green technologies and eco-efficient alternatives for cranes and operations … · ·...

GREEN TECHNOLOGIES AND ECO-EFFICIENT

ALTERNATIVES FOR CRANES AND OPERATIONS AT

PORT CONTAINER TERMINALS

Project Code: 2011-EU-92151-S

ACTIVITY 1: Mapping of Port Container Terminals Energy

Profile

Milestone 2

Report on Port Container Terminals Energy Profile

February 2013

Port Container Terminals Energy Profile

Activity 1: Mapping of Port Container Terminals Energy Profile 2

DOCUMENT SUMMARY TABLE

Document Number: 2

Activity: Mapping of Port Container Terminals Energy Profile

Milestone Number: 2

Dissemination Level: GREENCRANES Consortium and TEN-T EA

Delivery Deadline:

Version: Version 14, 14/02/2013

Document Title: Report on Port Container Terminals Energy Profile

Number of pages including front cover:

142



DOCUMENT AUTHORS

VALENCIAPORT FOUNDATION

Rafael Sapiña

José Andrés Giménez

Eva Pérez

Rocío García

David Calduch

Gabriel Ferrús

NOATUM

Francisco Blanquer

Ignacio Cambrón

Gabriel Fernández

PORT AUTHORITY OF VALENCIA

Federico Torres

Rafael Company

PORT OF KOPER

Boštjan Pavlič

Franka Cepak

Goran Matešič

Edvin Boškin

PORT AUTHORITY OF LIVORNO

Francesco Papucci

Paolo Scarpellini

PERCRO LABORATORY – SCUOLA

SANT’ANNA PISA

Marco Fontana

Andrea Papini

GLOBAL SERVICE srl LIVORNO

Raffaele Brasile

Mario Lupi

Giuseppe Chionetti

TERMINAL DARSENA TOSCANA LIVORNO

Michele Cattani

DOCUMENT REVIEWS

Reviewer Date Comments

Michele Cattani 24/01/2013 Improvements in Livorno Sections; Carbon Footprint Review

Francisco Blanquer 29/01/2013 Improvements in Noatum Sections; General Review

Ignacio Cambrón 30/01/2013 Improvements in Noatum Sections

Boštjan Pavlič 31/01/2013 Improvements on Koper Sections and Conclusions Section

David Calduch 12/02/2013 General review

Arturo Monfort 14/02/2013 General review

DISCLAIMER

"The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not

responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein."



INDEX OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 11

2 PORT MANAGEMENT MODELS ......................................................................... 13

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PORT CONTAINER TERMINALS OPERATIVE MODEL ........................ 21

2.2 TYPES OF OPERATIVES INVOLVED IN THE EXPORT TRAFFIC ....................................... 26

2.3 TYPES OF OPERATIVES INVOLVED IN THE IMPORT TRAFFICS ..................................... 29

2.4 TYPES OF OPERATIVES INVOLVED IN TRANSHIPMENT TRAFFICS ............................... 32

2.5 SPECIAL OPERATIVES ................................................................................................... 33

2.5.1 Shuttle between PCTs ......................................................................................... 33

2.5.2 Land Transhipment.............................................................................................. 34

2.5.3 Housekeeping Operative ..................................................................................... 35

2.6 THE TERMINAL OPERATING SYSTEM (TOS) ................................................................. 36

2.6.1 Noatum Container Terminal Valencia TOS .......................................................... 38

2.6.2 Livorno Darsena Toscana Container Terminal TOS ............................................. 41

2.6.3 Koper Container Terminal TOS ............................................................................ 43

3 DEFINITION OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION MAPS AT PCTS ................................... 47

3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 47

3.2 NOATUM CONTAINER TERMINAL VALENCIA .............................................................. 48

3.2.1 Description of the Installation ............................................................................. 48

3.2.2 Equipment Inventory........................................................................................... 49

3.2.3 Energy Consumption Distribution ....................................................................... 53

3.3 LIVORNO DARSENA TOSCANA ..................................................................................... 65




3.4 PORT OF KOPER ........................................................................................................... 82




4 CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION ............................................................... 111

4.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 111

4.1.1 Noatum Container Terminal Valencia ............................................................... 113

4.1.2 Livorno Darsena Toscana Container Terminal .................................................. 115



4.1.3 Koper Container Terminal ................................................................................. 117

5 THE ROLE OF PORT AUTHORITIES AS ENERGY MANAGERS .............................. 119

5.1 PORT AUTHORITY OF VALENCIA ................................................................................ 120

5.2 PORT AUTHORITY OF LIVORNO ................................................................................. 122

5.3 PORT OF KOPER ......................................................................................................... 123

6 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 126

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................. 128

8 ANNEX I: REAL ENERGY METERS ON A RTG AT NOATUM CONTAINER TERMINAL

VALENCIA ............................................................................................................. 129

8.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 129

8.2 RESULTS OBTAINED ................................................................................................... 129

8.3 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 132

9 ANNEX II: REAL ENERGY METERS ON A REACH STACKER AT LIVORNO DARSENA

TOSCANA ............................................................................................................. 133

9.1 REACH STACKERS FLEET DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 133

9.2 REACH STACKERS FLEET CONSUMPTION DATA ANALYSIS ........................................ 135



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Port of Valencia (Spain) ................................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 2. Port of Livorno (Italy) .................................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 3. Port of Koper (Slovenia) ................................................................................................................................ 20

Figure 4. General Operative Model of Port Container Terminals ................................................................................ 21

Figure 5. Ship-to-Shore Cranes at the Loading/Unloading Sub-System ....................................................................... 22

Figure 6. Yard Tractor at the Horizontal Transport Sub-System................................................................................... 23

Figure 7. Rubber Tyred Gantry Crane at the Yard Sub-System .................................................................................... 24

Figure 8. Reach Stacker at the Delivery/Reception Sub-System .................................................................................. 25

Figure 9. PCT Operative Associated to the Export Flow. Road Alternative .................................................................. 26

Figure 10. PCT Operative Associated to the Export Flow. Railway Alternative (I) ........................................................ 27

Figure 11. PCT Operative Associated to the Export Flow. Railway Alternative (II) ....................................................... 28

Figure 12. PCT Operative Associated to the Import Flow. Road Alternative ................................................................ 29

Figure 13. PCT Operative Associated to the Import Flow. Railway Alternative (I) ....................................................... 30

Figure 14. PCT Operative Associated to the Import Flow. Railway Alternative (II) ...................................................... 31

Figure 15. PCT Operative Associated to Transhipment ................................................................................................ 32

Figure 16. PCT Operative Associated to Shuttle between Port Container Terminals ................................................... 33

Figure 17. PCT Operative Associated to Land Transhipment ....................................................................................... 34

Figure 18. Example of Housekeeping Operations ........................................................................................................ 35

Figure 19. General Structure of the Terminal Operation System (TOS) ....................................................................... 36

Figure 20. Example of TOS Screenshot Bay Planning ................................................................................................... 37

Figure 21. General Structure of CATOS TOS ................................................................................................................. 38

Figure 22. Example of CATOS Screen-Shot Ship Planning ............................................................................................ 39

Figure 23. General Structure of CATOS Operation System .......................................................................................... 40

Figure 24. General Structure of Livorno Darsena Toscana TOS .................................................................................... 41

Figure 25. Example of TDT TOS Screen-Shot (I) ............................................................................................................ 42

Figure 26. Example of TDT TOS Screen-Shot (II) ........................................................................................................... 42

Figure 27. Example of Port of Koper TOS Screen-Shot. Yard Management Screen ..................................................... 44

Figure 28. Example of Port of Koper TOS. Instructions to Crane Operators Working on Railway Loading .................. 45

Figure 29. Example of Port of Koper TOS. Instructions to Crane Operators Working on the Yard............................... 45

Figure 30. Example of Port of Koper TOS. Berthing Window Table ............................................................................. 46

Figure 31. Noatum Container Terminal Valencia ......................................................................................................... 48

Figure 32. NCTV Electrical Consumption Distribution Year 2011 ................................................................................. 53

Figure 33. NCTV Electrical Distribution Year 2012 ....................................................................................................... 54

Figure 34. NCTV Monthly Electrical Consumption Evolution. Years 2011 and 20124 ................................................... 54

Figure 35. NCTV Fuel Consumption Distribution Year 2011 ......................................................................................... 55

Figure 36. NCTV Fuel Consumption Distribution Year 20124 ....................................................................................... 56

Figure 37. NCTV Yard Machinery Fuel Consumption Years 2011 and 20124 ................................................................ 56

Figure 38. NCTV RTG Movements and Fuel Consumption Year 2011 .......................................................................... 58

Figure 39. NCTV Yard Tractors Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine Years 2011 and 20124 ................................... 59

Figure 40. NCTV Reach Stackers Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine Years 2011 and 20124 ................................. 60

Figure 41. NCTV Empty Container Forklifts Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine Years 2011 and 20124 ................ 61

Figure 42. NCTV Movement Distribution by Container Block ...................................................................................... 62

Figure 43. NCTV kWh Distribution by Container Block ................................................................................................ 63

Figure 44. Livorno Darsena Toscana (I) ........................................................................................................................ 65

Figure 45. Livorno Darsena Toscana (II) ....................................................................................................................... 66

Figure 46. Livorno Darsena Toscana (III) ...................................................................................................................... 67

Figure 47. Darsena Toscana Loading / Unloading Sub-System (I) ................................................................................ 67

Figure 48. Darsena Toscana Loading / Unloading Sub-System..................................................................................... 68

Figure 49. Darsena Toscana Yard / Storage Sub-System .............................................................................................. 69

Figure 50. Darsena Toscana Horizontal Transport Sub-System.................................................................................... 69

Figure 51. Relationship among PCT Sub-Systems. Livorno Darsena Toscana ............................................................... 70

Figure 52. Example of Relationships among different PCT Sub-Systems ..................................................................... 71



Figure 53. Example of Port Container Terminal Operations at Livorno Darsena Toscana ........................................... 71

Figure 54. TDT STS Cranes General Scheme ................................................................................................................. 72

Figure 55. TDT Electrical Supply Network .................................................................................................................... 75

Figure 56. TDT Electrical System Diagram .................................................................................................................... 76

Figure 57. TDT Electrical Consumption Distribution Years 2011 .................................................................................. 77

Figure 58. TDT Electrical Consumption Distribution Year 20125 .................................................................................. 78

Figure 59. TDT Monthly Electrical Consumption Evolution Years 2011 and 20125 ...................................................... 78

Figure 60. TDT Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine Year 2011 ............................................................................... 79

Figure 61. TDT Fuel Consumption Distribution by Type of Machine Year 20125.......................................................... 80

Figure 62. TDT Yard MachineryFuel Consumption Years 2011 and 20125 ................................................................... 80

Figure 63. Port of Koper (Slovenia) .............................................................................................................................. 82

Figure 64. Koper PCT Electrical Consumption Distribution Year 2011 ......................................................................... 85

Figure 65. STS Metalna ................................................................................................................................................. 86

Figure 66. STS Konecranes ........................................................................................................................................... 86

Figure 67. STS Liebherr ................................................................................................................................................. 87

Figure 68. Koper PCT Yard / Storage Machinery (I). RTG ............................................................................................. 88

Figure 69. Koper PCT Yard / Storage Machinery (II). Reach Stacker............................................................................. 89

Figure 70. Koper PCT Yard / Storage Machinery (III). Forklift ....................................................................................... 89

Figure 71. Koper PCT Yard / Storage Machinery (IV). Empty Containers Forklift ......................................................... 90

Figure 72. Koper PCT Horizontal Transport Machinery (I). Yard Tractor ...................................................................... 90

Figure 73. Koper PCT Horizontal Transport Machinery (II). Yard Tractor ..................................................................... 91

Figure 74. Koper PCT Horizontal Transport Machinery (III). Road Tractor ................................................................... 91

Figure 75. Koper PCT Fuel Consumption Distribution by Sub-System .......................................................................... 92

Figure 76. Koper PCT Fuel Consumption Distribution by Sub-System Years 2011 and 2012 ....................................... 93

Figure 77. Koper PCT Throughput and Working Hours Years 2011 and 2012 .............................................................. 93

Figure 78. Koper PCT Fuel Consumption Distribution Year 2011 ................................................................................. 94

Figure 79. Koper PCT Yard Equipment Fuel Consumption Distribution Year 2011 ...................................................... 95

Figure 80. Koper PCT Horizontal Transport Equipment Fuel Consumption Distribution Year 2011 ............................ 96

Figure 81. Koper PCT RTG Fuel Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 2012 ........................................................ 97

Figure 82. Koper PCT Reach Stackers Fuel Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 2012 ....................................... 98

Figure 83. Koper PCT Empty Container Forklifts Fuel Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 2012 ...................... 98

Figure 84. Koper PCT Forklifts Fuel Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 2012 .................................................. 99

Figure 85. Koper PCT Road Tractors Fuel Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 2012......................................... 99

Figure 86. Koper PCT Ro-Ro Tractors Fuel Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 2012 ..................................... 100

Figure 87. Koper PCT Yard Tractors Fuel Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 2012 ....................................... 100

Figure 88. Carbon Footprint Calculation Methodology .............................................................................................. 112

Figure 89. NCTV Carbon Footprint Distribution by Type of Energy Source Years 2011 and 20124 ............................ 113

Figure 90. NCTV Carbon Footprint Distribution Year 2011 ........................................................................................ 114

Figure 91. NCTV Carbon Footprint Distribution Year 20124 ....................................................................................... 114

Figure 92. TDT Carbon Footprint Distribution by Type of Energy Source Years 2011 and 20125 ............................... 115

Figure 93. TDT Carbon Footprint Distribution Year 2011 ........................................................................................... 116

Figure 94.TDT Carbon Footprint Distribution Year 20125 .......................................................................................... 116

Figure 95. Koper PCT Carbon Footprint by Type of Energy Source Years 2011 and 2012 .......................................... 117

Figure 96. Koper PCT Carbon Footprint Distribution Year 2011 ................................................................................. 118

Figure 97. Koper PCT Carbon Footprint Distribution Year 2012 ................................................................................. 118

Figure 98. Electrical Distribution Centre. Port Authority of Valencia ......................................................................... 120

Figure 99. Reactive Energy Compensation Batteries ................................................................................................. 121

Figure 100. Electrical Distribution Centre. Port of Koper ........................................................................................... 123

Figure 101. Electrical Distribution Centre .................................................................................................................. 124

Figure 102. ANNEX I. Composed Tension. Real Meter RTG NCTV .............................................................................. 129

Figure 103. ANNEX I. Simple Tension. Real Meter RTG NCTV .................................................................................... 130

Figure 104. ANNEX I. Intensity. Real Meter RTG NCTV .............................................................................................. 130

Figure 105. ANNEX I. Power. Real Meter RTG NCTV .................................................................................................. 131

Figure 106. ANNEX I. Power. Real Meter RTG NCTV (1 hour work) ........................................................................... 131



Figure 107. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Specific Consumption ..................................................................... 136

Figure 108. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet % of Use ......................................................................................... 136

Figure 109. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Specific Consumption .............................................................................. 137

Figure 110. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers % of Use .................................................................................................. 137

Figure 111. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Hours / Month Year 2011 ............................................................... 139

Figure 112. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Litres / Month Year 2011 ............................................................... 139

Figure 113. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Hours / Month Year 2012 ............................................................... 141

Figure 114. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Litres / Month Year 2012 ............................................................... 141



LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Port Management Models.............................................................................................................................. 14

Table 2. NCTV STS Cranes Inventory ............................................................................................................................ 49

Table 3. NCTV RTG Cranes Inventory ........................................................................................................................... 49

Table 4. NCTV Yard Tractors Inventory ........................................................................................................................ 49

Table 5. NCTV Reach Stackers Inventory ...................................................................................................................... 49

Table 6. NCTV Empty Container Forklifts Inventory ..................................................................................................... 49

Table 7. NCTV Internal Transport Vehicles ................................................................................................................... 49

Table 8. NCTV STS Cranes Technical Specifications ...................................................................................................... 50

Table 9. NCTV RTG Cranes Specifications ..................................................................................................................... 51

Table 10. NCTV Yard Tractors Specifications ................................................................................................................ 52

Table 11. NCTV Electrical Consumption Distribution. Years 2011 and 2012 ................................................................ 53

Table 12. NCTV Fuel Consumption Distribution. Years 2011 and 20124 ...................................................................... 55

Table 13. NCTV RTG Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine ....................................................................................... 57

Table 14. NCTV RTG Movements by Type of Machine ................................................................................................. 57

Table 15. NCTV Litres/Movement Ratio Years 2011 and 20124 ................................................................................... 58

Table 16. NCTV Yard Tractors Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine Years 2011 and 20124..................................... 59

Table 17. NCTV Reach Stackers Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine Years 2011 and 20124 .................................. 60

Table 18. NCTV Empty Container Forklifts Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine Years 2011 and 20124 ................. 61

Table 19. TDT STS Cranes Technical Specifications ...................................................................................................... 72

Table 20. TDT RTG Cranes Technical Specifications ..................................................................................................... 73

Table 21. TDT Reach Stackers; Front Loaders; Empty Container Forklifts and Tractor Trailers Technical Specifications

..................................................................................................................................................................................... 74

Table 22. TDT Electrical Consumer Centres ................................................................................................................. 75

Table 23. TDT Electrical Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 20125 .................................................................. 77

Table 24. TDT Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine Years 2011 and 20125 ............................................................. 79

Table 25. TDT Consumption Ratios Year 2011 ............................................................................................................. 81

Table 26. TDT Consumption Ratios Year 20125 ............................................................................................................ 81

Table 27. Koper PCT STS Cranes Inventory................................................................................................................... 83

Table 28. Koper PCT RTG Cranes Inventory.................................................................................................................. 83

Table 29. Koper PCT Yard Tractors Inventory ............................................................................................................... 83

Table 30. Koper PCT Reach Stackers Inventory ............................................................................................................ 83

Table 31. Koper PCT Empty Container Forklifts Inventory ........................................................................................... 83

Table 32. Koper PCT Forklifts Inventory ....................................................................................................................... 83

Table 33. Koper PCT Internal Transport Vehicles Inventory ......................................................................................... 84

Table 34. Koper PCT Electrical Consumption Years 2011 and 2012 ............................................................................. 84

Table 35. Koper PCT Electrical Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 2012 ......................................................... 85

Table 36. Koper PCT Fuel Consumption Distribution by Sub-System Years 2011 and 2012 ........................................ 92

Table 37. Koper PCT Throughput / Working Hours Ratio Years 2011 and 2012 .......................................................... 94

Table 38. Koper PCT Specific Fuel Consumption for Yard Equipment Years 2011 and 2012........................................ 95

Table 39. Koper PCT Specific Fuel Consumption for Horizontal Transport Years 2011 and 2012 ................................ 96

Table 40. Koper PCT Other Fuel Consumption Centres Years 2011 and 2012 ............................................................. 97

Table 41. Koper PCT RTG Energy Consumption Parameters ...................................................................................... 102

Table 42. Koper PCT Reach Stackers Fuel Consumption Parameters ......................................................................... 103

Table 43. Koper PCT Empty Container Forklifts Fuel Consumption Parameters ........................................................ 104

Table 44. Koper PCT Forklifts Fuel Consumption Parameters .................................................................................... 104

Table 45. Koper PCT Road Tractors Fuel Consumption Parameters........................................................................... 105

Table 46. Koper PCT Ro-Ro Tractors Fuel Consumption Parameters ......................................................................... 106

Table 47. Koper PCT Yard Tractors Fuel Consumption Parameters (I) ....................................................................... 107

Table 48. Koper PCT Yard Tractors Fuel Consumption Parameters (II) ...................................................................... 108

Table 49. Koper PCT Yard Tractors Fuel Consumption Parameters (III) ..................................................................... 109

Table 50. Koper PCT Yard Tractors Fuel Consumption Parameters (IV) ..................................................................... 110

Table 51. GreenHouse Emission Factors for Electricity and Fuel Conversion ............................................................ 112



Table 52. NCTV Carbon Footprint .............................................................................................................................. 113

Table 53. TDT Carbon Footprint ................................................................................................................................. 115

Table 54. Koper PCT Carbon Footprint ....................................................................................................................... 117

Table 55. ANNEX I.Results from the Real Meter at NCTV .......................................................................................... 132

Table 56. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet ........................................................................................................... 133

Table 57. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Consumption ..................................................................................... 135

Table 58. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Operative and Consumption Parameters ................................................... 137

Table 59. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Consumption Data Analysis Year 2011 .............................................. 138

Table 60. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Consumption Year 2011 .................................................................... 139

Table 61. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Consumption Data Analysis Year 2012 .............................................. 140

Table 62. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Consumption Year 2012 .................................................................... 141



LIST OF ABBREVIATURES

APV Port Authority of Valencia

COPRAR Container discharge/loading order message

EDI Electronic Data Interchange

EMAS Eco-Management and Audit Scheme

ETA Estimated Time of Arrival

GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

NCTV Noatum Container Terminal Valencia

OCR Optical Character Recognition

PCT Port Container Terminal

RFID Radio Frequency Identification

RTG Rubber Tyred Gantry Crane

STS Ship-to-Shore Crane

TDT Livorno Terminal Darsena Toscana

TEU Twenty-Feet Equivalent Unit

TOS Terminal Operating System

LIST OF UNITS

A ampere

ha hectare

kV kilovolt

kW kilowatt

kWh kilowatt-hour

kVA kilowatt ampere

l litre

m metre

m2 square metre

m3 cubic metre

t tonne



1 INTRODUCTION

The present document is defined as the Milestone 2 “Report of Port Container Terminals

Energy Profile”, developed within the framework of the TEN-T project “Green Technologies

and Eco-Efficient Alternatives for Cranes and Operations at Port Container Terminals –

GREENCRANES”.

GREENCRANES is a study taking the form of a pilot action. The general objective of

GREENCRANES is to test new technologies (energy consumption monitoring) and alternative

energy sources and fuels (i.e. LNG, Diesel Phase IV, electrification and other eco-fuels)

including pilot deployment in port container terminals (PCTs) contributing thereby to

mitigating the impact on climate change and reducing GHG emissions.

This report presents the results derived from the works developed in the Activity 1 of the

project “Mapping of Port Container Terminals Energy Profile”. As presented in the project

proposal of GREENCRANES, Activity 1 is divided into two sub-activities:

Sub-Activity 1.1 Characterization of PCTs Processes and Activities. Sub-Activity 1.1 is focused

on detailed processes descriptions which take place at PCTs with specific focus on the project

partners (PCTs of Valencia, Livorno and Koper). Characterizations of the different stages of PCT

operatives and the relationships among them have been described in detail so that depicting

real operations as previous phase for the definition of energy consumption maps at PCTs.

Sub-Activity 1.2 Definition of Energy Consumption Maps at Port Container Terminals.

According to the different processes described in Sub-Activity 1.1., methods to describe energy

profiles on footprint impact and energy consumption mapping have been developed. The

objective is to set harmonized parameters to integrate them on the general port-logistic

operational models and on the Energy Efficiency Indicators (EEI) System proposed in the

project.

The report is structured into four sections which present and analyze the operative models of

the three participant port container terminals (Noatum Container Terminal Valencia-NCTV,

Livorno Darsena Toscana-TDT and Koper Container Terminal) as well as detailed energy

consumption data of each terminal. Moreover, the document provides two annexes which

include results from real meters carried out on port machinery at NCTV (Spain) and TDT (Italy).

The main added value of the present report is the provision of harmonized energy

consumption data and carbon footprint indicators which cover the whole operative framework

of three port container terminals from Spain, Italy and Slovenia. These three installations differ

in key aspects like size, type and volume of traffics (export, import, and transhipment) and

operational models, so GREENCRANES represents an outstanding opportunity for introducing

common and standardization criteria in the critical aspects which affect energy efficiency at

PCTs.

The main objective of this Milestone is to set the basis for the next developments planned in

the project, since a detailed knowledge of the energy dimension of a PCT is necessary to

evaluate the specific requirements of the proposed eco-efficient alternatives in

GREENCRANES.



