MESD Report-Electrification of Singapore Harbour Craft-Shore and Vessel Power System Considerations

Supported by
ELECTRIFICATION
OF SINGAPORE HARBOUR CRAFT
– Shore and Vessel Power System Considerations
Maritime Energy and Sustainable Development (MESD) Centre of Excellence

Electrification of Singapore Harbour Craft
– Shore and Vessel Power System Considerations
This study is conducted by the Maritime Energy & Sustainable Development (MESD) Centre of Excellence
and has received research funding from the Singapore Maritime Institute (SMI).
Launched in October 2017, Maritime Energy & Sustainable Development (MESD) Centre of Excellence
is jointly funded by Singapore Maritime Institute (SMI) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU). As
the first maritime research centre supported by SMI, MESD is set up to deepen Singapore’s maritime
R&D capability and Maritime Singapore’s position as a global maritime knowledge and innovation hub to
support Singapore’s strategic maritime needs. With the focus on future port and shipping applications,
MESD CoE aims to develop innovative and sustainable solutions by working closely with all the key
stakeholders within the maritime cluster.
Published in November 2020
Principal Investigator:
Associate Professor Lam Siu Lee Jasmine
Main Author: Contributor: External Advisor:

Dr Sze Jia Yin Mr Koh Eng Kiong Dr Sanjay Chittarajan Kuttan, Singapore Maritime Institute
Dr Liu Ming Mr Bernard Wong, PSA Marine (Pte) Ltd
Co-author: Mr Chin Futt Chan Mr Yeo Yingda, Lita Ocean Pte Ltd
Ms Gou Xueni Mr Chiam Toon Boon Mr Kieu Kim Sen, York Launch Service Pte Ltd
Ms Yang Mengyao Mr Li Chen Ms Haniza Bte Mustaffa, Singapore Shipping Association
Mr David Yu Mr Chua Teck Soon, Double D Consultancy
Mr Mark Ko, Tian San Shipping (Private) Limited
With inputs from Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore
You may also refer to these reports published by MESD:
Alternative Fuels A Study on the

for International Future Energy
Shipping Options of
Singapore
Published in
April 2020 Harbour Craft
Published in
November 2020
© Nanyang Technological University, 2020

This report and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. The copyright of the contents and
materials, except for any third party information available in this report, is owned by the University. No parts of this publication
may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means or stored in any retrieval system of any nature, without prior written
consent of Nanyang Technological University.
The information provided in the report is for general informational purposes only. We have made every attempt to ensure the
accuracy and reliability of information provided in this report. However, the information is provided “as is” without warranty of any
kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information
contained in the report.
Executive Summary
Electrification of harbour craft considers the use of electrons stored in an onboard energy storage system
for electric propulsion and hotel loads. In a prior study by Maritime Energy and Sustainable Development
(MESD) Centre of Excellence, “A Study on the Future Energy Options of Singapore Harbour Craft”,
electricity is recognised as one of the top energy options for the harbour craft industry. Therefore, this
report deep dives into considerations for shore and vessel power systems of Singapore harbour craft to
encourage efforts to meet Greenhouse Gas emissions reduction targets set by Singapore’s enhanced
Nationally Determined Contributions and Long-Term Low-Emissions Development Strategy.
The study considered the different power configurations for electrified marine vessels in general;
diesel-electric, parallel hybrid, plug-in hybrid and full-electric. The emissions baseline is established
using the average thermal efficiencies of the harbour craft’s operations in diesel-mechanical power
systems. The emissions reduction potentials are estimated to be between 13% and 48% across the
different power configurations.
A review of four existing types of charging infrastructure showed that the most common type of charging
infrastructure at the berth might not meet the operation profiles of Singapore harbour craft. Off-grid
charging infrastructure, of either land-based or sea-based, would offer better opportunities for harbour
craft to recharge during their idle duration.
Four local harbour craft were surveyed by MESD to understand the current sea and refuel operations.
The harbour craft were selected from these categories: passenger ≤12 pax, passenger > 12 pax, lighter
and tug boat. The survey results enabled the evaluation of electrification options for these harbour
craft when switching to electric propulsion and onboard energy storage systems. Electricity was either
drawn from the main grid or generated with an onboard diesel generator. Either one of the two power
configurations (plug-in hybrid or full-electric) were considered for the surveyed harbour craft. The
selection was based on their energy demands and available space for energy storage. As a result, the
plug-in hybrid configuration was applied to the fast launch and lighter, and the full-electric configuration
was used for the passenger ferry and tugboat. The results from these case studies highlighted the
number of recharges required during the daily operations of each harbour craft.
A cost model, with key cost parameters, based on the concept of Total Cost of Ownership for the
electrification of harbour craft, has been elaborated for an electric harbour craft and charging infrastructure.
The cost model could estimate the total cost of owning and operating the assets, taking into account
possible future costs and the time value of money. The payback period could also be estimated from
dividing the incremental investments and expenses by the annual cost savings. The fuel and periodic
maintenance costs are the two key cost parameters that determine the annual cost savings, as a result of
a switch from the conventional diesel-powered harbour craft to an electric harbour craft.
Electrification of Singapore Harbour Craft – Shore and Vessel Power System Considerations 1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
List of Figures 3
List of Tables 3
List of Abbreviations 4
1. Introduction 5
1.1 Different Power Configurations of Harbour Craft 6
1.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Potentials with Current Energy Mix 7
2. Charging Infrastructure 11
2.1 Types of Existing Charging Infrastructure 11
2.2 Electricity Generation in Singapore and Southern Islands 12
2.3 Key Functions of a Maritime Charging Station 13
2.4 Criteria for Charging Infrastructure 14
2.5 Planning for Charging Infrastructure 15
3. Electric Harbour Craft 16
3.1 Electrical Systems and Key Components 16
3.1.1 Electric Propulsion 16
3.1.2 Shipboard Electrical Distribution 18
3.1.3 Electrical Energy Storage Systems 18
3.1.4 Safety Management with Electrical Systems 20
3.2 Electrical Consumption of Harbour Craft in the Case Studies 21
3.3 Potential Emissions Savings from the Case Studies 23
4. Total Cost of Ownership for Electric Harbour Craft 24
4.1 General Cost Model for the Total Cost of Ownership 24
4.2 Cost Parameters for Electric Harbour Craft 25
4.3 Cost Parameters for Charging Infrastructure 27
5. Conclusions 28
Appendices 29
Appendix I Summary of existing charging infrastructure developed recently for 29
the maritime industry
Appendix II Examples of electric ships 30
References 31
2 Maritime Energy and Sustainable Development (MESD) Centre of Excellence

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Different types of propulsion and power configurations of marine vessels 7
Figure 1.2 GHG emissions reduction potentials for different power configurations with a 10
high-speed diesel-mechanical configuration as the baseline
Figure 1.3 GHG emissions reduction potentials for different power configurations with a 10
medium-speed diesel-mechanical configuration as the baseline
Figure 2.1 Illustration of the steps to size a berth type charging infrastructure 15
Figure 3.1 Simplified line diagram of electrical power distribution on a full-electric harbour craft 17
Figure 3.2 A comparison of the energy storage capacities across different applications 19
Figure 3.3 Performance attributes of the key Li-ion chemistries used in the marine batteries 19
Figure 3.4 Available battery capacities, grid electricity consumption and number of recharging 22
per day applicable to the operation profiles of four harbour craft
Figure 3.5 Emissions savings from the case studies based on grid electricity and emissions 23
incurred from battery production in the first year
Figure 4.1 The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) approach 25
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Considerations by harbour craft owners and authorities on the electrification of 6
harbour craft
Table 1.2 Key sources of emissions during various stages of energy use 9
Table 1.3 Default fuel combustion conversion factor and uncertainty values 9
Table 2.1 Description of different types of charging infrastructure 12
Table 3.1 Case studies on the electrification of four local harbour craft 21
Table 4.1 Cost parameters for electric harbour craft 25
Table 4.2 Cost parameters for charging infrastructure 27
List of Abbreviations
ABS American Bureau of Shipping

AC Alternating Current
BMS Battery Management System
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CCGT Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
CH4 Methane
CO2-eq Carbon dioxide-equivalent
DC Direct Current
EF Emission Factor
EMA Energy Market Authority
ESS Energy Storage System
EV Electric Vehicles
GEF Grid Emission Factor
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GJ Gigajoules
GT Gross Tonnage
HC Harbour Craft
HV High Voltage
ICE Internal Combustion Engine
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IEE Institution of Electrical Engineers
kg kilogram
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt-hour
LFP Lithium Iron Phosphate
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LTO Lithium Titanate
LV Low Voltage
MESD Maritime Energy and Sustainable Development Centre of Excellence
MGO Marine Gas Oil
MJ Megajoules
MPA Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore
MtCO2e Metric tonne of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
MV Medium Voltage
MW Megawatt
N2O Nitrous oxide
NCCS National Climate Change Secretariat
NCV Net Calorific Value
NEA National Environmental Agency
NMC Nickel Manganese Cobalt
PF Power Factor
PMS Power Management System
SFOC Specific Fuel Oil Consumption
TCO Total Cost of Ownership
WTT Well to Tank

