Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsos20

Ships and Offshore Structures

ISSN: 1744-5302 (Print) 1754-212X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsos20

Application of renewable energy technologies foreco-friendly sea ports

Ibrahim S. Seddiek

To cite this article: Ibrahim S. Seddiek (2019): Application of renewable energy technologies foreco-friendly sea ports, Ships and Offshore Structures, DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2019.1696535

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2019.1696535

Published online: 06 Dec 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Application of renewable energy technologies for eco-friendly sea portsIbrahim S. Seddiek

Department of Marine Engineering Technology, College of Maritime Transport and Technology, Arab Academy for Science, Technology & MaritimeTransport, Alexandria, Egypt

ABSTRACTThe present study aims at quantifying prospective reductions of ships’ emission of GHG in addition to theexpected economic impact in case of applying various renewable energy technologies for seaports. As acase study, this paper investigates the prospect of converting Damietta Port, Egypt, to be an eco-friendlyport with the focus on technical, logistic and financial requirements. The results prove the techno-economic feasibility of both offshore wind and fuel cell energy resources for the selected port. Thepaper’s outcomes prove that the fuel cell, followed by a combined system of wind turbines and fuelcells appear to be the optimum selection with reference to green port technologies with an electricityunit cost of 0.10 and 0.11$/kWh, respectively. Furthermore, using of fuel cells and offshore windturbines as green power strategies would achieve a reduction of CO2, NOx and CO emissions by32,176, 8.32 and 53.2 ton per year, respectively.

Abbreviations: CO2: Di-oxide carbon; IMO: International Maritime Organization; CRF: capital recoveryfactor; LNG: liquified natural gas; ECA: emission control area; NOx: nitrogen oxides; EL: electrolysed;OWT: offshore wind turbine; FC: fuel cell; SOx: Sulphure oxides; GHG: greenhouse gaseous

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 15 April 2019Accepted 14 November 2019

KEYWORDSElectric grid; hydrogen fuelcells; eco-friendly ports; shipemissions; wind turbines

Nomenclatures

A rotor swept area (m2)H running hour per year, (hrs)CA annual cost ($/year)n number of fuel cell units (-)СC cost of FC ($)N working period (year)CEem annual cost-effectiveness ($/ton)Ng generator efficiency (-)Ci capital cost ($)Nb gear box bearing efficiency (-)CyDy fuel cell installation cost ($)P electric consumed power (kW)CO&M maintenance planned and operation cost

($/kWh)PFC power scale of one fuel cell (kW)CN. g electricity power from the national grid (kW/

year)R rotor radius (m)Cp maximum power coefficient (-)V wind velocity (m/s)CT total power cost ($)ρ air density (kg/m3)Ef emission factor (g/kWh)ω rotor velocity (1/s)Eport quantity of emissions (g)

1. Introduction

Climate change has recently received more attention in theshipping sector. This is mainly due to a growing demand forreduced global emissions and the fact that shipping is one

of the fastest growing sectors in terms of greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions (Winnes et al. 2015). Sea ports are one ofthe factors affecting the shipping sharing per cent regardingGHG. It was shown by Xuan et al. (2018) that there is anotified increment in the number of ships calling the seaports,which led to an increase in port emissions during the last dec-ade. Ammar and Seddiek (2018) show that the ports consum-ing a considerable amount of energy for the different ships’activities. This led the ports to be one of the main sourcesof the negative impact on the environment (Kwame et al.2017). Clott and Hartman (2013) reveal that most of portsdepend on diesel-powered engines leading to a huge amountof exhaust emissions including particular matters (PMs), sul-phur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, car-bon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Viana et al.(2014) stress that ship emissions could affect nearby citieswith the range of 400 around ports, which make ports a healththreat to nearby communities. Johansson et al. (2017) high-light that related (PM) emissions are responsible for approxi-mately 60,000 cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deathsannually, with most of those deaths occurring along thecoasts. Merk (2014) and the United Nations agree that theamount of shipping emissions in ports is in continues incre-ment, representing about 18 million tons of CO2 emissions,0.4 million tons of NOx, 0.2 million of SOx and 0.03 milliontons of PM. Badurina et al. (2017) and Merk (2014) statethat around 85% of ports, emission is due to containershipsand tankers.

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Ibrahim S. Seddiek isibrahim@aast.edu; prof.isibrahim@gmail.com Department of Marine Engineering Technology, College of Maritime Transport andTechnology, Arab Academy for Science, Technology & Maritime Transport, Alexandria 1029, Egypt

SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTUREShttps://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2019.1696535

