Jan Helge Pile, Project Director, Color Line Marine A/S.

Transcription

1 High Voltage Shore Connection, HVSC. Først i Norge med den nye standarden? Høyspent Landstrøm til Color Magic, og Color Fantasy i Oslo Havn. Jan Helge Pile, Project Director, Color Line Marine A/S.

2 HVSC. How we did it! / Landstrøm. Slik gjorde vi det! Agenda; Color Line Marine A/S. 1. Background for shore power discussions. 2. Financing. Pre-project start-up planning. 3. The project. HVSC. How we did it! 4. Results; Technical, Operational, Economic, and Environmental results. 5. Who s next? How will shore power expand?

3 1. Background for shore power discussions. (1/3) Oslo Havn KF and Color Line have discussed shore-power on occasions for more than 10 years. Discussions often ended when a power need of 4 to 5 MW was identified as this was not readily available in the port. Technically challenging to transfer this much energy to the vessel s network safely. Marine fuel became steadily more expensive. Sharpened demand to fuel quality through MARPOL VI and EU s sulphur directive (Sulphur content reduced from abt. 3 % to 0,1 %.) Sharpened focus on low air quality in city centers (during winter) in the public domain in general. (Oslo and Bergen especially).

4 1. Background for shore power discussions. (2/3) Reasoning for shore power can be explained as follows; 1. Local diesel engines emissions are increasingly considered as a public health issue for populations located around port areas. Shore power eliminates/reduces exposure to such emissions. 2. Shore power is part of global shipping industry CO2 emissions, and as such part of the numerous corrective actions identified to reduce climate change risks.

5 1. Background for shore power discussions. (3/3) 2009: IEC/ISO/IEEE norm developed for HV Shore Connection for ships. 2006: EU directive recommending ports and member states to develop options for ships to use HVSC. 2008: Oslo City Council (Bystyre) asks for same (shore power for ferries). On this background a new initiative is taken in 2009 on developing shore power for Color Line s vessels.

7 2. Financing. Pre-project start-up planning. A working group was established in 2009 with the following partners: Port of Oslo / Oslo Havn KF Hafslund Nett (Power Grid provider) Color Line Marine A/S Bellona Foundation (pro-environment NGO, joining spring 2010) Color Line s vessels: Though not the largest vessels calling upon the Port of Oslo, Color Line s vessels (together with DFDS ) are the ones with the largest annual energy need while alongside, and thus of greatest interest for shore power. (Larger cruise vessels visit occasionally during summer months only.) Color Magic and Color Fantasy ; At GRT are sister vessels with comparable energy need and one of them docks every day in Oslo. Power need is approximately 3,0 MW / 50 Hz over 3h30m daily, but we decided to plan for a 4,5 MW HVSC capacity coupling to be able to handle peak needs and possible future expansions.

8 2. Financing. Pre-project start-up planning. March 2010: Decided to carry through a feasibility study / project planning to identify exact costs and consequences taking into account the latest technology, new standards for HVSC for ships, EU Sulphur directive (July 2010), and other affecting consequences. Target was to have correct data, cost estimates, and project plans available by summer 2010 in order for Color Line to be able to make a profound business decision on whether to activate plans that could lead to using HVSC by summer season June 2010: In a meeting at the Port of Oslo June 7th 2010 it was identified that: 1. An 11 kv cable way of about 900 m must be arranged to supply the Color Line vessels. 2. It is possible to do this work in time for summer season Cost estimates are (being) received showing an estimated cost for the project: -pr ship installation -for shore side installations at the terminal in Oslo -for providing 11 kv power to the quayside from city sub-station

9 2010:11 kv cable pathway plan from nearest sub-station to ship terminal (partly utilizing existing pathways). Solli plass sub-station Color Line Terminal

10 2. Financing. Pre-project start-up planning. Costs; We estimated that the total costs were in the region of NOK mill using 11 kv /50 Hz/ 4,5 MW power including automatic remote controlled hook-up and disconnecting. Interest and support. Verbal support from the project is received from City of Oslo (Letter of support), other administrative and environmental organizations, but we understood that the cost was higher than we could handle alone (by Color Line.) Financing. Since much of the incentive in the project was to improve air quality in Oslo and to reduce emissions rather than simply supplying power to the vessel (we had enough power onboard) we wanted to look for financing outside Color Line.