1 Introduction
Electrification of Singapore harbour craft (HC) signifies a change from the well-established Internal
Combustion Engines (ICE) and low-cost Marine Gas Oil (MGO) as their main energy converters
and fuels, respectively. Since electrical systems are discernibly part of most harbour craft, the key
industry consideration is the cost-benefit associated with the extent of electrification. This report
aims to assist stakeholders in the harbour craft industry when evaluating the efforts to electrify,
improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions of their vessels.
A background about Singapore’s harbour craft is found in the main report of “A Study on the Future
Energy Options of Singapore Harbour Craft”. The same classification of harbour craft is used in
both reports and follows MPA’s guidelines. Harbour craft have been assigned different prefixes to
divide them into five types, namely, SP for passengers, SC (carries both cargo and passengers),
ST for tugboats, SB for bunker tankers and SR for all others. The SP type is further divided into
two types based on size: SP ≤ 12 pax and SP > 12 pax. There are around 2,300 harbour craft that
operate within Singapore’s port limits.
The key findings from the main report are relevant to this topic of electrification. The study profiled
the harbour craft’s population by their age, gross tonnage, engine power and engine maker. It
ranked twelve alternative fuels and power options, and the full-electric option merged as one of
the top three energy options for SP ≤ 12 pax, SP > 12 pax and SC harbour craft in the long
term. Electrification of vessels has been considered in the main report under the power options
of either hybrid, full-electric or fuel cell. Some of the harbour craft have favourable profiles to
consider alternative energy options in the short term, either as new-built or retrofitted vessels.
The recommendations were based on their age, engine size, gross tonnage and operation routes.
For example, a large proportion of passenger craft (both ≤ 12 pax or > 12 pax) was found to be
more than 20 years old, and several had fixed operation routes. Small engine sizes, coupled with
sizeable gross tonnage and fixed operation routes, were preferred profiles when it came to using
future energy options, due to the lower energy density of these energy options.
Recharging marine vessels with clean, renewable electricity reduce carbon emissions more than fossil-
based electricity. However, carbon emissions reduction is not the only value proposition of electrification.
There are other beneficial outcomes from the electrification of marine vessels[1-3], for example:
a. Higher efficiency of the electric drivetrain and lower energy consumption during low-load
operations.
b. High torque at low-speed engine mode.
c. Battery enhances optimal efficiency of the internal combustion engine in battery hybrid.
d. Reduce maintenance costs due to fewer maintenance checks and moving components.
e. Zero shipboard emissions for full-electric in protected environment.
f. Low noise and vibration levels for ferries and fishing vessels.
However, the costs of electrification are high. In the case study reported by e-ferry Ellen, the costs of
a full-electric ferry are reported to be significantly higher (up to 40% in CAPEX1 for a new passenger
ferry) [4]. The profiling of Singapore’s harbour craft in the main report has reported a wide range of
speed requirements, size and operations. Thus, the incremental costs to adopt electrification may
1
CAPEX: Capital Expenditure
easily exceed existing case studies. For many local harbour craft owners competing at low-profit
margins, the economic costs alone can be a strong deterrent. Table 1.1 provides a summary of the
other considerations by shipowners and authorities in the electrification of harbour craft.
Harbour • Higher capital investment of electrified power systems in comparison to internal

Craft combustion engines
Owners • Availability and convenience of charging points
• Change to the vessels’ operation profiles and refuelling frequency
• Re-training for the crew on operating shipboard systems, recharging and maintenance
• Actual fuel savings during operation and incentives to use electricity
Authorities • Carbon emissions reduction to meet Singapore’s enhanced Nationally Determined Contributions
• Uncertainty on standards for fast-charging infrastructure for harbour craft
• R&D for electrification to be a competitive alternative fuel or power option
• High infrastructural costs to develop a charging network
• Impact to the power quality if significant power is drawn simultaneously
• A lack of access to the main grid for smaller islands and the anchorage areas
Table 1.1 Considerations by harbour craft owners and authorities on the electrification of
harbour craft
The economic and environmental benefits of electrification are highly dependent on the harbour
craft’s power configuration and operations profiles [2]. The benefits must be quantified carefully
against the environmental and economic costs of electrification. In consideration of the wide range
of size and operations across the types of harbour craft, projected cost-benefits analysis and
optimisation of the power configuration will vary.
1.1 Different Power Configurations of Harbour Craft
Figure 1.1 illustrates the different types of propulsion and power configurations commonly
found in ships. In practice, the design of the power system is based on the ships’ operation
profile and the power requirements of the vessel and are usually customised.
The majority of Singapore harbour craft operates with the diesel-mechanical propulsion,
which consists of an internal combustion engine that converts MGO into mechanical
energy to propel the vessel. A gearbox ensures power transmission to the propeller and to
reduce power to achieve more torque and less speed during starting and acceleration. An
independent diesel-generator (also known as auxiliary engine) or an alternator attached to
the main engine generates electricity for the harbour craft’s service loads.
In diesel-electric propulsion, several diesel generators are connected to a common main

electrical bus, and the propulsion is driven by an efficient electric motor. The advantage is
that the propulsion can be decoupled from the engine’s speed and better load sharing among
the generators can be achieved. An electric motor already has full torque available during
start-up, and therefore the gearbox is optional in the configuration (i.e. direct drive). With
a gearbox, the motor is designed to be smaller and lighter. Ships inclined towards diesel-
electric propulsion are cruise ships, icebreakers, ferries, shuttle tankers, chemical carriers
and research vessels [5].
Hybrid propulsion has two types of propulsion, where a diesel-mechanical configuration

provides high-efficiency during cruising, and an electric motor is coupled to the same
shaft through a gearbox to provide propulsion for low-speeds. This motor may function
as a generator for electrical loads and recharging batteries. Typical applications of this
configuration are naval frigates and destroyers, towing vessels and offshore vessels [6].

Hybrid vessels have dual energy sources, and the common configuration includes batteries
sized to assist the main engine in achieving optimal fuel consumption. In some vessels, the
batteries are sufficiently sized to allow the vessel to sail short distances on all-electric mode.
The main ship types are car or passenger ferries, offshore vessels, Ro-Ro cargo, tug boat,
fishing vessels and other activities.
In a scenario where a larger battery capacity can be placed in the vessel, it is faster to recharge
with electricity produced from an external power supply. This plug-in hybrid configuration will
have an onboard charger to convert the electricity from AC2 to DC3. A longer all-electric mode
is feasible with larger storage capacities. The main ship types are car or passenger ferries,
fishing vessels, cruise ships and offshore vessels [7].
A full-electric vessel depends entirely on external electricity supply for its propulsion and
service loads, although it may have a diesel generator as emergency backup power. The
main ship type is car or passenger ferries, followed by fishing and other activities. Recent
full-electric pilot projects include tug boat (Port of Auckland), container ship (Yara), offshore
supply (Shenzhen Maritime Bureau), bulk carrier (Guangzhou Development Rui Hua) and
bunker tanker (Asahi Tanker) [8-11].
(7)
(9)
(8)
(3)
(6)
(1)
(4)
(2)
(5)
Mechanical Diesel-electric Hybrid Battery Hybrid Battery Plug-in Full-electric

Propulsion Propulsion Propulsion Hybrid
(1) Combustion Engine (4) Electric Motor (7) Battery

(2) Gearbox (5) Propeller (8) DC-AC Inverter
(3) Genset (6) AC-DC Converter (9) Plug-in Battery with Charge Controller
Figure 1.1 Different types of propulsion and power configurations of marine vessels
1.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Potentials with Current Energy Mix
Electrification of harbour craft is trending globally, with a significant number of projects found
in countries that are obligated to meet their carbon emissions reduction targets by 2050. DNV
GL Alternative Fuel Insights platform, as of July 2020, has registered 448 marine battery
projects with the majority in Europe [12]. It is not a coincidence that these are the same
countries, whose energy mix are significantly dominated by renewable energy. In comparison,
Singapore relies mainly on fossil-fuelled power plants, where natural gas currently meets
2
Alternating current
3
Direct current
95% of its electricity production [13]. This section aims to estimate the Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) emissions reduction potentials based on the calculation of GHG carbon dioxide-
equivalent emissions per unit of energy consumption (g CO2-eq/kWh) under different power
configurations. The fuels which are used for the calculation are MGO (power generation for
diesel-electric, hybrid and plug-in hybrid) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) for Singapore’s
power plants (grid electricity generation for plug-in hybrids and full-electric).
In the short-term scenario, the first fleet of harbour craft is likely to be of diesel-electric,
hybrid or plug-in hybrid power configurations. Full-electric harbour craft is included as
an option for short routes and limited vessel operations. The diesel-mechanical power
configuration (with MGO as fuel) is the baseline, with which the GHG emissions reduction
potentials are determined.
The calculations focus on the energy output (shaft output) in kWh for harbour craft propulsion
power. For most harbour craft, the service loads are a small proportion of the overall
propulsion power demands. The main greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), which are produced during the upstream and downstream
activities of a harbour craft’s power generation are estimated from published sources.
Table 1.2 lists the upstream and downstream activities, which generates direct and indirect
emissions during various stages of energy use. Similar studies would consider the upstream
activities as “Well-to-Tank” and downstream activities as “Tank-to-Wake”. The summation of
the GHG emissions from both upstream and downstream activities would be the total GHG
CO2-equivalent emissions produced under different power configurations (kg CO2-eq/kWh).
Table 1.3 provides a comparison of the Net Calorific Value (NCV) and Emission Factors (EFs)
for MGO and natural gas (NG). From the perspective of emissions generated during energy
conversion, NG has a clear advantage over diesel on these main GHG gases, CO2, CH4
and N2O over diesel oil, due to a higher NCV and lower EFs during combustion. The Global
Warming Potentials (100-year) are 1, 28 and 265 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively [14].
The results from the calculations are shown in Figures 1.2 and 1.3. The baseline reflects a
range of diesel engines with thermal efficiencies of around 32% to 36.5%, which is reasonable
for the existing fleet of harbour craft. Diesel-electric and hybrids provide emissions reduction
by means of enabling the diesel engines to operate at their optimal SFOC. Plug-in hybrids
promote further reduction due to the lower emissions from the grid and lower transmission
losses of the electrical systems. The wide range of reduction potentials suggests that
optimisation may be carried out for each power configuration. If the plug-in hybrid is to
demonstrate a significant reduction potential (> 31%) over a parallel hybrid harbour craft,
the battery ought to be sufficiently sized to allow the vessel to draw at least 50% of its power
demand from the grid.
Due to class regulations, the battery capacity required for full-electric is about twice the
capacity of an equivalent hybrid harbour craft (see Section 3.1.4 ii on class regulations
relevant to lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries). From a life-cycle perspective, the larger energy
storage reserve required in a full-electric harbour craft increases the emissions from battery
production, when compared to a hybrid equivalent. The contribution of battery production
emissions to overall emissions reduction from the use of grid electricity is further explored in
later case studies (Refer to Section 3.3).