2. Literature review

Many researches carried out to put a practical measurement toreach green port (Lirn et al. 2013; Chiu et al. 2014; Hiranandani2014). Most of the measures are related to the introduction ofcold ironing, LNG bunkering infrastructure and the provisionof shore-side electricity at berth or by defining incentives forfuel switching or green ships (IMO 2014). Gibbs et al. (2014)illustrates that relatively recently ports in North America (LosAngeles Long Beach, Seattle, Vancouver, New York, etc.) andEurope (Venice, Barcelona, Gothenburg, Antwerp, etc.) havestarted to introduce specific measures and policies to directlyaddress GHG emissions. Gonzalez Aregall et al. (2018) presentfour contributions to the literature on green ports. The studyshows the effect of geographical features, port locations, moreaggressive and proactive management structure. Kristin andHanne (2019) in their review paper presented the differenttools and technologies for sustainable ports. The tools includedport management and policies, power and fuels, sea activitiesand land activities. One of the promised renewable energy tech-nologies is the solar energy. The port of Hamburg hasimplemented a support scheme, which allows port users toestablish solar energy facilities, and solar energy is used toheat water in the port authority’’s offices (Acciaro et al.2014a). Solar energy is also on the agenda in Antwerp (Lamand Notteboom 2014), Rijeka (Boile et al. 2016), Genoa(Acciaro et al. 2014a, 2014b), Venice and Yantian (Li et al.2011), Tokyo and San Diego (Acciaro et al. 2014b). These pub-lications do not discuss how solar energy is used, but Kang andKim (2017) suggest that solar energy can be used to powercranes. Another renewable energy technology is offshorewind turbine (OWT). The market of OWT worldwide showsa noticeable increment regarding the number of wind turbinefarms that are constructed during the last 10 years, with thepossibility of providing 29,941 MW to the electric grids (Pfei-fenberger 2017). A few publications refer to practical experi-ences with wind energy in ports, which has beenimplemented in the ports of Rotterdam, Kitayjushu, Zeebruges,Hamburg (Acciaro et al. 2014a) and Venice (Li et al. 2011). Theliterature regarding this point addresses the potential use ofwind power in the ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp (Lamand Notteboom 2014), and at an early stage, a planned windpower plant in Port of Genoa was expected to reduce6000 tons of CO2 (Acciaro et al. 2014a). Processes with estab-lishing wind power are costly; however, as they might requirea full year of monitoring wind conditions on the selected site(Acciaro et al. 2014a). From the point view of economic side(Global electricity 2018) implied that the cost of electricity con-sumed by ports worldwide varies from country to anotherdepending on the source of power generation, which rangedfrom 0.01 to 0. 33 $/kWh. Winkel et al. (2016) estimate that,if all ports in Europe were to use shore power, in 2020, an esti-mated €2.94 billion of health costs could be saved as well as apotential reduction of carbon emissions of 800,000 tons. Vaish-nava et al. (2016) found that USD70-150 million could be savedon health costs by applying renewable energy technologies atUS ports. Although the accelerated steps have been takentowards the green ports concept, the establishment of newinfrastructures inside the ports and technical and economic

barriers present barriers and strong challenge in front of con-verting the seaports to be green ports. For example, Teerawat-tana and Yang (2019) identify that some area worldwide stillstruggle to apply the concept of green ports due to the absenceof the financial supports, such as far-east ports.

The current research brings some light to the association ofthe concept of green energy using power concept as a tool foreco-friendly ports. The suggested power source will be solarunits, fuel cell units and offshore wind turbines. Throughoutthe research, an overview of ship emissions and important mar-ine air pollution regulations will be addressed. In addition, theobstacles, guidelines, power sources, procedures and economicand environmental data associated with ports’ use of renewableenergy will be studied in an attempt to overcome the problemof emissions. Moreover, a group of scenarios including the useof either offshore wind turbine or hydrogen fuel cell unit separ-ately or a combined unit of offshore wind turbine and hydrogenfuel cell unit will be carried out for the optimum green energyselection for one of the biggest ports in Egypt called Damiettaport, with evaluating the technical and economic issues.

3. Shipping’s impact on air quality and IMOregulations

Emissions belong to shipping sector are estimated to increasefour times up to 2050 (Merk, 2014). As a step towards shipemissions reduction, the International Maritime Organization(IMO) issued some legislation to protect the maritime environ-ment, either in sea or a berthing condition (Seddiek et al. 2013;Rehmatulla et al. 2017). Consistent with EU regulations, it isnot allowed to use fuel of more than 0.1 sulphur content formachinery onboard ships during sailing, inside the emissioncontrol area (ECA). These regulations reveal that startingfrom 1 October 2018, it is mandatory for ships to consumelow-sulphur content fuel, not surpassing 0.5%m/m when get-ting in Shanghai port area; Yangtze River Delta ECA, if thevessel is heading towards Ningbo or Zhoushan port; and Suz-hou and Nantong ECA areas (Gritsenko and Yliskylä-Peura-lahti 2013; Fung et al. 2014; Seddiek 2016). Moreover,different compliance approaches are provided to ship ownersinstead of using low-sulphur marine diesel or marine gasoil(Seddiek 2016; Ammar and Seddiek 2018).

4. Methodology

This section outlines the methods that can be employed byports to develop, evaluate, implement and track voluntaryemission control measures that go beyond regulatory require-ments. The assessment process will be including the main fun-damentals of the emissions reduction strategy from the viewpoint of technicality, availability, constrains and cost analysis.The study of the alternative port power technology will be fol-lowed by the analysis of environmental aspects of this technol-ogy to demonstrate the community benefits.

4.1. Shifting to alternative power supply at ports

Vessels rely mainly on their auxiliary generators for providingthe necessary electric demand during berthing, which present

2 I. S. SEDDIEK

source of emissions. The alternative for this is shore powersupply, which may be obtained from fuel cells, solar panelsor wind turbine farms. Applying any one of the previousalternatives as the main source for electricity either separatelyor in a combined system is the matter of shore facility andfinancial support. Therefore, it is important to study the funda-mentals, characteristics, applicability and financial sides of eachalternative as follows.

4.1.1. Solar energySalem and Seddiek (2016) show that there are some factors thatmay affect the applicability of using the solar system as a powersource for maritime applications. These factors include (1)availability of high solar radiation, (2) existence of adequatearea exposed to the Sun, (3) availability of a suitable grid-con-nected PV solar power system, (4) techno-economic selectionof available solar panels and (5) scientific preparation of thesystem layout.

