The performance of container terminals needs to be improved in order
to make them not only more competitive and productive, but also more
sustainable. Consequently, measuring performance in ways that go beyond
traditional efficiency and productivity measures is an emerging challenge. In
the case of energy consumption, a clear link exists between the sustainability,
efficiency, competitiveness and profitability of a terminal. This sustainability/
efficiency link between energy consumption and performance is not yet well
understood, nor has it yet been analysed in detail.
Today, the container terminal industry is under a great deal of pressure
to meet economic and environmental standards.
This industry’s levels of
energy consumption and the resulting emissions are significant but, despite
increasing energy consumption rates and costs, few energy efficiency
measures or strategies are in place in today’s ports and terminals. Latin
America’s energy security is an issue that is high on the political agenda, and
there is an emerging awareness of energy consumption, efficiency and the
associated costs in maritime trade. Port authorities and terminal operators
have started to become aware of the challenge of energy efficiency, and
many of them are increasingly concerned with their emission profiles.
The
regulation of port areas has become more stringent, mostly in relation
to sulphur and nitrogen oxides (Acciaro and Wilmsmeier, 2016; Acciaro,
2014), but in the future, regulations on particulate matter (PM) and other
short-lived climate change gases are expected to become stricter as well.
Energy consumption is an important factor in port operations and portrelated economic activities and, with energy costs increasing for land-based
industries as well, port authorities and terminal operators are looking for
ways to reduce their fuel bills.
With the growth of global container trade and port infrastructure
development, ports have come to be significant energy consumers. Latin
America’s container exports have undergone both a considerable increase in
scale and structural changes as trade volumes have grown
and reefer cargo (refrigerated perishable goods) has
become more diversified (e.g., Vagle 2013a, 2013b). This
type of trade not only requires different types of handling
and logistics, but also consumes more energy throughout
the transport chain.
Terminals around the world are working to shift from
fossil fuel to electricity. These efforts are coupled with the
development of renewable energy sources within the port
perimeter (Acciaro et al., 2013). While some terminals have
taken such steps voluntarily and have invested in energyefficient technologies, many port authorities and terminal
operators still lack an awareness of the importance of
having energy-efficient infrastructure, and many times
they lack sound strategies for measuring their energy
consumption and for using energy-efficiency indicators
(Wilmsmeier et al., 2014).
Energy management strategies
place ports in the middle of a complex web of energy
flows and, in order for such strategies to be successfully
implemented, terminal operators and port authorities
have to be aware, as a minimum, of how energy is used
in the port and where it is coming from (Acciaro, 2013).
A coordinated approach can result in energy cost savings
and can even provide a new source of business for the
participating ports.
Within the shipping and port industry,
which has
experienced decades of sustained growth of throughput
and overall expansion, energy management was not
seen to be a particularly urgent issue until quite recently.
However, in view of the current economic challenges, a
changing geography and structure of trade, and a greater
awareness and demand for sustainable logistics, the topic
of energy efficiency has come to the forefront of academic
and industry discussions.
This issue of the Bulletin analyses the state of the art of
energy consumption in Latin American countries in an
effort to shed light on current and future challenges and
opportunities relating to the implementation of energyefficiency strategies and to the further development
of benchmarking tools to support sustainable terminal
operations. This issue also seeks to build on the analyses
presented in Issue No. 329 of the Bulletin and to explore
new challenges in the geography of transport
The International Energy Agency (IEA) (2016) has reported
that the transport sector’s rate of energy consumption has
been rising at an annual average rate of 1.4%. Most of this
increase in total transport energy consumption is correlated
with economic growth, higher standards of living and the
consequent upswing in the demand for personal mobility.
Petroleum and other liquid fuels accounted for 96% of all
fuel consumption in 2014. Motor petrol (or motor gasoline,
as it is known in North America) remains the largest single
transport fuel input, representing 39% of the total,
with
diesel coming in a close second at 36% as of 2012. Electricity
still accounts for a much smaller percentage of the world’s
transportation fuel use, although its importance in
passenger rail transportation is on the rise.
The proportion of the world’s energy use that is covered
by mandatory energy-efficiency regulations has almost
doubled over the past decade, climbing from 14% in
2005 to 27% in 2014. Still, the current pace of progress
in this respect is only about two thirds of what is needed
in order to double the global growth rate in energy
efficiency. Among end-use sectors, industry was the largest
contributor to reduced energy intensity, followed closely
by transportation.
As crucial hubs in the global trading
system, ports are an important link in the global logistics
chain in which energy-efficiency potentials have yet to be
taken advantage of. Thus, in the context of Sustainable
Development Goal 7, ports can do their part to help
double the global rate of increase in energy efficiency
and can participate in international cooperation efforts
to facilitate access to clean energy technology, including
renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies.
Climate change poses the single biggest threat to
development, and its widespread, unprecedented
impacts place a disproportionately heavy burden on the
poorest and most vulnerable. Urgent action to combat
climate change and minimize its disruptions is integral
to the successful implementation of the Sustainable
Development Goals. (United Nations, 2016).