2 PORT MANAGEMENT MODELS

Ports are key nodes within the global logistics and supply chains. In order to efficiently manage

these strategic infrastructures, both the public and private sector develop important functions

with the aim of responding to the demands and requirements of foreign trade agents,

customers and stakeholders. Those functions can be summarized into the following three

categories:

Regulation functions

Port space ownership functions

Port operator functions

Regulation functions have the objective of establishing the framework and conditions to

properly plan and exploit port activities. There are different levels of regulation (international,

European, national, local, etc.) and different instruments according to the competences of the

organisms and agents involved (international agreements, European Directives, national

regulations, laws, etc.) These regulations cover all the management and operative levels of

port and their associated logistical activities.

Port space ownership functions include the most generic planning and management functions

as well as more specific competences such as the provision and maintenance of

superstructures and infrastructures, in particular those related to land and maritime access,

the promotion of the “info-structure” or the commercial aspects of the port.

Operator functions comprise the different services associated to port activities: handling and

storage of goods, technical and nautical services (pilotage, towage and mooring), vessels waste

management, etc.

According to the different roles of the public and private sector concerning the provision of

port services and infrastructures development, four management models can be described

taking into account the existing exploitation and management schemes at international level:

Public Service-Port model

Tool-Port model

Land-Lord model

Private Service-Port model

In the Public Service-Port model, the Port Authority (public figure) invests in all kind of

infrastructures and superstructures and provides all the port services abovementioned (goods

handling and storage, pilotage, towage, mooring, etc.).

Concerning the Tool-Port model, the Port Authority invests in all kind of infrastructures and

superstructures, being the private companies those which provide the services of handling.



The Land-lord model is the most representative port management model in Europe, as the

Port Authority usually invests in maritime accessibility infrastructure and protection works

(dredging, docks, etc.), whereas the private operators invest in superstructure (handling

equipment, installations, etc.) and occasionally in port infrastructures (berths). In the case of

GREENCRANES, the Ports of Valencia and Livorno follow an advanced Land-Lord model. This

evolution of the abovementioned management model introduces the concept of Port Cluster

as a new definition of the different agents, port operators, stakeholders and groups of interest

which integrates the Port Community. In addition, the Port Cluster also includes the exporters

and importers located within the area of influence of the port. According to the advanced

Land-Lord Model, the Port Authority should develop the role of Port Cluster leader.

Finally, the Private Service-Port model, the Port Authority (private figure) invests in all kind of

infrastructures and superstructures as well as provides all the goods handling and technical

port services, in the same way that the Public Service-Port model. Table 1 provides a summary

of the abovementioned descriptions.

Table 1. Port Management Models

INVESTMENTS SERVICE PROVISION

MODEL Infrastructure Superstructure Cargo Handling Others

Public Service-Port Public Public Public Mostly Public

Tool-Port Public Public Private Public/Private

Land-Lord Port Public Private Private Public/Private

Private Service-Port Private Private Private Mostly Private

Source: Valenciaport Foundation

PORT OF VALENCIA DESCRIPTION

Valenciaport comprises the ports managed by the Valencia Port Authority: Valencia, Sagunto

and Gandía. This strong combination makes it Spain’s leading Mediterranean port in terms of

commercial traffic, basically containerized cargo, particularly because of its dynamic area of

influence and an extensive network connecting it to major ports around the world.

Valenciaport is a tightly knit Port Community due to innovative elements like the Seal of

Quality Guarantee and the Community Information System (valenciaportpcs.net) and is

formed by all economic agents who provide their services through the ports of Valencia,

Sagunto and Gandía.

Valenciaport is not only a key element in promoting the Valencian Community abroad but also

the maritime gateway for production and consumer goods to and from the entire Iberian

Peninsula. Its leadership is based on the following:

Privileged location

Attractive area of influence and innovation

A network of regular, transoceanic and regional connections with major world ports

Port and intermodal infrastructures enabling efficient port activities and goods transport at

competitive rates and fees

Guaranteed service quality



The Port Authority of Valencia (APV) is the public body responsible for managing the three

state owned ports located along 80 Km. of the eastern Mediterranean coast of Spain: Valencia,

Sagunto and Gandía.

The APV, like all other Port Authorities, reports to the Ministry of Development. Moreover, it is

governed by Royal Decree 2/2011 of 5th September relating to State Ports and the Merchant

Navy which stipulates:

The role to be played by the APV in fulfilling the functions assigned to it

Its organizational structure

In addition to this, the Strategic Plan of the APV states its future mission and strategic

objectives to be achieved by the year 2020. The 2020 Strategic Plan was drawn up with the

participation of the port community as a result of a comprehensive study of the strategic

scenario which revealed changes in the industry as a consequence of the global crisis. In this

new cycle, the key to strategic planning lies in increasing the focus on sales and financial

management, making infrastructure and services more competitive, and on innovation, under

the aegis of the regulatory, coordinating role of the Port Authority.

The Mission of the APV

To sustainably promote the external competitiveness of the business community in the APV

area of influence by providing quality, competitively-priced port, shipping, intermodal and

logistics infrastructures and services which are aligned with European transport policies.

Economic sustainability: optimisation of revenue, costs and investments to ensure the APV

self-funding ability in the short and long term

Social sustainability: coordination to ensure the different agents in the port community

receive fair remuneration and coexist in harmony

Environmental sustainability: minimisation of negative impacts on water and air quality,

and noise levels

Alignment with European transport policies: promotion of rail intermodality and short sea

shipping

Strategic Objectives

The APV aims to reach the following objectives by 2020: total traffic of 90 million tonnes and

5.6 million TEUs, with containerised import-export traffic accounting for over 40% of

throughput.

Ensuring economic sustainability (current financial statements)

Attracting new customers, and developing, managing and marketing new port and port-

related infrastructures

Regulating, monitoring and coordinating port community services

Institutional backing to improve port links with transport networks



Action Values

The Port Authority of Valencia carries out its mission guided by ideas with solid values:

Leadership: leading Mediterranean port in the most beneficial current and potential traffic

Commitment: customer commitment and the creation of added value

Sustainability: economically sustainable in terms of attracting traffic, increasing loyalty

and making investments

Responsibility: responsible port management based on transparency and equal

opportunity criteria

Innovation: continuous innovation in the range of services on offer and increased

efficiency

Figure 1. Port of Valencia (Spain)

Source: Port Authority of Valencia

The organizational structure of Port Authority of Valencia can be divided into the following

main elements:

A Board of Directors formed by representatives from the Ministry of Public Works, the

Valencia Regional Government, the City Councils of Valencia, Sagunto and Gandía,

employers’ associations and trade unions and members of the Port Community

A human resources team with a headcount of 400 professionals who are among the most

qualified in the trade

In addition, Port Authority of Valencia holds shares in a number of mercantile companies that

undertake activities related to port operations.



PORT OF LIVORNO DESCRIPTION

The port of Livorno overlooking the Upper Tyrrhenian Sea is located in the north-western

Tuscany Italian region, being mainly internal to the coast, well protected from the winds of the

south and west quadrant. The port is divided into the Old Port to the south, New Port and

Industrial Canal to the north and consists of four basins: Outer harbour and Port Mediceo that

characterize the Old Port, Dock S. Stefano and Porto Industrial identifying the Porto Nuovo in

the broadest sense.

The port of Livorno, classified as Big Regional (first level) in the Tyrrhenian Corridor, the Freight

Leaders Club, is a multi-purpose port, provided that the infrastructure and means to

accommodate any type of ship and handle every product category and all types of traffic (LO-

LO, RO-RO stock, liquid and dry bulk, new cars, cruises, ferries, forest products, machinery,

etc.). The infrastructure of the port allows connectivity to the main national road and rail

networks and areas airport of Pisa and Florence. Thank to its hinterland rather large, consisting

mainly of Tuscany, Emilia Romagna, Umbria and Marche, very active in terms of business and

industry, the Port of Livorno handling a large volume of goods.

The port can be accessed through two openings: the mouth between the North West end of

the dam and the dam of Meloria Marzocco, and the Mouth South between the end of the dam

Curvilinear South West and the end of the dam Vegliaia.

The first entrance (North) is oriented to the North West, has a width of about 300 m. and

communicates directly with the Holy Basin Stephen vast expanse of water protected to the

west and north by the dams of Meloria and Marzocco. The other entrance (South), through

which it does all the maritime traffic of the port of Livorno, is oriented to the West and has a

width of about 580 m.

To define, at least legally, the so-called port area, the first point of reference is the Ministerial

Decree 6th April 1994 fixing the territorial limits of the District of the Port of Livorno within

which are included the areas maritime state, harbour facilities and water spaces including the

front in the stretch from the mouth of Calambrone to the marina Nazario Sauro. On land the

coveted District can be identified up to the limit where it is possible to carry out activities or

services in port, of course, consistent with other uses of the land.

This district was later extended by Ministerial Decree of 16th January 2001, the public lands

sea, to the harbour front and the expanses of water in which operations including port on the

coast of the island of Capraia from Punta del Frate in Punta del Fanale.

Since its establishment in 1995, the Port Authority of Livorno has carried out the work of

rationalization and infrastructure of the port areas, providing operators, shipping companies

and port facilities with efficient and competitive tools. This rationalization consisted of the

allocation of space in private terminals specialized in different categories, thus ensuring

conformity of activities in the various zones and avoiding commingling between the different

types of traffic, especially with regard to passengers, in turn divided into cruises and ferries.



The Port Authority has the task of policy-making, planning, coordination, promotion and

control of port operations and other commercial and industrial activities in ports, with powers

of regulation and order, including the risks to the safety and hygiene of job. The Port Authority

provides:

The completion of the works in the harbour, including the works of excavation and

dredging

The preparation of the Port Master Plan, identifying the different operational areas

The preparation of the Port Operational Plan for addressing planning and development

The coordination of the activities carried out by public authorities in the port and the

control port services, entrusting them to private concession areas and docks for the

performance of terminal operations in various sectors

The promotion of the port in the world organizing and participating in promotional

activities when upgrading and vocational training of professionals and young people

Figure 2. Port of Livorno (Italy)

Source: Port Authority of Livorno



PORT OF KOPER DESCRIPTION

The Port of Koper lies at the northern edge of the Adriatic Sea and it is the only Slovenian

international cargo port. The port was established in the year 1957. The port lies in the very

proximity of the city of Koper and has spread its activity over the years starting from only one

operational shore to cover now an area of approximately 300 ha.

The Port of Koper is a multi-purpose port where practically any kind of cargo is being handled

and stored – from general cargo, perishable goods and livestock to containers, cars, dry and

liquid bulks.

The management of the area of the Port of Koper has been given through a 35-year long

concession agreement by the Slovenian Ministry of Transport in year 2008 to Luka Koper,

which is operating all the terminals in the port.

The Koper port community is quite a vivid one, compounded besides Luka Koper by a great

number of private entrepreneurs such as forwarders, shipping agents, control houses, ship

suppliers etc. as well as state bodies (Maritime Administration of the Republic of Slovenia,

Customs Administration of the Republic of Slovenia, Police, and inspection offices).

It is estimated that about 5.000 people are directly or indirectly employed by the port

business, which means that the port sector is one of the most important economic activities in

the Coastal-Kart region.

The Port of Koper is a transit oriented port. About 30% of the handled cargo is covering

Slovenian orders, where all the rests are transits for Austria, Italy, and Hungary, Czech

Republic, Slovakia and other Central and Eastern European countries.

The port traffic amounted to 17.9 million tonnes of cargo in year 2012, where about 2/3 of

cargo are represented by imports, 1/3 by exports.

Although the Republic of Slovenia has invested intensively in the construction of the national

highway crossing, which has increased dramatically the quality of road infrastructure in

Slovenia, the port development opportunity is represented by future investments in the

railway since the modal split at the port of Koper is 60% for railway and 40% for road.

Luka Koper, the company operating all the terminals at the port is a shareholding company,

where 51% of the shares are owned directly be the Republic of Slovenia.

Luka Koper is a social and environmental responsible company, where monitoring and

managing environmental impacts has become part of regular activities. In the year 2000 the

Port of Koper was the first Mediterranean port to establish an environmental management

system according to the ISO 14001 standard applying to all port activities. The certificate was

upgraded in year 2010 with the company's certification in accordance to the EMAS scheme.



Figure 3. Port of Koper (Slovenia)

Source: Port of Koper

Taking into consideration the different roles of the public and private sector concerning the

provision of port services and infrastructures development, it can be reasonably stated that at

the Port of Koper the Private Service-Port model fits the most according to the

abovementioned definitions. There is not Port Authority. Tasks that are typical to such kind of

institutions have been distributed between the Maritime Administration of the Republic of

Slovenia and Luka Koper, which is a shareholding company that invests in all kind of

infrastructures and superstructures as well as provides all the goods handling and technical

port services inside the port area.



2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PORT CONTAINER TERMINALS OPERATIVE MODEL

All the containers present at a Port Container Terminal (PCT) can be classified into the three

following types of traffics: export, import or transhipment containers.

The export flow within a PCT starts when the container (full loaded or empty) enters into the

terminal by means of a truck or a train. This container is generally stored at the yard terminal

and after few hours or days is finally moved to the berth for its loading in a vessel.

The import flows follows the inverse process and comprises the phases of container unloading

and its horizontal transport to the yard where it is stored until its delivery to a land transport

operator (road or rail transport companies).

The transhipment is described as the process by which a container is unloaded from a vessel

and stored at the yard terminal until a new vessel arrives. Then the container is again

transported to the berth and loaded on the vessel.

In order to manage the described traffic flows within the terminal, PCTs develop different

types of operatives. They are usually classified into maritime, land and housekeeping

operatives. The maritime operative comprises all the movements oriented to provide services

to the berthed vessels whereas the land operative is dedicated to the movements and

operations related to the road and railway transport modes within the PCT (reception and

delivery of containers). Additionally, there is a specific internal operative usually so-called

“housekeeping” which consists of the intermediate re-location of containers within the yard

with the objective of preparing both the maritime and land operatives, thus allowing greater

efficiency when performing them.

In order to carry out the abovementioned operatives, different sub-systems are considered

within the port container terminal. These sub-systems work in an integrated way, developing

continuous cycles which are interrelated. Figure 4 explain the general operative scheme of

PCTs.

Figure 4. General Operative Model of Port Container Terminals

Source: Own Elaboration from “The PCT as Nodal System in the Logistic Chain”. Monfort et al.

Loading / Unloading SubsystemYard SubsystemDelivery / Reception

SubsystemH. TransportSubsystem

H. TransportSubsystem



Loading/Unloading Sub-System1: This sub-system is the one in charge of resolving the

maritime interface. The main infrastructure involved within this sub-system is the berth, where

loading and unloading operations take place. The machinery involved in the loading/unloading

sub-system is basically composed by Ship-to-Shore (STS) cranes. STS cranes are typically gantry

cranes mounted over rails and work with land-based electricity usually provided from the

national grid. The energy consumption of STS cranes is very influenced by the organisational

scheme of the container terminal. Although STS cranes do not produce direct GHG emissions,

the huge amount of electricity needed produce indirect emissions which could be reduced

applying eco-efficient organisational rules. According to the size of the vessels that berth in the

terminal, STS cranes present different typologies in terms of dimensions and capacity. In this

manner, STS cranes can be classified by size into (in increasing size order) Feeder, Panamax,

Post-Panamax and Superpost-Panamax. In the last years a bigger type of STS crane has been

developed, denominated Over Superpost-Panamax size.

Figure 5. Ship-to-Shore Cranes at the Loading/Unloading Sub-System


Horizontal Transport Sub-System2: The horizontal transport subsystem is in charge of the

container transport between the berth and the yard as well as the internal circulation of

containers within different operatives (land or housekeeping operatives). The machinery

involved in this subsystem is usually the port yard tractor, although other solutions like the

Straddle Carrier cranes or the Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs) in automated and semi-

automated terminals can be considered. The type of machinery studied in GREENCRANES is

the yard tractor as it is the machine used in the participant PCTs as well as it is widely used in

the Mediterranean, European and American ports.

1 Also known in the bibliography as Ship-to-Shore Sub-System

2 Also known in the bibliography as Interconnection Sub-System



Moreover, this machine presents important opportunities for its conversion from diesel power

to LNG as the needed modifications are, contrary to other machines, affordable and feasible

from the economical and operational points of view.

Figure 6. Yard Tractor at the Horizontal Transport Sub-System


Delivery / Reception Sub-System: This sub-system develops the operations related to the

external flows associated to road and rail transport with the PCT. A key element in this sub-

system is the dimension and type of the PCT gates, as the number of entrances and exits as

well as the types of technologies deployed (such as RFID, OCR systems, single windows, etc.),

which influence directly in the efficiency of the involved processes. The delivery/reception sub-

system is closed connected with the yard sub-system as the operations and machinery usually

involve yard RTG cranes (for the delivery / reception of containers transported by road trucks)

and reach stackers (for the delivery / reception of containers transported by train).

Yard Sub-System3: This sub-system allows the coordination of the different rhythms of the

loading/unloading and reception/delivery operations. This coordination is possible due to the

existence of the stacking area, which plays the role of a buffer between the berth and the

terminal gates. The configuration of the stacking area (surface, width and height of the

container stacks, separation between lanes, etc.) depends on the type of storage equipment

used at the PCT. In the framework of GREENCRANES, the machinery involved in the study will

be the Rubber Tyred Gantry (RTG) cranes and the Reach Stackers.

3 Also known in the bibliography as Storage Sub-System



RTGs are gantry cranes equipped with tyres. This stacking equipment is usually combined with

yard tractors+platforms which transport containers from/to the berth to/from the stacking

area.

RTGs provide a good performance of the available surface at the terminal, being a typical

configuration of a stacking area of 3 to 5 containers of nominal height with a width of 6

containers per block. In regions with high surface restrictions like Asian ports, this

configuration can reach up to 7 stacked containers with 13+1 containers wide per block.

RTGs are yard equipment dedicated to the handling of containers doing vertical, horizontal and

translation movements. RTGs follow work assignment rules defined by the Terminal Operation

System (TOS) of the terminal. They are an important energy consumer centre in a PCT, which

can reach 28 fuel litres per hour, and the elevated number of these machines needed in the

yard so that performing efficient operations.

Figure 7. Rubber Tyred Gantry Crane at the Yard Sub-System


Reach Stackers are another type of yard stacking equipment widely used in small port

container terminals, although they are also present in big installations developing a wide

variety of operations (empty container stacking, loading/unloading of containers in trains,

etc.). This machine is composed by a mechanical arm and a spreader which fix the container by

its top side. The Reach Stacker is a very flexible machine and can be used in different sub-

systems like the horizontal transport and the delivery/reception sub-systems. They have a

relevant role in loading/unloading operations with trains and empty containers transport

within the terminal.



Figure 8. Reach Stacker at the Delivery/Reception Sub-System


Following, the description and relationship among traffic flows, operatives and PCT sub-

systems are provided in order to depict a complete operational model of a port container

terminal.



2.2 TYPES OF OPERATIVES INVOLVED IN THE EXPORT TRAFFIC

The following diagram (Figure 9) shows the generic model which describes the export flow of a

container since its entrance to the terminal until its loading in the vessel.

Figure 9. PCT Operative Associated to the Export Flow. Road Alternative

Source: Own Elaboration – Valenciaport Foundation

In the previous figure, a description of the internal flow that a container performs in a generic

export operation is described. It is important to distinguish the entrance at the terminal by

road truck or by railway. In the case of trucks, the process starts with the entrance to the

terminal through the PCT gates. In this stage the truck driver presents at the gate the transport

order to deliver the container. This information can be processed by different technologies

such as bar codes, RFID tags, etc. With this information the PCT Terminal Operating System

(TOS) provides the location (a position in a certain stacking area) within the terminal yard

where the truck must go to deliver the container. The container delivery is usually carried out

by means of a RTG (1), but it can also be done using a reach stacker (2), or even with an empty

container forklift (3), in the case that the export container is empty. In the three cases the

container is placed in a certain stacking area (4), being positioned in a container block ready to

be transported to the berth.

Gat

e Te

rmin

al

RTG

Re

ach

Sta

cke

r

Stac

kin

g A

rea

RTG

Re

ach

Sta

cke

r

Yard

Tra

cto

r

Ber

th

STS

Cra

ne

Ve

sse

l

Emp

ties

Fo

rklif

t

Maritime OperativeLand Operative Housekeeping

(1)

(2)

Emp

ties

Fo

rklif

t(3)

Delivery / Reception Sub-System

Yard Sub-System

Horizontal Transport Sub-System

Loading / Unloading Sub-System

(4)(5) (6)



When the vessel is ready to receive the container, it is placed in a yard tractor+platform using

again a RTG, a reach stacker or a empty containers forklift, although the most common case is

the use of the RTG for this operation. Then, the container is transported by the yard tractor (5)

to the berth area where a STS crane lifts the container and loads it on the vessel (6).

It is important to remark that, although in this description the three equipments that perform

horizontal transport and storage (RTG, reach stacker and empties forklift) is presented in the

same way of importance, the use of RTGs in the delivery/reception and yard sub-systems is

much more relevant in terms of movements percentage.

The second case of export traffic, showed in Figure 10, refers to the entrance to the terminal

by means of railway. In this case the described process is very similar although there are some

particularities that must be described. The operative associated to the unloading of a train

usually involves RTGs (1) and reach stackers (2) which unload the containers from the wagons

and place them in intermediate stacking areas (3) dedicated exclusively to the railway. After

that, two possibilities concerning the maritime operative operations can be considered. In the

first one, if the maritime operative is ready, the container can be loaded in a yard tractor (4) by

a RTG or by a reach stacker, being transported directly to the berth area and loaded into the

vessel (5).

Figure 10. PCT Operative Associated to the Export Flow. Railway Alternative (I)


Ra

ilwa

y

RTG

Re

ach

Sta

cke

r

Rai

lway

S. A

rea

RT

G

Re

ach

Sta

cke

r

Yard

Tra

cto

r

Ber

th

STS

Cra

ne

Ve

sse

l

Maritime OperativeLand Operative

(1)(2)


Yard Sub-System



(3) (4) (5)

HKP



In the second case (Figure 11), the container may wait in the terminal until the vessel arrives to

the port, so the container placed in the intermediate stacking area (3) can be loaded in yard

tractors (6) by means of reach stackers (4) or RTGs (5) to the maritime stacking area (7) and

wait for the maritime operative. Once the vessel arrives to the terminal and it is ready to start

the loading/unloading operations, the container follows the same sequence as described

previously, being loaded again in a yard tractor (8) and transported to the berth area to be

loaded into the vessel (9).

Figure 11. PCT Operative Associated to the Export Flow. Railway Alternative (II)


The above descriptions also depict the sub-system which is involved in each stage of the export

process within the terminal and the operative associated in each phase. The land operative

refers to the entrance and delivery of the container in the stacking area (both for road trucks

and railway), whereas the housekeeping takes place at the yard and stacking areas (for

example, internal transport of container among container blocks or relocation within a

stacking area). The maritime operative involves operations related to horizontal transport and

the loading/unloading sub-systems at the berth side of the terminal.

Rai

lway

RTG

Re

ach

Sta

cke

r

Rai

lway

S. A

rea

Ber

th

STS

Cra

ne

Ve

sse

l


(1)(2)


Yard Sub-System



(3)

Housekeeping

Exp

ort

S. A

rea

RTG

Re

ach

Sta

cke

r

Yard

Tra

cto

r

Yard

Tra

cto

r

(4)

(5)

(6) (7)

(8) (9)



2.3 TYPES OF OPERATIVES INVOLVED IN THE IMPORT TRAFFICS

In the case of import traffics, the flow diagram is very similar to the export case but the

movement of the containers is performed in an inverse way but using the same equipments,

although some particularities must be pointed out. Figure 12 depicts the import container flow

within the PCT.

Figure 12. PCT Operative Associated to the Import Flow. Road Alternative


The generic import flow starts with the maritime operative. The STS crane unloads the

container and places it on the yard tractor+platform (1), which transports it to the stacking

area, where a RTG (4) picks it up (another possibility is the unload with a reach stacker (3) or

even with an empty container forklift (2), in the case that the container is empty). Then, the

container is placed in the assigned stacking pile provided by the TOS. At the same time the

yard tractor returns to the berth area in order to start the same cycle with another container.

In the maritime operative, yard tractors are interrelated with STS cranes at the berth and RTGs

at the yard, being a critical aspect the continuous availability of yard tractors at the berth, in

order to keep working the STS cranes without idle times.