11 2. Financing. Pre-project start-up planning. Partner BELLONA had ideas; Seek financial support through government financing schemes. Eventually financial support was sought via: TRANSNOVA (government programs that support initiatives for reducing CO2 emissions from transportation industries in Norway). ENOVA (Energieffektiviseringsfondet, government programs that support initiatives for making power consumption in Norway more efficient. (Here: Diesel engines 40 % efficiency replaced with hydro power with 100 % efficiency.) Oslo Havn KF (Port of Oslo) The port wanted to promote shore power and decided to support part of the shore side infrastructure costs. All support had to be within regulations for EU governmental support schemes. For Color Line as the ultimate receiver we could not receive support for more than 30 % of total costs. Also Oslo Havn could not give support that could be perceived as direct aid to a single costumer, and therefore supported quayside costs only (in theory other vessels might use this equipment eventually).

12 2. Financing. Pre-project start-up planning. (6/7) Applications first sent to Transnova, and later to Enova as the process developed. Oslo Havn choose to contribute as well. (To shore side infrastructure; 11 kv cable ways, etc.) 1. Transnova application sent Positive reply Enova application sent Positive reply Oslo Havn: Letter of financial support sent/received The project which is budgeted to a technical cost of about NOK 23,2 mill (EUR 3 mill) (including 2 ships and 1 port terminal) is being financed as follows; TRANSNOVA (Norw.gov. CO2 reducing fund) 2,0 mill NOK ~ 7,5 % ENOVA (Norw. Gov. energy efficiency fund) 3,8 mill NOK ~ 15,0 % Port of Oslo (Owned by City of Oslo) 2,0 mill NOK ~ 7,5 % Color Line A/S 15,7 mill NOK ~ 70,0 %

13 2. Financing. Pre-project start-up planning. (7/7) Each of these support schemes have an independent agreement/contract with specific limitations, requirements, and timelines based on their somewhat different reasoning for supporting the project. (CO2 reductions, energy efficiency, and infrastructure costs.) A timeline for all is that the project shall technically be completed by June 2012 and financial reporting shall be completed and audited by January 2013.

15 3. The project. HVSC. How we did it! Technically we divided the project into 3 parts; 1. Ship installation Color Magic (Main installation works April 2011.) 2. Terminal installations at the Hjortnes Terminal, Port of Oslo (Main installations June 2011.) 3. Ship installation Color Fantasy (Installation works April-June 2012.) Most urgent was the April 2011 dry-dock works for Color Magic which made us having to order parts (HV transformer) in December 2010 before all documents & contracts were signed due to long delivery times.

16 3. The project. HVSC. How we did it! Technically we had the following specifications for our project; 1. Installation should comply with the new IEC/ISO/IEEE shore power regulations as far as possible (rules were known, but not in effect) in addition to all relevant other rules (DnV, DSB, NMA, NVE (Hafslund)). 2. Color Line vessels use 690 V / 50 Hz for onboard power distribution. Oslo (and Kiel) have a 11 kv / 50 Hz power grid. This meant that we needed an onboard 11kV/690 V transformer, but we did not need frequency converters to/from 60 Hz. (Vessels power needs were 3 MW / 4,5 MW at max). 3. Personnel (electric) safety should be of UTMOST importance and high voltage parts should not be touched during hook-up and disconnection. Lowest possible (= zero) need for additional high-voltage certified personnel (electricians). 4. A switch from ship to shore power should not go via black-out of the vessel.

17 3. The project. HVSC. How we did it! High Voltage Shore Connection Configuration Example ship w/diesel mechanical propulsion and separate LV electric system. Ship with diesel machinery and low voltage (690 V) electric system. The Shore Connection Panel is located outside the main switchboard room with cable connectors mounted in the front. Note: Color Magic has 4 generators, 4 main engines, and 2 propellers. An onboard transformer steps down the power from high to low voltage. Illustration curtsey: ABB

18 3. Our project. HVSC. How we did it! The following companies eventually became main suppliers to the project; 1. ABB Marine (Germany); Suppliers of high voltage equipment 2. ABB AS (Norway); Shoreside terminal works, Hjortnes 3. NG 2 (France); Supplier of innovative ship-toshore plug 4. Hafslund Nett (Norway); Cable and breakers. 5. FAYARD (Denmark); Installation works at shipyard / dry-dock. 6. Valmarine (Norway and Finland); Power Management System (PMS) modifications.

19 3. Our project. HVSC. How we did it! PMS 1. ABB Marine (Germany); 2. ABB AS (Norway); 3. NG 2 (France); 4. Hafslund Nett (Norway); 5. FAYARD (Denmark); 6. Valmarine (Nor + Fin);

20 3. Our project. HVSC. How we did it!

