Applying systems thinking to port electrification
Writes Adrià Sancho Fibla, Business Development Manager, e1 Marine
From 2030, FuelEU Maritime will require certain container and passenger ships above 5,000 GT to use onshore
power supply or a qualifying zero-emission technology while at berth. The compliance obligation sits with shipping
companies, but their ability to meet it depends on ports providing infrastructure their vessels can use. For ports, the
challenge therefore extends beyond installing connections to ensuring the energy system behind them can supply
sufficient reliable electricity without constraining other operations.
The scale of the infrastructure gap is already evident. A 2025 study by DNV for Transport & Environment assessed
31 European ports and found that only 21% of the onshore-power connections required by 2030 had been installed
or contracted. For container ships, the figure was 11%. Closing this gap is vital, but connection numbers alone do
not indicate whether the necessary generation, grid capacity and resilience will be available behind them.
The continued rollout of shore power is essential, but the planning boundary must be widened. Ports are
electrifying far more than vessels at berth: cranes, terminal tractors, forklifts, drayage vehicles, reefer containers
and port-service fleets all create demand. Battery-electric vessels and vehicles also need charging, while cargo-
handling and temperature-controlled systems need continuity. If these projects are planned separately, several new
loads can end up competing for the same constrained connection.
Planning must therefore start from a more useful premise: a port is an energy system, not solely a collection of
berths. Grid reinforcement, including substations, high-capacity connections, civil works and permitting, can take
years. During that time, cargo volumes, equipment fleets and charging requirements may change. A shore-power
installation based on a static demand forecast risks arriving into a port with a very different operational profile.
Plan for demand, not connections
Evidence from the Port of Oskarshamn shows what this means in practice. A 2025 peer-reviewed study 1 found that
unmanaged charging of electric shoreside vehicles imposed the greatest stress on the local grid.
This demonstrates how electrification at asset level does not automatically produce an efficient port-wide system.
Continuity is equally important. As more equipment becomes dependent on electricity, even a brief interruption can
stop cargo handling and affect refrigerated supply chains. At the Port of Los Angeles, 12 power-related outages
had been recorded by August 2024, with momentary disruptions taking terminal systems and equipment offline for
hours. The experience shows why resilience has to be designed into electrification rather than treated as a utility
issue.
For large, predictable loads, the grid should remain the backbone. Energy storage and intelligent load management
can manage peaks, while deployable, modular power generation can support temporary operations, constrained
locations and resilience-critical assets. The appropriate mix will vary between a container terminal, ferry berth, Ro-
Ro facility and regional port, but should always reflect the size, duration, location and criticality of the load.
One option within this wider energy mix is decentralized fuel-cell power. Hydrogen fuel cells generate electricity
electrochemically, avoiding combustion-related NOx, SOx and particulate emissions at the point of use, although
supplying and storing hydrogen remains difficult. Methanol is liquid at ambient temperature and can be reformed
into fuel-cell-grade hydrogen where required, avoiding the storage of large volumes of compressed or liquefied
hydrogen.
e1 Marine's e-Nomad provides one example of how this approach can be deployed immediately while grid
reinforcement initiatives continue. It combines a methanol-to-hydrogen reformer with a fuel cell to provide 140 kW
of grid-independent electricity, with configurations scalable to 1 MW.
The CPG – Clean Power Generator applies the same architecture to larger port requirements. Individual units deliver up to 250 kW and can be configured into
systems of up to 3 MW for cold ironing, battery charging, port equipment and emergency backup.
These systems are intended to complement permanent grid infrastructure. Used selectively, they can unlock
electrification where connections are delayed or unavailable, provide resilience for critical loads and respond to
temporary or mobile demand.
Their environmental performance must also be assessed across the lifecycle. An e1 Marine model validated by
Thetius estimated CO2-equivalent reductions of 10% to 27% using conventional methanol and up to 85% using
green methanol against the diesel engines modelled.
The practical starting point is to map demand by size, duration, location and consequence of interruption.
Permanent loads, seasonal peaks and critical systems should not all be served in the same way. Only then can
grid power, storage, renewable electricity and distributed generation be combined around operational reality.
However, the current options show that by using distributed power generation, ports do not have to wait for major
grid reinforcements to be complete before they start electrifying some operations.
The 2030 deadline will accelerate the installation of plugs. Whether it creates resilient port electrification will
depend on the energy system built behind them.
1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-25136-8