Gat

e Te

rmin

al

RTG

Re

ach

Sta

cke

r

Stac

kin

g A

rea

RTG

Re

ach

Sta

cke

r

Yard

Tra

cto

r

Ber

th

STS

Cra

ne

Ve

sse

l

Emp

ties

Fo

rklif

t

Maritime OperativeLand Operative Housekeeping

Emp

ties

Fo

rklif

t


Yard Sub-System



(1)(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)



Once the container is stored in the stacking area (5), the land operative starts with the

unloading of the container by a RTG (most of the times), a reach stacker or an empty container

forklift. In this case, instead of loading the container in a yard tractor, it is delivered directly in

an empty road truck (6). Again, the most common situation is the load of the container by a

RTG in a road truck which enters in the terminal empty and waits in an assigned position,

although other combinations of loading and transport take place, especially in the case of

import containers which exit the terminal by train.

In this case, when the import container is going to exit the terminal loaded in a train, again two

possibilities can be considered. The most efficient operative consists on the direct loading of

the import container on the train (Figure 13). In this manner, operative and labour costs are

significantly reduced.

Figure 13. PCT Operative Associated to the Import Flow. Railway Alternative (I)


The direct load in a train starts with the transport of the container with a yard

tractor+platform (1) to the railway area. In this area, depending on the terminal, the container

can be loaded on the train (5) by means of a reach stacker (3) or a RTG (4). In the case that the

container is empty, it can be also loaded using an empty container forklift (2).

Ra

ilwa

y

RTG

Re

ach

Sta

cker

Yard

Tra

cto

r

Ber

th

ST

S C

ran

e

Ve

sse

l

Maritime OperativeLand OperativeEm

pti

es F

ork

lift


Yard Sub-System



(1)(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)



The second possibility, showed in Figure 14, involves an intermediate stage where the

container is stored in the railway stacking area, in the same manner as in the export flow.

Figure 14. PCT Operative Associated to the Import Flow. Railway Alternative (II)


In this case when de container is loaded on the yard tractor+platform (1), it is transported to

the railway stacking area where a reach stacker (2) or a RTG (3) place the container in an

assigned container block (4). Then, when the train arrives at the PCT and the land operative is

ready to start, the container is unloaded from the block by means of reach stackers (5) or RTGs

(6) and loaded on the assigned wagon of the train (7) for its import.

Ra

ilwa

y

RTG

Re

ach

Sta

cke

r

Ber

th

ST

S C

ran

e

Ve

sse

l



Yard Sub-System



Rai

lway

S. A

rea

RT

G

Re

ach

Sta

cke

r

Yard

Tra

cto

r

Housekeeping

(1)(4) (2)

(3)

(5)

(6)

(7)



2.4 TYPES OF OPERATIVES INVOLVED IN TRANSHIPMENT TRAFFICS

Container transhipment is a very common traffic at port container terminals and in some PCTs

it represents the main flow of containers, especially in those dedicated terminals where the

PCT operator and the shipping company belong to the same corporate group (i.e. APM

Terminals and Maersk-Sealand, MSC, etc.), as these companies tend to use their terminals as

transhipment hubs of their main shipping services.

Figure 15 describes the transhipment traffic flow. In transhipment, the container which arrives

at the terminal by vessel is unloaded by the STS cranes and placed in a yard tractor+platform

(1). The yard tractor transports the container to the transhipment stacking area (5), where it is

placed in an assigned position by means of a RTG (4), a reach stacker (3) or an empty container

forklift (2). The container remains stored in the transhipment stacking area until another vessel

comes and the maritime operative is again ready. At this moment, the cycle starts again with

the unloading of the container using a RTG, reach stacker or empty container forklift, placed in

a yard tractor (6) and transported to the berth side in order to load it on another vessel (7).

Figure 15. PCT Operative Associated to Transhipment


As it has been remarked before, the operations using RTGs are the most common at PCTs,

being the operatives with reach stackers and empty container forklifts limited to a minor

percentage of movements.

Stac

kin

g A

rea

RTG

Re

ach

Sta

cke

r

Yard

Tra

cto

r

Be

rth

STS

Cra

ne

Ve

sse

l

Maritime OperativeMaritime Operative

Emp

tie

s Fo

rklif

t


Yard Sub-System



(1)(2)

(3)

Yard

Tra

cto

r

Ve

sse

l

STS

Cra

ne

Be

rth

RTG

Re

ach

Sta

cke

r

Emp

tie

s Fo

rklif

t

(4)

(5)(6)(7)

Housekeeping



2.5 SPECIAL OPERATIVES

Apart from the described typology of operations in the export, import and transhipment

traffics at PCTs, other special operatives can take place depending on the model of PCT. In this

section specific operatives like shuttle, land transhipment and housekeeping are described.

2.5.1 Shuttle between PCTs

The Shuttle operative consists of the transport of containers between port container terminals

in the same port in order to allow a single call of a vessel when it has to load containers from

two or more different PCTs, thus reducing operative and labour costs. The Shuttle operative

can be considered as a particularity of the maritime transhipment operative. The main

difference in this case is that the entrance and exit of the container is carried out from

different terminals. Figure 16 depicts the shuttle operative between PCTs.

Figure 16. PCT Operative Associated to Shuttle between Port Container Terminals


The transport of containers between terminals is usually carried out from yard to yard, being

the RTGs and the reach stackers the machinery used to load the shuttle containers on yard

tractors+platforms.

In the case of the Port of Valencia, the shuttle is considered as a profitable operative for the

case of 90 containers or less. In case that this number is higher, the vessel usually berths in

both terminals (MSC and Noatum Container Terminal Valencia).

This operative can also be considered as a special case of housekeeping, due to the fact that

containers are transported and relocated among stacking areas, but from different port

container terminals.

Stac

kin

g A

rea

RTG

/ R

S /

EFL

Yard

Tra

cto

r

Be

rth

STS

Cra

ne

Ve

sse

l

Maritime OperativeMaritime Operative


Yard Sub-System



Yard

Tra

cto

r

Ve

sse

l

STS

Cra

ne

Be

rth

RTG

/ R

S /

EFL

RTG

/ R

S /

EFL

Trac

tor/

Shu

ttle

Trac

tor/

Sh

utt

le

RTG

/ R

S /

EFL

Stac

kin

g A

rea From A to B

From B to A Terminal ATerminal B



2.5.2 Land Transhipment

Within the transhipment traffic, there is a specific process which consists of the exchange of

containers between both land and railway transport within the port container terminal. This

type of operative is common in Northern European ports. In the Land Transhipment only the

delivery / reception, yard storage and horizontal transport sub-systems are involved. Figure 17

shows the operative associated to land transhipment.

Figure 17. PCT Operative Associated to Land Transhipment


When the container arrives in a truck and goes out the terminal by train, the container is

usually unloaded by a reach stacker or an empty container forklift (in case it is an empty

container). Then the container is loaded in the assigned location on the train. It is also possible

to use a RTG in the same manner as it has been described in previous sections. In the case that

the container arrives by railway and goes out the terminal by truck, the process in carried out

in an inverse way.

Gat

es

Re

ach

Sta

cker

Land Operative

Emp

tie

s Fo

rklif

t


Yard Sub-System


Rai

lway

Gat

es

Rea

ch S

tack

er

Emp

tie

s Fo

rklif

t

Rai

lway

Land Operative



2.5.3 Housekeeping Operative

The housekeeping operative is common in all port container terminals and it is associated to

each type of traffic (export, import and transhipment). The housekeeping supports the land

and mainly maritime operatives, allowing more efficient processes with less time-consuming.

The housekeeping consists of the re-location of containers in the export, import and

transhipment stacking areas in order to prepare the operations for the loading and unloading

of containers into the vessels, trucks and trains. It is normally developed at nights, when the

work intensity is lower in the delivery and reception of containers.

The housekeeping can be performed in any place of the terminal, being involved the storage

and interconnection sub-systems. In this manner, a cycle between RTGs, reach stackers and

yard platforms is defined in order to transport containers from some container blocks to

others.

In general, the housekeeping is developed in order to facilitate the maritime operative,

although it is also possible to perform housekeeping for the land operative.

Figure 18. Example of Housekeeping Operations

Source: Energy Efficiency at Port Container Terminals Guide – EFICONT Project. Sapiña et al.



2.6 THE TERMINAL OPERATING SYSTEM (TOS)

Due to the huge amount of information exchanged within the PCTs, the deployment of

information and communication technologies is mandatory in order to assure the efficiency

and reliability of the operations involved in the container terminal as well as those exchanges

of information with external agents (shipping companies, port authorities, freight forwarders,

shipping agencies, etc.).

At internal level, the key needed information is associated to the containers themselves

(identification, position and transport mode) and the machinery (operative, position, work

orders, etc.) as well.

In order to manage the abovementioned exchange of data, port container terminals have

implemented the so-called Terminal Operating Systems (TOS). TOS are software tools

structured in different modules of information management and control connected to a

general data base.

In general, four main management modules can be considered in a TOS:

Planning and Operations Control Module (land and maritime)

Management Module, which supports the analysis of productivity, costs control and

statistical analysis

Administration Module which is in charge of the invoicing and analytical accounting

Information and Communication Module, responsible for the information exchange of the

terminal with external agents

Figure 19. General Structure of the Terminal Operation System (TOS)

Source: Energy Efficiency at Port Container Terminals –EFICONT Project. Sapiña et al.

AdministrationModule

ManagementModule

Planning and Operations

Control Module

Information and Communication

Module

TOS



Concerning the typology of Terminal Operating Systems, different solutions are provided in the

market, being the terminals able to choose among several options according to their specific

needs and business strategies. Although all the commercial solutions allow some degree of

customization, it is also possible to develop and implement an adapted a tailor-made solution.

The implementation of a TOS in the terminal has the following objectives:

Planning and controlling all movements of containers within the terminal

Increase the efficiency of the yard machinery and equipments

Reduce the waiting and idle times at the container terminal gates

Optimize the available surface of the terminal

Optimize the vessel planning

Improve the precision of the available data

Reduce the operation costs of the terminal

Increase the safety and security of the installation

Although the TOS is an internal management system which facilitates communication with

terminal equipments and machinery, other modules dedicated to the electronic transference

of data with external agents by means of the EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) system are also

integrated.

Figure 20. Example of TOS Screenshot Bay Planning

Source: Total Soft Bank (www.tsb.co.kr)

http://www.tsb.co.kr/



2.6.1 Noatum Container Terminal Valencia TOS

Noatum Container Terminal Valencia (NCTV) integrates a commercial TOS system named

CATOS (Computer Automated Terminal Operation System). CATOS is structured into three

modules: Planning, Operation and Management Systems.

Figure 21. General Structure of CATOS TOS


CATOS Planning System Module

In order to improve terminal productivity, CATOS deploys four tools oriented to different

planning areas: Berth Planning, Yard Planning, Ship Planning and Rail Planning.

Berth Planning gives support to the Ship-to-Shore sub-system planning, thus organizing the

required human and technical means for each vessel call. In the case of NCTV, berth planning

starts with the reception of the vessel call notifications sent by the Port Authority. With this

information NCTV elaborates a berth call planning, thus assigning berthing slots and number of

cranes per vessel, being this plan available 72h before the so-called ETA (Estimated Time of

Arrival).

Regarding Yard Planning, this module manages the optimization of the storage capacity of the

yard, assigning optimum positions to each container within stacking areas and organizing the

needed equipment to manage the involved containers. The process to assign a container

position within the stacking area is following described:

In a first stage, the Yard Planning module assigns the stacking slots to different types of

traffic (import, export and transhipment).




The second phase consists of assigning the exact position of the container within the

stacking block. The system uses general stacking rules like stacking height, weight of the

container, equipment availability, priority of loading/unloading etc.

It may happen that the system does not directly assign a definitive location; in that case the

container is placed in a buffer area where it remains until the system decides the exact

position. Then, the container is transported to the assigned position by means of

housekeeping operations.

Ship Planning is another key planning module which is in charge of the vessel call preparation.

This module develops the following processes:

When the shipping company sends the loading/unloading plan and the Bay-Plan, this

information is received by the terminal in form of an archive called BAPLIE which is

transmitted by means of the EDI system.

In the same manner, the COPRAR EDI archive is transmitted through the port community

system of Valenciaport (valenciaportpcs.net). COPRAR contains the list of containers which

will be loaded / unloaded at the vessel call and it is sent by the shipping agent which

represents the shipping company.

With the information contained in the BAPLIE and COPRAR archives, the Ship Planning

module calculates an automated sequence of the loading / unloading operations using

variables and parameters like the weight of the containers, the vessel stability and the

number and availability of STS cranes, among others.

Figure 22. Example of CATOS Screen-Shot Ship Planning





CATOS Operation System

This TOS module is responsible for monitoring and controlling all the operations related to the

containers handling at the port container terminal. CATOS Operation System manages the

different operatives described in Section 2 of the present document (maritime, land,

housekeeping, etc.)

The maritime operative is controlled by means of the Berth Monitoring System, a support tool

that allows the “bay planner” operator to monitor different aspects of the berth sub-system

operations (crane management, priority assignment, loading and unloading operations, etc).

Yard operations are also controlled by the CATOS Operation System by means of the Terminal

Monitoring System support tool. This software monitors all the yard operations in real time,

providing information related to all yard equipment (location, work order, next movement,

etc.). In this manner, external road trucks use a RFID tag to receive by the TOS the location of

the stacking area where they must deliver or receive a certain container.

The module also allows the manual configuration of the work sequence for a certain machine,

thus introducing work orders in real time over the pre-selected sequence. With this method it

is possible to restrict movements or assign new orders in function of the work load of the

moment.

Figure 23. General Structure of CATOS Operation System


CATOS Management System

The CATOS Management System is responsible for the business and accounting functions of

the terminal (invoicing, analytical accounting, statistics, etc.).




2.6.2 Livorno Darsena Toscana Container Terminal TOS

The TDT operating system, based on Oracle’s SPARCS server architecture, is used for activity

planning (vessel, yard, rail and berth planning) and for the management of yard vehicles and

equipments, in terms of their assignment to work shift pools or maintenance, yard dispatching

and wireless real time monitoring.

Figure 24. General Structure of Livorno Darsena Toscana TOS

Source: Port Authority of Livorno / Global Service

The documental workflow is managed by a software component called J.T.I.S., while general

operations real time monitoring is in charge of the T.O.P. system.

J.T.I.S. allows input, editing and retrieving of the following information:

- Containers check-in

- Technical inspections

- Containers Loading / Unloading lists

- Customs controls and auxiliary operations

- Customs Bill data input

- Containers actual loading / unloading confirmation



Figure 25. Example of TDT TOS Screen-Shot (I)


Figure 26. Example of TDT TOS Screen-Shot (II)




2.6.3 Koper Container Terminal TOS

The Luka Koper Container Terminal has implemented the terminal operation system Tideworks

in year 2012. This system has replaced the system called Cosmos that was in use since year

2004.

The peculiarity of the TOS of Container Terminal in Koper is the interrelation with the system

TinO, which is a tailor made application used on all the terminals at the Port of Koper which

has been acknowledged by the Custom Administration of Slovenia as the official system that

records the status of cargo at the Port of Koper.

The solution provided by Tideworks offers various modules. Luka Koper has purchased three

modules: Spinnaker (Planning Management System), Mainsail Vanguard (Marine Terminal

Operating System), and Traffic Control (Equipment Dispatch).

Spinnaker (Planning Management System)

Spinnaker Planning Management System fully-integrates vessel, yard and rail planning tools in

one workspace. The TOS sub-module berth planning is not used in Koper for actual planning,

since berth planning is done by the Department of coordination of operations with the support

of TinO, so the Container Terminal is excluded from this phase. Since TOS is interrelated with

TinO, TOS gives visibility to data regarding berthing to planners on the Container Terminal.

Shipping agents are requested to announce vessel arrival 7 days prior the arrival and then

confirm the arrival 48 hours and 24 hours before the arrival through TinO.

Planning of gangs is being done also through TinO.

Vessel Planning enables to seamlessly send and receive pre-stow and stow plans, view and

quickly manipulate real-time, colour-coded container information into electronically

dispatched work orders. Shipping agents send work orders through TinO (so called

disposition), but they have to send BAPLIE to the terminal staff by e-mail that imports data to

the TOS to enable planning of vessel loading/unloading operations.

The vessel window is a weekly schedule containing lists of vessels to be loaded / unloaded in a

certain day of a week, which assigns a certain work order and priority.

Regarding Yard Planning this module automates container location assignments to maximize

space utilization and the effectiveness of vessel and gate operations, manages container

placement exceptions and corrects container locations.

The containers are planned already before their arrival. Reservations are made considering the

container’s destination, weight, size and vessel (in case of export). When the container actually

arrives (independently from the direction) the TOS checks the data to find the target position.

In case of mismatch, human intervention is needed to assign the suitable position.



Rail Planning is used to plan inbound and outbound trains. Planning of train arrivals and

departures as well as track assignment is being done for the whole port by the department for

internal railway transports through TinO.

Similarly to the vessel window, also a rail window has been established to set on a weekly basis

a list of work for a certain day of the week.

Mainsail Vanguard (Marine Terminal Operating System)

The Marine Terminal Operating System supports complete inventory management of

containers as well as provides the customers access to key terminal data on demand using a

web interface, Mainsail Online.

Traffic Control (Equipment Dispatch)

The traffic control enables to manage rail, gate and yard movements. It enables to view and

assign equipment.

This module allows dispatching work instructions to operators and displaying container move

instructions. The instructions are delivered to handheld computers with touch screen

functionality without the need of paper instructions.

Figure 27. Example of Port of Koper TOS Screen-Shot. Yard Management Screen

Source: TOS Tideworks, implementation at the Container Terminal in Koper



Figure 28. Example of Port of Koper TOS. Instructions to Crane Operators Working on Railway Loading


Figure 29. Example of Port of Koper TOS. Instructions to Crane Operators Working on the Yard




Figure 30. Example of Port of Koper TOS. Berthing Window Table




3 DEFINITION OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION MAPS AT PCTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The concept of “Energy Consumption Map” has been introduced in GREENCRANES with the

aim of answering to a capital question that many times is not possible to clarify within the

context of port container terminals, that is, where is the energy being consumed at the PCT?

The reality shows that there are important constraints which introduce difficulties in the

knowledge and management of energy variables involved in the operational models of PCTs.

Traditionally, energy efficiency has not been a critical factor on the port industry due to the

relative low weight of the energy cost over the total expenditures of PCTs. However, in recent

years this perception is changing due to different factors like the increase in energy prices, the

adoption of strong environmental regulations which limit the GHG emission levels and the

society awareness concerning sustainability and environmental impact of industrial activities.

At the same time, the technological evolution nowadays allows the transition from a carbon-

based economy model (based mainly on fossil fuels) to a low-carbon productive model (based

on renewable energy sources and cleaner fuels like LNG, bio-fuels or even hydrogen).

In order to facilitate this transition at the port industry, several actions are nowadays under

discussion like, for instance, the adoption of LNG as fuel in vessels and port machinery,

electrification of traditionally fuel-based activities and on-site energy generation taking

advantage of renewable energies (wind, solar, etc.). GREENCRANES aims to foster this

progressive evolution by demonstrating that the implementation of eco-efficient alternatives

based on low-carbon emissions is possible from the economic, environmental and social point

of view.

The following sections provide key information related to the real energy consumption of

three strategic container terminals of the Mediterranean area (Valencia, Livorno and Koper).

The selected installations are reference facilities for the European port sector and the results

obtained can be easily extrapolated to other PCTs in Europe.

In order to obtain comparable and harmonized results, the study covers the three terminals

along the same time period, the years 2011 and 2012 (considering the last available

information at the elaboration of this report). The analysis has been focused on the main

energy sources used at the participant port container terminals: electricity and fuel involved in

PCTs processes and services. The scope of the study has been defined taking into account the

key activities of port container terminals and the operational model described in Section 2.

The analysis of energy consumption (both electrical and fuel) has been disaggregated into

different types of energy consumer centres involving port machinery, offices and other

auxiliary services following a common methodology in the three PCTs.



3.2 NOATUM CONTAINER TERMINAL VALENCIA

3.2.1 Description of the Installation

Noatum Container Terminal Valencia (NCTV) is the main terminal at Valenciaport, the leading

Spanish port in the Mediterranean Sea especially with regards to container traffic. The world's

biggest container shipping lines call at the terminal and there are important connections via

feeder services. It is the ideal maritime gateway for the Iberian Peninsula and its connections

to the centre of Spain make it the natural port for Madrid. Valenciaport's direct area of

influence encompasses a radius of 350 Km., which generates 55% of Spain's GDP and includes

half the entire working population of the country. The proximity of the Suez-Gibraltar axis,

route of the main deep sea shipping lines is also significant.

Noatum Container Terminal Valencia provides a berthing line of 1.780 m. The total yard area

for container storage comprises 93 ha and 7 ha dedicated to container services. Moreover, the

terminal is equipped with 1.020 reefer containers plugs. The terminal equipment is composed

by 19 Ship-to-Shore cranes and 56 Rubber Tyred Gantry (RTG) cranes for yard container

handling. Moreover, the terminal provides 4 reach stackers, 23 trucks and 66 yard tractors.

Noatum Container Terminal has recently implemented an Automated Gate System with 8

entries and 4 exit gates equipped with optical character recognition (OCR) in order to avoid

trucks queues, thus gaining a significant competitive advantage concerning the level of services

within the land-sea interface.

Figure 31. Noatum Container Terminal Valencia

Source: Noatum



3.2.2 Equipment Inventory

The equipment used at Noatum Container Terminal Valencia comprises different typologies

and families of machinery. The following tables describe the equipment involved in container

handling at NCTV.

