However, there have recently been pointed questions in California about the ability of the shoreside electricity infrastructure to provide sufficient power to the increasing number of regularly trading ships that are equipped to receive it from the local grid. It will be recalled that when “cold ironing” was first mooted by environmental interests on the West Coast, ship operators did point out that the benefit to the community might be limited if it required shore power stations, many of which were substantial polluters in their own right, to increase their output to serve their new shipside customers. Since then, demand for power in the state of California has increased and concern has been expressed about the possible risk of “brown-outs” in the event that weather conditions greatly increased the load upon the generators. The fact that more regular traders are shutting down in power-equipped berths, seems to have exacerbated the potential of this problem.
Similarly, in Europe, enthusiasm for the provision of shore side electricity has run up against the practicality of supplying it to every berth in major ports as the European politicians and regulators would clearly wish. Many ports have carried out feasibility studies and have determined that in many cases, there would be very high investment costs, without any great benefit resulting. And while the politicians might wish to mandate such provisions, the ports have largely preferred the strategy of waiting until there is proven demand for such a supply, when, they suggest, the market will appropriately react.
There is clearly something of a dilemma here; a “chicken and egg” situation in which the ports are being expected to invest in facilities for which there is only a problematical demand. An analogy has been drawn with charging points for electric cars, which clearly will be unused until there are such cars on the road, although the number of cars may be dictated by the availability of the charging points!
Even more expensive and for ports, problematical, has been the European Union’s hoped-for expansion of LNG bunkering facilities throughout major ports. Some suggest that the development of LNG fuelled shipping ought to be permitted to “increase naturally” and that the provision of suitable bunkering facilities will similarly expand to meet the anticipated demand. Those with knowledge of maritime history point to the expansion of coal bunkering facilities which encouraged (and were encouraged by) steamship construction in the 19th century, and in later years, the appearance of oil depots, once this form of marine fuel had begun to establish itself. History, it is suggested, may well repeat itself!