Study Highlights Onshore Power Supply Challenge for LNG-Powered Ships

Why It Matters

The findings highlight a hidden barrier to EU ports’ 2030 OPS mandate, affecting both emission targets and the economic competitiveness of LNG‑fuelled fleets.

Key Takeaways

• OPS mandates EU ports by 2030 for emissions reduction
• LNG ships with membrane/Type B tanks struggle with low pressure
• Dual‑fuel boilers can burn BOG on OPS, causing inefficiency
• Emergency BOG venting risk low but methane impact high
• Study urges shared BOG management practices and regulatory review

Pulse Analysis

European ports are racing to meet the 2030 on‑shore power supply (OPS) requirement, a cornerstone of the EU’s maritime decarbonisation agenda. OPS allows vessels to shut down auxiliary engines, cutting local pollutants and greenhouse gases. However, LNG‑fuelled ships face a unique challenge: managing boil‑off gas (BOG) that naturally evaporates from cryogenic fuel tanks. When a vessel plugs into shore power, its traditional BOG‑handling systems—primarily engines and generators—are offline, forcing operators to rely on alternative solutions that may not align with OPS efficiency goals.

Technical nuances further complicate the picture. Membrane and Type B LNG tanks operate at lower pressures, limiting their ability to store BOG for extended periods while docked. In contrast, Type C tanks tolerate higher pressures, offering a buffer against rapid gas buildup. Dual‑fuel boilers and auxiliary engines can combust BOG on‑site, but doing so while connected to OPS often results in over‑burning, wasting fuel and undermining the environmental benefits of shore power. The worst‑case scenario—emergency venting of methane—remains rare, yet its climate impact is severe given methane’s 85‑fold global warming potential over 20 years.

Policy makers and ship owners must reconcile these technical constraints with regulatory objectives. The CE Delft report urges the maritime community to exchange operational best practices for BOG management under OPS, and to consider temporary regulatory flexibilities—such as reduced FuelEU penalties—for vessels lacking advanced BOG‑handling equipment. Aligning OPS mandates with realistic ship capabilities will safeguard emission reductions, preserve competitive equity, and accelerate the broader transition toward cleaner, sustainable shipping.