Table 2. NCTV STS Cranes Inventory

Equipment Typology Units Characteristics

STS Cranes

Type 1: PACECO 8 Over Super-Post Panamax

Type 2 FANTUZZI-REGGIANE 2 Over Super-Post Panamax

Type 3: PACECO 4 Super-Post Panamax

Type 4: PACECO 4 Post-Panamax

Type 5: PACECO 1 Panamax

Source: Noatum

Table 3. NCTV RTG Cranes Inventory


RTG Cranes

Type 1: PACECO 15 Transtainer

Type 2: FANTUZZI-REGGIANE 24 RTG

Type 3: KONECRANES 17 RTG

Source: Noatum

Table 4. NCTV Yard Tractors Inventory


Yard Tractors Type 1: TERBERG 66 Yard Tractor

Type 2: IVECO-RENAULT 23 Road Tractor

Source: Noatum

Table 5. NCTV Reach Stackers Inventory


Reach Stackers

Type 1: FERRARI 1 Model EC

Type 2: FANTUZZI-REGGIANE 3 Model CS45s

Type 3: TEREX-FANTUZZI 2 Model CS45KM

Type 4: KALMAR 1 Model DSR4531

Source: Noatum

Table 6. NCTV Empty Container Forklifts Inventory


Empty Container Forklifts

Type 1: CATERPILLAR 1 V925E 42t

Type 2: LUNA 5 TH4EC 8t

Type 3: FERRARI 2 EC08.6 8t

Type 4: TEREX-FANTUZZI 3 FDC25K7

Source: Noatum

Table 7. NCTV Internal Transport Vehicles


Internal Transport Vehicles

Type 1: RENAULT 11 CLIO

Type 2: RENAULT 2 TWINGO

Type 3: FORD 2 FIESTA

Type 4:NISSAN 1 PICKUP

Type 5: FIAT 3 PICKUP

Type 6: SKODA 1 PICKUP

Source: Noatum



Table 8. NCTV STS Cranes Technical Specifications

Source: Noatum

STS STS STS STS STS STS STS STS STS STS STS STS STS STS STS STS STS STS STS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

MANUFACTURER PACECO PACECO PACECO PACECO PACECO PACECO PACECO PACECO PACECO

NOELL-

REGGIANE

NOELL-

REGGIANE PACECO PACECO PACECO PACECO PACECO PACECO PACECO PACECO

GENERATION PANAM AXPOST-

PANAM AX

POST-

PANAM AX

POST-

PANAM AX

POST-

PANAM AX

SUPER POST-

PANAM AX

SUPER POST-

PANAM AX

SUPER POST-

PANAM AX

SUPER POST-

PANAM AX

OVER SUPER

POST-

PANAM AX

OVER SUPER

POST-

PANAM AX

OVER SUPER

POST-

PANAM AX

OVER SUPER

POST-

PANAM AX

OVER SUPER

POST-

PANAM AX

OVER SUPER

POST-

PANAM AX

OVER SUPER

POST-

PANAM AX

OVER SUPER

POST-

PANAM AX

OVER SUPER

POST-

PANAM AX

OVER SUPER

POST-

PANAM AX

SERIAL NUMBERA43 MVLP02 A55 MVLP04 A77 MVLP05 A92 MVLP06 A92 MVLP07

P152

MVLP08

P153

MVLP09

P190

MVLP10

P196

MVLP11 11029/1 11029/2

P217

MVLP13

P218

MVLP14

P219

MVLP15

P242

MVLP16

P 243

MVLP17

P258

MVLP18

P 259

MVLP19

P 260

MVLP20

YEAR 1984 1990 1992 1996 1996 1999 1999 1999 2000 2002 2002 2003 2003 2005 2008 2008 2010 2010 2012

OUTREACH [containers] 13 15 15 16 16 19 19 19 19 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

C OUTREACH [m] 35,176 41,000 42,000 45,000 45,000 50,300 50,300 50,300 50,300 60,000 60,000 58,500 58,500 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000

B RAIL GAUGE [m] 15,240 15,240 15,240 30,480 30,480 30,480 30,480 30,480 30,480 30,480 30,480 30,480 30,480 30,480 30,480 30,480 30,480 30,480 30,480

A BACKREACH [m] 9,268 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 20,000 20,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000

D TOTAL TROLLEY TRAVEL

(A+B+C)

[m] 59,684 66,240 67,240 85,480 85,480 92,780 92,780 92,780 92,780 110,480 110,480 102,980 102,980 104,480 104,480 104,480 104,480 104,480 104,480

E LIFTING HEIGHT UNDER

SPREADER ABOVE RAIL

[m] 25,144 31,500 33,000 33,000 33,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 41,000 41,000 35,000 35,000 40,000 41,000 41,000 42,000 42,000 42,000

F TOTAL LIFTING HEIGHT [m] 42,624 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 56,500 56,500 52,000 52,000 52,000 57,000 57,000 57,000 57,000 58,000

O HEIGHT UNDER PORTAL

GIRDER

[m] 13,733 14,003 14,003 14,000 14,000 15,400 15,400 15,400 15,426 16,000 16,000 16,835 16,835 17,005 16,000 16,000 17,655 17,655 17,655

U MAXIMUM GANTRY HEIGHT [m] 52,000 59,000 59,000 62,100 62,100 60,000 72,000 72,000 67,549 88,685 88,685 73,539 73,539 78,780 79,000 79,000 79,000 79,000 79,000

GCLEARANCE BETWEEN

LEGS [m]15,161 16,900 16,900 18,400 18,400 18,400 18,400 18,400 18,450 18,000 18,000 18,280 18,280 18,280 18,280 18,280 18,280 18,280 18,280

H WIDTH BETWEEN LEGS

(AXIS TO AXIS)

[m] 16,611 18,132 18,132 19,940 19,940 19,940 19,940 19,940 19,940 20,850 20,850 20,280 20,280 20,280 20,280 20,280 20,280 20,280 20,280

K MAXIMUM GANTRY WIDTH

(BUMPERS EXTENDED)

[m] 24,487 24,487 24,487 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 26,000 27,000 27,000 26,800 26,800 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000

APROX. GANTRY WEIGHT [Ton] 680 870 870 790 790 950 950 950 1050 1250 1250 1100 1100 1200 1200 1200 1300 1300 1300

AC ELECTRICAL SUPPLY [Phases/V/Hz] 3/6000/50 3/6000/50 3/6000/50 3/6000/50 3/6000/50 3/6000/50 3/6000/50 3/6000/50 3/6000/50 3/6000/50 3/6000/50 3/6000/50 3/6000/50 3/6000/50 3/6000/50 3/6000/50 3/6000/50 3/6000/50 3/6000/50

RATED LOAD UNDER

SPREADER

[Ton] 32,50 40,00 40,00 40,00 40,00 40,00 40,00 40,00 40,00 61,00 61,00 61,00 61,00 61,00 61,00 61,00 65,00 65,00 65,00

TWIN-LIFT [YES/NO] NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO SÍ SÍ SÍ SÍ SÍ SÍ SÍ SÍ SÍ SÍ SI

LOA D ED [m/min] 32 52 52 52 52 70 70 70 70 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

UN LOA D ED [m/min] 70 120 120 130 130 130 130 130 130 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

T R OLLEY [m/min] 120 150 150 150 150 175 175 175 175 210 210 215 215 215 215 215 240 240 240

GA N T R Y [m/min] 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

BOOM UP TIME [min] 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

MAX. WIND SPEED DURING

OPERATION

[Km/h] 65 75 75 70 70 70 70 70 70 90 90 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

TRAVELLING SPEED

SPECIFICATIONS

LIFTING/HOISTING SPEED

M AIN DIM ENSIONS

CRANE TYPE

NUMBER

C

FE

D

A B

O

U

K

G

H



Table 9. NCTV RTG Cranes Specifications

Source: Noatum

D B A C K F G H M

LOADED UNLOADED TROLLEY GANTRY

[Delivery

date][cont.] [m] [cont.] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [Ton] [Ton] [m/min] [m/min] [m/min] [m/min]

RTT 01 PACECO 6 X10A 1979-01-15 3+1 12,854 6+1 21,444 22,556 23,592 24,342 6,400 9,405 17,374 17,400 83 32,5 9 18 60 120

RTT 02 PACECO 7 X10B 1979-01-15 3+1 12,854 6+1 21,444 22,556 23,592 24,342 6,400 9,405 17,374 17,400 83 32,5 9 18 60 120

RTT 03 PACECO 8 X10C 1980-07-29 3+1 12,854 6+1 21,444 22,556 23,592 24,342 6,400 9,405 17,374 17,400 83 32,5 9 18 60 120

RTT 04 PACECO 9 X40A 1982-11-01 3+1 12,854 6+1 21,444 22,556 23,592 24,342 6,400 9,405 17,374 17,400 83 32,5 9 18 60 120

RTT 05 PACECO 10 X40B 1982-11-01 3+1 12,854 6+1 21,444 22,556 23,592 24,342 6,400 9,405 17,374 17,400 83 32,5 9 18 60 120

RTT 06 PACECO 11 X52A 1984-03-14 3+1 13,204 6+1 21,000 22,555 23,800 25,377 6,400 9,400 17,000 18,400 83 32,5 9 18 60 120

RTT 07 PACECO 12 X52B 1986-06-01 3+1 13,204 6+1 21,000 22,555 23,800 25,377 6,400 9,400 17,000 18,400 90 32,5 9 18 60 120

RTT 08 PACECO 13 X52C 1986-06-01 3+1 13,204 6+1 21,000 22,555 23,800 25,377 6,400 9,400 17,000 18,400 90 32,5 9 18 60 120

RTT 09 PACECO 14 X63 1989-10-20 4+1 15,000 6+1 21,299 22,555 23,963 25,045 7,925 10,725 17,752 22,400 100 40,0 9 18 60 120

RTT 10 PACECO 15 X70A 1990-08-21 4+1 15,000 6+1 21,299 22,555 23,963 25,045 7,925 10,725 17,752 22,400 100 40,0 11 22 60 120

RTT 11 PACECO 16 X70B 1990-08-21 4+1 15,000 6+1 21,299 22,555 23,963 25,045 7,925 10,725 17,752 22,400 100 40,0 11 22 60 120

RTT 12 PACECO 38 X87 1995-06-01 4+1 15,000 6+1 21,223 22,555 25,230 25,310 7,925 10,641 17,801 21,700 125 40,0 20 40 60 120

RTT 13 PACECO 39 X87 1995-06-15 4+1 15,000 6+1 21,223 22,555 25,230 25,310 7,925 10,641 17,801 21,700 125 40,0 20 40 60 120

RTT 14 PACECO 41 X93 1996-04-01 4+1 15,000 6+1 21,223 22,555 25,230 25,310 7,925 10,641 17,801 21,700 125 40,0 20 40 60 120

RTT 15 PACECO 42 X93 1996-04-01 4+1 15,000 6+1 21,223 22,555 25,230 25,310 7,925 10,641 17,801 21,700 125 40,0 20 40 60 120

RTT 16 PACECO 43 X93 1996-04-01 4+1 15,000 6+1 21,223 22,555 25,230 25,310 7,925 10,641 17,801 21,700 125 40,0 20 40 60 120

RTT 17 PACECO 44 X93 1996-04-01 4+1 15,000 6+1 21,223 22,555 25,230 25,310 7,925 10,641 17,801 21,700 125 40,0 20 40 60 120

RTT 18 PACECO 47 X98 1996-10-15 4+1 15,000 6+1 21,223 22,555 25,230 25,310 7,925 10,641 17,801 21,700 125 40,0 20 40 60 120

RTT 19 PACECO 48 X98 1996-10-15 4+1 15,000 6+1 21,223 22,555 25,230 25,310 7,925 10,641 17,801 21,700 125 40,0 20 40 60 120

RTT 20 PACECO 71 RT/154 1998-12-01 4+1 15,010 6+1 21,223 22,555 24,380 25,230 7,925 10,641 17,801 21,380 130 40,0 20 40 60 120

RTT 21 PACECO 72 RT/155 1998-12-01 4+1 15,010 6+1 21,223 22,555 24,380 25,230 7,925 10,641 17,801 21,380 130 40,0 20 40 60 120

RTT 22 PACECO 74 RT/156 1998-12-09 4+1 15,010 6+1 21,223 22,555 24,380 25,230 7,925 10,641 17,801 21,380 130 40,0 20 40 60 120

RTT 23 PACECO 75 RT/157 1998-12-21 4+1 15,010 6+1 21,223 22,555 24,380 25,230 7,925 10,641 17,801 21,380 130 40,0 20 40 60 120

RTG 24 FANTUZZI-REGGIANE87 RTG 40105/24 2000-09-25 4+1 15,000 6+1 21,150 22,550 24,500 25,720 6,400 11,700 17,800 22,475 150 40,0 30 60 70 130
























RTG 48 KONECRANES 129 G506 2005-06-03 5+1 18,200 6+1 21,925 23,000 24,976 26,151 8,100 12,050 18,316 23,800 125 50,8 30 60 70 130

RTG 49 KONECRANES 130 G507 2005-06-03 5+1 18,200 6+1 21,925 23,000 24,976 26,151 8,100 12,050 18,316 23,800 125 50,8 30 60 70 130

RTG 50 KONECRANES 131 G508 2005-06-03 5+1 18,200 6+1 21,925 23,000 24,976 26,151 8,100 12,050 18,316 23,800 125 50,8 30 60 70 130

RTG 51 KONECRANES 132 G818 2007-06-27 5+1 18,100 6+1 21,884 23,000 24,976 26,128 8,100 12,050 18,316 25,080 128 50,8 30 60 70 130

RTG 52 KONECRANES 133 G819 2007-06-27 5+1 18,100 6+1 21,884 23,000 24,976 26,128 8,100 12,050 18,316 25,080 128 50,8 30 60 70 130

RTG 53 KONECRANES 134 G820 2007-06-27 5+1 18,100 6+1 21,884 23,000 24,976 26,128 8,100 12,050 18,316 25,080 128 50,8 30 60 70 130

RTG 54 KONECRANES 135 G821 2007-07-24 5+1 18,100 6+1 21,884 23,000 24,976 26,128 8,100 12,050 18,316 25,080 128 50,8 30 60 70 130

RTG 55 KONECRANES 136 G822 2007-07-24 5+1 18,100 6+1 21,884 23,000 24,976 26,128 8,100 12,050 18,316 25,080 128 50,8 30 60 70 130

RTG 56 KONECRANES 137 G823 2007-07-31 5+1 18,100 6+1 21,884 23,000 24,976 26,128 8,100 12,050 18,316 25,080 128 50,8 30 60 70 130

RTG 57 KONECRANES 138 G824 2007-09-01 5+1 18,100 6+1 21,884 23,000 24,976 26,128 8,100 12,050 18,316 25,080 128 50,8 30 60 70 130

RTG 58 KONECRANES 139 G825 2007-09-01 5+1 18,100 6+1 21,884 23,000 24,976 26,128 8,100 12,050 18,316 25,080 128 50,8 30 60 70 130

RTG 59 KONECRANES 140 G826 2008-01-14 5+1 18,100 6+1 21,884 23,000 24,976 26,128 8,100 12,050 18,316 25,080 128 50,8 30 60 70 130

RTG 60 KONECRANES 141 G827 2007-12-28 5+1 18,100 6+1 21,884 23,000 24,976 26,128 8,100 12,050 18,316 25,080 128 50,8 30 60 70 130

RTG 61 KONECRANES 142 G828 2008-02-27 5+1 18,100 6+1 21,884 23,000 24,976 26,128 8,100 12,050 18,316 25,080 128 50,8 30 60 70 130

RTG 62 KONECRANES 143 G829 2008-02-28 5+1 18,100 6+1 21,884 23,000 24,976 26,128 8,100 12,050 18,316 25,080 128 50,8 30 60 70 130

RTG 63 KONECRANES 144 G830 2008-03-04 5+1 18,100 6+1 21,884 23,000 24,976 26,128 8,100 12,050 18,316 25,080 128 50,8 30 60 70 130

RTG 64 KONECRANES 145 G831 2008-03-07 5+1 18,100 6+1 21,884 23,000 24,976 26,128 8,100 12,050 18,316 25,080 128 50,8 30 60 70 130

GENERAL DATA MAIN DIMENSIONS

DISTANCE

BETWEEN

TIRES CENTRE

OVERALL

WIDTH

HOISTING SPEED

SPECIFICATIONS

CRANE TYPE REF.MANUFACTUR

ERINT. CODE

TRAVELLING SPEED

SERIAL

NUMBER

LIFTING

CAPACITY

UNDER

LIFTING

HEIGHT UNDER

SPREADER

YEARCONT.

UNDER

SPREADER

CONT.

BETWEEN

LEGS

USEFUL

DISTANCE

BETWEEN

MAX. SPANWIDTH

BETWEEN

AXIS

MAX. WIDTHTOTAL

TROLLEY

TRAVEL

MAX. CRANE

HEIGHT

CRANE

WEIGHT



Table 10. NCTV Yard Tractors Specifications

Source: Noatum

32 TERBERG 2002-2005

17 TERBERG 2006-2007

10 TERBERG 2009

8 TERBERG 2012

26 FABRISEM 2002

24 FABRISEM 2006-2007

6 FDT 2009

TRUCK

TERMINAL TRACTOR TYPE REFERENCE MANUFACTURER REGISTER DATE

PLATFORM TYPE REFERENCE UNITS MANUFACTURER REGISTER DATE

CONVENTIONAL

HIGH CAPACITY

UNITS

IVECO

FREUHAUF

YARD TRACTOR TERBERG 01-32

PT65TON 100 A 125



3.2.3 Energy Consumption Distribution

3.2.3.1 Electrical Consumption

In this section a description of the electrical energy consumption of the terminal is presented.

For the years 2011 and 2012, the global electrical consumption of NCTV is distributed as the

next table shows:

Table 11. NCTV Electrical Consumption Distribution. Years 2011 and 2012

2011 (kWh) 2012 (kWh)

STS Cranes 6.510.256 7.258.592

Terminal Lightning 2.438.803 2.881.060

Offices 1.061.346 1.008.167

Reefer Containers 9.193.395 8.254.037

Total Terminal NCTV 19.203.799 19.401.856

Source: Noatum

Figure 32. NCTV Electrical Consumption Distribution Year 2011

Source: Noatum / Own Elaboration

Table 11 and Figures 32 and 33 show the main electrical consumption of NCTV considering the

period 2011-2012. Electrical consumption is divided into four major categories: STS cranes,

terminal lightning, offices and reefer containers.

The provided data shows that reefer containers and STS cranes are the two main contributors

to the global terminal electrical consumption. Both categories represent 82% of the total

electrical consumption of the terminal. It is important to remark that, whereas STS cranes

receive electrical energy at high voltage, reefer containers work with low voltage, in the same

way as yard lightning and offices. Both categories are also strongly influenced by the level of

traffic on a monthly basis. The electrical consumption associated is 19.203.799 and 19.401.856

kWh for 2011 and 2012 respectively.

34%

13%5%

48%

Electrical Consumption 2011 (kWh)

STS Cranes Yard Lightning Offices Container Reefers



Figure 33 shows the electrical consumption distribution of the terminal in 2012. The

distribution follows the same pattern as in the year 2011, being the two main energy

consumption categories again the reefer containers (43%) and STS cranes (37%).

Figure 33. NCTV Electrical Distribution Year 2012


Figure 34. NCTV Monthly Electrical Consumption Evolution. Years 2011 and 20124


Figure 34 shows the electrical consumption evolution during the period January 2011-October

20124 (last data monthly disaggregated), where it is appreciated the strong contribution to the

total amount of energy those consumption of reefer containers and STS cranes. It is also

appreciated the correlation about the consumption of both categories along the study.

4 From now on, 2012 corresponds to the period January-October

37%

15%5%

43%



0

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1.000.000

1.200.000

Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12

Electrical Consumption Evolution 2011-2012* (kWh)

STS Cranes Yard Lightning Offices Reefer Containers



3.2.3.2 Fuel Consumption

This section describes a significant contribution of the global energy consumption of the

container terminal, due to the high amount of fuel needed to perform yard operations. The

variety of machinery involved as well as the work intensity of a PCT (24/360) implies the

continuous supply of fuel (mostly diesel petrol) in order keep the terminal running. Fuel

consumption is also a major contribution to direct GHG emissions, and contributes to increase

the global carbon footprint of the terminal. The following tables and figures provide detailed

information about fuel consumption volumes and their relationship with the operational

parameters of the terminal.

Table 12 provides the general figures of fuel consumption according to the different typology

of yard equipment: RTGs, yard tractors, reach stackers and empty container forklifts. The

analysis comprises the years 2011 and 20124. This table shows that the total amount of fuel

consumption directly associated to yard operations reached 6.103.445 litres in 2011 and

6.120.305 litres in 20124. It is appreciated a light increase of fuel consumption in 20124 taking

into account that the available data does not cover the whole year.

Table 12. NCTV Fuel Consumption Distribution. Years 2011 and 20124


Figure 35. NCTV Fuel Consumption Distribution Year 2011


Total Fuel Consumption (Litres) 2011 2012*

RTGs 3.857.979 3.815.654

Yard Tractors 1.989.517 2.010.581

Reach Stackers 193.547 225.976

Empty Forklifts 62.402 68.094

TOTAL 6.103.445 6.120.305

63%

33%

3% 1%

Yard Machinery. Total Fuel Consumption NCTV 2011

RTGs Yard Tractors Reach Stackers Empty Forklifts



Figure 36. NCTV Fuel Consumption Distribution Year 20124


In 2011, 63% of the total fuel consumption was associated to the operation of RTGs, whereas

33% was due to the work of yard tractors. These two types of machines represent around 96%

of the total fuel consumption of the terminal, being the remaining 4% divided between reach

stackers (3%) and empty container forklifts (1%). The fuel consumption distribution in 20124 is

quite similar to the case of 2011, as Figure 36 shows. In this case the same percentage

distribution is appreciated with the available data corresponding to the period January-

October 2012.

Figure 37. NCTV Yard Machinery Fuel Consumption Years 2011 and 20124


62%

33%

4% 1%

Yard Machinery. Total Fuel Consumption NCTV 2012*


0

500.000

1.000.000

1.500.000

2.000.000

2.500.000

3.000.000

3.500.000

4.000.000

4.500.000


Yard Machinery. Total Fuel Consumption NCTV. (Litres) Years 2011 and 2012*

2011 2012*



Figure 37 shows the distribution of fuel consumption of each typology of yard equipment in

2011 and 20124. In the same manner as showed in Figures 35 and 36, it can be appreciated to

great contribution to the total fuel consumption of RTGs and yard tractors in NCTV.

Each typology of machines is composed by different families, thus introducing a bias in the

general analysis (different energy performance, electronic and engine systems, etc.). In the

case of NCTV, three RTG families can be considered where each of one presents two sub-types

of machines. The Paceco family is composed by two types of machines, one equipped with

Volvo engines and the other equipped with Scania engines. The second family corresponds to

the manufacturer Fantuzzi, being divided into other two sub-types of RTG: Fantuzzi equipped

with General Electric and Siemens electronic systems respectively. Finally, the third and

newest family comprises the Konecranes family, which is divided into the Konecranes FSS2

model and the Konecranes equipped with variable speed system. Both systems are energy

efficiency technologies which produce a significant reduction in fuel consumption.

Table 13. NCTV RTG Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine


Table 13 shows the fuel consumption expressed in litres for each family and sub-type of

machine. It can be appreciated that the Fantuzzi family is the greatest energy consumer in

comparison with the Paceco and Konecranes families. It is obvious that a major use of these

machines instead of the other two families will produce a higher consumption of the Fantuzzi

cranes. This argument is valid when comparing Fantuzzi vs Paceco (976.778 movements in

2011 from Fantuzzi against 48.483 movements from Paceco), as the last family (Paceco) is less

used in yard operations due to its operational obsolescence. The gantry dimensions of the

Paceco machines do not allow a stacking operation higher than 4 containers in a block, being a

physical limit which has been surpassed by the Fantuzzi and Konecranes family in the terminal.

Table 14. NCTV RTG Movements by Type of Machine


RTGs (Litres) 2011 2012*

PACECO - VOLVO 64.837 84.364

PACECO - SCANIA 78.710 91.152

FANTUZZI - GE 1.113.110 1.107.421

FANTUZZI - SIEMENS 1.537.785 1.519.685

KONECRANES - FSS2 178.613 178.512

KONECRANES - VARIABLE SPEED 884.924 834.520

TOTAL 3.857.979 3.815.654

RTGs (Movements) 2011 2012*

PACECO - VOLVO 18.405 28.583

PACECO - SCANIA 30.078 37.929

FANTUZZI - GE 372.979 374.103

FANTUZZI - SIEMENS 603.799 584.945

KONECRANES - FSS2 120.053 118.685

KONECRANES - VARIABLE SPEED 755.538 707.171

TOTAL 1.900.852 1.851.416



When comparing the Fantuzzi vs the Konecranes family, this operational obsolescence does

not take place as both families offer similar operational features. Moreover, the number of

movements carried out by each family is also similar as it is showed in Table 14: 976.778

movements in 2011 carried out by Fantuzzi against 875.591 movements performed by

Konecranes in 2011 as well. In this manner, It is remarkable the high energy efficiency of the

Konecranes family.

Figure 38. NCTV RTG Movements and Fuel Consumption Year 2011


Figure 38 shows the relationship between consumption (litres) and operation (number of

movements) of the different RTG families. It can be appreciated a strong difference between

the Fantuzzi and Konecranes families. Whereas the Fantuzzi family (both sub-types included)

show a consumption rate of 2,98 litres/movement (Fantuzzi GE) and 2,55 litres/movement

(Fantuzzi Siemens) respectively, the Konecranes family presents a lower consumption rate,

being 1,49 litres/movement (Konecranes FSS2) and 1,17 litres/movement (Konecranes

Variable Speed) respectively. More values for this indicator are presented in Table 15.

Table 15. NCTV Litres/Movement Ratio Years 2011 and 20124


0

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1.000.000

1.200.000

1.400.000

1.600.000

1.800.000

PACECO -VOLVO

PACECO -SCANIA

FANTUZZI - GE FANTUZZI -SIEMENS

KONECRANES -FSS2

KONECRANES -VARIABLE

SPEED

RTGs. Movements and Fuel Consumption NCTV (Litres). Year 2011

Litres Movements

RTGs (Litres/Mov) 2011 2012*

PACECO - VOLVO 3,52 2,95

PACECO - SCANIA 2,62 2,40

FANTUZZI - GE 2,98 2,96

FANTUZZI - SIEMENS 2,55 2,60

KONECRANES - FSS2 1,49 1,50

KONECRANES - VARIABLE SPEED 1,17 1,18

Average 2,39 2,27



When considering Yard Tractors, two main families are used at the terminal. The first family is

composed by Terberg manufacturer Yard Tractors equipped with different types of engines

(sub-type Volvo 720-750 and sub-type Cummins). The second family of tractors are road trucks

composed by Renault and Iveco trucks. These machines are ordinary road trucks which are

used at the terminal in peak work hours or when Terberg Yard Tractors are not available. The

figures of fuel consumption of both families are showed in Table 16 and Figure 39.