21 3. Our project. HVSC. How we did it! ABB 11kV/690 V transformer; Range: Weight: Room size: Motorized 11,1 kv to 9,8 kv kilo (12 tons) (5 long * 3 wide * 3 high) meter.

22 3. Our project. HVSC. How we did it! ABB receiving cabinets NG 2 plug mechanism Ship side terminal connection (deck 5);

23 3. Our project. HVSC. How we did it! Ship side connector Quay side connector NG 2 deliveries

24 3. Our project. HVSC. How we did it! Shoreside terminal connection by NG 2 More on youtube:

25 Pathway HVSC 11 kv cable pathway to Hjortnes, Filipstad, Oslo Color Line Terminal Spring Color Line (ABB Norge) Hafslund Nett (Outside CL area) Hafslund Nett (Outside CL s area)

27 4. Results. Technical Results; 1. Color Magic completed for shore power October Shore station at Hjortnes, Port of Oslo completed summer Color Fantasy completed for shore power by June In addition extensive commissioning and testing of safeties and automation sequences took place for first vessel until February This, -to a large extent-, delayed (and prevented) utilization of the installation (for first vessel) during project period which was part of the project s environmental goals. Project technically completed for both vessels in June 2012 in accordance with original project plan.

28 4. Results. Operational Results; Utilization rate (accessibility) of HVSC system in Oslo in Note: Technical fault caused a shutdown of system in October and from Dec 10 th onwards. M/S "Color Magic" Rate of use for shore power (Number of days on shore power relative to number of days in Oslo) Month 2012 Port calls Oslo Days on shore power Rate of use (Shore Power) M/S "Color Fantasy" Rate of use for shore power (Number of days on shore power relative to number of days in Oslo) Month 2012 Port calls Oslo Days on shore power Rate of use (Shore Power) jan % jan.12 NA feb % feb.12 NA mar % mar.12 NA apr % apr.12 NA mai % mai.12 NA jun % jun % jul % jul % aug % aug % sep % sep % okt % okt % nov % nov % des % des % 2012 YTD % 2012 YTD % 2012 Total 2 ships % Utilization target for 2013: 90 %.

29 4. Results. Financial Results; Financing. The high investment cost can hardly be reclaimed using conventional return-ofinvestment calculations. However, CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) considerations, green marketing, and public perception also has a value to be considered. The project generates significant positive public interest. The project was budgeted to a cost of NOK 24,4 mill (EUR 3,2 mill). This includes 23,0 MNOK for equipment and installation for 2 ships and 1 port terminal + 1,4 MNOK for the partners work hour efforts (egeninnsatst) and was to be financed as follows; TRANSNOVA (Norw.gov. CO2 reducing fund) 2,0 mill NOK ~ 7,5 % ENOVA (Norw. Gov. energy efficiency fund) 3,8 mill NOK ~ 15,0 % Port of Oslo (Owned by City of Oslo) 2,0 mill NOK ~ 7,5 % Color Line A/S 15,7 mill NOK ~ 70,0 % Note: The final support financing will be adjusted to actual as-built costs and each partners conditions for giving financial support.

30 4. Results. Financial Results; Investment costs. The final cost came in well below budget (23,2 MNOK/ 3 MEUR) at NOK 19,637,527 due to the ships installations becoming less expensive than budgeted. Cost distribution Actual Budget Cost item/location NOK NOK Ship: Color Magic Ship: Color Fantasy Shore: High Voltage to pier/qua Shore: Shore-to-ship unit Partners work-hour efforts (Egen Total

31 4. Results. Financial Results; Operational costs/gains. As already mentioned the investment cost (23,2 MNOK / 3 MEUR) can hardly be reclaimed using conventional return-of-investment calculations. However, CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) considerations, green marketing, and public perception also has a value to be considered. The project generates significant positive public interest. We believe this also has a financial impact, but the value is not calculated. Purely economically it is the difference in price for energy from shore side electric power versus from marine fuels that could generate an economic advantage. This difference is volatile as both these costs fluctuate a lot. In 2012, however, the electric power in Norway was less expensive than our own onboard production costs using MGO. Each ship could save around NOK for a full year with 90 % utilization and electric power costs at 0,65 NOK/kWh and fuel at 700 USD/t at 6,00 NOK/USD.