(a) Solar system configuration

A grid-connected PV solar power system consists mainly ofsolar panels, inverter, battery bank and other necessary electricdevices. Figure 1 describes a simple model of a grid-connectedPV system, which can be installed at ports.

(i) Solar unit economic analysis

Costs for solar systems differ according to the kind and the useof solar cell and comprise capital cost, operating and mainten-ance (O & M) costs, as follows:

SUC = SPcc . Nm [1+ inscp]+∑a=i

a=1

O&Mc (1)

where SPCC is the cost of one solar panel in US$, Nm is thenumber of solar panel modules, inscp is the installationcost percentage, O&Mc is the operating and maintenancecost in US$ and i is the total number of various operatingand maintenance cost items (Ren et al. 2013; Salem andSeddiek 2016).

4.1.2. Fuel cell technologyFuel cells are electromechanical cells that convert the fuelenergy into electricity. It gets more popularity because theyprovide more efficiency and economy as a source of power gen-eration, with minimum emissions quantity (Rajasekhar et al.2015). Figure 2 describes the fundamentals cycle operation ofone of fuel cells. Fuel cell can be classified into two maintypes according to the fuel used, including hydrogen fuel cells(van Biert et al. 2017; Wang and Jiang 2017), and hydrocarbonfuel cells (Inal and Deniz 2018).

The applicability of fuel cells at ports including main fourprinciples: (1) technology criteria such as power levels, lifetime, tolerance for cycle operation, efficiency, maturity and sen-sitivity to fuel impurities; (2) cost, represented in relative costsamong different FC types; (3) safety, represented in specialsafety aspects relevant for each FC type and (4) environment,represented in the emissions.

(i) Fuel cell unit economic analysis

Outlays for stationary fuel cell systems differ according to thekind and use of cell and comprise capital cost (equipment andinstallation), operating and maintenance (O & M) costs andfuel cost. In this part of the paper, such economic parametersand economic feasibility of FC technology development were ana-lysed. The yearly fuel cell power cost (AFCPC) in ($/year) may beformulated as follows in Equation (2) (DE Troya et al. 2016):

AFCPC = i(1+ i)N

(1+ i)N − 1∗∑(

CyDy + n∗ PFC∗ CC)

+ n∗ PFC∗ H∗∑(

FC + CO&M )

(2)

CyDy is the installation cost for the various systems, n is number offuel cell units required to cover all or a percentage of the port elec-tricity load, PFC is available power scale of one fuel cell unit, СC isthe cost of FC per kW, H is the running hour per year, FC is thefuel refilling cost of fuel production devices cost per kWh andCO&M is the net maintenance planned and operation cost perkWh. Taking into consideration that the cost of fuel cell willchange based on the type. Moreover, fuel cell production occursonly abroad, and the estimated cost of 1 kW is 2000–3000 USD(Tronstad 2017).

Figure 1. Simple model of a grid-connected PV system. (This figure is available in colour online.)

SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 3

4.1.3. Offshore wind turbine technologyOffshore wind farm composed of wind turbine, platform andfoundation, offshore substation and onshore substation. Anoffshore wind turbine is divided into three main parts as follows(Erlich et al. 2013): rotor, nacelle and tower. Types of wind tur-bine foundationsmay take one of the following structures:mono-pile, gravity base, jacket, tripod and floating structures (Ki-Yonget al. 2018). Choosing the site location of the offshore wind tur-bine is considered one of the primary factors that affect the windturbine performance. Some factors affecting the choice of this siteare wind resource density, wind speed, wind direction, turbineheight, turbine load, turbine minimum spacing, site capacity,site elevation, site accessibility, spacing, environmental consider-ations, birds’ movement, maritime traffic and oil and gas wells.

(i) Wind turbine power calculations and economic analysis

The wind power (P) is given by the following equation (Sar-kar and Behera 2012):

P = 0.5∗ r∗ Cp ∗ Ng∗ Nb (3)

where ρ is the air density (kg/m3), A is the rotor swept area(m2), Cp is the maximum power coefficient, varying from0.25 to 0.45 dimensionless theoretical maximum = 0.59, V isthe wind velocity (m/s), Ng is the generator efficiency and Nb

is the gear box bearing efficiency. Cp is extracted from theCP/λ curve, where λ is the tip speed ratio and calculated as fol-lows (Çetin et al. 2005):

l = v∗RV

(4)

where ω is the rotor velocity, R is the rotor radius in metres andV is the wind speed (m/s). For the wind turbine farm costevaluation, the total cost COWT will involve the predevelopmentand consenting CP&C , manufacture and purchase CP&A, fixingand contracting CI&C , operation and maintenance CO&M andretiring and removal D&D. The total cost of the offshorewind turbine farm could be estimated as follows (Effiom et al.2016):

COWT =∑m

i=1

CP&C +∑n

j=1

CP&A

∑l

x=1

CI&C

+∑k

y=1

CO&M +∑s

z=1

CD&D (5)

Hence, to determine the annual capital cost, the following for-mula may be used, which mainly affects the expected offshorewind turbine life time.

CA = COWT∗CRF (6)

where CA is the annual cost and Ci is the capital cost. The CRFis given by the following equation (Banawan et al. 2010):

CRF = i (1+ i)N

(1+ i)N − 1(7)

where N is the predictable OWT life time and i is the yearlyinterest.