Table 16. NCTV Yard Tractors Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine Years 2011 and 20124


Figure 39. NCTV Yard Tractors Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine Years 2011 and 20124


Terberg family represents a fuel consumption of 1.880.198 litres, being the Volvo sub-type the

most used machine. This wide difference over the rest of Yard Tractors and road trucks can be

clearly appreciated in Figure 39, being this typology of machines the main yard equipment

dedicated to horizontal transport at the terminal.

Yard Tractors (Litres) 2011 2012*

TERBERG VOLVO 720 791.137 865.539

TERBERG VOLVO 750 1.089.061 1.005.692

TERBERG CUMMINS 0 1.760

RENAULT TRUCKS 15.170 16.204

IVECO TRUCKS 94.149 121.386

TOTAL 1.991.528 2.010.581

0

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1.000.000

1.200.000

TERBERG VOLVO 720

TERBERG VOLVO 750

TERBERG CUMMINS

RENAULT TRUCKS IVECO TRUCKS

Yard Tractors. Total Fuel Consumption NCTV. (Litres) Years 2011 and 2012*

2011 2012*



Reach Stackers are another category of machines although as it was shown in Table 12 and

Figures 35, 36 and 37, they do not contribute to the global amount of fuel energy consumption

in the same way as RTGs and Yard Tractors. In fact only 3% and 4% of the total amount of fuel

consumption is due to these machines in 2011 and 20124 respectively. There are three types of

Reach Stackers at NCTV, providing a total consumption of 193.547 litres in 2011 and 225.976

litres in 20124. A light increase of fuel consumption between these years can be appreciated.

This can be explained by the growth of traffics at the terminal or due to an increase of

housekeeping and railway operations.

Table 17. NCTV Reach Stackers Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine Years 2011 and 20124


Figure 40. NCTV Reach Stackers Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine Years 2011 and 20124


Figure 40 shows the fuel consumption distribution of the three types of Reach Stackers at

NCTV, being the Fantuzzi CS45KS the most used followed by the Terex CS45KM and the Ferrari

CVS.

Reach Stackers (Litres) 2011 2012*

FANTUZZI CS45KS 167.080 124.675

FERRARI CVS 26.467 5.704

TEREX CS45KM 0 95.597

TOTAL 193.547 225.976

0

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

160.000

180.000

FANTUZZI CS45KS FERRARI CVS TEREX CS45KM

Reach Stackers. Total Fuel Consumption NCTV (Litres). Years 2011 and 2012*

2011 2012*



Finally, empty container forklifts develop a discrete role in the total distribution of fuel

consumption, as these machines are usually used for transporting empty containers, being

necessary less power to handle them. In the case of NCTV, two types of empty container

forklifts are used, the Luna TH4 and the Ferrari CVS. The total fuel consumption of both types

reached 62.402 litres and 68.094 litres in 2011 and 20124 respectively. In the same manner as

previous machines, a light increase in 20124 is appreciated. In this case, the increase could be

explained by the more intense traffic of empty containers at the terminal.

Table 18. NCTV Empty Container Forklifts Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine Years 2011 and 20124


Figure 41. NCTV Empty Container Forklifts Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine Years 2011 and 2012

4


Figure 41 also shows the distribution of fuel consumption for the empty container forklifts

abovementioned.

Empty Forklifts (Litres) 2011 2012*

LUNA TH4 21.821 27.088

CVS FERRARI 40.581 41.006

TOTAL 62.402 68.094

0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

35.000

40.000

45.000

LUNA TH4 CVS FERRARI

Empty Container Forklifts. Total Fuel Consumption NCTV (Litres). Years 2011 and 2012*

2011 2012*



Figure 42. NCTV Movement Distribution by Container Block




Figure 43. NCTV kWh Distribution by Container Block




Figure 42 represents the distribution of movements in each container block of the terminal.

This information will be critical in order to determine the viability for the implementation of

the proposed eco-efficient alternatives to be studied in Activity 2 of GREENCRANES. As the

movement is a basic parameter which provides the link between the production (container

handling) and the energy involved, the provided map will be used in further stages of the

project. The map classifies the movements by container block into three categories using a

colour code with the aim of identifying the degree of energy intensity performed in each area

of the installation.

In the same manner, Figure 43 provides an “Energy Consumption Map” of the NCTV yard

taking as a reference the movements performed by the RTG fleet of the terminal. As it is not

possible to know exactly which RTG has carried out each one of the movements registered, a

weighted-mean has been defined to obtain a generic fuel consumption for a “virtual” RTG. The

different weights applied in the formula are the percentage of movements of each family of

RTGs present at NCTV. In this manner, the weighted-mean of the consumption results is 2,39

litres/movement.

Using this mixed fuel consumption the energy map also considers the percentage of

movements carried out by each family of RTG in order to reflect that the Fantuzzi and

Konecranes families perform much more movements than the Paceco machines.

The result of this study provides an energy consumption distribution characterized by a

medium-high energy consumption in the central container blocks of the terminal as well as

those located near the berth.

Under these assumptions, container blocks no. 2C, 3ADE, 4AE, 5D, 6DE, 7A, 8C, 10CDE,

11BCDE, 13D and 14ACD are those with greater consumption, over 700.000 kWh per block.

Container blocks no. 1ABCE, 2BDEF, 3BCF, 4BCDF, 5ABCE, 6ACF, 7BCDE, 8AE, 9ADE, 10AB, 11A,

12ACD, 13AC and 15A present a medium consumption, 500.000-700.000 kWh per block.

Finally, container blocks no. 1DF, 2A, 5F, 6B, 7F, 8BF, 9BCF, 10F, 12BE, 13BE, 14E and 15BCDF

present the lowest energy consumption, less than 500.000 kWh.

Container blocks no. 22AB correspond to railway storage containers. Blocks 23AB and 24AB

correspond to empty containers storage. In these areas RTGs are not used for handling

operations.



3.3 LIVORNO DARSENA TOSCANA


Terminal Darsena Toscana is the main maritime container terminal of the Port of Livorno. In

the container terminal facility, cargo containers are transferred between different transport

systems using different handling machines. In export/import operations containers are moved

between trains or trucks and ships. Different kinds of container lifting systems are used to

move containers from one transport system to another. The container yard/storage system

has a surface of 386.000 m2. It is a temporary deposit of containers, thus acting as a “buffer”

which compensates the different flows and capacity of the maritime and the land side.

Figure 44. Livorno Darsena Toscana (I)

Specifications:

Capacity (approx.): 900.000 TEUS

Terminal area: 386.000 m2.

Quay length: 1.470 m.

Quay depth: 11,8 m.

Rail Terminal area: 49.500 m2.

Rail Tracks: 3 x 450 m.

Reefer Terminal area: 17.900 m2

Reefer Plugs: 636

PIF/ Visit/ Weighing Machine

Area : 14.350 m2

Area CFS




In order to allow a proper container handling operation flow, the Terminal Darsena Toscana is

equipped with different kind of cranes and vehicles as shown in the following picture.

Figure 45. Livorno Darsena Toscana (II)


The general system of the Port Container Terminal (PCT) can be divided into four different sub-

systems:

1. Loading/Unloading Sub-System

2. Yard/Storage Sub-System

3. Deliver/Reception Sub-System

4. Horizontal Transport Sub-System

Each one of these subsystems presents peculiar specifications, in terms of processes and

equipments involved, and interact heavily with the others.

The following paragraphs are intended to briefly describe the work flow of each subsystem,

not only for descriptive purposes but also for defining the operational framework in which

each subsystem, and thus the PCT in its entirety, is playing the role of huge energy consumer,

both in terms of electricity and fuel.



Figure 46. Livorno Darsena Toscana (III)


Loading/Unloading Subsystem

It is also named “berthing line” and is in charge of linking the maritime and the land interface.

The main infrastructures involved are the 9 ship-to-shore cranes (STS) that are the second

main responsible of electric energy consumption of the terminal. The Loading/Unloading

subsystem is linked with the Yard/Storage subsystem thorough the Horizontal Transport

subsystem. These three interfaces involve the main PCT equipment and are important energy

consumption centres as their concentrate the key processes of the PCT.

Figure 47. Darsena Toscana Loading / Unloading Sub-System (I)




Figure 48. Darsena Toscana Loading / Unloading Sub-System


Yard/Storage Subsystem

It is the largest subsystem in terms of physical surface and its main function is to establish a

temporary deposit of containers, thus acting as a “buffer” which compensates the different

flows and capacity of the maritime and the land side flows: ships with high volumes of

containers (thousands) and low number of calls in comparison with the high frequency of

trucks and low capacity of loading/unloading per transport unit (one or two).

The equipment involved in this subsystem are Rubber Tyred Gantry (RTG) cranes that has a

diesel energy generator on board. In this subsystem there is also the “terminal area reefer”,

that is the temporary deposit for reefer container which requires electric energy. The terminal

area reefer has 636 electric plugs and it is the main responsible of electrical energy

consumption in the terminal.



Figure 49. Darsena Toscana Yard / Storage Sub-System


Horizontal Transport Subsystem

This subsystem carries out the internal transport of containers among the different areas

within the PCT (berths, yard, inspection areas, etc.) connecting the rest of subsystems. The

equipment involved in these operations is mostly composed by yard tractors and reach

stackers, both being a high energy consumption machines in terms of diesel fuel.

Figure 50. Darsena Toscana Horizontal Transport Sub-System




Deliver/Reception Subsystem

It is the phase where containers are transferred from the container terminal to external means

of transport (truck and rail). This subsystem should consider both the accesses to the terminal

and the transhipment operations in a separate way. Terminal accesses are characterized by

the use of different gates for trucks and trains, involving different degrees of technologies (ID

controls, OCR systems, RFID tags, etc.). Transhipment operations depend on the type and

number of equipment present at the terminal, management procedures, associated

information, etc. Depending on road or railway transhipment different activities and

equipment will be involved (i.e., some TPCs use reach stackers for loading/unloading trains,

while others use RTGs).

In the diagram below there is a representation of the relationship among PCT Sub-Systems,

Traffic Flows and Operatives.

Figure 51. Relationship among PCT Sub-Systems. Livorno Darsena Toscana




Figure 52. Example of Relationships among different PCT Sub-Systems


Figure 53. Example of Port Container Terminal Operations at Livorno Darsena Toscana





TDT is equipped with the following container handling machines: STS (Ship to Shore) Cranes,

RTG (Rubber Tyred Gantry) Cranes, Reach Stackers, Front Loaders, Empty Container Forklifts

and Tractor Trailers. In the following pictures some consumption relevant specifications of the

above mentioned machines are shown.

Figure 54. TDT STS Cranes General Scheme


Table 19. TDT STS Cranes Technical Specifications




Table 20. TDT RTG Cranes Technical Specifications

RTG VEHICLE DIESEL ENGINE ALTERNATOR

N° id. TDT

BRAND BUILDER MODEL POWER (kW) BUILDER MODEL POWER (kVA)

cos fi POWER

(kW)

1 Kalmar Cummins QSX15-G5 stand-by 455 a 1800 rpm

continuous 290 a 1800 rpm Newage Stamford

HCI534 650 0,8 520



HCI534 650 0,8 520



HCI534 650 0,8 520



HCI534 650 0,8 520



HCI534 650 0,8 520

6 OMG Volvo Penta

TAD 1641 GE 448 (601 Hp) a 1500 rpm Newage Stamford

HCI534 F1 670 0,8 536

7 Reggiane Volvo Penta

TWD 1211 G 282 MARELLI MOTORI

M 7 B 345 0,8 276

8 OMG Volvo Penta

TAD 1240 GE 316 (423 Hp) a 1500 rpm Newage Stamford

HCI534 C1 500 0,8 400



HCI534 E2 650 0,8 520



HCI534 E2 650 0,8 520



HCI534 E2 650 0,8 520



HCI534 E2 650 0,8 520



HCI534 E2 650 0,8 520



HCI534 E2 650 0,8 520

AVAILABLE Cummins QSX15-G5 stand-by 455 a 1800 rpm


HCI534 650 0,8 520




Table 21. TDT Reach Stackers; Front Loaders; Empty Container Forklifts and Tractor Trailers Technical Specifications

TYPE BRAND MODEL INTERNAL

ID. PAYLOAD

(tons)

DIESEL ENGINE BRAND

DIESEL ENGINE MODEL

DIESEL ENGINE POWER

(kW)

TANK CAPACITY

(lt)

Reach stacker

CVS 478 63 45 Scania DC 1258 A 257 Kw 530 Lt

Reach stacker


Reach stacker

CVS 478 48 45 Scania DC 1258 A 257 kW 530 Lt

Reach stacker


Reach stacker


Reach stacker


Reach stacker


Reach stacker

Fantuzzi CS 45 KM 50 45 Volvo TAD1250VE 247 kW 550 Lt

Reach stacker

KALMAR DRF450-60S5 36 45 Volvo TAD1250VE 247 kW 550 Lt

Reach stacker

KALMAR DRF450-65S5 51 45 Cummins QSM11 261 kW 550 Lt

Reach stacker

KALMAR DRF450-60S5 60 45 Volvo TAD1250VE 247 kW 550 Lt

Reach stacker

KONE SMV4531TB5 68 45 Volvo TAD1250VE 259 kW 650 Lt

Front Loader

KALMAR DCF410CSG 52 41 Cummins QSM11 261 kW 550 Lt

Front Loader


Front Loader


Empty Ctr. Forklift

KALMAR DCF90-45E8 57 9 Volvo TAD760 180 kW 400 Lt

Empty Ctr. Forklift

KALMAR DCF90-45E8 58 9 Volvo TAD760 180 kW 400 Lt

Tractor CVS TT2516 901 45 Volvo TAD 720 VE 165 kW 200 Lt

Tractor CVS TT2516 902 45 Volvo TAD 720 VE 165 kW 200 Lt

Tractor CVS TR2516 904 45 Volvo TWD 731 VE 165 Kw 200 Lt

Tractor CVS FYT 230 905 45 Cummins QSB 6.7 160 kW 200 Lt








The terminal receives a 15 kV inner line from the national electric grid in an external electrical

cabinet (called “Mogadiscio”). From this cabinet, 6 lighting towers and terminal office gates

are direct supplied.

From Mogadiscio cabinet, 4 outer electric lines reach 2 substations that are inside the

terminal area:

o From the substation 01, two electric lines supplies STS cranes nr. 1-2-3-6-9, 16

lighting towers, electric vehicles recharging stations, offices, the General Cargo

Area and the workshop.

o From the substation 02, two electric lines supplies STS cranes nr. 4-5-7-8, the

terminal reefer, 11 lighting towers in the yard and 05 lighting towers close to the

railway.

Figure 55. TDT Electrical Supply Network


Table 22. TDT Electrical Consumer Centres


TYPE

TOTAL NUMBER OR AREA (m2)

BUILDINGS OR OFFICES Head Quarters 3.155 m2 Gate Offices 487 m2

OUTDOOR LIGHTNING Area 1 384.000 m2 Area 2 49.500 m2

EQUIPMENTS

Ship to Shore Crane 9

Reefer Container 14.515

Electric Vehicles 12



Figure 56. TDT Electrical System Diagram





For the years 2011 and 20125, the global electrical consumption of Terminal Darsena Toscana

(TDT) is distributed as the next table shows:

Table 23. TDT Electrical Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 20125


Figure 57. TDT Electrical Consumption Distribution Years 2011


Table 23 and Figure 57 show the main electrical consumption of TDT considering the period

January 2011 – September 2012. Electrical consumption is divided into four major categories:

STS cranes, terminal lightning, offices and reefer containers.

The provided data shows that reefer containers and STS cranes are the two main contributors

to the global terminal electrical consumption. Both categories represent 77% of the total

electrical consumption of the terminal. It is important to remark that, whereas STS cranes

receive electrical energy at high voltage, reefer containers work with low voltage, in the same

way as yard lightning and offices. Both categories are also strongly influenced by the level of

traffic on a monthly basis. The electrical consumption associated is 9.151.837 and 6.238.237

kWh for 2011 and 20125 respectively.

5 From now on, 2012 represents the period January-September

2011 (kWh) 2012 (September, kWh)

STS Cranes 2.356.698 1.670.166

Terminal Lightning 1.229.174 897.070

Offices 932.628 645.471

Reefer Containers 4.633.337 3.025.530

Total Terminal TDT 9.151.837 6.238.237

26%

13%

10%

51%


STS Cranes Terminal Lightning Offices Reefer Containers



Figure 58 shows the electrical consumption distribution of the terminal in 20125. The

distribution follows the same pattern as in the year 2011, being the two main energy

consumption categories again the reefer containers (48%) and STS cranes (27%).

Figure 58. TDT Electrical Consumption Distribution Year 20125


Figure 59. TDT Monthly Electrical Consumption Evolution Years 2011 and 20125


Figure 59 shows the electrical consumption evolution during the period January 2011-

September 2012, where it is appreciated the strong contribution to the total amount of energy

those consumption of reefer containers and STS cranes.

27%

14%

11%

48%

Electrical Consumption 2012* (kWh)

STS Cranes Terminal Lightning Offices Reefer Containers

0

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12

Electrical Consumption Evolution 2011-2012* (kWh)

STS Reefer Yard Lightning Offices*




This section describes a significant contribution of the global energy consumption of TDT


variety of machinery involved as well as the work intensity of a PCT (24/360) implies the

continuous supply of fuel (mostly diesel petrol) in order keep the terminal running. Fuel

consumption is also a major contribution to direct GHG emissions, and contributes to increase

the global carbon footprint of the terminal. The following tables and figures provide detailed

information about fuel consumption volumes and their relationship with the operational

parameters of the terminal.


of yard equipment: RTGs, yard tractors, reach stackers and forklifts. The analysis comprises the

years 2011 and 20125, being September the last available data in the last year. Table 24 shows

that the total amount of fuel consumption directly associated to yard operations reached

1.348.571 litres in 2011 and 866.259 litres until September 20125.

Table 24. TDT Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine Years 2011 and 20125


Figure 60. TDT Fuel Consumption by Type of Machine Year 2011


Total Fuel Consumption (Litres) 2011 2012*

RTGs 380.850 233.484

Internal Tractors 85.979 74.366

External Tractors 308.180 160.200

Reach Stackers 552.203 385.484

ForkLifts 21.359 12.725

TOTAL 1.348.571 866.259

28%

6%

23%

41%

2%

Yard Machinery. Total Fuel Consumption TDT 2011

RTGs Internal Tractors External Tractors Reach Stackers ForkLifts



Figure 61. TDT Fuel Consumption Distribution by Type of Machine Year 20125


In 2011, 41% of the total fuel consumption was associated to the operation of Reach Stackers,

whereas 28% was due to the work of RTGs. These two types of machines represent around

69% of the total fuel consumption of the terminal, being the remaining 31% divided between

yard tractors (29%) and container forklifts (2%). The fuel consumption distribution in 20125 is

quite similar to the case of 2011, as Figure 61 shows. In this case a similar percentage

distribution is appreciated with the available data corresponding to the period January-

September 20125.

Figure 62. TDT Yard MachineryFuel Consumption Years 2011 and 20125


27%

9%

18%

45%

1%

Yard Machinery. Total Fuel Consumption TDT 2012*


0

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000


Yard Machinery. Total Fuel Consumption TDT (Litres). Years 2011 and 2012*

2011 2012*



Figure 62 shows the distribution of fuel consumption of each typology of yard equipment in

2011 and 20125. In the same manner as showed in Figures 60 and 61, it can be appreciated to

great contribution to the total fuel consumption of Reach Stackers and RTGs in TDT.

Table 25 shows the working hours, moves and litres associated to each typology of machine in

2011. The characteristic rates in this case correspond to the l/h and l/mov consumption rates.

In this case, RTGs have the higher consumption rates averages: 16,36 l/h and 1,69 l/mov

respectively. In the same manner, Reach Stackers present slightly lower rates: 13,20 l/h and

0,99 l/mov. Finally, Yard Tractors present the lowest consumption rate per hour 8,84 l/h, but a

medium consumption rate per move, 1,34 l/mov.

Table 25. TDT Consumption Ratios Year 2011


Table 26 shows the same information as the previous table for the year 20125. In this case,

consumption rates are quite similar as in 2011. RTGs are the machines with the highest

consumption rates: 14,76 l/h and 1,84 l/mov. Reach Stackers present similar consumption rate

per hour (13,55 l/h), whereas they have the lowest consumption rate per movement of the

three typologies (1,00 l/mov). Finally, Yard tractors have the lowest consumption rate per hour

(7,81 l/h) and a similar consumption rate per move as Reach Stackers (1,03 l/mov).

Table 26. TDT Consumption Ratios Year 20125


Equipment Working Hours Moves Litres l/h l/mov

RTGs 23.278 225.953 380.850 16,36 1,69

Reach Stackers 41.840 560.192 552.203 13,20 0,99

Yard Tractors 9.731 64.080 85.979 8,84 1,34

2011

Equipment Working Hours Moves Litres l/h l/mov

RTGs 15.816 127.183 233.484 14,76 1,84

Reach Stackers 28.442 385.802 385.484 13,55 1,00

Yard Tractors 9.516 71.971 74.366 7,81 1,03

2012*



3.4 PORT OF KOPER


The Container Terminal at the Port of Koper was opened to traffics in the year 1979, but has

witnessed several investments since then. The Terminal disposes today a 596 m long quayside

with 3 berths. The maximum allowed draught is 11,4 m. The total terminal area comprises

270.000 m2, 180.000 of which represent the stacking area. The terminal is divided into two

functional areas: a comprehensive terminal area with the gate and a dislocated area in the

port a container depot for empty containers. The terminal is directly connected to the railway

network. On the right hand side of the terminal there are 5 railway tracks (2 per 671 m, 1 per

647 m and 2 per 270 m). The total estimated annual capacity of the terminal is 790.000 TEUs.

The terminal equipment is composed by 8 Ship-to-Shore cranes and 18 Rubber Tyred Gantry

(RTG) cranes for yard container handling. Moreover, the terminal provides 11 Reach Stackers,

7 Empty Container Forklifts, 3 Forklifts, 3 RoRo Trucks, 10 Road Trucks and 46 Yard Trucks. The

terminal is also equipped with 344 reefer containers plugs.

In the last five years the terminal has increased its traffic from 305.648 TEUS (year 2007) to

589.314 TEUS (year 2011) and expects a throughput of 575.000 TEUS in year 20126. The

terminal is connected by two regular direct weekly lines to the Far East, but it is also well

connected to the Mediterranean area through feeder and intra-med services. The most

important terminal customers are Maersk Line, CMA CGM, HMM, Hanjin Shipping Line, Zim,

Evergreen, UASC, Yang Ming Marine and Hapag Lloyd. Regular block train connections are

established with the main Central and Eastern European trade centres such as Ljubljana,

Munich, Budapest, Zilina, Bratislava, Belgrade, Zagreb, Graz, Villach, Vienna, Sofia, Arad and

Padua.

Figure 63. Port of Koper (Slovenia)


6 Traffic estimation




The equipment used at Port of Koper comprises different typologies and families of machinery.

The following tables describe the equipment involved in container handling at Port of Koper.

Table 27. Koper PCT STS Cranes Inventory


STS Cranes

Type 1: METALNA 3 Panamax, 45t

Type 2 KONECRANES 1 Panamax, 45t

Type 3: LIEBHERR 4 Post Panamax, 65t


Table 28. Koper PCT RTG Cranes Inventory


RTG Cranes

Type 1: PEINER 3 RTG, 35t

Type 2: KALMAR 2 RTG, 40t

Type 3: KONECRANES 13 RTG, 40t


Table 29. Koper PCT Yard Tractors Inventory


Yard Tractors

Type 1: TERBERG 34 Yard Tractor

Type 2: MAFI 8 Yard Tractor

Type 3: KALMAR 4 Yard Tractor

Type 4: MAN 10 Road Tractor

Type 5: SISU 2x, KALMAR 1x 3 RoRo Tractor


Table 30. Koper PCT Reach Stackers Inventory


Reach Stackers Type 1: KALMAR 9 42t 6x, 45t 3x

Type 2: KONECRANES 2 42t 1x, 45t 1x


Table 31. Koper PCT Empty Container Forklifts Inventory



Type 1: FANTUZZI 5 8t 2x, 9t 3x

Type 2: TEREX 1 9t

Type 3: KALMAR 1 8t


Table 32. Koper PCT Forklifts Inventory


Forklifts

Type 1: Steinbock - BOSS 1 3t

Type 2: KALMAR 1 8t

Type 3: KALMAR 1 16t




Table 33. Koper PCT Internal Transport Vehicles Inventory


Internal Transport Vehicles

Type 1: RENAULT 1 CLIO

Type 2: RENAULT 5 KANGOO

Type 3: RANAULT 1 KANGOO Furgon

Type 4: RANAULT 2 TRAFIC

Type 5: OPEL 1 VIVARO

Type 6: CITROEN 1 XSARA





Table 34. Koper PCT Electrical Consumption Years 2011 and 2012


The container terminal activities are conducted on multiple locations in the Port of Koper. The

main activities of container terminal are powered by two substations, both of which have

individual measuring points:

17 TP Container Terminal (SN)

18 TP Container Terminal 1 (SN)

The substation 17 TP Container Terminal powers 4 old Ship to Shore Cranes - STS (51, 52, 53

and 54) and cathodic protection of piles.

