions. • Smaller/Regional Ports: Applicability depends on grid capacity and policy support. May benefit from modular shore power systems and battery buffers. • Other: Applicable to multiport networks and innovation corridors focused on electrification and smart energy systems.

Detailed description of the solution

  • Battery System

    Installed on a heavy lift vessel to manage peak loads during crane operations.

  • Shore Power Hub

    Existing infrastructure in Rotterdam used for electricity supply.

  • Grid Optimization

    Reduces the need for high-capacity grid connections (“more peaks from fewer cables”).

  • Forecasting

    Apply forecasting of the local wind production and provide live indicators of the potential cost savings by allowing short-term flexibility in the crane operation.

  • Scalability Tools

    Includes heat map approaches and standardization for power demand forecasting.

Impact

Impact level per aspect
ImpactLevelRemark
Energy EfficiencyMedium impact
Reduces peak power usage, leading to lower electricity fees and improved grid utilization. Peak power cost is not linear; reducing peak helps.
GHG emissionsMedium impact
Enables CO₂ savings by replacing diesel use with electricity, depending on the country’s energy mix. Main emissions for the port are released during arrival and departure, which are not solved via shore power.
Pollutant emissionsMedium impact
Reduces NOx and particulate emissions by minimizing engine use during port operations.
SafetyMedium impact
Fewer operational risks in port; battery systems reduce reliance on onboard generators.
Port CityMedium impact
Less environmental noise and improved air quality due to reduced engine use.
Nature and Community ImpactMedium impact
High social acceptance; aligns with noise legislation and environmental goals.
Supports electricity trading and smart grid integration. It causes cheaper electricity fees.Medium impact

Port characteristics

Need: Sufficient grid capacity, low electricity costs, and policy support. Affects: Infrastructure planning, investment decisions, and operational coordination.

Barriers and enablers

Enablers

  • Non-technological (Port and Offshore)Enabler

    • High social acceptance and alignment with noise regulations. • NOx reduction benefits. • 5% fuel savings. • Opportunity for electricity trading. • Industrial electricity costs are lower than onboard operational costs (e.g., electricity at €0.10/kWh vs. onboard opex at €0.20–€0.30/kWh).

  • TechnologyEnabler

    • Technology is new but not unknown. • Operational profiles guide battery use. • Standardization supports scalability. • Down-scaled tests showed that onboard battery systems (BESS) can reduce grid demand and contracted 15-minute peak load.

Barriers

  • Non-technological Port-SideBarrier

    • Cultural reluctance and mistrust of new developments. • Lack of municipal support. • Delay in receiving permits. • Insurance difficulties. • Split incentives between port and shipowner. • Low occupancy rates of shore power infrastructure. • Incorrect assumptions on cost and feasibility.

  • Non-technological OffshoreBarrier

    • Increased risk of major calamity due to onboard battery systems. • Contract forms not supportive of sustainable energy carriers. • Uncertainty about ETS applicability. • Capabilities of classification societies regarding electrification. • Immature market and retrofit challenges. • Knowledge gaps and outdated perceptions.

  • TechnologyBarrier

    • Immature market and retrofit challenges. • Regulatory uncertainty. • Lack of system integrators between port and energy distribution. • Peak shaving only effective for rarely occurring peak loads in case of limited battery capacity. • Competing alternatives (HVO, H₂, other fuels).

How to implement?

  1. Step 1

    Pilot deployment (ongoing)

  2. Step 2

    Evaluation of operational profiles

  3. Step 3

    Infrastructure optimization

  4. Step 4

    Broad application expected by 2040

Implementation Interdependencies

Requires coordination between vessel operators, port authorities, energy suppliers, and regulators. Additional training of crew in use/servicing of the battery. Trading electricity via onshore battery. ‘Heat map’ approach for required power demand for shore power.

Required involved stakeholders

  • Port authority

    Oversees shore power infrastructure and policy alignment.

  • Terminal Operators

    Coordinate vessel operations and energy use.

  • Shipping Lines

    Equip vessels with batteries and adapt operational profiles.

  • Fuel Suppliers/Distributors

    Competing alternatives (HVO/H₂) may influence adoption.

  • Technology Providers

    Supply battery systems and integration tools. Possibility for product launch.

  • Engineering & Construction Firms

    Support installation and retrofitting.

  • Classification Societies

    Ensure compliance with electrification standards.

  • National & International Regulators

    Define ETS applicability and support electrification.

  • Financial Institutions/Investors

    Fund battery systems and infrastructure upgrades.

  • Research & Development Institutions

    Analyze operational profiles and scalability.

  • Local Government & Community Groups

    Influence social acceptance and policy support.

  • Workforce Representatives/Unions

    Support training and safe battery operation.

Knowledge base and references