4.2. Environmental analysis

The amount of emission reduction resulting due to providinga certain port with electricity from the national electric grid iscontingent primarily on the source of power generation. Thequantity of exhaust gas due to the use of offshore wind tur-bine (OWT) system is about zero, where there is no burnedfuel, and in the case of FC-based system, it will depend onthe type of the fuel (Töpler and Lehmann 2015). To evaluatethe importance of shifting from electric power grid to OWTand FC electric power based regarding the environment, thequantity of gases emitted from the national electric grid isnecessarily estimated. The quantity of exhaust gas can be for-mulated as shown in Equation (8) (Ammara and Seddiek2017). Table 1 sums up the primary average emission factorsof the different power sources.

The basic emissions quantity that is emitted from a certainpower generation source could be estimated as follows:

Eport = P ∗ Ef ∗ H (8)

where Eport is the quantity of emissions emitted due to the con-sumed power by port demands, P is the electric consumedpower (kW), Ef is emission factor (g/kWh) and H is the annualworking hours.

5. Case study

To evaluate the previous renewable energy technology from thepoint view of availability, economic and practicability, anumerical case study is carried out for one of the ports thathas recently witnessed rapid development in the field of rep-etition of the ships, especially container ships. Among the

Figure 2. Fundamental of hydrogen fuel cell power generation. (This figure is available in colour online.)

4 I. S. SEDDIEK

previous renewable energy concept, both fuel cell and offshorewind turbine will be studied in details. Solar energy concept willbe extracted from the present study due to the low-power den-sity of this concept compared with the other technology.

5.1. Overview of Damietta port

The major ports in Egypt are Alexandria, Port Said andDamietta on the Mediterranean Sea and Suez and Safaga onthe Red Sea. Damietta port is the selected port for the casestudy. At Damietta port, the total number of berths is 21 and5450 m length, and the port’s cargo capacity is 19.75 milliontons and received 1.2 million TEUs per year (Egyptian PortAuthority 2019). Balbaa and EL-Amary (2017) show thatDamietta Port has the following features: the total port areais about 9297 km2, including 3933 km2 water area; 5364 km2

land space; the average human capacity is around 40,000 per-sons; the port’s average electrical power consumption is8 MW/day and the wind is north west with an average speedfrom 5.5 to 7.5 m/s.

5.1.1. Applicability of fuel cell for Damietta portThen, this paper determines the devices and units necessaryfor the operation, followed by specifying the location of instal-lation. In Damietta port, there is a space of 1 km long and20 m wide suitable and completely vacant for placing theunits. The area will be suitable for eighth fuel cell units,with the following dimensions: length = 24 m and width =12 m. The area needed for the electrolysed (EL) is as follows:length = 141 m and width = 2 m. Number of El is 38, the areafor laying the fuel cell units in addition to the hydrogen gen-eration units and any other accessories. Figure 3 presents theproposed layout of fuel cell units placed on the long barrier atDamietta port with the actual dimensions and with clearancesbetween each fuel cell unit, about 2.5 m to avoid any adjacentheat risk.

Fuel cell units have two inputs and two outputs, and theinputs are oxygen and hydrogen and the outputs are waterand electricity. The system includes a hydrogen storage tank

and two large pumps placed between the tank and fuel cellunits, one for sucking the hydrogen out of the tank and pump-ing it to the unit and the other for pumping oxygen. Eventually,the hydrogen-generating devices (EL) placed after the hydrogentank have three sections, each section having its own poweringroom and would be installed on the port. Moreover, there iswiring between a certain number of fuel cell units that onlycarry 3 MWs to the three sections of El and the other fiveunits are wired directly to the main control unit. The systemis composed of eight fuel cell units, which demand 88 kg hydro-gen per hour, without even the need to purchase hydrogen. Dueto the lack of actual scientific data regarding the technical andfinancial characteristics of fuel cell and electrolysed unit, thedata presented in Table 2 are collected from websites belongingto certain fuel cell and electrolysed companies. The ideal case isto have an electrolyse capable of generating 31.25 kg of hydro-gen when powered with 1 MW/h; consequently, the targetedport will be provided with three ideal electrolyses to generatehydrogen approximately 88 kg/h, enough to run the sevenfuel cell units. The required amount of hydrogen will consumeonly 3 MW; however, the rest of power will cover 65% ofDamietta port’s power demands.

With reference to the cost analysis of fuel cell concept, theannual cost will be in the range of 4,238,021$ to provide41,600 MW per year. This means that using the fuel cell as asource of power generation at the port could provide the elec-tricity with a cost of about 10 cent per Kilowatt.

5.1.2. Applicability of offshore wind turbine for DamiettaportEgypt is characterised by relatively constant wind activity and aspeed of up to 10 m/s in the Gulf of Suez and Red Sea coastbetween Ras Gharib and Safaga and in the Eastern Awainat

Table 1. Average emissions factor (Seddiek et al. 2013; MacKinnon andSamuelsson 2016).

Shore power source CO2 CO NOx PM10 SOx

National electric grid 765 0.32 0.72 0.36 2.4Hydrogen fuel cell – – – – –Natural gas fuel cell 520 0.18 0.15 – –OWT – – – – –

Figure 3. Layout of the hydrogen fuel cell system. (This figure is available in colour online.)

Table 2. Hydrogen fuel cell unit specifications (MacKinnon and Samuelsen 2016).