Marine Gas Oil Electricity (Main Grid)
Upstream Production and transportation of marine gas Production and transportation of Liquefied
Activities oil4 Natural Gas7
(LNG is set to account for half of natural gas
supply by 2025)
Combustion8
(Grid Emission Factor of Singapore’s power
plants used to determine CO2 and fugitive
methane gases from EMA, N2O estimated
from a study on Singapore’s combined cycle
plant9)
Transmission (loss in the grid 2%)8

Downstream Combustion5 Energy storage10
Activities (Average SFOC of a range of high-speed (Charging loss 5%)
and medium-speed of marine diesel
engines6) Transmission losses in the drivetrain10
(Discharging loss 5%)
Generation of electricity by diesel genset
(95% efficiency)
Applicable Diesel-mechanical (Baseline) Plug-in hybrid (25%, 50% and 75% are
Types of Diesel-electric assumed to be from the grid)
Power Hybrid Full-electric (100% from the grid)
Configuration Plug-in hybrid
Table 1.2 Key sources of emissions during various stages of energy use
Emission NCV CO2 EF CH4 EF N2O EF

Stream Type GJ/tonne kg CO2/GJ kg CH4/GJ kg N2O/GJ
Factor Uncertainty Factor Uncertainty Factor Factor
Gas/Diesel Oil 43.0 2.0% 74.1 2.0% 0.003 0.0006
Natural Gas 48.0 4.0% 56.1 4.0% 0.001 0.0001
Table 1.3 Default fuel combustion conversion factor and uncertainty values
(Source: NEA GHG Emissions Measurement and Reporting Guidelines version 14 Feb 2018, Table 3) based on
IPCC Guidelines (2006)
4
WTT (MGO): 14 gCO2/MJ [15]
5
Assumptions for average SFOC for various power configuration: 0-10% * SFOC8 for hybrid; 5-15% * SFOC8 for
diesel-electric; 15-25% *
6
SFOC for diesel-mechanical [2]; SFOC of marine diesel engines: High-speed engines from 195-225 g/kWh,
medium-speed engines from 175-200 g/kWh [16]
7
WTT (LNG): 110 gCO2/kWh; the shorter transport distances from the source to Singapore is considered [17]
8
Carbon emissions (2018): 0.4188kg CO2/kWh [13]
Fugitive methane: 0.00213 kg CH4/kWh
9
Nitrous oxide: 0.00002 kg N2O/kWh [18]
10
[19]
GHG emissions
reduction*
High-speed Diesel-mechanical 149 983 Baseline
Diesel-electric 130 788 -13% to -25%
Parallel Hybrid 124 717 -20% to -31%
Plug-in Hybrid (25% Grid) 237 548 -25% to -36%
Full-electric 576 43 -41% to -48%

Baseline
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
GHG CO2-eq g/kWh
Upstream Downstream
*Excluding emissions from production of battery
Figure 1.2 GHG emissions reduction potentials for different power configurations with a high-speed
diesel-mechanical configuration as the baseline
GHG emissions
reduction*
Medium-speed Diesel-mechanical 133 877 Baseline
Diesel-electric 116 704 -13% to -25%
Parallel Hybrid 111 640 -20% to -31%
Full-electric 576 43 -35% to -42%

Baseline
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
GHG CO2-eq g/kWh
Upstream Downstream
*Excluding emissions from production of battery
Figure 1.3 GHG emissions reduction potentials for different power configurations with a medium-
speed diesel-mechanical configuration as the baseline

2 Charging Infrastructure
A charging infrastructure facilitates the recharging of harbour craft’s batteries from an external
source. The infrastructure includes a connection to a reliable and low-carbon emissions energy
source, the transmission and distribution network, energy converters, charging stations with plug
and cable connections to the harbour craft, metering for public chargers and berth facilities for
ships to moor securely while recharging.
2.1 Types of Existing Charging Infrastructure
The charging infrastructure can be differentiated by the source of electrons, location

of infrastructure and power rating. Different power ratings are configured based on the
required charging time and capacities of the onboard energy storage, and concurrently,
these requirements will affect the designed voltage and current as well as the decisive
use of automation to assist in the coupling of the vessel to the charging umbilical. Notably,
safety consideration during operation increases with the use of medium-voltage (MV) when
compared to low-voltage (LV). IEE defines AC LV as 690V and below, and MV from above
690 V to 6.6 kV.
The first charging stations used by the maritime industry were adopted from low-voltage
electric vehicles (EVs) charging stations with powers starting from 22 kW for small and inland
marine vessels [20, 21]. As the battery capacities of seagoing vessels are considerably
larger than EVs, early commercial providers, for example, Cavotec, Stemmann-Technik,
ABB (robotic plug system), Cavotec-Wartsila and EST-Floattech (inductive charging) have
piloted marine chargers up to 8 MW [7, 22-25]. These have redefined the characteristics of
marine charging infrastructure. In order to provide high power rating at a feasible size, the
charging stations either supply medium AC voltages, or low to medium DC voltages, or use
an automated cabling system to manage high-ampere cables [22]. The earliest charging
infrastructure dedicated for marine vessels was piloted in 2015, and, notably, some of these
early designs did not take off after their pilot trials due to high costs or technical issues.
Some of the charging projects are detailed in Appendix I. Future development is to be
expected in this area.
Table 2.1 describes and highlights some considerations for different types of charging
infrastructure. There are four distinct charging locations, and they are (i) existing berth space,
(ii) HC anchorage areas, (iii) purpose-built floating platform and (iv) floating power barge
within port limits. Examples of existing berths may include landing steps and small floating
platforms found in existing piers, jetty or waterfront space. HC anchorage areas are located
in sheltered waters (near breakwaters), where idle harbour craft are moored to a floating
buoy. A purpose-built floating platform can be extended from a suitable shore location that
will serve to overcome limited space or limited infrastructure at the shore. The floating power
barge can be considered when there is a lack of access to existing piers, and low-carbon or
biofuels can be used as alternative fuels to generate electricity.
Charging Locations Considerations
I. Berth • Often designed with medium or high-power rating to reduce recharging

existing pier structure time
• Easiest to implement among the four types due to land-based
infrastructure and use of existing berths and main grid
• Harbour craft require to remain at berth during recharging
• Use of medium-voltage equipment requires more safety regulations
II. HC Anchorage • Low to medium power charging improves battery life cycles
anchorage areas for HCs, • Low-power stations have lower electrical and electronic components
include breakwater areas costs
• Allow charging to coincide with idle or rest durations
• Electrical connection from anchorage to shore power is dependent on
actual distances
III. Floating Platform • Often designed with medium or high-power rating to reduce recharging
a purpose-built platform time
extended from the existing • Flexible platform may include other functions, such as terminal batteries,
pier the supply of fresh water, etc. and towed to different locations, and for
use in areas with no berth and mooring infrastructure
• Require design and building of a purpose-built platform
IV. Floating Power Barge • Not dependent on grid supply and able to be implemented in areas with
powered with alternative no power plant
fuels • Require design and building of purpose-built platform with its genset
and/or ESS system
• Require the supply chain for alternative fuels to be supplied to the power
barge
Table 2.1 Description of different types of charging infrastructure
2.2 Electricity Generation in Singapore and Southern Islands
Singapore’s power grid is one of the most reliable in the world, based on an average electricity
interruption time of less than one minute per customer per year (Source: ema.gov.sg). The
gross efficiencies of the combined power plants have risen from 39% (2001) to 46.88%
(2018). About 95% of Singapore’s electricity is generated using natural gas. The transmission
loss of electricity is about 2%. Singapore’s Grid Emission Factor (GEF) is 0.4188 kg CO2/
kWh [13], and this factor has been reducing due to the more efficient Combined Cycle Gas
Turbines (CCGTs) in new power plants. Majority of the gas power stations is located in the
western part of Singapore. The power is then transmitted via high-tension cables to minimise
energy losses, and then the voltage is stepped down through substations to reach consumers
at 220V, 50 Hz. The connection from the distribution or consumer substation to consumer
switchroom is managed through Singapore PowerGrid.
Singapore’s registered electricity generation capacity is 13,667 MW (last updated in 2019),

while its monthly peak demand averaged at 7,215 MW for the first six months of 2019 and
at 7,102 MW for the same period of 2020. Singapore has announced its plan to manage its
emission peak at 65 MtCO2e by around 2030. Data of Singapore’s emissions profile in 2017
from National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) shows that power generation accounted
for about 40% of primary emissions. Thus, Singapore’s power generation sector has
considered interventions, such as energy-efficient measures and CO2 capture technologies.
Therefore, this will benefit the maritime sector, when tapping on the electricity grid, to lower
its carbon footprint.

A review of the electricity generation on some of the offshore islands (along the harbour
craft’s routes in the case studies), was conducted to determine the feasibility of recharging
at each stop. The survey showed that there were only a small number of offshore islands
that drew power from the main grid. For example, underwater utility lines connect to the
Southern Islands, such as Pulau Seringat, Lazarus Island and St. John’s Island. Most of the
offshore islands rely on diesel generators and solar panels to meet relatively low electricity
demand. Therefore, an upgrade of the power infrastructure will improve the reliability and
power generation capability for high-powered charging stations.
2.3 Key Functions of a Maritime Charging Station
The charging station fulfils some or all of these roles: power conversion from AC to DC
power (DC charging station), power supply equipment, control schemes and communication.
Charging stations, which are in operation, are mostly supplying AC power. The supplied AC
power is converted to DC power for charging the battery by an onboard charger. An onboard
charger is mounted on the ship and designed to operate only on the vessel. In DC charging
stations, the AC power is first converted to DC power on the shore (an offboard charger) and
then supplied as DC power to the ship. As the power conversion is not limited to the size
of the onboard power convertor, thus DC charging stations are designed to supply higher
power. Another added advantage for ships is that, when the power converter is located at the
DC charging station, this reduces the onboard equipment and space is freed to house other
equipment or a larger battery pack.
This review covers a list of functions that a high-power AC or DC charging station should provide:
a. The charger’s power rating should be at least 350 kW, considering the typical onboard
battery capacity of small harbour craft is around 100 kW to 300 kW.
b. Control pilot functions provide a means to ensure safety and data exchange for different
operation modes in a charging station, for example, these may include automatic
checks for a proper connection, circuit insulation, short-circuit and fault detection.
c. Specific test requirements of charging station such as electrical compliance,
environment tests (for outdoor use), permissible surface temperature, electromagnetic
compatibility and ease of servicing should be considered.
d. Robustly constructed enclosure for the charging station to meet outdoor and marine
equipment requirements, i.e. IP46 protection works satisfactorily in ambient air
temperature up to 45 °C.
e. Preferably a set of dedicated supply equipment, cable management and storage is
required to be permanently connected to the charging station.
f. The coupler shall have a safety function that automatically disconnects when the vessel’s
mooring system is no longer secured (in the event of strong waves and bad weather).
g. Provision of cables with exceptional flexibility and high tensile strength. The use of cables
for the harsh marine environment also requires the cables to be sheathed with special
sheathing compound that provides high moisture, chemical and weather resistance.
h. Customised length of the charging cable connection, taking into account the preferred
mooring methods and the size of harbour craft. For example, a regular berth or a buoy
may be used.
i. The horizontal and vertical reach of the cable connection must consider the tidal
changes, length, height of harbour craft that are expected to berth at the charging
infrastructure. If the manual or semi-automatic connection is suggested, the thicknesses
of cables and a safe procedure should be manageable by a single crew.
j. The power factor (PF) should be designed as high as possible (> 0.8) to reduce
power losses.
k. At each stage of AC to DC conversion, overcurrent, overvoltage, residual current and
ground-fault protection devices as required at the maximum power rating should be
included in the right locations. For example, in high-power systems, high-speed fuses
are typically located both on the AC line and in series with each semiconductor device
on each arm of the rectifier circuit. Other examples are voltage transient suppressor
and ground-fault relays.
l. Additional functions of DC charging stations: A DC charging station requires the AC
power (from the main grid) to be converted to DC power before supplying power to the
ship. Thus, this step will require additional equipment, such as, an isolation transformer
that separates the AC power and the DC output and an AC-to-DC rectification. Higher
currents, typically a feature of DC charging station, will require excellent cooling
management to prevent overheating. Digital communication systems (reference IEC
61851-24 digital communication for electric vehicle charging) may be recommended in
DC charging station, which enables the vessel to control the charging protocols fully.
Due to these additional functions and the tendency of higher power supplied by DC
charging stations, they tend to have an increased footprint, and the feasibility of a DC
charging station should be assessed at the site.
Currently, maritime charging stations are mostly built for a small number of electric vessels
along fixed routes. Future development of the marine charging network should leverage the
developments achieved by the electric vehicle charging network, for example:
a. Coordinated charging (encourage charging when demand is low).