The substation 18 TP Container Terminal powers 4 new Ship to Shore Cranes - STS (55, 56, 57

and 58) and other company activities, including the office building. The building also houses

the company SLOREST. SLOREST electrical energy use is measured using the measuring point:

77 SLOREST – substation CT

The energy consumption of measuring point 77 is deducted from the container terminal's total

energy use.

The measuring point 18 is also used for measuring the energy consumption of FRIGO

containers. The container terminal is charged for this energy consumption, and the terminal in

turn charges container's owners for these services.

2011 2012 Index 2012/2011

PCT 5.350.325 4.853.289 0,91

Electrical consumption (kWh)



Container servicing is also a part of container terminal activities. Energy use for this activity

wasn't measured and wasn't charged to the container terminal.

Table 35 and Figure 64 show the main electrical consumption of the PCT considering the year

2011. Electrical consumption is divided into six categories: STS cranes, reefer containers, yard

terminal lightning, offices, cathodic protection and other.

The provided data shows that STS cranes, reefer containers and yard lightning are the three

main contributors to the global terminal electrical consumption. All three categories represent

89% of the total electrical consumption of the terminal.

Table 35. Koper PCT Electrical Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 2012

Source: Port of Koper / Own Elaboration

Figure 64. Koper PCT Electrical Consumption Distribution Year 2011


2011 (kWh) 2012 (kWh)

STS cranes 2.290.285 2.077.522

Container Reefers 1.370.367 1.243.062

Yard lighting 1.127.639 1.022.883

Offices 178.413 161.839

Cathodic protection 132.016 119.752

Other 251.605 228.231

Total PCT 5.350.325 4.853.289

STS cranes43%

Container Reefers26%

Yard lighting21%

Offices3%

Cathodic protection

2%

Other5%

Container terminal, Total electrical consumption, 2011



Figures 65, 66 and 67 shows three different types of STS Cranes used in Koper PCT.

Figure 65. STS Metalna


Figure 66. STS Konecranes




Figure 67. STS Liebherr





This section describes a significant contribution of the global energy consumption of the


general system of fuel consumption of the Port Container Terminal (PCT) can be divided into

three different sub-systems:


o RTG-s

o Reach Stackers

o Forklifts

o Empty Container Forklifts

Horizontal transport Subsystem

o Yard Tractors

o Road Tractors

o Ro-Ro Tractors

Other, Cars, Frigo Genset

Figures 68, 69, 70 and 71 show the equipment involved in Yard/ Storage Subsystem: RTG,

Reach Stacker, Forklift Kalmar and Empty Container Forklift.

Figure 68. Koper PCT Yard / Storage Machinery (I). RTG




Figure 69. Koper PCT Yard / Storage Machinery (II). Reach Stacker


Figure 70. Koper PCT Yard / Storage Machinery (III). Forklift




Figure 71. Koper PCT Yard / Storage Machinery (IV). Empty Containers Forklift


Figures 72, 73 and 74 show the equipment involved in Horizontal transport Subsystem: Yard

Tractors, Ro-Ro Tractors and Road Tractors.

Figure 72. Koper PCT Horizontal Transport Machinery (I). Yard Tractor




Figure 73. Koper PCT Horizontal Transport Machinery (II). Yard Tractor


Figure 74. Koper PCT Horizontal Transport Machinery (III). Road Tractor


The PCT consumed 2.349.483 litres (22.835.669 kWh) of fuel in 2011. The graph below shows

the distribution of fuel consumer groups in PCT. The fuel in PCT is used for Horizontal transport

Subsystem, Yard/Storage Subsystem and Other. The largest share of fuel is used for the

operation of the Yard/Storage Subsystem (60,5%), it's followed by the Horizontal transport

Subsystem (37,4%). The consumption of fuel in 2012 for Yard/Storage Subsystem increased by

4% and for other fuel consumers by 16%, while it was reduced for Horizontal transport

Subsystem by 3%, which is a direct result of eliminating road tractors. All road tractors will be

eliminated in 2013.



Figure 75. Koper PCT Fuel Consumption Distribution by Sub-System


Fuel (diesel petrol) consumption is also a major contribution to direct GHG emissions, and

contributes to increase the global carbon footprint of the terminal. The following tables and

figures provide detailed information about fuel consumption volumes and their relationship

with the operational parameters of the terminal. Table 36 provides the general figures of fuel

consumption according to three different sub-systems. The analysis comprises the years 2011

and 2012.

Table 36. Koper PCT Fuel Consumption Distribution by Sub-System Years 2011 and 2012

Source: CSRE / Own Elaboration


60,5%

Horizontal transport

Subsystem37,4%

Other, frigo genseti, cars

2,1%

Container terminal, Total fuel consumption, 2011

2011 2012 Index

2012/2011

Yard/Storage Subsystem 1.422.249 1.484.568 1,04

Horizontal Transport Subsystem 877.684 847.584 0,97

Other, Frigo Genset, Cars 49.550 57.541 1,16

Total fuel consumption 2.349.483 2.389.693 1,02

Fuel Consumption

Liter (l)



Figure 76. Koper PCT Fuel Consumption Distribution by Sub-System Years 2011 and 2012


The physical range of production has to be considered for a more detailed explanation of

energy efficiency trends. The amount of throughput in the terminal was chosen as a basic

production quantity indicator. The amount of throughput in tonnes is only an approximate

indicator, because of varying energy consumption, depending on production type. The

throughput decreased by 0.8% in 2012.

Figure 77. Koper PCT Throughput and Working Hours Years 2011 and 2012



Horizontal Transport Subsystem

Other, Frigo Genset, Cars

Total fuel consumption

2011 1.422.249 877.684 49.550 2.349.483

2012 1.484.568 847.584 57.541 2.389.693

-

500.000

1.000.000

1.500.000

2.000.000

2.500.000

3.000.000 Fu

el C

on

sum

pti

on

[l]

Container terminal, Total fuel consumption, 2011 - 2012

Throughput (t) Working hours (h)

2011 5.339.024 288.973

2012 5.296.504 295.709

-

1.000.000

2.000.000

3.000.000

4.000.000

5.000.000

6.000.000

Thro

ugh

pu

t [t]

an

d W

ork

ing

ho

urs

[h]

Container terminal, Throughput [t] and Working hours [h] 2011 - 2012



The amount of PCT throughput “hides” some factors, such as the number of container

movements on the terminal, which affect energy consumption. For this purpose, working

hours can be observed for individual machines. The ratio of working hours on the throughput

(h/t) is increasing, by 3% in 2012 based on the previous year. The lack of space and longer

distance needed for storing containers result in an increase of working hours. Increased ratio

of working hours on the throughput also represents an increase in specific energy

consumption.

Table 37. Koper PCT Throughput / Working Hours Ratio Years 2011 and 2012


Figure 78 shows the fuel consumption distribution of the terminal machinery in 2011.

Figure 78. Koper PCT Fuel Consumption Distribution Year 2011


Table 38 provides the general figures of fuel consumption, working hours and specific fuel

consumption according to the different typology of Yard/Storage equipment: RTGs, Reach

Stackers, Forklifts and Empty Container Forklifts. The analysis comprises the years 2011 and

2012. Fuel consumption decreased in 2012 to all equipment except RTG-s, due to a purchase

of 5 new RTGs in 2012.

2011 2012 Index 2012/2011

Throughput (t) 5.339.024 5.296.504 0,99

Working hours (h) 288.973 295.709 1,02

Ratio of working hours

on the throughput (h/t)0,0541 0,0558 1,03

RTG-s33,4%

Reach Stackers20,2%


6,8%Forklifts

0,2%

Yard Tractors30,6%

Road Tractors6,6%

Ro-Ro Tractors0,2%

Other, Frigo Genset, Cars

2,1%

Container machinery, Total fuel consumption, 2011



Working hours decreased in 2012 for Reach Stackers and Empty Container Forklifts, while

working hours for RTG-s and Forklifts increased in 2012. Specific consumption decreased in

2012 for RTG-s and Forklifts as a result of increased working hours in 2012.

Table 38. Koper PCT Specific Fuel Consumption for Yard Equipment Years 2011 and 2012


Figure 79. Koper PCT Yard Equipment Fuel Consumption Distribution Year 2011



of Horizontal transport Subsystem equipment: Yard Tractors, Road Tractors and Ro-Ro

Tractors. The analysis comprises the years 2011 and 2012. Fuel consumption and working

hours decreased in 2012 in Road and Ro-Ro Tractors, while fuel consumption and working

hours increased in Yard Tractors. In 2013 all of Road Tractors will no longer be used in the Port

of Koper. Working hours decreased in 2012 for Reach Stackers and Forklifts, while working

hours for RTG-s and Empty Container Forklifts increased in 2012.

2011 2012Index

2012/201

1

2011 2012Index

2012/201

1

2011 2012Index

2012/201

1RTG-s 783.847 874.825 1,12 56.962 68.865 1,21 13,8 12,7 0,92

Reach

stackers474.867 452.851 0,95 39.651 37.150 0,94 12,0 12,2 1,02

Empty

Container

Forklifts

158.911 152.312 0,96 18.827 17.925 0,95 8,4 8,5 1,01

Forklifts 4.624 4.580 0,99 795 1.204 1,51 5,8 3,8 0,65

Yard/Storage

Subsystem 1.422.249 1.484.568 116.235 125.144

Fuel consumption (Litres) Working hours (h) Specific fuel consumption (l/h)

RTG-s55,1%

Reach Stackers33,4%

Empty Container Forklifts11,2%

Forklifts0,3%

Yard/Storage Subsystem, Fuel consumption, 2011



Table 39. Koper PCT Specific Fuel Consumption for Horizontal Transport Years 2011 and 2012


Figure 80. Koper PCT Horizontal Transport Equipment Fuel Consumption Distribution Year 2011


Only 2,1 % of PCT fuel consumption is used for Cars, Frigo Genset and other devices. Table 40

shows the total amount of fuel consumption associated in other operations for Cars, Frigo

Genset and other devices. It is appreciated a 16 % increase of fuel consumption in 2012.

2011 2012Index

2012/201

1

2011 2012Index

2012/201

1

2011 2012Index

2012/201

1Yard

tractors719.727 792.763 1,10 145.451 160.069 1,10 4,9 5,0 1,00

Road

tractors154.016 51.136 0,33 26.642 9.914 0,37 5,8 5,2 0,89

Ro-ro

tractors3.941 3.685 0,94 645 582 0,90 6,1 6,3 1,04

Horizontal

transport

Subsystem

877.684 847.584 172.738 170.565

Fuel consumption (Litres) Working hours Specific fuel consumption (l/h)

Yard Tractors82,0%

Road Tractors17,5%

Ro-Ro Tractors0,4%

Horizontal transport Subsystem, fuel consumption, 2011



Table 40. Koper PCT Other Fuel Consumption Centres Years 2011 and 2012


Figure 81 shows the relationship between consumption (litres) and working hours (h) of the

different RTG families. The lowest specific consumption have families Konecranes – Volvo (12,9

l/h), and the highest specific consumption have families Kalmar – Scania (17,2 l/h).

Figure 81. Koper PCT RTG Fuel Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 2012



different Reach Stackers families. There is a noticeable increase in specific consumption in

2012 for families Konecranes - Volvo Penta. Konecranes have slightly higher specific energy

consumption, because of higher engine power, i.e. 259 kW, while the engine power of Kalmar

is lower, i.e. 247 kW.

2011 2012Index

2012/2011

Other,

Frigo

Genset,

Cars

49.550 57.541 1,16

Fuel consumption (Litres)

Kalmar -Scania

KONECRANES - Volvo Penta

Peiner - IvecoPeiner - Volvo

Penta

2011 17,2 12,9 13,8 15,0

2012 16,8 12,2 13,1 14,9

AVARAGE POWER (kW) 455 484 315 354

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

18,0

20,0

Ave

rage

po

wer

(kW

)

Ave

rage

sp

ecif

ic c

on

sum

pti

on

(l/h

)

RTG, Total specific consumption, 2011 - 2012



Figure 82. Koper PCT Reach Stackers Fuel Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 2012



different Empty Container Forklifts families. The lowest specific consumption is associated to

family Fantuzzi - Cummins (6,5 l/h), and the highest specific consumption is related to family

Terex - Volvo Penta (9,2 l/h).

Figure 83. Koper PCT Empty Container Forklifts Fuel Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 2012


Kalmar - Volvo Penta KONECRANES - Volvo Penta

2011 11,9 12,4

2012 12,0 13,3

AVARAGE POWER (kW) 247 259

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

11,0

11,5

12,0

12,5

13,0

13,5

Ave

rage

po

wer

(kW

)

Ave

rage

sp

ecif

ic c

on

sum

pti

on

(l/h

) REACH STACKERS, Total specific consumption, 2011 - 2012

Fantuzzi -Cummins

Fantuzzi - Volvo Penta

TERREX - Volvo Penta

Kalmar - Volvo Penta

2011 6,5 8,5 9,2 0,0

2012 6,5 8,7 9,0 8,0

AVARAGE POWER (kW) 112 148,25 181 180

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0A

vera

ge p

ow

er (

kW)

Ave

rage

sp

ecif

ic c

on

sum

pti

on

(l/h

)

EMPTY CONTAINER FORCLIFTS, Total specific

consumption, 2011 - 2012




different Forklifts families. Specific consumption of both groups was reduced in 2012. Most

noticeable is the reduction of specific consumption for Kalmar in 2012 by 13%, because the

machine belongs to a newer generation.

Figure 84. Koper PCT Forklifts Fuel Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 2012



different Road Tractors families. In 2013 all Road Tractors will be eliminated, and replaced with

Yard Tractors. Specific consumption of both groups was reduced in 2012.

Figure 85. Koper PCT Road Tractors Fuel Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 2012


Steinbock - BOSS Kalmar

2011 3,8 4,4

2012 3,6 3,8

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

Ave

rage

sp

eci

fic

con

sum

pti

on

(l/

h)

FORCLIFTS, Total specific consumption, 2011 - 2012

MAN DAF

2011 5,7 6,2

2012 5,2 5,0

AVARAGE POWER (kW) 292,7 340

0,0

50,0

100,0

150,0

200,0

250,0

300,0

350,0

400,0

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

Ave

rage

po

we

r (k

W)

Ave

rage

sp

eci

fic

con

sum

pti

on

(l/

h)

ROAD TRACTORS, Total specific consumption, 2011 - 2012




different Ro-Ro Tractors families. Specific consumption of SISU – Volvo Penta has increased in

2012. Kalmar – Volvo Penta have slightly higher specific energy consumption, because of

higher engine power, i.e. 195 kW.

Figure 86. Koper PCT Ro-Ro Tractors Fuel Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 2012



different Yard Tractors families. Families Kalmar - Cummins and Terberg - Cummins have the

same specific consumption, while specific consumption for families MAFI - Cummins is by

almost a quarter higher, because of more powerful engines.

Figure 87. Koper PCT Yard Tractors Fuel Consumption Distribution Years 2011 and 2012


SISU - Volvo Penta Kalmar - Volvo Penta

2011 5,4 7,0

2012 5,6 6,9

AVARAGE POWER (kW) 167 195

0

50

100

150

200

250

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

Ave

rage

po

wer

(kW

)

Ave

rage

sp

ecif

ic c

on

sum

pti

on

(l/h

)

RO-RO TRACTORS, Total specific consumption, 2011 - 2012

129 129 164

2011 4,9 4,9 6,2

2012 4,8 4,8 5,8

AVARAGE POWER (kW) 129 129 164

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

Ave

rage

po

wer

(kW

)

Ave

rage

sp

ecif

ic c

on

sum

pti

on

(l/h

)

YARD TRACTORS, Total specific consumption, 2011 - 2012



The following tables show information regarding fuel consumption, working hours and the

relationship between fuel consumption (litres) and working hours of the groups equipment

involved in container handling.



Table 41. Koper PCT RTG Energy Consumption Parameters


N˙

id.

TDT

BRANDENGINE

BUILDERMODEL

TYPE OF

MODEL

TYPE OF

VEHICLE

INTERNAL

ID

POWER

(kW)YEAR

CAPACI

TY

Fuel

consumptio

n (l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)

Fuel

consumptio

n (l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumptio

n (l/h)

1 Kalmar Scania RTG 402518-8L-2040C DC1645 A RTG TS 31 455 2009 40.000 85.750 4.992 17,18 40.736 2.519 16,17

2 Kalmar Scania RTG 402518-8L-2040C DC1645 A RTG TS 32 455 2009 40.000 65.261 3.798 17,18 41.606 2.372 17,54

3 KONECRANES Volvo Penta RTG8 TAD1242 GE RTG TS 25 387 2004 40.000 72.650 6.054 12,00 47.266 4.000 11,82

4 KONECRANES Volvo Penta RTG8 TAD 1344 GE RTG TS 26 399 2006 40.000 60.387 4.452 13,56 60.459 4.939 12,24





9 KONECRANES Volvo Penta RTG8 TAD1643 VE RTG TS 33 565 2011 40.000 38.827 3.452 11,25 73.940 6.454 11,46

10 KONECRANES Volvo Penta RTG8 TAD1643 VE RTG TS 34 565 2011 40.000 43.565 3.731 11,68 56.602 5.056 11,2

11 KONECRANES Volvo Penta RTG8 TAD1643 VE RTG TS 35 565 2011 40.000 0 0 0 65.978 5.746 11,48





16 Peiner Iveco PPG 43 / 20 8210.42 RTG TS 21 315 1980 35.000 5.857 380 15,41 1.257 69 18,22

17 Peiner Iveco PPG 45 / 25,5 8210.42 RTG TS 23 315 1982 35.000 35.903 2.749 13,06 41.219 3.175 12,98

18 Peiner Iveco PPG 45 / 25,5 8210.42 RTG TS 24 315 1982 35.000 11.455 732 15,65 0 0 0

19 Peiner Volvo Penta PPG 45 / 25,5 TAD1241 GE RTG TS 22 354 1982 35.000 57.170 3.809 15,01 50.253 3.378 14,88

783.847 56.962 874.825 68.865

RTG (Rubber Tyred Gantry) Cranes 2011 2012



Table 42. Koper PCT Reach Stackers Fuel Consumption Parameters


N˙

id.

TDT

BRANDENGINE

BUILDERMODEL

TYPE

OF

MODEL

TYPE OF

VEHICLE

INTERNAL

ID

POWER

(kW)YEAR

CAPACIT

Y

Fuel

consumption (l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)

Fuel

consumption (l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)

1 KalmarVolvo

PentaDRF 450-70S5XS

TAD

1250

VE

Reach

StackerMNP 9 247 2004 45.000 3.319 251 13,22 11.799 936 12,61

2 KalmarVolvo

PentaDRF 420-60S5

TAD

1240

VE

Reach

StackerMNP 10 247 2004 42.000 38.755 3.093 12,53 32.728 2.892 11,32

3 KalmarVolvo

PentaDRF 420-60S5

TAD

1250

VE

Reach

StackerMNP 11 247 2006 42.000 40.308 3.527 11,43 22.389 1.767 12,67

4 KalmarVolvo

PentaDRF 450-70S5XS

TAD

1250

VE

Reach

StackerMNP 12 247 2006 45.000 59.108 5.011 11,80 39.010 3.164 12,33

5 KalmarVolvo

PentaDRF 420-60S5

TAD

1250

VE

Reach

StackerMNP 13 247 2007 42.000 56.425 4.517 12,49 46.880 3.995 11,73

6 KalmarVolvo

PentaDRF 420-60S5

TAD

1250

VE

Reach

StackerMNP 14 247 2007 42.000 59.531 5.132 11,60 44.464 3.833 11,60

7 KalmarVolvo

PentaDRF 420-60S5

TAD

1250

VE

Reach

StackerMNP 15 247 2008 42.000 54.493 4.660 11,69 40.837 3.301 12,37

8 KalmarVolvo

PentaDRF 420-60S5

TAD

1250

VE

Reach

StackerMNP 16 247 2011 42.000 37.713 3.208 11,76 65.016 5.462 11,90

9 KalmarVolvo

PentaDRF 450-70S5XS

TAD

1250

VE

Reach

StackerMNP 17 247 2011 45.000 55.959 4.668 11,99 74.593 6.135 12,16

10 KONECRANESVolvo

PentaSMV 4127 TB5

TAD

1250

VE

Reach

StackerMNP 18 259 2012 42.000 62.356 5.107 12,21 41.031 3.195 12,84

11 KONECRANESVolvo

PentaSMV 4542 TBX5

TAD

1250

VE

Reach

StackerMNP 19 259 2012 45.000 6.900 477 14,47 34.104 2.470 13,81

474.867 39.651 452.851 37.150

REACH STACKERS 2011 2012



Table 43. Koper PCT Empty Container Forklifts Fuel Consumption Parameters


Table 44. Koper PCT Forklifts Fuel Consumption Parameters


N˙

id.

TD

BRANDENGINE

BUILDERMODEL

TYPE OF

MODEL

TYPE OF

VEHICLE

INTERNAL

ID

POWER

(kW)YEAR CAPACITY

Fuel

consumption

(l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)

Fuel

consumption

(l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)

1 Fantuzzi Cummins FDC

18K5B5.9-C Forclift V 914 112 2002 8.000 10.964 1.699 6,45 9.386 1.455 6,45

2 Fantuzzi Volvo

Penta

FDC

18K5

TD 520

VEForclift V 917 118 2005 8.000 8.148 1.325 6,15 4.508 789 5,71

3 Fantuzzi Volvo

PentaFDC25J6 TAD

650VEForclift V 967 147 2007 9.000 35.756 4.082 8,76 26.153 2.958 8,84

4 Fantuzzi Volvo

PentaFDC25J6 TAD

650VEForclift V 968 147 2007 9.000 33.515 4.131 8,11 28.843 3.297 8,75

5 Fantuzzi Volvo

PentaFDC25J7 TAD 750

VEForclift V 979 181 2009 9.000 38.928 4.165 9,35 31.814 3.445 9,24

6 TERREX Volvo

PentaFDC25J7 TAD 750

VEForclift V 980 181 2009 9.000 31.600 3.425 9,23 35.509 3.956 8,98

7 Kalmar Volvo

Penta

DCF 80-

45E7

TAD 760

VEForclift V 981 180 2012 8.000 0 0 0,00 16.099 2.025 7,95

158.911 18.827 152.312 17.925

2011 2012EMPTY CONTAINER FORCLIFTS

N˙

id.

TDT

BRANDENGINE

BUILDERMODEL

TYPE OF

MODELTYPE OF VEHICLE

INTERNA

L ID

POWE

R (kW)

YEA

R

CAPACIT

Y

Fuel

consumption

(l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)

Fuel

consumption

(l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)

1 Steinbock - BOSS RH30D - 5 B 1Empty Container

Forklifts 3 TV 701 1995 3.000 1.270 33 38,48 98 27 3,63

2 Kalmar DCD 80 - 6Empty Container

Forklifts 8 TV 941 1999 8.000 1.746 492 3,55 2.599 767 3,39

3 Kalmar DC 16 - 1200Empty Container

Forklifts 16 TV 007 1990 16.000 1.608 270 5,96 1.883 410 4,59

4.624 795 4.580 1.204

2011 2012 FORCLIFTS



Table 45. Koper PCT Road Tractors Fuel Consumption Parameters


N˙

id.