Power per unit 1 MWFuel cell $/kW 2500 $/kWInstallation cost 10%Fuel consumption 11 kg/h for each unit (liquid state)Hydrogen cost 2.5 pence per kWhHydrogen production cost 790 $/kgOperation and maintenance $/kW About 0.035 $/kWhOperating time 8000 hElectrical power needed 2.8 MW per hourOutput power 8 MW per hourUseable power 5.2 MW per hourNo. of years 25Interest rate 5%

SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 5

area. Wind power stations were established in Hurghada andZafarana; Megawatts provide a consumption of petroleumfuels up to about 125 thousand tons of oil equivalent annually,which is positively reflected on the economics of renewableenergy projects (Abdel Hady et al. 2017). The locations of themost capable sites lengthwise Egypt’s coasts are indicated inFigure 4 (Abdel Hady et al. 2015).

The proposed offshore wind farm composed of 10 wind tur-bines, the space between each turbine in row and column (5×D= 385) m to minimise losses as low as possible, the farm hassquare shape of length 1540 m and width 1540 m so the totalfarm area will be about 0.9486 km2 and its rated capacity is15 MW. Depending on the main features of the proposedunit, the characteristics of wind turbine 1.5 MW series, whichis provided by Enron Company, are listed in Table 3. Accordingto Mortensen et al. (2006) and Meteoblue (2017), with refer-ence to the nature of Damietta port regarding the wind speedand the technical data of the propose OWT farm, the maxi-mum and average wind speed are 16.5 and 5.5 m, respectively.On the other hand, the maximum and average power are 15and 2.4 MW, respectively.

Moreover, the calculations reveal that the maximum windenergy will be about 1000 MWH in January; however, the mini-mum value will be 140 MWH in June.

(i) Offshore wind turbine’s cost estimation

Table 4 demonstrates a full cost-sharing regarding capitalexpenditure (CAPEX) and operational expenditure (OPEX).The CAPEX comprises development, turbine, array electrical,construction and support structure, decommissioning and con-tingency cost. However, the OPEX includes operation andplanned maintenance costs (Armada and Monteros 2014;Laura and Vicente 2014; Effiom et al. 2016; Enron Wind 2016).

Figure 5 presents the distribution of sharing costs of the pro-ject’s various elements as a percentage; the outcomes of the costcalculations show that nearly 52% of the offshore wind turbinefarms represent the uppermost price, emanating from projectdevelopment and turbine production. The reason is due to thehigh charge of obtaining the key components of the offshorewind turbines. Other project costs stood at 30.35% for construc-tion and superstructure and array electrical and 16.4% fordecommissioning and contingency. The analysis indicates thatthe cost of 1 MW according to rated power and useful powertaken will be about 0.6244 and 5.73 million dollars, respectively.The project takes considerable amounts of money because theinstalled zone of wind farm does not have high wind speedsufficient to produce the rated power all the time.

By subsitution in Equation (6), the annual cost of offshorewind turbine farm will be 5,852,867$ per year. On the otherhand, the OWT farm will provide electricity of about21,024 MW per year. This means that applying OWT as arenewable power generation for port will provide the electricitywith a cost of 0.12$/kW. The results obtained regarding theeconomics were compared with the previous studies publishedin this regard (IRENA 2012). It is noted from the comparisonthat the difference between the current results and the previousstudies to precedent narrow, especially from the point view ofthe sharing per cent of each cost item. On the other hand,Abdel Hady et al. (2017) showed that the levelised cost of elec-tricity at Egypt is estimated to be equal to about 0.075–0.079 US$/kWh. Although the estimated cost of electricity in $/kWh inthis research is more than its counterparts, it still representscompetitive prices compared to the cost of electricity fromother sources, especially with the expected environmentalbenefits.

6. Results and analysis

In this section, the results of the study are presented and dis-cussed with reference to the aim of the study, which was to

Table 3. Wind turbine data sheet (Enron Wind 2016).

Performance 1.5 MWCut-in wind speed 3 m/sCut-out wind speed 20 m/sRated wind speed 11.8 m/sRotorNumber of blades 3Diameter 77 mSwept area 4657 m2

Rotor speed (variable) 10–18 rpmMaximum tip speed 72.6 m/sBlade length 37.2 m

Table 4. Cost of wind turbine project.

Type Parameter Cost in $M

Array electrical 1.7CAPEX Construction 9.224

Turbine 17.12Contingency per year 0.458Decommissioning per turbine 5.478Development in 1.845

35.937OPEX Operation and maintenance (kW/year)) Maintenance 0.846

Figure 4. Locations of wind power stations in Egypt. (This figure is available in col-our online.)

6 I. S. SEDDIEK

determine the influence of using offshore wind turbine farmand fuel cells units to improve the ports’ efficiency from theview point of economical and environmental aspects.

6.1. Economical analysis

From the previous discussion, to provide the selected port byrating power of 8 MW, both OWT and FC will contribute byabout 21,024 and 41,600 MW per year, respectively. Moreover,Figure 6 presents a comparison between the expected unit costof power generation from OWT, FC and a combination ofOWT and FC compared with the current cost of nationalgrid electric generation provided to Damietta port with andwithout government support, respectively. This figure showsthe possibility to achieve a reduction in the electricity unitcost by about 18.46% of the current electricity unit cost withoutthe support of government. In addition, the value of net posi-tive cost expected to show an increase, especially with the pre-dictable that cost of kW electricity will increase in the comingyears due to the expected increase of fuel prices, which presentthe main source of electricity in this area.

