Cradle to grave

Any terminal operator worth its salt is all about presenting its facilities as green outfits: self-sufficient power generation, low emissions, and all-electric yard equipment are just a few selections that guarantee environmentally-friendly tags.

But how thorough is the research into the validity of green claims? Should port and terminal operators be presenting a no-nonsense approach to eco-friendly credentials, rather than simply accepting the ‘facts’ as presented by the manufacturer’s sales patter?

One area this is particularly lacking is the chain of custody for port equipment, something that represents a large bottom line draw for port operations. End users are frequently buffeted with assertions that hybrid is the way to go, or all-electric is the green option, or zero emissions wins hands down.

But that only considers the operations of units and not the actual production process which is just as crucial if you are looking to properly tick the green box.

The ports industry has been slow on the uptake of demanding cradle to grave information on equipment and has been content up until now to accept green credentials as stated. But there will come a time – and in the not-too-distant future – when ship operators will start demanding a more robust carbon calculation. And this will be because their customers will demand it.

Wouldn’t it be nice to be ahead of the curve in the port industry and start making preparations for that eventuality now, and to properly live up to the promise of supplying green products?

Hard going

That’s not to say it’s an easy task by any means, but with some proper planning and co-ordination it is a manageable one. Picking where to draw a line is just as important as deciding where to start; should manufacturers, for example, include a percentage of the carbon footprint of computer design work into the overall carbon calculation for a port unit?

Proper carbon analysis goes as deep as the carbon produced for the electrical generation to mill the steel for a terminal tractor. And if components are shipped in and then assembled before delivery, the carbon calculation for every individual element needs to be tracked and transparently recorded. What about the forging, stamping, bending, forming, machining, processing and so on? Every element needs to be accounted for.

The key to building a carbon comparison is in taking a cold, hard look at assets, production processes and products, and then to benchmark them against the carbon footprint of alternatives.

Done right, a thorough carbon analysis has benefits beyond simply satisfying outside demands. Think improved profitability, operational efficiency, better adaptation to market requirements, and heightened preparedness for future regulatory scenarios. Or more simply, a more positive public image of the company.

Spreader specialist Bromma, for one, is keen to make a move in that direction. Speaking to Port Strategy, Lars Meurling, vice president for marketing and product development, explains: “Buying greener equipment is not a fad; it’s a trend with traction. If we want to maintain our position as a green spreader manufacturer we need to be proactive on green initiatives.”

Steely gaze

Building on that thinking, Bromma recently undertook a study to really get to grips with the environmental standing of steel components. The company has always used Swedish steel for its spreader construction, based on a perception of quality, but with less consideration of the environmental footprint. However, post-study, the firm’s executives were surprised to learn that the environmental footprint of Chinese steel was ten times that of Swedish steel because the latter is high quality, which uses less energy to produce.

On the back of the study, Bromma has started to build up a materials database to show what is and what isn’t environmentally friendly.

Adds Mr Meurling: “When Bromma started looking at what we can do to be green it was really on the structural side. This is a new evolution, with a focus on production as a green company on an internal basis.

If you want to be a green terminal you really have to look at the production process of your equipment manufacturers. It would be positive if the industry as a whole adopted a green rating system.”

Perhaps an industry body such as PEMA could take this and run with it to really get some momentum going.

And if and when, as an industry we nail the ‘cradle’ side of equipment manufacture, we then have the mountain of the ‘grave’ side to climb. What are the options for port equipment at the end of its working life and how can we ensure that the route we choose has the least impact on the environment? That’s yet another challenge gathering a head of steam.