b. Mitigating of grid issues when a large number of high-power chargers are used
simultaneously. The mitigation may be achieved by deploying charging strategies
using smart-grid technologies coupled with energy storage systems.
c. Energy storage system (ESS) can also enable increased peak load capacity and
renewable integration or serve as backup power source backup when the main grid
is interrupted.
d. An AC or DC bus distribution to enable energy sharing between chargers.
2.4 Criteria for Charging Infrastructure
i. Meeting the charging schedule of harbour craft

There are myriad charging schedules of plug-in hybrid and full-electric harbour craft. Most
plug-in hybrid vessels may recharge briefly during loading and unloading operation for
scheduled routes. These vessels may choose to perform slow-charge overnight to minimise
daytime schedule disruptions. Whilst for full-electric vessels, the batteries may have to be
recharged, depending on their state-of-charge, at each stop or after a round-trip.
ii. Conveniently located charging stations

The charging stations should conveniently be located at the identified piers, anchorage or
bunkering locations. The number of charging points and recharge duration of the harbour
craft must be considered when locating the charging infrastructure. For example, berth
type chargers may be the high-power charger that allows quick recharging within the
loading or unloading period, while recharging at anchorage is more amenable to the low-
power charger that allows slower recharging.

iii. Reliable and low-carbon emission energy source
The reliability of the electricity generation is essential for a full-electric harbour craft,
because of their high recharging frequency. If the energy source is from the main grid, the
sufficiency of load capacity at the switchroom or sub-station must be guaranteed to prevent
potential issues such as voltage instability, voltage sag, overloading of transformers and
power quality degradation. The anticipated peak loads and peak currents drawn from the
installed power system must be determined and communicated to the grid operator.
The charging infrastructure may be coupled to a low-carbon fuel genset in off-grid areas or
to hybrid energy storage and renewable energy system. The off-grid electricity generation
should ideally use low-carbon fuels, with a minimal carbon footprint to maximise the
decarbonisation benefits. An environmental impact assessment should also be conducted
when siting the charging infrastructure.
iv. Safety and operations

Fire-fighting equipment and storage areas should be provided if there is no nearby facility.
Land-based fire and electrical codes should be adhered to, and approvals are sought from
relevant authorities, should the charging station be located on land.
2.5 Planning for Charging Infrastructure
The key steps in the planning of charging infrastructure siting are illustrated in Figure 2.1.
The steps begin with the understanding of the operation profiles and power requirements of
the harbour craft. Optimisation of the battery system to meet power demand is important, as
considerations for larger sizing of battery systems where extended operations are envisaged.
The power rating and type of charging station are selected to meet the charging times and
locations required by the operation profiles. The final step involves ensuring the power
demand of the harbour craft is adequately matched by the supply of the electricity.
STEPS
• Power requirements and load factors during different

Understand operations and power
1 requirements of vessels
operation modes and wave conditions
• Average and maximum distances per trip
• Sizing of batteries to meet operations + spare capacity

Sizing the storage capacity of ship
2 batteries
• Select type of batteries to optimise power and energy
• Decide plug-in hybrid or full-electric
• Charging time determines the rated power, current

Selecting power rating and AC/DC rating and voltages
3 type for charging station • Voltage/Current determines feasibility and safety of
connections
• Peak loads determine the switchroom’s designed load

Planning the power load (kVA)
4 required during peak loads
• Sufficiency of grid supply determines the need to build
terminal batteries
Figure 2.1 Illustration of the steps to size a berth type charging infrastructure
3 Electric Harbour Craft
Electric ships are not new, with the first documented electric boat with zinc batteries started in 1830.
However, in the 1920s, efficient internal combustion engines became popular and disrupted the
utilisation of electric ships. Full-electric small boats, however, continue to operate in environmentally
sensitive areas in rivers and lakes. It was until 1985 that solar-powered ships popularise electric
ships. In the past five years, due to the falling prices of batteries, bigger battery capacities sufficient
for electric propulsion becomes economically feasible for full-electric ships. The biggest marine
battery (awarded as of March 2019) is for the Norwegian coastal hybrid passenger ferries, with
each vessel expected to house a 6.1 MWh battery. Notably, full-electric ships tend to operate at
moderate speeds and for regular routes that allow frequent recharge. The majority of these vessels
are still hybrid ships (53%), followed by an almost equal number of plug-in hybrid (22%) and full-
electric (18%) (Source: DNV GL Alternative Fuels Insights). Some high-profile electrification trials
are detailed in Appendix II.
3.1 Electrical Systems and Key Components
This brief review of electrical systems on harbour craft focuses on electric propulsion systems
for medium-power vessels and the key components on plug-in hybrid or full-electric harbour
craft. The energy efficiency characteristics of electrical systems and components are critical
in the electrification of harbour craft because the fuel savings and lower maintenance costs
are the financial incentives for ship operators.
The shipboard power system design generally requires the following tasks:
a. Selecting the optimum power system configuration and voltage level best suited for the
ship’s operation profile.
b. Load analysis to size the electrical generator kW and kVA ratings and the prime mover’s
horsepower rating.
c. Power distribution routes for propulsion and service loads.
d. Sizing the feeder cables and for limiting voltage drops.
e. Fault current analysis and protection device rating at key locations.
f. Sensor types and locations to monitor system health.
3.1.1 Electric Propulsion
The electric propulsion of ships requires electric motors to drive the propellers. The fuel comes
from either a diesel generator or energy storage systems. The complexity of electrical grid
systems increases typically with the required propulsion power. Ship service loads are often
designed to be of fixed voltages and frequencies, which may differ from the requirements
for propulsion. Figure 3.1 illustrates an example of separate distribution buses to provide for
propulsion and auxiliary power distribution on a full-electric harbour craft.
The key components of electric propulsion drives are:
a. Electrical Converter: Electrical converters are required in electronic circuits to convert

AC to DC and vice versa. An AC-DC converter is required when charging the batteries
from its AC supply source. A DC-AC converter is commonly found when the distribution

bus is a DC grid since most ships still use AC motors. A DC-DC converter is required
to convert a source of DC from one voltage level to another.
b. Transformer: A transformer performs the role of either stepping up or stepping down
of voltages. Ships with huge electrical loads may have generators operating at high
voltages (HV) of 3.3 kV, 6.6 kV or even 11 kV, and high voltages make the high-power
system more economically necessary to reduce the size of current, conductors and
equipment. However, lightning and low power supplies usually operate at 220VAC,
and even 110 VAC and thus step-down transformers are used to lower or increase the
voltage when necessary.
c. Variable frequency drive: AC motor speed control is achieved by power electronics
converter that converts fixed-frequency, fixed voltage into a variable frequency, variable
voltage power source.
Auxiliary Loads Essential DB

(110-230V) (24VDC)
Grid Electricity
(415V)
Electrical DB (230V)
Power
Conversion
Main DB (415V/440V)
Energy Storage Propulsion