In the same context, Figure 7 shows the cost analysis of theFC + OWT technology in which FC + OWT will contribute by

about 93.5% of the total annual electric port demands. FC willshare by about 67.9% andOWT sharing by 32.1% of this demand.The rest per cent of required electric load will be provided fromthe national electric grid; however, in case of the reduced port con-sumption, there is a chance to sell electricity to the national grid.The cost analysis includes four main cost elements: development,installation, power source and finally maintenance and operationand contingency cost. From the Pie chart, it is clear that themajority of cost participate is the cost of power supply, whichincludes the wind turbines and fuel cells itself as it sharing by44.4% of the total cost. The second higher cost is maintenanceand operation and contingency costs with just three percentagedifference between the power supply costs. Nearly 15% will beneeded for the development and installation processes.

Among the proposed renewable power source, the using ofFC will be more economy, followed by a combined FC +OWT option. Using of OWT alone present the second highestcost. However, the cost of current national grid presents thelower cost it doesn’t reflect the actual port electric bill as thegovernment still support the electric section by about 34%,which consider the main reasons of losses in the Egyptian elec-tric sector. The difference between the actual and current priceswill show a wide gap with the expectation of increase in the fos-sil fuels prices, which is considered as the main source of energyfor the national electric grid at Egypt.

6.2. Environmental analysis

Using Equation (9) and factors presented in Table 1 yield theyearly exhaust gas quantity of the national electric grid. Figure 8presents the environmental analysis in case of using OWT andFC as power sources for electricity demands. The figure showsthat both OWT and FC technologies have a great environ-mental benefit compared with the national electric grid. More-over, this figure shows the possibility to achieve an annualemissions reduction quantity as follows: 32,176, 8.32 and 53.2ton of CO2, CO and NOx emissions, respectively.

6.3. Evaluation of green port cost-effectiveness

The yearly cost-effectiveness of reducing port emissions(CEem) is mainly determined by the entire cost of

Figure 5. The cost distribution of OWT farm. (This figure is available in colouronline.)

Figure 7. The cost distribution of combined OWT & FC concept. (This figure isavailable in colour online.)

Figure 6. Electric generation unit cost from different power source. (This figure isavailable in colour online.)

SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 7

implementing the green power source at the port (CT) includ-ing the initial and operating cost and the yearly cost of theconsumed electricity power from the national grid (CN.g).The value of CEem can be calculated using Equation (9) as fol-lows (Ammar 2018):

CEem = ( CT − CN.g)

ERem(9)

Table 5 presents the values of CEem at different power sourcesat the current cost, the produced national grid electricity andthe expected saving compared with the actual production cost.The table shows, with reference to the current supported elec-tric cost, that there is a possibility of shifting Damietta port tobe a green port by cost-effectiveness ranging from 12.42 to31.07$/ton emissions reduction.

Moreover, in case of the actual electricity cost, there is noadding cost; on the contrary, there will be saving cost rangingfrom 332,880 to 1,531,248$ per year. This means thatimplementation of the green port concept at Damietta portwill be able to achieve a positive result towards the economicand environmental issues.

7. Conclusion

The various port green power systems and their technical andeconomic issues were presented. Damietta port was also con-sidered for the application of green energy source for shiftingto eco-friendly port. The yearly cost for national electric gridwas compared to those from both fuel cells, and offshorewind turbine separately or combined. The results prove the

techno-economic feasibility of both offshore wind and fuelcell energy resource for the selected port, and it would motivateboth the research community and the policy makers for moreattention regarding this resource. Economically, the resultproves the fuel cell as the best possible green power conceptwith electricity cost of 0.10$/kWh, and the OWT will be thehighest cost option with electricity cost of 0.12$/kWh. How-ever, due to the constrains of port internal and external area,the best choice will be a combined green power system thatsupplied by 67.9% of its power from eight fuel cell units andthe rest power will be through 10 OWT units. Furthermore,the results show that using of FC and OWT as green powerconcept for Damietta port will achieve emissions reductionquantity of CO2, NOx and CO emissions by 32,176, 53.2 and8.32 ton per year, respectively. In addition, with the financialgovernmental support for the electricity supplied to the port,the cost-effectiveness is 31.06$, 12.42$ and 17.1$ in case ofFC, OWT and combined FC and OWT concept, respectively.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References

Abdel Hady S, Borello D, Santori S. 2015. Economic feasibility of smallwind turbines for domestic consumers in Egypt based on the new feed-in tariff. Energy Procedia. 75:664–670. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.482.

Abdel Hady S, Borello D, Shaban A. 2017. Assessment of levelized cost ofelectricity of offshore wind energy in Egypt. Wind Eng. 41(3):160–173.doi:10.1177/0309524X17706846.

Acciaro M, Ghiara H, CusanoMI. 2014a. Energy management in seaport: anew role for port authorities. Energy Policy. 71:4–12.

Acciaro M, Vanelslander T, Sys C, Ferrari C, Roumboutsos A, Giuliano G,Lam JSL, Kapros S. 2014b. Environmental sustainability in seaports: aframework for successful innovation. Maritime Policy Manage. 41(5):480–500. doi:10.1080/03088839.2014.932926.

Ammar NR. 2018. Energy- and cost-efficiency analysis of greenhouse gasemission reduction using slow steaming of ships: case study RO-ROcargo vessel. Ships Offsh Struct. 13(8):868–876. doi:10.1080/17445302.2018.1470920.

Figure 8. Quantity of annual emissions reduction for WT and FC units. (This figure is available in colour online.)

Table 5. The annual cost-effectiveness and cost saving for different power sources.