Sustainable Development Goal 9 encompasses three
important aspects of sustainable development: infrastructure,
industrialization and innovation. Infrastructure provides
the basic physical systems and structures essential to the
operation of a society or enterprise. Industrialization
drives economic growth, creates job opportunities and
thereby reduces income poverty. Innovation advances the
technological capabilities of industrial sectors and prompts
the development of new skills.
strategies and planning, as these efforts
help to raise awareness and build human and institutional
capacity for climate change mitigation, adaptation,
impact reduction and early warning. Furthermore, the
development of baseline indicators opens the way for the
creation of mechanisms for building capacity for effective
climate-change-related planning and management in least
developed countries and small island developing States.
Ports are an important component of physical infrastructure
and facilitate over 80% of global freight flows. Port operations
are highly energy-intensive activities and thus should play an
integral part in the development of high-quality, reliable,
sustainable and resilient infrastructure that can support
future economic development. Upgrading and retrofitting
port infrastructure to make it sustainable will increase
resource-use efficiency and boost the adoption of clean and
environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes.
In consequence, a discussion on energy consumption and
efficiency and on monitoring and best-practice evaluation
and implementation can make a meaningful contribution
to efforts to attain at least three of the Sustainable
Development Goals.
energy consumption pattern in detail. Issue No. 329 of
the FAL Bulletin benchmarked energy consumption in 13
container terminals in Latin America using an activity-based
cost approach developed by Lin et al. (2001). This approach
makes it possible to: (a) determine how much energy is
being consumed in specific areas of operation; and (b)
allocate a given level of energy consumption to a specific
unit within a process or process cluster. In Issue No. 329,
the following process clusters within a container terminal
were identified: quay cranes, lighting, buildings, cooling
(reefer containers), horizontal container handling and
“other” (cf. Froese and Toeter, 2013). While it was possible
to assign levels of energy consumption to different process
clusters in the case of electricity,
a certain share of energy
consumption remained undefined, and the data were not
detailed enough to permit the assignment of fossil fuel
consumption levels to the corresponding process clusters.
As of now, no integrated approach or recognized set of
indicators has been developed for container terminals.
A main limitation of existing research is the absence of
reliable,
detailed data. The existing literature generally
relies on average and standard consumption figures to
estimate overall energy consumption or to derive emission
estimates (Geerlings and van Duin, 2011).
The issue of energy consumption in terminals can be
addressed from two different perspectives: (a) an aggregate
approach, in which containers are seen as consuming energy
while being handled; and (b) one in which equipment is
seen as consuming energy while handling containers.
The latter comes closer to the idea of an activity-based
approach (Lin et al., 2001; Wilmsmeier et al., 2013). The
different types of equipment being operated in a terminal
are a relevant factor if the activity-based approach is being
used. Diagram 1 depicts the framework for the research on
energy consumption in container terminals presented in
this issue of the FAL Bulletin.
B. Output indicators
An analysis of energy consumption requires a detailed
understanding of the portions of a terminal’s energy bill
represented by the different container types (Wilmsmeier
et al., 2014). To be able to identify the energy consumption
levels and profiles of different container types, an activitybased cost approach is recommended because this
approach makes it possible to: (a) determine what area
of operation is consuming what amount of energy; and
(b) establish a set of detailed indicators.
The following energy activity clusters have been
considered here: vertical operations (quay cranes),
horizontal operations (e.g. reach-stacker (RS) cranes,
rubber-tyred gantry (RTG) cranes, rail-mounted gangry
(RMG) cranes, etc.), lighting, buildings and cooling
(reefers). Time is another important factor when it
comes to measuring energy consumption and setting
indicators for energy efficiency because of: (a) the
seasonality of certain types of traffic (e.g. reefers);
(b) variations in the dwell time of different container
types (e.g. import and export containers); and (c) ship
calling patterns, all which can trigger significant variations
and peaks in energy consumption.
Even though the literature on energy consumption in
container terminals is quite limited, some work has been
done on the energy consumption of specific types of cargo
handling equipment from an operational perspective. This
research indicates that busbar-powered RTGs equipped
with online braking can reduce energy consumption by
up to 60% (Yang, Chang and Wei-Min, 2013). In general,
however, the researchers who have worked in this area do
not share a systemic view of energy consumption beyond
the effect of technical advancement. One example is the
findings reported on the impact of electric rubber-tyred
gantries on green port performance (Yang, Chang and
Wei-Min, 2013).
Containers are most commonly referred to in a rather
general way in the literature. When it comes to the
consideration of containers as a variable, however, it has
to be recognized that containers are multi-dimensional
variables, since one container may have multiple
properties. These properties include: full/empty, length,
height, trade direction and type of container (Monios
and Wilmsmeier, 2013). Given the different dimensions of
the variable “container”, the operational processes and
related activities conducted in a terminal differ as well.
Empty containers are less time-critical than full containers,
which is reflected in their dwell times (Merckx, 2005).
Likewise, reefer containers tend to have a significantly
shorter dwell time than other containers.