System System
Figure 3.1 Simplified line diagram of electrical power distribution on a full-electric harbour craft
There are a number of electric propulsion configurations, depending on the power demand.
For low or medium-power demands, electrical power may be delivered by AC induction
motors with variable frequency converters or by DC motors with variable voltage converters
[26]. The propeller drive is often directly driven from the electric motor from inside the ship,
while some external drives are being fitted outside of the ships’ hull, e.g. azimuth thrusters
found in Norled’s MF Ampere full-electric battery ferry [27].
Electric propulsion can be optimised for increased energy and space efficiencies, for example:
a. Providing the flexibility of layout as diesel engines can be located in the best location
and remote from the propeller shaft. Cable run is a very versatile transmission medium
and allows optimisation of the layout even at different decks.
b. Meeting load diversity between ship service load and propulsion. Passenger craft may
have substantial electrical loads, whereas tankers and cargo ships tend to require
high-power for ship services when the demands of the propulsion system are low.
c. Economical part-load running.
3.1.2 Shipboard Electrical Distribution
Currently, electrical power is often generated at 400/415/230 VAC, 50 Hz for service loads.
Harbour craft, which require high propulsion power, will have a high voltage bus and
transformers to step up accordingly. The electrical distribution bus can be AC (de facto option
for mid-sized marine vessel) or DC. AC distribution is currently the de facto design in most
harbour craft, as AC standard circuit breakers and cables are easily available, and power
losses in AC system are generally lower as inverters create more losses than switches.
However, there is a trend towards DC distribution, especially on full-electric ships, because
of ease of integration with DC energy sources and better fuel efficiency, depending on ship
types and operating profiles.
The DC-grid system can operate with variable frequencies and no reactive power losses;
thus, it has been reported that it could reduce fuel consumption and emissions by up to
around 20%, depending on ship type. The limitation for DC systems is that it is not able to
meet higher power requirements of large ships. In general, power systems and required
converters and breakers above 400 kW are mainly AC type.
3.1.3 Electrical Energy Storage Systems
The current energy density of rechargeable batteries is often cited as the limiting factor
for business-as-usual profiles of current harbour craft running with the diesel-mechanical
drivetrain. Based on high-speed and medium-speed diesel engines with a range of SFOC
of between 195 g/kWh and 225 g/kWh, the equivalent volumetric energy density of MGO is
around 3,800 Wh/L to 4,400 Wh/L. The energy density of MGO is about 40 times higher than
a pack-level Li-ion marine battery’s energy density of 83 Wh/L to 100 Wh/L [28]. Thus, hybrids
are expected to remain essential in short term to medium term. High energy density fuels are
still preferred, and the use of alternative sustainable fuels on a hybrid may be encouraged as
an economically viable option to reduce emissions. Full-electric harbour craft are likely limited
to scheduled short routes when presented with an opportunity for frequent charging.
Due to the environmental concerns over the use of current fossil fuels, battery capacities being
installed in electric vessels, have been increasing steadily. Figure 3.2 illustrates the scale
of marine battery capacities when compared with battery capacities of other applications.
The power rating of a charger is dependent on the storage capacity of the battery and the
desired charge rate. In general, high-powered chargers are being developed specifically for
the maritime industry to shorten the charging times.
The dominant battery type for electric propulsion is Li-ion batteries, which exhibit favourable
characteristics such as high energy density, lightweight, fast charging, low self-discharging
rate, and low memory effect. There are several chemistries for Li-ion, with different benefits,
being offered by maritime battery manufacturers. However, from a survey of various sources
from the maritime and transportation industries, there are three main Li-ion chemistries that
have stood out for these industries [28-33]. They are labelled according to their cathode
or anode types; Nickel Manganese Cobalt (NMC) as the cathode, Lithium Iron Phosphate
(LFP) as cathode and Lithium Titanate (LTO) as the anode. Their performance attributes are
summarised in Figure 3.3. The key attributes required for the transportation industries are
the cost, safety, power or energy density. Over the decades, a number of maritime battery
manufacturers have released a number of Li-ion products specifically for the marine industries
and to name a few key players; they are Corvus, Akasol AG, EST-Floattech, Siemens, Rolls-

Royce, Saft, Samsung, Spear Power Systems and Forsee Power. Local technology player
Durapower has also begun its foray into the maritime sector. Li-ion marine batteries have
constantly been improving in both their mass and volumetric energy densities; a reflection of
their demand in a growing market.
Storage Capacity (kWh) of

Batteries in a Single System
100,000
1-150 MWh
10,000
(1MW) 1,000 100 kWh -

190-360 kWh 6 MWh
100
24-100 kWh
10 Maritime chargers are built up to 20x the
rated power of EVs chargers, in order to
1 achieve similar fast charging (<1 hour)
0.1 <100 Wh
Log Scale
Consumer Electric Battery Electric Plug-in Hybrid/ Stationary
Electronics Vehicles Trains and Buses Full-electric Ships Li-Ion ESS
Figure 3.2 A comparison of the energy storage capacities across different applications
Lithium Titanate (LTO) Lithium-iron Phosphate (LFP) Lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC)
Specific Energy Specific Energy Specific Energy
Cost Specific Cost Specific Cost Specific

Power Power Power
Life Safety Life Safety Life Safety

Span Span Span
Performance Performance Performance
Figure 3.3 Performance attributes of the key Li-ion chemistries used in the marine batteries
A number of technical and environmental considerations on the energy storage for

electrification are summarised here.
a. A higher charge or discharge current is often required for high-power requirements, but
the life cycle of the batteries is sacrificed. The manufacturers highly recommend that
the right type of battery is selected based on the energy and power requirements of the
vessel’s operation.
b. An optimisation of the configuration, power requirements and storage capacity is
recommended. As maritime batteries are more complex due to safety measures,
size of auxiliary systems and cost per energy storage ($/kWh), a well-designed and
optimised system is essential [28].
c. Recent measures for second-life use (i.e. in off-grid hybrid renewable systems) of
batteries and disposal management of batteries are important steps that should be
established as marine batteries are predicted to retain about 80% battery capacity
during their replacement.
d. Economical and energy-efficient Li-ion battery recycling methods and recycling
regulations will address the future management of increased e-waste.
In the short term, the maritime battery manufacturers are likely to continue to use mature
storage technologies, and the Li-ion cells will not be replaced by emerging storage
technologies of higher density. Instead, manufacturers will focus on reducing the size of
auxiliary systems (e.g. liquid cooling system) and improvements made in Li-ion batteries.
Significant improvements to energy density are only expected in the medium term (beyond
2030) when the industry is ready to adopt solid-state or hybrid battery technologies.
3.1.4 Safety Management with Electrical Systems
i. Ground switching when charging from shore

For a plug-in hybrid, a vessel may have multiple energy sources, i.e. it may receive
onshore power (electricity is supplied to run auxiliary loads while at berth), recharge its
batteries with grid electricity or using the onboard generator. Multiple energy sources
increase the complexity of the electrical wiring and safety risks. Thus, a vessel must
ensure a few key points:
a. Only one source is allowed to power loads at any one time (interlocking).
b. Energy sources must be completely isolated from one another.
Ground switching is required when the vessel is connected to onshore power supply. The
neutral-to-ground connection is provided through the cable connection to the charging
station, and the neutral-to-ground connection on board must be disconnected. However,
when the vessel uses its onboard generator or inverter power, the generator will “switch
on” its neutral-to-ground connection.
ii. Use of lithium batteries and battery management system

Due to the high energy density and technology maturity required for the marine vessels, a
Li-ion battery is currently the choice for most large ESS on ships. As a result, the safe use
and charging of lithium batteries are important and reflected in several recent guidelines
by classification societies. General requirements for using lithium batteries on board may
refer to DNV GL’s “Considerations for ESS fire safety” [34], DNV GL’s “Li-ion batteries”
[35] and ABS’s “Guide for the use of lithium battery in the marine and offshore industries”
(ABS, 2020) [36]. Inevitably, the vessel must have a battery management system (BMS)
to monitor the status and raise the alarm in the event of faults. Fixed fire extinguishing
system in the gas-tight battery compartment is recommended in addition to portable fire
extinguishers. Most vessels have at least two separate battery compartments that are
subjected to the structural fire protection requirements. The vessel’s power management
system (PMS) needs to be monitored at the navigation bridge for the batteries’ state-of-
charge, power and remaining range or time for a planned voyage.
iii. Emergency power supply

An emergency electrical power service is normally provided on board in the event of
a main power failure. Regulations require that the emergency power source can be a
generator, or batteries, or both. The emergency power source must be self-contained
and independent. For example, a fully-charged battery, or an internal combustion engine
with its fuel supply tank, starting equipment and switchboard. The emergency power
source will come into action automatically following a main supply power failure. The
type of emergency power supply varies depending on the size and main operations of
the vessel.

iv. Maintenance
Electric motors and ESS systems generally require less maintenance when compared to
diesel engine and fuel tanks. Li-ion batteries have class-approved guidelines and follow
test requirements listed by various classes [35, 36]. Batteries do degrade gradually, and
from pilot studies, it is reported that they are to be replaced after 5 to 10 years, where
a projection of degradation indicates that they have reached about 80% of the original
capacity. A new-built vessel is expected to have about 3 to 4 battery changes in its
lifetime. Thus, it is also recommended that the ESS components can be easily replaced
or upgraded, and the BMS should be updated as recommended.
3.2 Electrical Consumption of Harbour Craft in the Case Studies
MESD conducted interviews with harbour craft owners and a survey of four existing local
harbour craft to understand their current operation modes and energy demand. The harbour
craft are from the following categories, (i) a fast launch (SP ≤ 12 pax), (ii) a passenger ferry
(SP > 12 pax), (iii) a lighter (SC) and (iv) a tugboat (ST). The objective is to estimate the
electricity consumption of these types of harbour craft in a scenario where recharging from
an external source is applicable.
Table 3.1 summaries the general characteristics of the four harbour craft from the case
studies. In the absence of space optimisation and to retain net tonnage, the available battery
space on board a harbour craft is assumed to occupy part or all of the space taken by fuel
tanks. Based on the volumetric density of Li-ion marine battery of about 66 Wh/L (system
level) [28] and the fuel tanks’ volume, installed battery capacities for the fast launch and
lighter are around 75 kWh. 25% of the volume is reserved for fuel tanks required in hybrids.
In both hybrid and full-electric configurations, the available battery capacities are further
reduced by 20% and 55% of installed capacities, respectively, to mitigate ageing and meet
class regulations for power reserve. The power ratings of chargers are assumed to be 4000
kW for the tugboat and 350 kW for the other types of harbour craft. The efficiency, including
charging and discharging losses, of the electric drivetrain is taken as 86%.
Fast Launch Passenger Ferry Tugboat

Vessel Lighter
SP (≤12 pax) SP (>12pax) Bollard pull
57 tonnes
Type of Main Engine Four-stroke, high- Four-stroke, high- Four-stroke, high- Four-stroke, high-
speed diesel speed diesel speed diesel speed diesel
Main Engine (kW) x No 331 x 2 320 x 2 167 x 2 1,864 x 2
SFOC g/kWh 215 215 220 209
GT 30.5 59 30 473
Cruise Speed (knots) 20-23 10-11 11-14 9-10
Installed ESS (kWh) 75 270 75 5,000
Available ESS (kWh) 60 120 60 2,250
Charger Power (kW) 350 350 350 4,000
Recharging Time (min) 17 34 17 34
Table 3.1 Case studies on the electrification of four local harbour craft
Figure 3.4 shows the assumed profiles of the available battery capacities, grid electricity
consumption and the number of recharges per day of these harbour craft from the case
studies. The recharge frequency (No. of recharges per day) considers the number of round
trips and idle times (operation profiles) of the harbour craft. At this frequency, electricity will
meet about 18% to 22% of the daily energy demand for the fast launch and lighter, and 100%
of the daily energy demand for the full-electric passenger ferry and tugboat.
Some concerns have been observed during the survey, which could be addressed in future
studies and trials of harbour craft.
a. Space constraint on board smaller vessels require reconfiguration to optimise and

increase the battery capacity if energy storage is to meet a higher percentage of their
energy demand.
b. Design of electrified harbour craft, including its hull form, weight and energy management,
is not well-purposed for electrical power systems and may have to be re-designed.
c. The mass of the ESS has not been used to size the storage capacity in these case
studies. However, it is worth noting that the mass of the ESS may have an impact on
the designed maximum speed of the harbour craft.
b. Charging stations will have to be placed at strategic locations along the route of a
passenger ferry for a full-electric configuration.
c. A high-power charging station will be required for the tug boat, and this will incur high-
cost and additional safety requirement for a medium voltage charging station.
d. For all vessels, it is clear that the ship operations will have to manage the schedule
around frequent recharging (7 to 19 times daily). In comparison, small harbour craft
based on MGO refuels twice a day during the peak schedule. Frequent recharging
reduces the operational readiness of harbour craft. The costs incurred are not only the
higher CAPEX of electric propulsion and batteries but also opportunity costs.
e. Mitigating solutions will have to be considered; planning for more high-powered
charging stations near to operations for opportunistic recharging, or increase the
number of vessels (rotating shifts) during high seasonal demand.
100,000
Available Battery Capacity (kWh)
Daily Grid Electricity Consumption (kWh)
16,538
No. of Recharges Per Day (Average)
10,000
2,250
1,197
1,000 882
567
Log Scale
120
100 60 60
19
9
10 7 7
1
Fast Launch (Plug-in) Ferry (Full-electric) Lighter (Plug-in) Tugboat (Full-electric)
Figure 3.4 Available battery capacities, grid electricity consumption and number of recharging per
day applicable to the operation profiles of four harbour craft