Port powersource

(CEem) @ Current national gridcost ($/ton em)

Cost saving @ actual nationalgrid cost ($)

OWT 31.07 332,880

(FC + OWT) 17.1 1,531,248FC 12.42 1,930,704

8 I. S. SEDDIEK

Ammara NR, Seddiek IS. 2017. Eco-environmental analysis of ship emis-sion control methods: case study RO-RO cargo vessel. Ocean Eng.137:188–173. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.03.052.

Ammar NR, Seddiek IS. 2018. Thermodynamic, environmental and econ-omic analysis of absorption air conditioning unit for emissionsreduction onboard passenger ships. Transp Res Part D: TranspEnviron. 62:726–738. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2018.05.003.

Armada E, Monteros I. 2014. Life cycle costing of offshore wind turbines[M.Sc. thesis]. United Kingdom: School of Applied Science, CranfieldUniversity, p. 7–40.

Badurina P, Cukrov M, Dundović Č. 2017. Contribution to the implemen-tation of “Green Port” concept in Croatian seaports. Sci J Maritime Res.31:10–17.

Balbaa A, EL-Amary N. 2017. Green energy seaport suggestion for sustain-able development in Damietta port, Egypt. WIT Trans Ecol Environ.214:67–77.

Banawan AA, El Gohary MM, Seddiek IS. 2010. Environmental andeconomical benefits of changing from marine diesel oil to natural-gas fuel for short-voyage high-power passenger ships. Proc IMechEPart M: J Eng Maritime Environ. 224:101–103. doi:10.1243/14750902JEME181.

Boile M, Theofanis S, Sdoukopouols E, Plytas N. 2016. Developing a portenergy management plan: issues, challenges and prospects. Transp ResRec. 2549:19–28.

Çetin NS, Yurdusev MA, Ata R, Özdamar1 A. 2005. Assessment of opti-mum tip speed ratio of wind turbines. Math Comput Appls. 10(1):147–154. doi:10.3390/mca10010147.

Chiu R, Lin L, Ting S. 2014. Evaluation of Green Port factors and perform-ance: a fuzzy AHP analysis. Math Probl Eng. 2014:1–12.

Clott CB, Hartman BC. 2013. Clean trucks in California ports: modellingemissions policy. Int J Shipping Transp Logist. 5:449–462.

DE Troya J, Alvarez JC, Fernández-Garrido C, Couce LC. 2016. Analyzingthe possibilities of using fuel cells in ships. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 41(4):2853–2866. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.11.145.

Effiom SO, Nwankwojike BN, Abam FI. 2016. Economic cost evaluationon the viability of offshore wind turbine farms in Nigeria. J EnergyRep. 2:46–53. doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2016.03.001.

Egyptian Port Authority. 2019. Damietta port statistics. [accessed 2019 Sep7]. //www.mts.gov.eg/en/content/26/1-82-Damietta-Port-Authority.

Enron Wind. 2016. An anew generation of power, Enron Wind 1.5 MWSeries. W 1.5 MW Series, technical report. [accessed 2018 Oct 12].http://physics.oregonstate.edu/~hetheriw/energy/topics/doc/solar/wind/turbine/EnronWind_1.5MW.pdf.

Erlich I, Shewarega F, Feltes C, Koch FW, Fortmann J. 2013. Offshore windpower generation technologies. Proc IEEE. 101(4):891–905. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2012.2225591.

Fung F, Zhu Z, Becque R, Finamore B. 2014. Prevention and control ofshipping and port air emissions in China. NRDC white paper. China.

Gibbs D, Rigot-Muller P, Mangan J, Lalwani C. 2014. The role of sea portsin end-to end maritime transport chain emissions. Energy Policy.64:337–348. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.024.

Global electricity prices in. 2018. By select country. [accessed 2019 Jan 6].https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/.

Gonzalez Aregall M, Bergqvist R, Monios J. 2018. A global review of thehinterland dimension of green port strategies. Transp ResPart D:Transp Environ. 59:23–34.

Gritsenko D, Yliskylä-Peuralahti J. 2013. Governing shipping externalities:Baltic ports in the process of SOx emission reduction. Maritime Stud.12:10. doi:10.1186/2212-9790-12-10.

Hiranandani V. 2014. Sustainable development in seaports: a multi-casestudy. WMU J Maritime Affairs. 13(1):127–172.

IMO. 2014. Third IMO GHG study 2014. Executive summary and finalreport. MEPC 67/6/INF.3. London: InternationalMaritimeOrganization.

Inal OB, Deniz C. 2018. Fuel cell availability for merchant ships. INT-NAM Conference, 24–25 April 2018, İstanbul, Turkey.

IRENA. 2012. Renewable energy technologies: cost analysis series. WindPower. Technical Report. [accessed 2019 Sep 20]. https://www.irena.org/documentdownloads/publications/re_technologies_cost_analysis-wind_power.pdf.

Johansson L, Jalkanen J, Kukkonen J. 2017. Global assessment of shippingemissions in 2015 on a high patial and temporal resolution. AtmosEnviron. 167:403–415. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.08.042.

Kang D, Kim S. 2017. Conceptual model development of sustainabilitypractices: the case of port operations for collaboration and governance.Sustainability. 9(12):1–15.

Ki-Yong O, Nam W, Yu MS, Kim J, Epureanu BI. 2018. A review of foun-dations of offshore wind energy convertors: current status and futureperspectives. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 88:16–36. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.02.005.

Kristin YB, Hanne S. 2019. Reviewing tools and technologies for sustain-able ports: does research enable decision making in ports? Transp ResPart D: Transp Environ. 72:243–260.