TDT

BRANDENGINE

BUILDERMODEL

TYPE OF

MODEL

TYPE OF

VEHICLE

INTERN

AL ID

POWER

(kW)YEAR CAPACITY

Fuel

consumption

(l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)

Fuel

consumption

(l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)

1 MAN MAN MAN 26.422

FVLTBLRoad tractor VL 106 305 1995 18.748 3.271 5,73 498 74 6,73


FNLBLRoad tractor VL 111 265 1989 16.607 2.680 6,20 7.026 1.195 5,88


FNLBLRoad tractor VL 112 265 1989 12.573 2.276 5,52 5.225 1.150 4,54


FNBLRoad tractor VL 113 265 1989 13.352 2.293 5,82 2.474 432 5,73


FVLTBLRoad tractor VL 114 305 1993 14.217 2.324 6,12 6.491 1.197 5,42





8 DAF DAF DAF TG47WS Road tractor VL 117 340 1993 14.531 2.337 6,22 4.309 856 5,03

9 MAN MAN MAN 26.414 Road tractor VL 123 300 11.242 2.224 5,06 6.173 1.211 5,10

10 MAN MAN MAN 26.410 XL

6x2Road tractor VL 124 300 2002 3.643 527 6,91 0 0 0,00


FNLCRoad tractor VL 125 300 2002 2.277 403 5,65 0 0 0,00


FVLTRoad tractor VL 126 305 1995 12.207 2.304 5,30 4.457 1.001 4,45

154.016 26.642 51.136 9.914

2011 2012ROAD TRACTORS



Table 46. Koper PCT Ro-Ro Tractors Fuel Consumption Parameters


N˙

id.

TDT

BRANDENGINE

BUILDERMODEL

TYPE OF

MODEL

TYPE OF

VEHICLE

INTERNAL

ID

POWER

(kW)YEAR

CAPACIT

Y

Fuel

consumption

(l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)

Fuel

consumption

(l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)

1 SISU Volvo

Penta

TR 180 AL 2

C4TD 71 A ro-ro

tractorTVR 8 167 1991 25.000 895 147 6,09 703 129 5,45

2 SISU Volvo

Penta

TR 180 AL 2

C4TD 71 A ro-ro

tractorTVR 9 167 1992 25.000 1.007 208 4,84 815 140 5,82

3 Kalmar Volvo

PentaTRX 192 AL TAD 721

VE

ro-ro

tractorTVR 10 195 2004 25.000 2.039 290 7,03 2.167 313 6,92

3.941 645 3.685 582

RO-RO TRACTORS 2011 2012



Table 47. Koper PCT Yard Tractors Fuel Consumption Parameters (I)


N˙

id.

TDT

BRANDENGINE

BUILDERMODEL

TYPE OF

MODEL

TYPE OF

VEHICLE

INTERNAL

ID

POWER

(kW)YEAR CAPACITY

Fuel

consumption

(l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)

Fuel

consumption

(l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)

1 Kalmar Cummins PT 122QSCEXL

359Yard tractors TVL 001 129 2005 9.579 1.892 5,06 5.253 1.130 4,65







5 Terberg Cummins YT1826BTAA

5.9CYard tractors TVL 005 129 2006 23.567 5.025 4,69 16.662 3.587 4,65

6 Terberg Cummins YT1826BTAA

5.9CYard tractors TVL 006 129 2006 22.057 4.876 4,52 18.813 4.054 4,64

7 Terberg Cummins YT182QSB 6.7

C220Yard tractors TVL 007 129 2007 28.346 5.765 4,92 24.828 4.951 5,02











2011 2012YARD TRACTORS



Table 48. Koper PCT Yard Tractors Fuel Consumption Parameters (II)


N˙

id.

TDT

BRANDENGINE

BUILDERMODEL

TYPE OF

MODEL

TYPE OF

VEHICLE

INTERNAL

ID

POWER

(kW)YEAR CAPACITY

Fuel

consumption

(l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)

Fuel

consumption

(l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)




C220Yard tractors TVL 014 129 2008 0 0 0,00 0 0 0,00
























Table 49. Koper PCT Yard Tractors Fuel Consumption Parameters (III)


N˙

id.

TDT

BRANDENGINE

BUILDERMODEL

TYPE OF

MODEL

TYPE OF

VEHICLE

INTERNAL

ID

POWER

(kW)YEAR CAPACITY

Fuel

consumption

(l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)

Fuel

consumption

(l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)













31 MAFI CumminsMT 30

YT

QSB 6.7



YT

QSB 6.7

C220Yard tractors TVL 032 164 2011 5.844 964 6,06 25.767 4.454 5,79


YT

QSB 6.7



YT

QSB 6.7

C220Yard tractors TVL 034 164 2011 4.888 799 6,12 26.026 4.486 5,80


YT

QSB 6.7

C220Yard tractors TVL 035 164 2011 308 18 17,11 7.809 1.392 5,61


YT

QSB 6.7

C220Yard tractors TVL 036 164 2012 271 42 6,45




Table 50. Koper PCT Yard Tractors Fuel Consumption Parameters (IV)


N˙

id.

TDT

BRANDENGINE

BUILDERMODEL

TYPE OF

MODEL

TYPE OF

VEHICLE

INTERNAL

ID

POWER

(kW)YEAR CAPACITY

Fuel

consumption

(l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)

Fuel

consumption

(l)

Working

hours (h)

Specific

consumption

(l/h)


YT

QSB 6.7



YT

QSB 6.7



C173Yard tractors TVL 039 129 2012 1.473 325 4,53

















719.727 145.451 792.471 160.069




4 CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

In this section the calculation of the Carbon Footprint generated at the participant Port

Container Terminals is provided. Carbon Footprint is a useful indicator for all kind of

organizations to measure their environmental impact in terms of Greenhouse Gas

Emissions (GHG). The carbon footprint, according to the “Guide to PAS 2050” is a term used

to describe the amount of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) caused by a particular activity or entity.

The methodology used in this study is based on the PAS 2050 developed by the British

Standard Institute (BSI), in cooperation with the Carbon Trust and the Department for

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The 2050 specification is based on the

methodology of live cycle analysis, and in particular in ISO 14040 and 14044:2006, but also

in ISO 14021 eco-labelling. The methodology described in the norm can be used to analyze

GHG emissions of the life cycle of any product.

The approach used to industrial installations is focused on their activities, processes and

services provided during ordinary operations, and this will be the method used at the

present document. In this manner, the Carbon Footprint will be determined taking as a

reference the energy consumption of the terminal, disaggregated by type of energy source

(electricity and fuels). For each type of energy source, emission coefficients are defined in

order to obtain the GHG emissions produced at the consumer point derived from the use of

each type of energy. The proposed methodology is aligned with the guidelines established

in the document Carbon Footprinting for Ports. Guidance Document published by the World

Ports Climate Initiative, International Association of Ports and Harbours (IAPH).

The Carbon Footprint is calculated taking into account greenhouse gas (GHG) emission

factors. GHGs are gases present in the earth's atmosphere that reduce the loss of heat into

space. GHGs primarily include water vapour, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous

oxide, (N2O), and certain fluorinated gases used in commercial and industrial applications.

GHGs affect climate as they concentrate in the Earth’s atmosphere and trap heat by

blocking some of the long-wave energy normally radiated back into space. Activities that

release GHGs into the air include those that occur in and around a port setting, such as the

burning of fossil fuels for industrial operations, transportation, heating, and electricity. The

potential consequences of global warming include longer and hotter summers, longer

droughts, more devastating wildfires, and shortages of public water, all of which threaten

public health and the economy.

The used methodology also considers the concept of “CO2 equivalent emissions” or CO2eq.

The equivalent emissions also take into account the contribution of CH4 and N2O which are

other contributors to global warming besides CO2.



Figure 88. Carbon Footprint Calculation Methodology

Source: Own Elaboration

The following table provides the emission factors considered for each port according to the

different sources available in Italy, Spain and Slovenia.

Table 51. GreenHouse Emission Factors for Electricity and Fuel Conversion

Source7

GHG emissions also include the effect of other agents like CH4 and N2O. The contribution of

such compounds is expressed in terms of CO2 equivalent emissions, or CO2eq. In the case of

electricity, the formula used is as follows:

CO2 – 104903,3 Kilo Tonne eq CO2 – Ratio 1 (reference)

CH4 – 168,87 Kilo Tonne eq CO2 – Ratio 0,00161

N2O – 730,7 Kilo Tonne eq CO2 – Ratio 0,00696

For fuel consumption, the step coefficients to be considered are as follow:

CO2 – 102395,94 Kilo Tonne eq CO2 – Ratio 1 (reference)

CH4 – 135,43 Kilo Tonne eq CO2 – Ratio 0,00132

N2O – 975,11 Kilo Tonne eq CO2 – Ratio 0,00952

In this manner a final value expressed in terms of CO2eq emissions is obtained. This value

needs to be correlated with the basic production unit of the organization. In the case of

PCTs, CO2eq emissions can be correlated to different production units, being the Twenty-

Feet Equivalent Unit (TEU) the standard indicator which represents the amount of

containers handled by a certain installation referenced to the standard dimension of a

twenty-feet container. Since in a PCT different types of containers are handled, the TEU is

an indicator which harmonizes the total traffic under a common standard unit and it is the

reference in the port sector to measure the throughput of port container terminals.

7 Institute for the Diversification and Energy Saving – IDEA (Spain)

Italian Legislative Decree n-115/2008 (Italy)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – IPCC

Environmental Agency of the Republic of Slovenia

Energy Consumption

InventoryCO2 Emissions CO2eq Emissions

GHG Emissions Ratio

Carbon Footprint

Emission Coefficients CH4 and N2O Production

Electricity Fuel

Port (Country) g. CO2 / KWh Tonne CO2 / Tep

Koper (Slovenia) 550 3,07

Livorno (Italy) 634 2,96

Valencia (Spain) 335 3,06



4.1.1 Noatum Container Terminal Valencia

In this section the evaluation of the Carbon Footprint generated at NCTV derived from

container handling operations is provided according to the methodology explained in the

introduction. The information is separated according to the energy source (electricity and

fuel) as the emission coefficients considered are different.

Table 52. NCTV Carbon Footprint


Table 52 shows that the Carbon Footprint generated by NCTV due to electrical consumption

in 2011 was 3,38 and 2,79 Kg. CO2eq/TEU in 2011 and 20124, taking into account total

traffics of 1.920.702 TEUs and 2.247.571 TEUs for each year. It is important to remark that

available data in 2012 only covers until October. The Carbon Footprint generated by fuel

consumption is 8,32 and 7,13 Kg. CO2eq/TEU in 2011 and 20124, being the total Carbon

Footprint 11,7 and 9,92 Kg. CO2eq/TEU.

Figure 89. NCTV Carbon Footprint Distribution by Type of Energy Source Years 2011 and 20124


Figure 89 represents the distribution of the Carbon Footprint in 2011 and 20124. The

contribution of fuel consumption to the global carbon footprint is significantly higher than

electricity contribution.

Type of Consumer Centre 2011 2012* 2011 2012* 2011 2012*

STS Cranes 6.510.256 7.258.592 2.200 2.059 1,15 1,07

Yard Lightning 2.438.803 2.881.060 824 732 0,43 0,38

Offices 1.061.346 1.008.167 359 280 0,19 0,15

Container Reefers 9.193.395 8.254.037 3.106 2.285 1,62 1,19

SUB-TOTAL 19.203.799 19.401.856 6.488 6.555 3,38 2,79


RTGs 3.857.979 3.815.654 10.104 9.994 5,26 4,45

Yard Tractors 1.989.517 2.010.581 5.211 5.266 2,71 2,34

Reach Stackers 193.547 225.976 507 592 0,26 0,26

Empty Forklifts 62.402 68.094 163 178 0,09 0,08

SUB-TOTAL 6.103.445 6.120.305 15.986 16.030 8,32 7,13

22.474 22.585 11,70 9,92

Fuel Consumption

Emission Coefficients:

3,06 Tonne CO2/Tep

1,01084 Tonne CO2eq

kWh

Electrical Consumption


335 g.CO2/kWh

1,00857 Tonne CO2eq

Litres

CO2eq. Tonnes

CO2eq. Tonnes

TOTAL

Kg. CO2eq. / TEU

Kg. CO2eq. / TEU

0,00

2,00

4,00

6,00

8,00

10,00

12,00

14,00

2011 2012*

Carbon Footprint Electricity and Fuel Kg. CO2eq / TEU

Kg. CO2eq from Electricity Kg. CO2eq from Fuel



Figure 90. NCTV Carbon Footprint Distribution Year 2011


Figure 90 shows the contribution of each consumer centre (both electrical and fuel) to the

global Carbon Footprint of NCTV in 2011. It is remarkable the weight of RTGs and yard

tractors to the total amount (almost 70%) of GHG emissions. Other important contributors

are container reefers (14%) and STS cranes (10%), the main electrical energy consumers at

the terminal.

Figure 91. NCTV Carbon Footprint Distribution Year 20124


In the same manner, Figure 91 shows the distribution of the Carbon Footprint in 20124. In

this case the distribution is very similar, where the main contributors to the global Carbon

Footprint of the terminal are again RTGs (45%) and yard tractors (23%) followed by

container reefers (12%) and STS cranes (11%).

10% 4%1%

14%

45%

23%

2% 1%

Carbon Footprint Distribution. Year 2011



11% 4%1%

12%

45%

23%

3% 1%

Carbon Footprint Distribution. Year 2012*





4.1.2 Livorno Darsena Toscana Container Terminal

In this section the evaluation of the Carbon Footprint generated at Livorno Darsena

Toscana derived from container handling operations is provided according to the

methodology explained in the introduction. The information is separated according to the

energy source (electricity and fuel) as the emission coefficients considered are different.

Table 53. TDT Carbon Footprint

Source: Port Authority of Livorno / Own Elaboration

Table 53 shows that the Carbon Footprint generated by TDT due to electrical consumption

in 2011 was 12,14 and 10,99 Kg. CO2eq/TEU in 2011 and 20125, taking into account total

traffics of 482.057 TEUs and 363.000 TEUs (estimation for the period January-September

2012) for each year. The Carbon Footprint generated by fuel consumption is 6,38 and 5,44

Kg. CO2eq/TEU in 2011 and 20125, being the total Carbon Footprint 18,52 and 16,43 Kg.

CO2eq/TEU.

Figure 92. TDT Carbon Footprint Distribution by Type of Energy Source Years 2011 and 20125



STS Cranes 2.356.698 1.670.166 1.507 1.068 3,13 2,94

Yard Lightning 1.229.174 897.070 786 574 1,63 1,58

Offices 932.628 645.471 596 413 1,24 1,14

Container Reefers 4.633.337 3.025.530 2.963 1.935 6,15 5,33

SUB-TOTAL 9.151.837 6.238.237 5.852 3.989 12,14 10,99


RTGs 380.850 233.484 868 532 1,80 1,47

Internal Tractors 85.979 74.366 196 170 0,41 0,47

External Tractors 308.180 160.200 703 365 1,46 1,01

Reach Stackers 552.203 385.484 1.259 879 2,61 2,42

Empty Forklifts 21.359 12.725 49 29 0,10 0,08

SUB-TOTAL 1.348.571 866.259 3.075 1.975 6,38 5,44

8.927 5.964 18,52 16,43TOTAL

Fuel Consumption

Emission Coefficient

2,96 Tonne CO2eq/Tep

kWh CO2eq. Tonnes Kg. CO2eq. / TEU



634 g.CO2eq/kWh

Litres CO2eq. Tonnes Kg. CO2eq. / TEU

0,00

2,00

4,00

6,00

8,00

10,00

12,00

14,00

16,00

18,00

20,00

2011 2012*





Figure 93. TDT Carbon Footprint Distribution Year 2011



global Carbon Footprint of TDT in 2011. It is remarkable the weight of reefer containers

(33%), STS cranes (17%) and Reach Stackers (14%) to the total amount (64%) of GHG

emissions. Other important contributors are RTGs (10%) and yard lightning (10%).

Figure 94.TDT Carbon Footprint Distribution Year 20125




Footprint of the terminal are again reefer containers (32%) and STS cranes (18%) followed

by reach stackers (15%) and yard lightning (10%).

17%

9%

7%

33%

10%

2%

8%

14%

0%


STS Cranes Yard Lightning Offices Container Reefers RTGs

Internal Tractors External Tractors Reach Stackers Empty Forklifts

18%

10%

7%

32%

9%

3%

6%

15%

0%


STS Cranes Yard Lightning Offices Container Reefers RTGs

Internal Tractors External Tractors Reach Stackers Empty Forklifts



4.1.3 Koper Container Terminal

In this section the evaluation of the Carbon Footprint generated at Koper PCT derived from

container handling operations is provided according to the methodology explained in the

introduction. The information is separated according to the energy source (electricity and

fuel) as the emission coefficients considered are different.

Table 54. Koper PCT Carbon Footprint


Figure 95. Koper PCT Carbon Footprint by Type of Energy Source Years 2011 and 2012


Table 54 shows that the Carbon Footprint generated by Koper PCT due to electrical

consumption in 2011 was 5,04 and 4,68 Kg. CO2eq/TEU in 2011 and 2012, taking into

account total traffics of 589.314 TEUs and 575.000 TEUs (estimation) for each year. The

Carbon Footprint generated by fuel consumption is 10,43 and 10,62 Kg. CO2eq/TEU in 2011

and 2012, being the total Carbon Footprint 15,46 and 15,30 Kg. CO2eq/TEU.


STS Cranes 2.290.285 2.077.522 1.270 1.152 2,16 2,00

Container Reefers 1.370.367 1.243.062 760 690 1,29 1,20

Yard Lightning 1.127.639 1.022.883 626 567 1,06 0,99

Offices 178.413 161.839 99 90 0,17 0,16

Cathodic Protection 132.016 119.752 73 66 0,12 0,12

Other Electrical 251.605 228.231 140 127 0,24 0,22

SUB-TOTAL 5.350.325 4.853.289 2.968 2.692 5,04 4,68


RTGs 783.847 874.825 2.050 2.288 3,48 3,98

Yard Tractors 877.684 792.763 2.296 2.074 3,90 3,61

Reach Stackers 474.867 452.851 1.242 1.185 2,11 2,06

Empty Container Handler 158.911 152.312 416 398 0,71 0,69

ForkLifts 4.624 4.580 12 12 0,02 0,02

Other Fuel 49.550 57.541 130 151 0,22 0,26

SUB-TOTAL 2.349.483 2.334.872 6.146 6.107 10,43 10,62

9.114 8.800 15,46 15,30

Kg. CO2eq. / TEU

Litres CO2eq. Tonnes Kg. CO2eq. / TEU

TOTAL

Fuel Consumption


3,07 Tonne CO2/Tep

1,01084 Tonne CO2eq



550 g.CO2/KWh

1,00857 Tonne CO2eq

kWh CO2eq. Tonnes

0,00

2,00

4,00

6,00

8,00

10,00

12,00

14,00

16,00

18,00

2011 2012*





Figure 96. Koper PCT Carbon Footprint Distribution Year 2011



global Carbon Footprint of Koper PCT in 2011. It is remarkable the weight of yard tractors

(25%), RTGs (22%), and Reach Stackers (14%) to the total amount (61%) of GHG emissions.

Other important contributors are STS cranes (14%) and container reefers (8%).

Figure 97. Koper PCT Carbon Footprint Distribution Year 2012




Footprint of the terminal are again RTGs (26%), yard tractors (24%) and reach stackers 13%)

followed by STS cranes (13%) and container reefers (8%).

14%

8%

7%

1%1%

2%

22%

25%

14%

5%

0 1%


STS Cranes Container Reefers Yard Lightning

Offices Cathodic Protection Other Electrical

RTGs Yard Tractors Reach Stackers

Empty Container Handler ForkLifts Other Fuel

13%

8%

6%

1%1%

1%26%

24%

13%

5%

0 2%


STS Cranes Container Reefers Yard LightningOffices Cathodic Protection Other ElectricalRTGs Yard Tractors Reach StackersEmpty Container Handler ForkLifts Other Fuel



5 THE ROLE OF PORT AUTHORITIES AS ENERGY MANAGERS

In the last fifty years the energy sector has suffered a deep transformation due to very

different factors such as the geopolitical uncertainty of countries with huge amount of

energy sources (mainly oil), the increase on the environmental awareness and the

technological evolution which has facilitated the development of renewable energy sources

(wind, photovoltaic and thermal solar energy, etc.).

The main challenge nowadays concerning energy is to improve the way that energy is used,

obtaining the same benefits with fewer resources. In this manner, eco-efficiency at ports is

becoming more and more significant in line with other strategic sectors. The main

objectives of eco-efficiency at ports can be described in the following points:

To reduce electrical energy consumption by means efficient equipment with energy

classification A or A+ (lightning, engines, generators, etc.) and to improve the isolation

of walls and glasses in order to reduce losses.

To reduce losses within the electrical distribution network by means of monitoring and

control of installations as well as the operation in real time over the network behaviour.

To plan the development of the different infrastructures and networks within the port

attending to operational and environmental criteria.

To increase the awareness and training of port personnel in order to make a more

efficient use of energy resources.

Electrical energy at ports is essential to develop the great majority of activities related to

cargo handling and logistics, especially with containerized cargo. The evolution of these

activities and their complexity demand nowadays huge amounts of energy. Thus, the

electrical network must provide energy at the right moment and at the right place with high

degrees of quality and reliability, trying to avoid interruptions in the supply which may

cause important economic losses as well as operative inefficiencies.

The key to achieve this high degree of reliability is to deploy redundant elements in the

network which guarantee the supply continuity although one or more of the network

components fail.

Although it is very difficult to reduce the probability of supply interruption to zero,

nowadays the technologies and management controls of the energy supply networks allow

the normal operations under the most complex and hard conditions. The role of the Port

Authority in this manner is to maintain the installations, networks and devices in order to

keep the system running under the appropriate conditions of operation, safety and

security.

The actual trends and developments on renewable energies and other efficient alternatives

like co-generation and the use of natural gas is transforming the energy policy of ports.



5.1 PORT AUTHORITY OF VALENCIA

The electrical network managed by the Port Authority of Valencia (APV) is a three-phase

private network of 20kV and 50 Hz with a redundant supply point consisting in two lines of

the IBERDROLA Company.

The delivery and manoeuvring centre is located in the Av. Ingeniero Manuel Soto. In this

centre four electrical lines arrive from the GRAO substation and two other exit from it

towards the distribution centre. Both lines are controlled by automatic switches. The

energy provided by the supply company is managed in the distribution centre, which is

composed by modular cells. Each module is isolated in SF6 in order to avoid pollution and

salt from the sea as well as floods. With this system maintenance is significantly reduced

and reliability is increased.

Figure 98. Electrical Distribution Centre. Port Authority of Valencia


The installed system is a single-bar divided into section cabins with the following

specifications:

Two entrance-line cells type CGM-CML in 18 VDC.

Two general protection cells type CGM-CMP with RPGM relay.

Two measurement cells type CGM-CMM which register the energy coming from the

two entrance lines.

Six protection cells for exit lines type CGM-CMP with RPGM relay.

Two cells type CGM-CMIP with capacity to be operated manually.

Inside the distribution centre there are installed two reactive energy compensation

batteries of 2.000 kVAr capacity each one.



Figure 99. Reactive Energy Compensation Batteries


The distribution network is formed by two rings denominated as North and South. The

North ring starts from the automatic switch of the bar number 1 and serve the different

APV centres and buildings, finishing its path in the bar number 3.

The South ring starts from the automatic switch of bar number 1 and ends in the two

switches of bar number 3. This configuration allows future expansions of the network

towards the south of the port, where the available spaces for industrial activities are much

higher than in the north.

The rings start always in a bar connected to the deliver line of IBERDROLA and end in the

bar of the opposite line. In this manner, it is possible to keep the system running although

some breakdown appears in some bar, thus applying the concept of redundancy.

The distribution network is composed by single-pole cables with copper conductors of 150

mm2 section, isolated with HEPR and with copper wires of 16 mm2 for a nominal voltage of

12 / 20 kV. The maximum intensity allowed for these cables at 105ºC are:

Section Air or Ventilate Gallery Directly Buried Buried under Tube

150 mm2 Cu 465 A 360 A 330 A

In the last expansion of the network, single-polar aluminium cables of 240 mm2 section are

being used. The maximum intensity allowed for these cables at 105ºC are:

Section Air or Ventilate Gallery Directly Buried Buried under Tube

240 mm2 Al 495 A 365 A 345 A

Both conductor cables are equivalent in transport capacity.