3.3 Potential Emissions Savings from the Case Studies
The annual emissions savings with the use of grid electricity are obtained by determining the
differences in emissions from the use of electrified harbour craft (vessel profiles in Section 3.2)
and its diesel-mechanical equivalent, which uses MGO as a fuel. The results are illustrated
in Figure 3.5. The passenger ferry has the least emissions savings after a year of operation,
because of its fewer number of trips.
One of the concerns about electrification is that the production of batteries would have
incurred significant upstream emissions. Therefore, the upstream emissions have been
calculated based on the installed battery capacities in the harbour craft using an emission
factor of a system-level marine battery (around 370 kg/kWh) [18].
The plug-in hybrids (fast launch and lighter) could expect emission payback within months
because of their smaller batteries. The ferry has a longer payback period (about one year)
due to its low fuel consumption. Considering that batteries are designed to last for 5 to
10 years of operation, these results show that the emissions savings from the use of grid
electricity may be achieved within a year of operation.
Several ways may be encouraged to reduce emissions from battery production. For example:
a. The schedule of the harbour craft allows for frequent recharge.

b. Batteries are produced with low-emission energy source.
c. Second-life use of batteries is encouraged.
Emissions (tonne CO2-eq)
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
489 Emissions Saved Annually (tonne CO2-eq) Using Grid Electricity

Fast Launch (Plug-in) Emissions Incurred During Battery Production (tonne CO2-eq)
28
101
Ferry (Full-electric)
100
268
Lighter (Plug-in)
28
2,167
Tugboat (Full-electric)
1,850
Figure 3.5 Emissions savings from the case studies based on grid electricity and emissions
incurred from battery production in the first year
4 Total Cost of Ownership for Electric Harbour Craft
In general, the harbour craft owners are sensitive to the operating costs due to low-profit margins
in this industry. This section elaborates the concept of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) and lists the
cost parameters for a new-build or retrofit harbour craft. The cost model can be used to estimate
the total cost of owning and operating the electric harbour craft and charging infrastructure. TCO
consists of costs incurred throughout the life cycle of an asset, including acquisition deployment,
operation, support, and disposal. TCO broadens the baseline understanding of spending and
identifies sourcing opportunities beyond the purchase price. It can assist business owners in
looking beyond short-term savings and determining the long-term benefits that will reduce overall
costs for acquiring a product with a long lifetime. However, the complexity of the TCO model lies in
the estimation of unknown costs.
The payback period is another key indicator in the electrification of harbour craft. Cost savings from
fuel and maintenance help to offset the higher CAPEX costs, that are typically associated with the
electrical propulsion and energy storage systems. On a positive note, some electrification pilots
have reported a payback period within 4 to 10 years [37].
4.1 General Cost Model for the Total Cost of Ownership
TCO refers to all the costs incurred in owning and operating an asset11. A TCO cost model
can compute 1) the costs of purchasing or retrofitting an electric harbour craft and its lifetime
operation and maintenance costs; 2) the costs of investing in a charging infrastructure and its
lifetime operation and maintenance costs. This model has been adapted from the cost model
for electric vehicles [38].
Figure 4.1 illustrates the approach in finding the total cost of ownership, which comprises the
capital cost (buying/retrofitting an electric harbour craft; investing in charging infrastructure)
and ownership cost that includes operating cost and periodic maintenance cost. The total
cost of ownership is calculated by discounting all future costs to present value, following
the equation:
where CC represents Capital Cost (CC0 represents the costs incurred at year 0, CCn
represents the costs incurred at the end of lifetime), OC represents Operating Cost (assumed
to occur at year-end for calculation purpose), PMC represents Periodic Maintenance Cost
(assumed to occur at year-end and k-year intervals), and r represents the rate of return for
discounting purpose.
11
In this report, the costs of assets are assumed borne by a single entity, comprised of all the stakeholders. In the
case where the assets are owned by multiple entities or provided by the government, the cost parameters may be
separately analysed for individual entity.

Total Cost of Ownership
(TCO)
Capital Ownership
Cost Cost
Operating Periodic
Cost Maintenance Cost
Figure 4.1 The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) approach
The cost model could estimate the total cost of owning and operating the electric harbour
craft and charging infrastructure, taking into account possible future costs and the time
value of money. In addition, the Payback Period (in years) can be estimated by dividing
the incremental investments and costs over the annual cost savings. The fuel and periodic
maintenance costs are the two key cost parameters that determine the annual cost savings,
as a result of a switch from the conventional diesel harbour craft to an electric harbour craft.
4.2 Cost Parameters for Electric Harbour Craft
Following the TCO approach, as illustrated in Figure 4.1, Capital Cost, Operating Cost and
Periodic Maintenance Cost are summarised in Table 4.1. The list of costs was modified
for the case of an electric harbour craft [39]. It is worthy to note that other costs may differ
from a conventional harbour craft. For instance, residual/disposal value may be substantially
different as proper disposal would be required if there are battery systems on the vessels.
Routine and periodic maintenance requirements may also be different for electric harbour
craft as compared to conventional ones.
Category No. Cost Parameters Details Frequency
1 Pre-acquisition Costs incurred in the search and sourcing of One-time

cost suitable ships.
2 Initial price of the It depends on whether the vessel is a new-built One-time
ship or retrofitted one. The cost of a new-built electric
vessel has included the cost of battery packs and
related equipment. It also includes the purchase
tax imposed.
3 Battery E.g. Procure or lease battery packs. One-time
management
Capital Cost system and
battery packs
(during retrofit)
4 Charging E.g. Cables required to connect to the local One-time
equipment cost electricity grid, data gateway, transformer unit,
and installation onboard charger.
cost (if retrofit)
5 Residual value Resale value or scrap value of the ship. One-time
6 Disposal cost Costs incurred to dispose of the ship/battery. One-time
Table 4.1 Cost parameters for electric harbour craft
7 Financing cost Interest on the loan to purchase the ship Monthly

8 Harbour Craft E.g. HC licence fee, port dues, miscellaneous Annually
licence and dues fees, etc.
9 Manpower cost E.g. Wages for captain, crew, engineers, travel Monthly
fee, insurance, manning licence, etc.
10 Consumables 1) Deck consumables: e.g. charts, mooring rope, Monthly
navigation lights, wires, etc.
2) Engine consumables: e.g. grease and
lubricants, tools, electrical spares, instrument
spares, etc.
3) Stores and provisions: e.g. cleaning products,
personal protection devices, fire extinguishers,
Operating etc.
Cost
11 Repairs and E.g. Routine maintenance, breakdowns. Yearly
maintenance
12 Downtime costs Missed revenue due to ship breakdown time. Yearly
13 Insurance E.g. Hull and machinery insurance, P&I, etc. Yearly
14 Handling cost E.g. Cargo handling (loading, discharging, Monthly
allowance of claims), berthing fee, mooring fee,
etc.
15 Fuel/electricity It depends on the operation profile, energy Daily use
cost consumption and the price of electricity.
16 Other general To include all additional miscellaneous items. Monthly
costs
17 Battery E.g. Battery replacement and installation, battery Every five
replacement cost disposal, etc. years
Periodic
Maintenance 18 Other periodic E.g. Dry docking, special surveys for certification, Depends
Cost maintenance compulsory annual inspection, etc.
costs (Dry docking requirements differ for Class-
approved vs. non Class-approved)
Table 4.1 Cost parameters for electric harbour craft (Cont’d)

4.3 Cost Parameters for Charging Infrastructure
The costs of charging infrastructure are grouped into the categories of Capital Cost,
Operating Cost and Periodic Maintenance Cost, as presented in Table 4.2. Capital Cost
consists of three major cost components, for power supply infrastructure, communication
and metering, and charging station. Operating cost mainly refers to the regular safety
checks for integrity assurance. There is also periodic maintenance cost for regular system
maintenance and components replacement.
1 Pre-acquisition Costs incurred in the search and sourcing One-time