Kwame QK, Archibald D, Same MA. 2017. Evaluation of dry portimplementation in Ghana. Marit Bus Rev. 2:261–278. doi:10.1108/MABR-01-2017-0005.

Lam JSL, Notteboom T. 2014. The greening of ports: a comparison of portmanagement tools used by leading ports in Asia and Europe. TranspRev. 34(2):169–189. doi:10.1080/01441647.2014.891162.

LauraC-S, VicenteDC. 2014. Life-cycle cost analysis offloating offshorewindfarms. Renewable Energy. 66:41–48. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2013.12.002.

Li J, Liu X, Jiang B. 2011. An exploratory study on low-carbon ports devel-opment strategy in China. Asian J Shipping Logist. 27(1):91–111.

Lirn T, Jim Wu Y, Chen YJ. 2013. Green performance criteria for sustain-able ports in Asia. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manage. 43:427–451. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-04-2012-0134.

MacKinnon M., Samuelsson S. 2016. Assessment of fuel cell technologiesto address power requirements at the Port of Long Beach. Technicalreport, Advance power & energy Program, Irvine, California. [accessed2018 Oct 25]. http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=13597.

Merk O. 2014. Shipping emissions in ports. International TransportForum, Discussion Paper No. 2014-20, Paris, France.

Meteoblue. 2017. Climate Damietta. [accessed 2019 May 6]. https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/forecast/modelclimate/Damietta_egypt_361058.

Mortensen NG, Hansen JC, Badger J, Jørgensen BH, Hasager CB, PaulsenUS, Hansen OF, Enevoldsen K, Youssef LG, Said US. 2006. Wind atlasfor Egypt: measurements, micro-and mesoscale modelling. In: 2006European Wind Energy Conference and Exhibition. Proceedings of ameeting held 27 February–2 March 2006, Athens, Greece.

Pfeifenberger J. 2017. U.S. offshore wind generation and transmissionneeds. Offshore Wind Transmission, USA Conference, New YorkCity, May 23, 2018. [accessed 2018 Nov 25]. https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2018/06/wind-turbine-installation-the-long-and-windy-road/.

Rajasekhar D, Deepak Sankar PS, Narendrakumar D. 2015. Fuel cell tech-nology for propulsion and power generation of ships: feasibility studyon ocean research vessel Sagarnidhi. J Shipping Ocean Eng. 5:219–228. doi:10.17265/2159-5879/2015.05.001.

Rehmatulla N, Calleya J, Smith T. 2017. The implementation of technicalenergy efficiency and CO2 emission reduction measures in shipping.Ocean Eng. 139:184–197. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.04.029.

Ren L, Daio Y, Han Q. 2013. Economic analysis for hybrid power of ocean-going fishing toward low carbon. Adv Mater Res. 608:169–172.

Salem A, Seddiek I. 2016. Techno-economic approach to solar energy sys-tems onboard marine vehicles. Pol Marit Res. 23:64–71.

Sarkar A, Behera DK. 2012. Wind turbine blade efficiency and power cal-culation with electrical analogy. Int J Sci Res. 2(2):1–2.

Seddiek IS. 2016. Two-step strategies towards fuel saving and emissionsreduction onboard ships. Ships Offsh Struct. 11:791–801. doi:10.1080/17445302.2015.1070945.

Seddiek IS, Mosleh MA, Banawan AA. 2013. Fuel saving and emissions cutthrough shore-side power concept for high-speed Crafts at the Red Seain Egypt. J Mar Sci Appl. 12:463–472. doi:10.1007/s11804-013-1218-6.

Teerawattana R, Yang Y. 2019. Environmental performance indicators forgreen port policy evaluation: case study of Laem Chabang port. Asian JShipping Logist. 35(1):63–69.

Töpler J, Lehmann J. 2015. Hydrogen and fuel cell: technologies and mar-ket perespectives. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 9

Tronstad T. 2017. Study on the use of fuel cell in shipping. EMSAEuropean Maritime Safety Agency, Technical report, DNV.GL.[accessed 2018 Sept 20]. http://www.emsa.europa.eu/news-a-press-entre/external-news/item/2921-emsa-study-on-the-use-of-fuel-cells-in-shipping.html.

Vaishnava P, Fischbeck PS, Morgan M, Corbett JJ. 2016. Shore power forvessels calling at U.S. Ports: benefits and costs. Environ Sci Technol. 50(3):1102–1110.

van Biert L, Godjevac M, Visser K, Aravind PV. 2017. A review of fuel cellsystems for maritime applications. J Power Sources. 327:345–364.doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.07.007.

Viana M, Hammingh P, Colette A, Querol X, Degraeuwe B, Vlieger I, vanAardenne J. 2014. Impact of maritime transport emissions on coastal air

quality in Europe. Atmos Environ. 90:96–105. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.03.046.

Wang S, Jiang SP. 2017. Prospects of fuel cell technologies. Natl Sci Rev. 4(2):163–166. doi:10.1093/nsr/nww099.

Winkel R, Weddige U, Johnsen D, Hoen V, Papaefthimiou S. 2016. Shoreside electricity in Europe: potential and environmental benefits. EnergyPolicy. 88:584–593.

Winnes H, Styhre L, Fridell E. 2015. Reducing GHG emissions from shipsin port areas. Res Transp Business Manage. doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.10.008.

Xuan Q, Eugene YC, Jasmine SL. 2018. Evaluating economic and environ-mental value of liner vessel sharing along the maritime silk road. MaritimePolicy Manage. 45(3):336–350. doi:10.1080/03088839.2018.1437285.

10 I. S. SEDDIEK