5.2 PORT AUTHORITY OF LIVORNO

Livorno Port Authority is not a direct energy provider, but as port management and

monitoring authority and public investor in port general interest infrastructures, the

policies adopted in the Port Authority’s Port Master Plan and their related decisions can

have a direct impact also in the port energy sector. The port of Livorno, as any other

complex economic system where networks of different production activities are

interoperating, is with no doubt a significant energy consumption centre characterized by

several components, as those referred to ships approaching and mooring, cargo handling

through different kinds of cranes and heavy trucks, yards lightning and buildings powering.

In this context, any action aimed at lowering the energetic dependency, making the use of

energy more efficient and reducing the emission levels, could play an important role for its

future development, especially considering the cost rising trends of fossil fuels and also the

need to comply even more strictly to those regulations devised for bringing down the

environmental impact of production processes and improving their sustainability.

Thus, the Port of Livorno rationalization and growing policies shall foresee also its parallel

energetic development, which has to be based on a real mind-changing in terms of energy

related decisions. On the one hand, Livorno port should gradually change its status from

“energy consumer” to “energy producer” and, on the other, we have to take into account

all the aspects related to energy efficiency, an important concept to be declined not only in

terms of future infrastructure and services development decisions, but also through

implementing real time energy balance monitoring systems and carrying out maintenance

activities focused on a gradual substitution of highly consuming spare parts with their eco-

efficient counterparts.

In order to achieve these mid-to-long terms objectives, all the efforts that will be made in

the port of Livorno for addressing those energetic issues must realize practical results

useful and usable for getting closer to the following key elements:

Creation and/or integration of small-scale renewable energy power plants (“Energy

Districts” and “Smart Grids”), with particular focus on:

Solar energy: individuation and utilization of available areas for installing solar panel

and photovoltaic systems, also through applying specific public concession policies;

Wind power: design and development of small on-shore/off-shore wind power

plants in harmony with the future port expansion plans;

Green Quays: quays adaptation works for their electrification, in view of a possible

cold ironing service activation, in cooperation with shipping companies;

Wave energy: preliminary studies, in cooperation with Research

Centres/Universities, for evaluating the locally available wave energy potential;

Solutions for increasing eco-save/eco-efficiency and real time monitoring of port

energy consumptions;

Fossil fuels need analysis and studies/actions for their gradual substitution, with

periodic updates of energy audits in the port operating companies.



5.3 PORT OF KOPER

Luka Koper is not a direct energy provider. It is at the same time port manager, investor in

port infrastructure and also terminal operator, so its actions have a direct impact on energy

consumption. As it holds true for all ports, also the port Koper is a point of major energy

consumption through terminal activities of handling cargo, internal transportations,

lightning systems, etc.

The electrical network managed by the Port of Koper is a three-phase private network of 20

kV and 50 Hz with a redundant supply point consisting in four lines of the ELEKTRO

PRIMORSKA Company.

The delivery and distribution centre is located in the Port of Koper. In this centre three

electrical lines arrive from the RTP Koper substation and one from RTP Dekani substation.

All lines are controlled by automatic switches. The energy provided by the supply company

is managed in the distribution centre, which is composed by modular cells. Each module is

isolated in SF6 in order to avoid pollution and salt from the sea as well as floods. With this

system maintenance is significantly reduced and reliability is increased.

Figure 100. Electrical Distribution Centre. Port of Koper


The installed delivery switchboard is a single-bar divided into section cabins with the

following specifications:

Six incoming line cells type SM6 IM-630-24.

Two outgoing line cells type SM6 GAM2-630-24.

Two measurement cells type SM6 GMC-A-630-24 which register the energy coming

from the all incoming lines.

Three connection cells for connection between cells SM6 IMB-630-24.



Figure 101. Electrical Distribution Centre


The installed distribution switchboard is a single-bar divided into section cabins with the

following specifications:

Two incoming line cells type SM6 IMC-630-24.

Eight outgoing line cells type SM6 DM1-W-630-24.

Two measurement cells type SM6 GMC-A-630-24 which register the energy coming

from the all entrance lines.

One connection cell for connection between cells SM6 IMB-630-24.

The distribution network is formed by four rings. Each ring starts from one of outgoing line

cell in distribution switchboard and end on another outgoing line cell. In this manner, it is

possible to keep the system running although some breakdown appears in some bar, thus

applying the concept of redundancy.

The distribution network is composed by single-pole cables with aluminium conductors of

150 mm2 section, isolated with XLPE and with copper wires of 25 mm2 for a nominal voltage

of 12 / 20 kV. The maximum intensity allowed for these cables at 90ºC are:

Section Air or Ventilate Gallery Directly Buried

150 mm2 Al 363 A 320 A

In the last expansion of the network, single-pole copper cables of 240 mm2 section are

being used. The maximum intensity allowed for these cables at 90ºC are:

Section Air or Ventilate Gallery Directly Buried

240 mm2 Cu 627 A 534 A



The electrical network of the Port of Koper has been developed for the last 55 years in

accordance to needs of electricity consumers in the port. In the middle term Luka Koper is

planning to set up of a monitoring system that will enable a real time monitoring of

electricity consumption in the port. The long term plan is on the other hand to take

advantage of all the available surfaces in the port area to build solar power plants and to

assure a high level of energy self-sufficiency.



6 CONCLUSIONS

The present deliverable comprises a detailed approach to the problem of energy

consumption characterization at port container terminals. This study represents a required

input for the next stages of GREENCRANES, as many of technical and operative criteria

considered in the evaluation of eco-efficient alternatives will be affected by the way in that

energy is used. In the same way, a first step has been carried out in the definition of useful

energy efficiency indicators to be integrated into the operative management models of

PCTs.

General Considerations

The first and clearest result of the study carried out is that port container terminals are

huge energy consumers, especially on those energy sources based on fossil fuels. Average

values show a yearly fuel consumption of almost 10 million fuel litres (in form of diesel oil)

including Noatum Container Terminal Valencia, Livorno Darsena Toscana and Koper

Container Terminal. This figure gives the real dimension of the high energy intensity needed

at container handling operations. A great economic, environmental and social impact is

derived from the massive use of diesel oil for developing non-stop operatives at ports.

From the economic point of view, the general increase of fuel prices is affecting port

installations, representing more every day a significant cost which reduces their

competitiveness and forces PCTs to assign economical resources to fuel supply. This fact

increases their opportunity cost and limits the capacity for investing in profitable actions or

areas of the organization.

In terms of environmental impact, the use of the current fuel in a non-stop operative

model generates a great amount of GHG emissions, with an estimation of nearly 25.000

CO2eq tonnes derived from the use of diesel oil at the three participant PCTs in 2012. In this

manner, big port container terminals can be defined as important GHG emitters at the

same level of other heavy industries.

Concerning social impact, port installations are usually located near populated cities and

urban areas, especially in the Mediterranean. This is the case of Valencia, Livorno and

Koper. Impact of port operations affects directly nearby population as direct GHG

emissions (derived from diesel oil) are locally deployed, not only CO2, but also other

pollutant and toxic gases like N2O, Sulphur compounds and suspension particles. These

exhaust emissions are directly linked to respiratory illnesses and represent a public health

issue to be considered and properly managed.

Another important energy source used at PCTs is electricity. Although electricity does not

produce direct environmental impact in terms of emissions at ports, its generation in

power plants produce also indirect GHG which must be taken into account when

describing the energy consumption maps of port container terminals. In the present study,

an aggregated consumption of 33 MWh in 2012 has been calculated for the three

terminals, representing around 15.000 CO2eq tonnes generated. In this manner, a specific

analysis on how electrical energy is supplied and managed at ports can also offer important

improvement opportunities to reduce its degree of consumption.



Specific Considerations

Concerning the mapping of energy profiles developed at NCTV, TDT and Koper, some

significant conclusions have been obtained. From the point of view of electrical

consumption, Ship-to-Shore cranes and reefer containers are heavy consumer centres,

representing 70-80% of the total electrical consumption in the three terminals. This value

is directly linked with the production of the terminal.

To improve electrical management at port container terminals, a better knowledge about

where and how the energy is consumed is needed. IT supporting systems include the

software that allows managing, interpreting and distributing the data measured. After the

connection of port machinery to the IT system it would be able to provide accurate, true

RMS measurements of voltage, current, power and energy, comprehensive logging and

advanced power quality measurement and compliance verification functions.

With regards to fuel consumption, different considerations can be pointed out for each

terminal. In the case of NCTV, more than 90% of fuel consumption corresponds to RTGs

and yard tractors. When talking about NCTV RTGs, different families of machines work at

the terminal, existing a wide consumption gap between the Fantuzzi and the Konecranes

family. In the case of Livorno Darsena Toscana, reach stackers are the main consumers,

followed by RTGs and yard tractors. Reach stackers are the main equipment used at TDT

yard, with an average consumption of 13 l/h. RTGs present an average fuel consumption of

16 l/h. Finally, Koper Container Terminal presents a similar situation than NCTV, where

RTGs are the main fuel consumption contributors to the total amount. Thus, the

contribution of RTGs jointly with yard tractors surpasses 60% of the total amount of fuel,

followed by reach stackers with a contribution of 20%.

Considering the aggregated carbon footprint generated by the three terminals, the global

value reaches 45,68 Kg. CO2eq / TEU, considering an aggregated traffic of 2.992.073 TEUs

in 2011 (year with complete data for carbon footprint calculation).

According to the results derived from the present energy consumption map of the three

terminals, it can be pointed out that effort to reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions

produced by RTGs, yard tractors and reach stackers is strongly recommended. In this

manner, Activity 2 will study different eco-efficient alternatives oriented to reduce such

consumption: substitution of diesel oil with LNG for powering yard tractors and RTGs,

implementation of electrification technologies and study of alternative eco-fuels for reach

stackers will be part of the alternatives considered.

Activity 2 of GREENCRANES will evaluate different solutions oriented to reduce energy

consumption and GHG emissions. LNG is a clear candidate for the substitution of current

fuels at PCTs due to its lower emissions rate and price. However, limitations on supply and

availability must be studied and evaluated in order to demonstrate the implementation

feasibility. Electrification is another key alternative, being the main constraint the high level

of investment needed.

Activity 3 of the project, based on pilot demonstrations will clarify the theoretical

assumptions and the estimations considered for defining the feasibility models of each

alternative.



7 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Monfort A. et al. The Port Container Terminal as Nodal System in the Logistic Chain.

Valenciaport Foundation, 2012, pp 55-67.

Monfort F. et al. Carbon Footprint Methodology Assessment Handbook for Ports –

CLIMEPORT Project. Port Authority of Valencia, 2012.

Valenciaport Annual Report. Port Authority of Valencia, 2011.

Guide to PAS 2050:2011. British Standards Institution, 2011.

Guide of Energy Efficiency at Port Container Terminals – EFICONT Project (R&D Spanish

Plan), Valenciaport Foundation, 2010.

Carbon Footprinting for Ports. Guidance Document. World Ports Climate Initiative,

International Association of Ports and Harbours (IAPH), 2010.

Emission Factors Conversion Final Energy – Primary Energy. Institute for the

Diversification and Energy Saving. Area of Planning and Studies, Spain, 2010.

Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories.

US Environmental Protection Agency, 2009.

GHG Inventory Report. EIONET Central Data Repository, Slovenia, 2009.

Sapiña et al. State of the Art of the Current Energy Efficiency Situation in the Port Sector.

Energy Efficiency at Port Container Terminals – EFICONT Project (R&D Spanish Plan).

Valenciaport Foundation, 2009.

Sapiña et al. Diagnosis of the Current Energy Situation in the Spanish Port Sector. Energy

Efficiency at Port Container Terminals – EFICONT Project (R&D Spanish Plan).

Valenciaport Foundation, 2009.

Italian Legislative Decree n. 115/2008. Italy, 2008.

Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC), 2006.



8 ANNEX I: REAL ENERGY METERS ON A RTG AT NOATUM

CONTAINER TERMINAL VALENCIA

8.1 INTRODUCTION

The meters have been carried out studying the electrical parameters of the Rubber Tyred

Gantry (RTG) crane with code no. 29. The study has been conducted by the company

ELDUVAL SA. The object of the study is to determine the influence of electrical parameters

in the general consumption of this type of cranes.

In order to carry out the suitable meters, the following equipment has been used:

Electrical Network Analyzer CHAUVIN ARNOUX C.A. 8334.

Software for registration and analysis of electrical parameters.

Qualified personnel for measuring and analyzing the obtained results.

8.2 RESULTS OBTAINED

The following figures were obtained from the real meters carried out at NCTV using the RTG

no.29 of the terminal.

COMPOSED TENSION

Figure 102. ANNEX I. Composed Tension. Real Meter RTG NCTV

Source: Noatum / ELDUVAL



SIMPLE TENSION

Figure 103. ANNEX I. Simple Tension. Real Meter RTG NCTV


INTENSITY

Figure 104. ANNEX I. Intensity. Real Meter RTG NCTV




POWER

Figure 105. ANNEX I. Power. Real Meter RTG NCTV


Figure 106. ANNEX I. Power. Real Meter RTG NCTV (1 hour work)

Time KW Movements Average consumption

per movement

1 hour 48,77 23 2,12



8.3 CONCLUSIONS

The objective of the study was the evaluation of the relationship between the fuel

consumption of the RTG with a theoretical electrical power alternative. The obtained

results can be summarized in the following table.

Table 55. ANNEX I.Results from the Real Meter at NCTV

INSTALLATION ENERGY SUPPLY POWER WORKING HOURS COST (kW/H) €

RTG 29 ELECTRICITY 25,68 41 0,17 178

Litres €/Litre

RTG 29 FUEL 1.290 41 0,76 980


The RTG no.29 was measured during 41 h between the 6th and 7th December 2012. The

genset generated 25,68 kW per working hour in average. The final result is obtained

multiplying the kW generated by the working hours and by the price of the energy. The

value of 178 € corresponds to the energy produced multiplied by an average price of the

energy (market price). The value for the fuel consumed is obtained in the same manner

considering a market price of 0,76 €/L. The difference results in a potential saving of 802 €

for 41 working hours.



9 ANNEX II: REAL ENERGY METERS ON A REACH STACKER AT

LIVORNO DARSENA TOSCANA

9.1 REACH STACKERS FLEET DESCRIPTION

The fuel consumption analysis of equipment shows that reach stackers are the most

responsible of fuel consumption (43,3% of the total). For this reason in this chapter it is

analyzed in deep the reach stackers fleet and its detailed consumption. In this case it is

analyzed two years data from January 2011 to November 2012.

From January 2011 to November 2012 TDT fleet was composed by a number of reach

stackers from 15 to 17. Some reach stackers were removed from the fleet and some more

were added during the period.

The fleet comprises devices made from four constructors: Kalmar, CVS, Fantuzzi and KONE.

Constructors of reach stackers usually use more than one kind of engine depending by the

model or the customer specific request.

The following table shows the total fleet of TDT during the period. In the table reach

stackers are divided for constructor names brands and kind of engine.

Table 56. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet

REACH STACKER CONSTRUCTOR NB ENGINE ON BOARD

KALMAR

4

Cummins QSM11

Cylinders 6

Power 261 kW

3

Volvo TAD1250VE

Cylinders 6

Power 259 kW

CVS

8

Scania DC 1258 A

Cylinders 6

Power 257 kW

2

SCANIA DL 12

Cylinders 6

Power 243 kW

1

VolvoTWD1031VE

Cylinders 6

Power 234 kW- 320 HP



FANTUZZI

1

Volvo TAD1250VE

Cylinders 6

Power 259 kW

1

Volvo TWD1031VE

Cylinders 6

Power 234 Kw -320 HP

KONE

1

Volvo TAD1250VE

Cylinders 6

Power 259 kW

TDT Reach Stacker fleet from January 2011 to November 2012




9.2 REACH STACKERS FLEET CONSUMPTION DATA ANALYSIS

For each TDT reach stacker the total fuel consumption has been calculated for all the period

from January 2011 to November 2012. Each device has a “working hour counter” that has

been used to calculate the specific consumption: litres of fuel / working hours [l/h]. The

“Availability” of a reach stacker in the period, has been defined as the total number of

hours it was available for working (24 available hours per day). The “% of use” has been

defined as the total working hour of each reach stacker divided by its availability.

The results of fleet consumption analysis are reported in the following table:

Table 57. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Consumption

CODE NAME MOTORIZATION AVAILABILITY H

(24H/DAY)

WORKIN

G H L L/H

% USE (24H/D)

303009* CVS 30 Volvo TWD1031VE 8760 469 5174 11,0 5%

303028 CVS 56 Scania DC 1258 A 17489 4445 60235 13,6 25%

303034** CVS 67 Scania DC 1258 A 9089 4322 59223 13,7 48%

303027* CVS 55 Scania DC 1258 A 8760 2718 37748 13,9 31%

303031** CVS 63 Scania DC 1258 A 12257 5364 74577 13,9 44%

303033** CVS 66 Scania DC 1258 A 9089 4152 57819 13,9 46%

303029 CVS 59 Scania DC 1258 A 17489 4602 64647 14,0 26%

303017 KALMAR 36 (EX FANTUZZI) FULL

RENTAL Volvo TAD1250VE 17489 6003 84479 14,1 34%

303030 KALMAR 60 - FULL

RENTAL Volvo TAD1250VE 17489 5464 77588 14,2 31%

303032** CVS 64 Scania DC 1258 A 12185 5081 73334 14,4 42%

303021* KALMAR 49 - FULL

RENTAL Volvo TAD 1250VE 10224 3291 48349 14,7 32%

303020 CVS 48 Scania DC 1258 A 17489 3009 44420 14,8 17%

303012* CVS 37 SCANIA DL 12 5160 864 13021 15,1 17%

303022* FANTUZZI 50 Volvo TAD 1250VE 8760 2238 34475 15,4 26%

303014* CVS 39 SCANIA DL 12 5904 1143 17947 15,7 19%

303035** KONE 68 Volvo TAD1250VE 7056 2614 42420 16,2 37%

303018* FANTUZZI 43 Volvo TWD1031VE 5184 522 8569 16,4 10%

TDT Reach Stacker fleet working hours and fuel consumption in the period from January 2011 to November 2012 * Reach stackers available in the fleet form January 2011 and dismissed before November 2012 ** Reach stackers entered in the fleet after January 2011




The specific consumption (l/h) of each reach stacker is represented in the chart below.

Different engines are highlighted with different colours.

Figure 107. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Specific Consumption


The percentage of use of each reach stacker is reported in the chart below. They are sorted

by specific consumption in ascending order from left to right (same order as the chart

above). Different engines are highlighted with different colours.

Figure 108. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet % of Use




Of course the consumption of a reach stacker is influenced by a number of factors but the

type of engine is one of the most relevant. In order to analyze average engine efficiency,

data are grouped by engine type as showed in the following table:

Table 58. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Operative and Consumption Parameters

ENGINE NAME AVAILABILITY

H WORKING

H L L/H

% USE

Cummins QSM11 69.956 16.690 212.335 12,7 20

Volvo TWD1031VE 13.944 991 13.743 13,9 10

Scania DC 1258 A 103.847 33.693 472.003 14,0 30

Volvo TAD1250VE 42.034 14.081 204.487 14,5 30

SCANIA DL 12 11.064 2.007 30.968 15,4 20


The results of specific consumption and percentage of use of each group of reach stacker

having the same engine are reported in the following charts:

Figure 109. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Specific Consumption


Figure 110. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers % of Use


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Cummins QSM11 Volvo TWD1031VE Scania DC 1258 A Volvo TAD1250VE SCANIA DL 12

% Use



Table 59. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Consumption Data Analysis Year 2011

CODE NAME TYPE MOTORIZATION AVAILABILITY H WORKING H L L/H

303009 CVS 30 Reach Stackers Volvo

TWD1031VE 8760 469

5.174

11,0

303012 CVS 37 Reach Stackers SCANIA DL 12 5160 864

13.021 15,1

303014 CVS 39 Reach Stackers SCANIA DL 12 5904 1.143

17.947 15,7

303017 KALMAR 36 (EX FANTUZZI) FULL RENTAL

Reach Stackers Volvo

TAD1250VE 8760 3.491

49.789

14,3

303018 FANTUZZI 43 Reach Stackers Volvo

TWD1031VE 5184 522

8.569

16,4

303020 CVS 48 Reach Stackers Scania DC 1258 A 8760 1.843

27.887 15,1

303021 KALMAR 49 - FULL RENTAL

Reach Stackers Volvo TAD

1250VE 8760 2.841

41.882

14,7

303022 FANTUZZI 50 Reach Stackers Volvo TAD

1250VE 8760 2.238

34.475

15,4


Reach Stackers Cummins QSM11 8760 4.747

59.550 12,5


Front Loader Cummins QSM11 8760 2.329

30.155 12,9


Front Loader Cummins QSM11 8760 2.366

31.037 13,1


Front Loader Cummins QSM11 8760 986

13.057 13,2


37.748 13,9


40.206 13,5


39.404 14,2


Reach Stackers Volvo

TAD1250VE 8760 3.845

53.071

13,8

304004 KALMAR 57 - FULL RENTAL - VUOTI

Empty Container Handler

Volvo TAD760VE 8760 1.007

6.300 6,3

304005 KALMAR 58 - FULL RENTAL - VUOTI

Empty Container Handler

Volvo TAD760VE 8760 1.075

6.630 6,2

303033 CVS 66 Reach Stackers Scania DC 1258 A 360 196

3.032 15,5

303034 CVS 67 Reach Stackers Scania DC 1258 A 360 205

3.030 14,8

303031 CVS 63 Reach Stackers Scania DC 1258 A 3528 1.936 27.44

7 14,2

303032 CVS 64 Reach Stackers Scania DC 1258 A 3456 1.735 24.38

2 14,1

42.304

573.793

13,5




Table 60. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Consumption Year 2011

MONTH H/MONTH LT./MONTH

January 3.134 40.818

February 3.454 46.832

March 3.735 51.257

April 3.920 51.139

May 3.969 54.876

June 3.557 49.397

July 3.975 54.955

August 3.374 45.023

September 3.540 47.037

October 3.353 45.381

November 2.927 41.941

December 3.366 45.137

AVERAGE 3.525 47.816

Figure 111. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Hours / Month Year 2011

Figure 112. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Litres / Month Year 2011

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

4.500

January February March April May June July August September October November December

Hours / Month 2011

2011

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

January February March April May June July August September October November December

Litres / Month 2011

2011



Table 61. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Consumption Data Analysis Year 2012

CODE NAME TYPE MOTORIZATION AVAILABILITY H

WORKING H

L L/H

303017 KALMAR 36 Reach Stackers Volvo TAD1250VE 8729 2.512 34.690 13,8

303020 CVS 48 Reach Stackers Scania DC 1258 A 8729 1.166 16.533 14,2

303021 KALMAR 49 Reach Stackers Volvo TAD1250VE 1464 450 6.467 14,4

303023 KALMAR 51 Reach Stackers Cummins QSM11 8729 1.924 24.408 12,7

303024 KALMAR 52 Front Loader Cummins QSM11 8729 1.490 18.416 12,4





303030 KALMAR 60 Reach Stackers Volvo TAD1250VE 8729 1.619 24.517 15,1





303035 KONE 68 Reach Stackers Volvo TAD1250VE 7056 2.614 42.420 16,2

304004 KALMAR 57 EC. Handler Volvo TAD760VE 8729 619 4.424 7,1

304005 KALMAR 58 ( EC Handler Volvo TAD760VE 8729 840 5.838 7,0

34.228 465.759 13,0



Table 62. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Consumption Year 2012

MONTH H/MONTH LT./MONTH

January 2.973 40.262

February 3.063 39.525

March 3.420 44.623

April 2.916 41.770

May 3.473 46.905

June 3.127 43.897

July 3.159 42.147

August 2.884 40.328

September 3.064 41.322

October 2.979 41.277

November 3.170 43.703

AVERAGE 3.112 42.342

Figure 113. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Hours / Month Year 2012


Figure 114. ANNEX II. TDT Reach Stackers Fleet Litres / Month Year 2012


0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

January February March April May June July August September October November

Hours / Month 2012

2012

34.000

36.000

38.000

40.000

42.000

44.000

46.000

48.000

January February March April May June July August September October November

Litres/ Month 2012

2012



THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT IN BLANK

green technologies and eco-efficient alternatives for cranes and operations … · ·...

Documents