EXCLUSIVE: New thinking on port pollution

Ports remain significant sources of local pollution, including sulphur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM), including black carbon. This pollution is emitted from ships at berth and from the wide range of diesel-fuelled equipment used throughout the port and in onwards logistics operations.

According to the European Environment Agency, just over 180,000 deaths in 2023 in the EU were attributable to exposure to fine PM2.5 concentrations above World Health Organization guideline levels. PM2.5 can be a result of SOx and NOx emissions.

The EU has responded to the port local pollution problem via its FuelEU Maritime regulation. It mandates that, from 2030 onwards, container and passenger ships greater than or equal to 5,000 gross tonnes must either use an onshore power supply (OPS) or certified alternatives for all electricity needs while moored in major EU ports.

Diesel PM, especially black carbon, has been identified as the single largest contributor to air-toxics cancer risk. Monitoring of port adjacent communities in California shows estimated lifetime cancer risk is roughly 585–842 per million, approximately 10–25x higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency national average risk of around 30 per million.

The California Air Resources Board regularly expands local pollution regulations in and around ports. These include OPS or equivalent emissions-control requirements for ocean-going vessels at berth, cleaner-engine and zero-emission requirements for harbour craft, and a 0.1% marine fuel sulphur limit in Californian coastal waters.

Grid expansion isn’t the answer

The solution is not as simple as expanding grid capacity. This is expensive and time-consuming. Plus, especially at peak times, large ports and ships are making very high, megawatt (MW) scale, power demands. One large cruise ship plugging into an OPS requires about 10-12 MW of continuous power, which the local grid may not always be able to supply on demand.

The electrification of trucking from ports also illustrates national grids’ shortcomings. Heavy-duty electric trucks require MW-scale charging infrastructure. Ports may well be mandated or incentivised to provide such ‘mega chargers’. However, there is often not sufficient grid power to actually provide energy to the charger and trucks.

Fuel cells a bolder solution

Many ports do not yet have the capacity required to support a multi-megawatt power supply of any kind. The challenge requires bolder solutions, like fuel cells, that fit in with ports’ other decarbonisation and fuel supply ambitions, such as planned methanol bunkering infrastructure or hydrogen supply chains.

The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have trialled fuel cell drayage trucks for short-haul movement of containers. Gothenburg has trialled onshore fuel cells for OPS. But the applications are endless, and there is a strong case to have a flexible and portable fuel cell solution in the port, that can be applied wherever there is demand for cleaner and greener primary or back-up power.

While hydrogen supply must continue to scale, the International Energy Agency’s mapping indicates that by 2030 more than 130 high-traffic ports could be within 500 km of at least 100 ktpa of low-emission hydrogen. Fuel cells can also run on methanol if it’s better for the fuel supply and power demand scenario.

The bottom line is, local pollution harms human health and regulators are cracking down, meaning ports need to electrify their operations and consider cleaner alternatives. However, they must look beyond national grids to a diverse mix of energy options. Fuel cells are a key solution that can enhance power resilience, flexibility, and, while lowering noise and greenhouse gas emissions, can help tackle local pollution.