32 4. Results. Environmental results; Targets. In our applications for funding for the project, developed with our partners Oslo Havn, and Bellona, we set the following environmental targets for the project: Eliminate CO2, NOx, SOx, and PM almost completely during port stays in Oslo. Annual reduction of CO2 emissions with t. (Equals approximately 1700 cars.) Annual reduction of NOx emissions with approximately 50 t. Lower particle and SOx emissions from the ships with several tons annualy. In addition, for ENOVA, an annual energy savings target (energimål) of kwh was established.

33 4. Results. Environmental Results; Target. These budget targets were calculated for a full year operation for 2 vessels with an average 3,4 MW power need utilized 3,5 hrs/day 350 days each year (96% utilization). Also, a step up plan for 1 vessel 6 months in 2011, and 1,5 vessels 12 months in 2012 was expected. First full year for 2 vessels is Due to construction delays and teething problems, an actual power need (weather dependent) of around 3,0 MW, and a utilization rate of 80 % (2012), we were not able to reach budgeted environmental targets for 2011 or We have set a cautious target of 90 % in 2013 which we believe we can reach and will then later try to increase this further if possible.

34 4. Results. Environmental results 2012; Best way to calculate environmental results is perhaps by measuring actual power consumption by the vessels through the shore power cable. Consumption shore power Oslo 2012 Period kwh From this value we calculate saved energy by utilizing the 40 % thermal efficiency (for ships diesel engines) and calculate to 100 % efficiency (for hydro-power) as pr ENOVA guidelines. Thus giving us 60 % saved energy as a result. Furthermore we calculate reduced emissions to air (CO2, NOx, and SOx) from the equivalent saved amount of marine gas oil (MGO) if burnt by ships engines.

35 4. Results. Environmental results 2012; Emissions saved These are the calculated results of the project (for 2012): Environmental results Project targets 2013 SEEMP Units Results 2012 Budget; 1,5 shipyears Budget; 2 shipsyears (Budget) Energy saved kwh CO2 t NOx t SOx (0,1 % S) t 1,1 1,5 2,0 1,6 The environmental results are below budget due to teething problems with low utilization of the new system in 2012, and due to vessel average power need of 3,0 MW instead if 3,4 MW budgeted. This lower power need is positive with respect to the environment, and partly it is part of a new vessel energy savings plan which causes lower power need also while vessel is at sea. For 2013 a SEEMP (Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan) is developed and it s targets for shore power is shown above for information.

36 4. Results. Further results. Acknowledgements to partners. This project built the first automated HVSC (High Voltage Shore Connection) system in Norway. Some of the technology used was also a world s first for the marine industry, and it was the first in Europe (as far as we can see) built under the new guidelines 2009: IEC/ISO/IEEE norm developed for HV Shore Connection for ships (adopted in 2012). It was also built under the 2006/2012 EU Sulphur directive requiring more expensive 0,1 % S marine gas oil if vessel shall use it s own auxiliary engines for electric production while docked. Still the most important driver was the strong request from Port of Oslo (and Oslo City) to invest for the purpose of reducing air emissions and pollutions in the Oslo air surrounding the vessel. We are thankful to all partners, ENOVA, TRANSNOVA, and Port of Oslo for financial support making this project possible. Without this support we might still be without this exciting system which enables us to repeat and improve the achieved emission reductions levels for many year into the future.

38 5. Who s next? How will shore power expand? Color Line has been in contact with all Norwegian ports we call upon outside of Oslo (Sandefjord, Larvik, Kristiansand), as well as Kiel, Germany for possible future shore power connections. We have started preliminary project evaluations and would perhaps contact ENOVA and TRANSNOVA as well as other partners for possible future collaboration on additional HVSC projects in Norway. For the success of future HVSC projects we hope to see a development as described on the next page!

39 5. Who s next? How will shore power expand? For the success of future HVSC projects we hope to see a development as follows: Costs 1; (CAPEX) High initial investment costs should come down as the market matures. Grid provider and society in general should follow up with HV power to ports. Cost 2: (OPEX) Operational costs (=difference in shore electric power versus fuel costs) could become an important driver if shore power becomes clearly less expensive than onboard power. (In some situations it is now more expensive.) A good step in this direction will be to eliminate taxes and fees on electric power for ships and thus reducing the power costs with perhaps 25 %. This would lead to same practice as for fuels to ships in international trade. This is already being implemented in some countries and regions in Europe. Financial support: We would of course welcome support schemes such as the one experienced in Oslo for this project and similar ones in Europe (TEN-T) if applicable.

40 nsnova sjekt Landstrøm til skip på Hjortnes ttrapport / Resultatrapport. M/S SuperSpeed 1. Kristiansand, March 2008 Thank you for your attention. Color Line Marine A/S