News / UK ports in a tough spot, but are responding as Scope 3 piles on the pressure

© David Watmough

Late last month, the UK Supreme Court ruled against expanding oil drilling in Surrey, arguing that environmental impact assessments (EIAs) had not taken into account the ‘downstream’ – Scope 3 – emissions of consuming that oil.

It follows a May ruling along similar lines by the European Free Trade Association against the Norwegian government.

This week, PortXChange highlighted that it would not just be the fossil majors in the firing line. Current technology allows ports to run cranes, trucks and stackers with grid energy or batteries, meaning that for some, there are few direct emissions to cut. But ports are still on the hook for massive Scope 3 emissions contributions, thanks to the ships and trucks that call there.

According to the logic of Scope 3, a port that adds new berths or more yard space could be inducing more calls and therefore, more emissions – something that would need to be factored into EIAs.

“Ports… are central to global supply chains and the emissions those chains produce,” said Sjoerd de Jager, MD of PortXchange. “This ruling confirms what many of us have argued for years – if we want real decarbonisation, Scope 3 can’t be ignored.”

Scope 3 is increasing the commercial pressure on ports, PortXChange argues, and is liable to constrain future expansion from a financing perspective.

“Ports don’t get to call themselves sustainable while ignoring 80% of their emissions,” said Mr de Jager. “Pretending it is someone else’s footprint won’t fly with lenders anymore.”

This leaves ports in tough spot. One of the few ways they can influence Scope 3 emissions has to do with providing shore power for vessels to connect to while docked. But not only is this subject to ship operators’ willingness to equip their vessels with the necessary kit; but is also sensitive to what local energy grids can provide.

“The key constraint for further roll-out [of shore power] – especially where we have constrained demand from shipping customers, like at Southampton – is the capacity of the electricity grid outside the port and slow pace of securing extra connectivity,” explained Tim Morris, spokesperson for Associated British Ports (ABP). “The UK government has announced a new approach to the process for new connections but we’ve yet to see the positive impact.”

In response, ABP has invested extensively in generating low-emission power on site. At the port of Hull, it has installed 6.5MWh of solar panels on terminal buildings, the largest rooftop solar installation in the UK.

Another project, Turbo-Meth, a partnership between ABP and X-Press feeders, will use waste products to generate biomethanol at Shoreham Port, generating auxiliary vessel power using adapted gas turbine engines.

Some ABP ports will need 8-10 times their current electricity demand over the next decades, Mr Morris said.

“We have exciting plans to keep growing our generation, [but] frankly we’re going to need all the power we can get. Our recent experience of being quoted dates in the 2030s for electricity supply upgrades is obviously not good enough to meet not only our ambitions, but also, increasingly, those of our customers and tenants.

“A big ask we have of the UK government… is to make major port areas a much more important part of its strategic network planning.”

Mr Morris added that “port operations and the onward landside transport” had a way to to go as well; but the biggest change “will have to come from the shipping sector itself… more shore power also requires a realistic conversation between the port and the shipping operators about the economics”.

Meanwhile, on the carrier side, Oceanscore today released data that appears to show cargo owners and forwarders are inaccurately reporting their Scope 3 emissions, thanks to shortcomings in the way shipping lines are measuring them.

Surprisingly, this includes over- as well as under-reporting. In a sample of intra-North Europe voyages from January to end-May, MSC proved to be the most efficient carrier, Oceanscore claimed, with around 500 voyages each month emitting between 13.02-13.95 gCO2e/tonne-km. Unifeeder, by contrast, operated around 420 monthly voyages, which generated 24-28 gCO2e/tonne-km.

“On seemingly identical port pairs, such as Hamburg to Porto, emissions can differ by a factor of four, ranging from 200-800kg CO2e per container,” said Thomas Smith, head of cargo solutions, Oceanscore. “While shippers… may not be able to change routing or port infrastructure”, they could “significantly influence outcomes” by switching carriers.

Happily, Xeneta research appears to show shipping emissions reducing, following a spike brought on by the Red Sea crisis. Despite no obvious return to the Suez Canal, Xeneta’s Q2 emissions measurements are just 1.5 points higher than in Q2 23, suggesting that “…if there is a resolution to the conflict and the Red Sea opens up at large, carbon emissions performance at a global level would drop significantly below the levels seen in 202,”, wrote market analyst Emily Stausbøll.