cost
2 Power supply E.g. Direct utility, land and building, substations, One-time
infrastructure laying of power transmission cables, etc.
3 Communication E.g. Information and Communication Technology One-time
Capital Cost
and metering (ICT) in Smart Grid Environment
4 Charging station E.g. Terminal battery or floating platform, solar One-time
panels, etc.
5 Disposal cost Costs incurred to dispose of the charging One-time
infrastructure
6 Checks for safety E.g. Manpower, Repairs, Insurance, Other general Weekly
Operating integrity costs, etc.
Cost
7 Downtime costs Missed revenue due to breakdown Yearly
8 Replacement of E.g. System maintenance, etc. Monthly
Periodic worn or damaged
Maintenance components such
Cost as plug, socket,
cables
Table 4.2 Cost parameters for charging infrastructure
5 Conclusions
In this study, a review of the charging infrastructure for electric harbour craft reveals that pilot trials
on charging an electric harbour craft with the main grid are promising as there is increasing global
adoption of electrification for marine vessels. Technology enablers of electrification are constantly
being adapted from other industries or being developed explicitly for marine vessels. The higher
investment cost of an electric vessel has been reported to be justified with significant fuel savings, in
a reasonable payback period of four to ten years for ferries. The payback period is highly dependent
on the design and power requirements of the harbour craft and the grid’s electricity price.
Despite the positive signs, this study has observed challenges in the electrification of Singapore
harbour craft. Firstly, the electrification of harbour craft is a significant step because the bulk of the
fleet relies on high energy density MGO and low-cost diesel engines. Most commercial activities
revolve around fast turn-around times, and a high ratio of harbour craft to berths means short
durations are spent at the berth. These are not favourable economic and operating profiles for
wide-scale acceptance of electrification for harbour craft owners. Thus, economic policies and
measures are also needed to encourage and incentivise a sustainable adoption of electrification.
Secondly, Singapore has a reliable power generation, transmission and distribution network on the
main island and has seen encouraging trends to further reduce the carbon emissions of the power
plants. However, most off-grid areas do not have excess power generation and high electricity
demand. Thus, electricity generation infrastructure in off-grid areas needs to be developed.
Thirdly, there are existing technology gaps and a lack of standardisation in electric ships and
charging infrastructure. In one example, the low energy density of batteries results in the need
to recharge frequently. The maritime industry tends to favour mature and reliable energy storage
technologies. Therefore, it is unlikely to consider newer battery technologies in the short term—
instead, technology development favour towards more compact cooling technologies and reduction
of system-level size and weight.
A holistic approach may include forming a framework to rope in relevant stakeholders to discuss
the challenges and gaps in electrification. It is important to encourage green technology innovation
and adoption and promote standardisation of electric vessels and charging infrastructure. Pilot
trials will assist harbour craft owners to better understand electric propulsion and advanced power
management systems.
If installation space is not limited at the shoreside, a DC charging station can be considered.
Otherwise, an AC charger will be required on board. The power rating of the charging station is
selected based on the required turn-around time and battery capacity. A shoreside battery can be
considered to manage peak loads or integration of renewables.
Innovative charging infrastructures developed specifically for charging harbour craft in sheltered
port waters or near harbour craft’s anchorage areas are worth exploring to improve the scalability
and flexibility of charging a vessel.

Appendices
Appendix I Summary of existing charging infrastructure developed recently for the maritime industry
Description and Example Company, Country Power Rating Features
Contactless inductive power Wartsila Norway Up to 2.5 MW for single system • No mechanical wear and reduce exposure to environmental factors (snow, fouling, corrosion);
transfer High frequency 2-8 kHz • Easily disconnect when ships need to leave the dock urgently;
Pilot demo in 2017-2018 on 690VAC/1,000VDC • High-cost as components are rated 3x the nominal current at the rated voltage to compensate
MS Folgefonn for changing airgap distances.
Electrification of Singapore Harbour Craft – Shore and Vessel Power System Considerations
Automatic cable connection Stemmann-Technik Low voltage (AC/DC) up to 690 • A tower is built to manage differences in tidal difference up to 8m tested;
plug-in system under Wabtec, VAC, 200 kW – 4MW, Medium • Automated connection of charger to ferry in less than a minute.
“pantograph” FerryCHARGER Germany voltage (AC) up to 8 MW
On Fjord1
Floating platform houses a Not reported No information • Piloted at a place that lacks good access to electricity the platform houses a battery to allows
battery and cable charging slow recharging;
station • The platform is able to house other services required by the ferry.
Future of the Fjords project
Automatic Plug-in System Cavotec [22] Up to 1,000VAC, 3,000A • A gravity-based plug and self-retracting cable hangs vertically down towards the receiver side
Trondelag 2019 Up to 1,000VDC, 4,400A on the ship;
About 4 to 5 MW • Has limited compensation for the movements of the ship;
• Offers both manual and automatic mooring systems;
• Cost is estimated at $50 million on the land side when combined with automated mooring.
Semi-automatic charging Cavotec, Up to 1,000 VAC • Lower cost than fully automated systems;
station Switzerland [22] Offers up to 3 cables at 1,050A • Cable management system helps handles heavy cables;
AMPDispenser About 1 MW • Plug-in is manual and one crew on board to manage.
Robotic charging arm ABB Marine 7.2 MW • Greater flexibility as avoid the use of heavy, inflexible cables;
Helsingborg-Helsingor Up to 10kV AC, 400A • Able to handle high voltage with automation;
route between Sweden and Also offer 120 kWh • Connection time 10 minutes.
Denmark, 2017
Replaceable batteries Consortium led by No information • Batteries can be recharged on land slowly, better lifespan;
Idea by a consortium in Transportutvikling, • No charging time required at berth so vessels can move off quickly;
a feasibility study for Norway • Automatic cranes and charging systems yet to be developed;
Trondheim high-speed • Development idea proposed in 2017.
catamaran [40]
29
30
Appendix II Examples of electric ships

Maritime Energy and Sustainable Development (MESD) Centre of Excellence
Charging Method Battery

Vessel Name and Launch Year Vessel Type Country Operations and Speed
and Power Capacity
MF Ampere Car Ferry, new built Norway Cavotec plug + 1,040 kWh • 5.7 km, 20 min crossing at 10 kn
2015 ST.Pantograf 1.2 MW • Charges at each port from high-capacity batteries
MS Folgefonn [7] Plug-in hybrid Ro-Ro, retrofitted Norway Inductive (1 MW) + 1,000 kWh • Stord, Tysnes and Huglo
2015 NG3 plug • Autonomous docking, wireless charging
MF Future of the Fjords [25] Passenger ferry Norway Cavotec plug (2.1 1,800 kWh • Flam and Gudvangen, 16 kn
2018 MW) • Charges from the grid on one port, and from a floating battery
platform at the other end
• Charges in 20 min with 800 kWh
Color Hybrid Plug-in hybrid, Cruiseferry Norway NG3 (7 MW) 5,000 kWh • Sandefjord to Strömstad , 17 kn
2019 • Less than an hour to charge fully
Yara Birkeland 120 TEU Open hatch, Norway Not determined yet 7 MWh • Eco-speed 6-7 kn with max speed 13 kn
(Skredderberget, 2018; autonomous container feeder as of 2 May 2019. • Herøya – Brevik (approx. 7 nm)
Riviera, 2019) • Herøya – Larvik (approx. 30 nm)
Elektra Full-electric car ferry with diesel Finland Cavotec’s APS 1 MWh • Crossings between Nauvo and Paraienen, 1.6 km in 15 minutes, up
2017 as backup 900 V, 68 A to 11 kn, charges for 5.5 minutes at both ports (top-up charge)
Eidsfjord and Gloppefjord Full-electric Ro-Ro ferries Norway NA 1.04 MWh • Nordfjord’s Anda-Lote crossing, 9 minutes recharging in ports with
2019 vacuum docking
Ellen Full-electric ferry Denmark Mobimar’s charging 4.3 MWh • Travels 38 km for 13-15 kn
2019 arm and onshore • Charges only at the home harbour, partially charges after every
station at 4 MW round trip, no emergency generator
Astrid Helene Full-electric fish farming boat Grovfjord, Plug to grid overnight 440 kWh • Able to last for a workday with 45% reserve left, slow speed at 6-7
2018 [41] Norway knots. Houses 32t crane and electric winch hauling nets
MF Tycho Brahe Car and passenger ferry Denmark/ 11 MW, the robotic 4.16 MWh • HH ferry route, 4-5km between Helsingor and Helsingborg. Crossing
2017 retrofitted full-electric propulsion Sweden arm (IRB 600) takes 20 min and departs every 15 min, up to 14 kn
installed by ABB
Happiness Retrofitted Passenger eferry Kaoshiung, Dockside 380V 100 kWh, • Uses DC hybrid-electric microgrid
2017 Taiwan Li-Ion • Travel 650m at 5 kn between Gushan Ferry Pier and Cijin Island
Hetunhao 2019 Cargo Ship China NA NA • 2.5 h to charge fully and 80km distance
Junlvhao 2019 Passenger Ferry China NA 4.16 MWh • 10 kn (max), 7 kn and endurance is 8 hours
References
1. E. Skjong, T. A. Johansen, M. Molinas, and A. J. Sørensen, “Approaches to economic energy management in diesel-
electric marine vessels”, IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 22-35, 2017.
2. B. Jeong, H. Wang, E. Oguz, and P. Zhou, “An effective framework for life cycle and cost assessment for marine
vessels aiming to select optimal propulsion systems”, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 187, pp. 111-130, 2018.
3. J. Ling-Chin and A. P. Roskilly, “Investigating the implications of a new-build hybrid power system for Roll-on/Roll-off
cargo ships from a sustainability perspective - A life cycle assessment case study”, Applied Energy, vol. 181, pp. 416-
434, 2016.
4. A. Tunnicliffe, “Ellen E-ferry: the world’s glimpse of the future of ferries”, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.ship-
technology.com/features/ellen-e-ferry/. [Accessed: 14-Aug-2020].
5. J. Babicz, “Encyclopedia of Ship Technology 2nd Edition”, Wartsila, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.wartsila.com/
docs/default-source/marine-documents/encyclopedia/wartsila-o-marine-encyclopedia.pdf. [Accessed: 14-Aug-2020].
6. R. D. Geertsma, R. R. Negenborn, K. Visser, and J. J. Hopman, “Design and control of hybrid power and propulsion
systems for smart ships: A review of developments”, Applied Energy, vol. 194, no. C, pp. 30-54, 2017.
7. G. Guidi, J. A. Suul, F. Jenset, and I. Sorfonn, “Wireless Charging for Ships: High-Power Inductive Charging for
Battery Electric and Plug-In Hybrid Vessels”, IEEE Electrification Magazine, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 22-32, 2017.
8. G. Lipsith, “Breathing life into Yara Birkeland”, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.rivieramm.com/opinion/breathing-
life-into-iyara-birkelandi-54833. [Accessed: 20-Aug-2020].
9. Radio New Zealand (RNZ), “World first: Ports of Auckland to add electric tugboat to its fleet”, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/395942/world-first-ports-of-auckland-to-add-electric-tugboat-to-its-fleet.
[Accessed: 21-Aug-2020].
10. Marine Insight, “World’s First Fully Electric, Zero-Emission Bunker Tanker”, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.
marineinsight.com/videos/watch-worlds-first-fully-electric-zero-emission-bunker-tanker/. [Accessed: 10-Sep-2020].
11. Seatrade Maritime News, “Shenzhen Maritime Bureau inks order for electric vessel at Huangpu Wenchong Shipyard”,
2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/asia/shenzhen-maritime-bureau-inks-order-electric-
vessel-huangpu-wenchong-shipyard. [Accessed: 15-Sep-2020].
12. DNV GL, “Alternative Fuels Insight Platform”, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.dnvgl.com/services/alternative-
fuels-insight-128171. [Accessed: 10-Jun-2020].
13. Energy Market Authority, “Singapore Energy Statistics”, 2019. Available: https://www.ema.gov.sg/Singapore_Energy_
Statistics.aspx. [Accessed: 10-Jun-2020].
14. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “Climate change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working
Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”, 2015. Available:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf. [Accessed: 10-Jun-2020].
15. E. Lindstad, “Increased use of LNG might not reduce maritime GHG emissions at all”, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2019_06_Dr_Elizabeth_Lindstad_commentary_
LNG_maritime_GHG_emissions.pdf. [Accessed: 27-Jul-2020].
16. H. O. Kristenen, “Energy demand and exhaust gas emissions of marine engines”, Project no. 2010-56, Work Package
2, Report no. 05, December 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.mek.dtu.dk/english/-/media/Institutter/Mekanik/
Sektioner/FVM/english/software/ship_emissions/wp-2-report-5-energy-demand-and-emissions-of-marine-engines.
ashx. [Accessed: 27-Jun-2020].
17. Gas Union International, “Life Cycle Assessment of LNG”, 2015. Available: http://members.igu.org/old/IGU%20
Events/wgc/wgc-2015/committee-reports-with-tnematic-sessions/pgcd-4-paper.pdf. [Accessed: 10-Jun-2020].
18. R. Kannan, K. C. Leong, R. Osman, H. K. Ho, and C. P. Tso, “Gas fired combined cycle plant in Singapore: energy use,
GWP and cost - a life cycle approach”, Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 46, no. 13, pp. 2145-2157, 2005.
19. Maritime Battery Forum, “Life cycle analysis of batteries in maritime sector”, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.
nho.no/siteassets/nox-fondet/rapporter/2018/life-cycle-analysis-for-batteries-in-maritime-sector_final_v_0.1.pdf.
[Accessed: 27-Aug-2020].
20. T. Takamasa, T. Oode, H Kifune, E. Shimizu, and T. Hazuku, “Quick charging plug-in electric boat “RAICHO-I””, in
2011 IEEE Electric Ship Technologies Symposium, pp. 9-11, 2011.
21. Danfoss, “North of NOx”, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://danfoss.pageflow.io/danfoss-drives-gmv-zero#155318.

[Accessed: 15-Jul-2020].
22. Cavotec. “E-Charging”, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://www.cavotec.com/en/your-applications/ports-maritime/e-

charging. [Accessed: 17-Aug-2020].
23. EST-Floattech, “EST-Floattech to offer Inductive Charging System for the maritime sector”, 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://www.est-floattech.com/. [Accessed: 30-Apr-2020].
24. Stemmann-Technik, “FerryCHARGER”, 2020. [Online]. Available: http://www.stemmann.com/documents/catalogues/

FerryCHARGER_ENG.pdf. [Accessed: 30-Sep-2020].
25. Ship-Technology, “Future of the Fjords Sightseeing Vessel”, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.ship-technology.
com/projects/future-of-the-fjords-sightseeing-vessel/. [Accessed: 23-Sep-2020].
26. D. T. Hall, “Practical marine electrical knowledge”, London: Witherby & Co. Ltd., 1999.
27. E. Skjong, E. Rødskar, M. Molinas, T. A. Johansen, and J. Cunningham, “The Marine Vessel’s Electrical Power
System: From its Birth to Present Day”, Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 103, no. 12, pp. 2410-2424, 2015.
28. MAN Energy Solutions, “Batteries on board ocean-going vessels”, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://marine.man-es.
com/docs/librariesprovider6/test/batteries-on-board-ocean-going-vessels.pdf. [Accessed: 23-Jul-2020].
29. Spear Power Systems. [Online]. Available: https://www.spearpowersystems.com/. [Accessed: 23-Jul-2020].
30. TOSHIBA, “Toshiba’s SCiBTM Rechargeable Battery”. [Online]. Available: https://www.scib.jp/en/. [Accessed: 21-Jul-2020].
31. A. Dinger, R. Martin, X. Mosquet, D. Rizoulis, M. Russo, and G. Sticher, “Batteries for Electric Cars: Challenges,
Opportunities and the Outlook to 2020”, The Boston Consulting Group, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://mkt-bcg-com-
public-images.s3.amazonaws.com/public-pdfs/legacy-documents/file36615.pdf. [Accessed: 21-Apr-2020].
32. M. Rinaldo, “Improved battery storage technologies”, DNV GL. [Online]. Available: https://www.dnvgl.com/to2030/
technology/improved-battery-storage-technologies.html. [Accessed: 21-Sep-2020].
33. IPI Singapore, “The Lithium-ion Battery Recycling Revolution”, 2019 [Online]. Available: https://www.ipi-singapore.
org/. [Accessed: 22-Mar-2020].
34. DNV GL, “Considerations for ESS fire safety”, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://nysolarmap.com/media/1718/dg-
hubbess-con-edison-nyserda-final-report-11817.pdf. [Accessed: 22-Jul-2020].
35. DNV GL, “Lithium-ion batteries”, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://rules.dnvgl.com/docs/pdf/DNVGL/CP/2018-09/

DNVGL-CP-0418.pdf. [Accessed: 16-Jul-2020].
36. ABS, “Guide for use of lithium battery in the marine and offshore industries”, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ww2.
eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and-guides/current/other/275_lithiumbatteries_marineoffshore_2017/lithium-
batteries-guide-feb20.pdf. [Accessed: 18-Aug-2020].
37. Riviera, “All-electric propulsion payback time shorter than expected”, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.
rivieramm.com/news-content-hub/news-content-hub/all-electric-propulsion-maritimes-evolutionary-revolution-59702.
[Accessed: 14-Sep-2020].
38. K. Palmer, J. E. Tate, Z. Wadud, and J. Nellthorp, “Total cost of ownership and market share for hybrid and electric
vehicles in the UK, US and Japan”, Applied Energy, vol. 209, pp. 108-119, 2018.
39. A. Branch and M. Stopford, “Maritime economics”, Routledge, 2013.
40. Transportutvikling, “Presentation Fast boat with battery change”, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://transportutvikling.
no/News/?Article=183. [Accessed: 22-Jul-2020].
41. J. Frith, “Fully electric workboat shows fish farming future”, Maritime Journal, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.
maritimejournal.com/news101/power-and-propulsion/fully-electric-workboat-shows-fish-farming-future. [Accessed:
02-Jan-2020].

Maritime Energy & Sustainable Development (MESD)
Centre of Excellence
[email protected]
coe.ntu.edu.sg/MESD_CoE
50 Nanyang Avenue, Block N1-B1a-03, Singapore 639798

T 6904 7389

MESD Report-Electrification of Singapore Harbour Craft-Shore and Vessel Power System Considerations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MESD Report-Electrification of Singapore Harbour Craft-Shore and Vessel Power System Considerations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MESD Report-Electrification of Singapore Harbour Craft-Shore and Vessel Power System Considerations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the different power configurations considered for electrified marine vessels?

What are the different power configurations considered for electrified marine vessels?

What is the emissions baseline established in the study?

What is the emissions baseline established in the study?

Supported by

Maritime Energy and Sustainable Development (MESD) Centre of Excellence

Published in November 2020

Main Author: Contributor: External Advisor:

With inputs from Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore

You may also refer to these reports published by MESD:

Alternative Fuels A Study on the

© Nanyang Technological University, 2020

2 Maritime Energy and Sustainable Development (MESD) Centre of Excellence

Figure 4.1 The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) approach 25

Table 2.1 Description of different types of charging infrastructure 12

Table 4.1 Cost parameters for electric harbour craft 25

Table 4.2 Cost parameters for charging infrastructure 27

ABS American Bureau of Shipping

4 Maritime Energy and Sustainable Development (MESD) Centre of Excellence

Harbour • Higher capital investment of electrified power systems in comparison to internal

1.1 Different Power Configurations of Harbour Craft

In diesel-electric propulsion, several diesel generators are connected to a common main

Hybrid propulsion has two types of propulsion, where a diesel-mechanical configuration

6 Maritime Energy and Sustainable Development (MESD) Centre of Excellence

Mechanical Diesel-electric Hybrid Battery Hybrid Battery Plug-in Full-electric

(1) Combustion Engine (4) Electric Motor (7) Battery

8 Maritime Energy and Sustainable Development (MESD) Centre of Excellence

Transmission (loss in the grid 2%)8

Emission NCV CO2 EF CH4 EF N2O EF

High-speed Diesel-mechanical 149 983 Baseline

Diesel-electric 130 788 -13% to -25%

Parallel Hybrid 124 717 -20% to -31%

Plug-in Hybrid (25% Grid) 237 548 -25% to -36%

Plug-in Hybrid (50% Grid) 350 380 -31% to -40%

Plug-in Hybrid (75% Grid) 463 212 -36% to -44%

Full-electric 576 43 -41% to -48%

*Excluding emissions from production of battery

Medium-speed Diesel-mechanical 133 877 Baseline

Diesel-electric 116 704 -13% to -25%

Parallel Hybrid 111 640 -20% to -31%

Plug-in Hybrid (25% Grid) 227 491 -24% to -34%

Plug-in Hybrid (50% Grid) 350 341 -27% to -37%

Plug-in Hybrid (75% Grid) 460 192 -31% to -39%

Full-electric 576 43 -35% to -42%

*Excluding emissions from production of battery

10 Maritime Energy and Sustainable Development (MESD) Centre of Excellence

2.1 Types of Existing Charging Infrastructure

The charging infrastructure can be differentiated by the source of electrons, location

I. Berth • Often designed with medium or high-power rating to reduce recharging

Table 2.1 Description of different types of charging infrastructure

2.2 Electricity Generation in Singapore and Southern Islands

Singapore’s registered electricity generation capacity is 13,667 MW (last updated in 2019),

12 Maritime Energy and Sustainable Development (MESD) Centre of Excellence

2.3 Key Functions of a Maritime Charging Station

a. Coordinated charging (encourage charging when demand is low).

2.4 Criteria for Charging Infrastructure

i. Meeting the charging schedule of harbour craft

ii. Conveniently located charging stations

14 Maritime Energy and Sustainable Development (MESD) Centre of Excellence

iv. Safety and operations