GREENPORTSIDE

The GREENPORTSIDE project sets out how Newhaven Port can meet rapidly increasing electricity demand driven by maritime decarbonisation, electrified transport and local renewable penetration ambitions.

We evaluated:
• Rooftops/ground/fence solar PV (rooftops accounted for ≈95% of solar PV yield),
• VAWTs for gusty port winds,
• OBREC wave (~570 MWh/y, winter‑strong), and
• Very‑low‑head (VLH) tidal options at Tide Mills (≈62–104 MWh/y).

Long‑duration storage is critical for this combination of supply and demand: a ~50 MW/300 MWh LAES provides multi‑hour peak support, potentially combined with LFP BESS for fast response and power‑quality.

Recommended architecture: MV‑fed microgrid with MV rectification and a shared DC bus feeding OPS and MCS, with quayside LAES+BESS buffering. As part of system integration, we also assessed potential “offtake” pathways, flexible co‑located or nearby loads that can absorb surplus renewable electricity when generation exceeds immediate port demand. Illustrative offtake classes include hydrogen electrolysis (with longer‑term potential to use LAES cold for liquefaction support), cold‑chain/reefers and cold‑storage (using LAES cold to reduce cooling demand), and heat‑using loads such as data‑centre services (using available heat in parts of the LAES cycle).

In techno‑economic modelling, project feasibility is most sensitive to the spread between electricity purchase costs and sale prices; incorporating additional revenue streams via offtakers materially improves the financial outlook compared with renewables‑only cases, with hydrogen‑related offtake scenarios showing the strongest uplift in the assessed cases.

Environmental performance: A PV‑first sequence with an LAES backbone performs strongly vs grid‑only comparators once daily multi‑hour cycling is established. A civils‑light strategy—reusing conduits/harbour structures (tidal/OBREC) and favouring marine‑durable, recyclable BoM—reduces embodied impacts. Demonstrators (VLH/HPT tidal, OBREC) provide relatively predictable low‑carbon MWh scale capacity.

Phased roadmap:
• P1 (2026–28) OPS AC shore power + rooftop PV + initial BESS;
• P2 (2028–30) private‑wire estate integration + PV expansion + fence PV trials + wind installation + wave/ tidal demonstrators as appropriate + initial LAES (with early evaluation of candidate offtakers to increase utilisation and reduce curtailment);
• P3 (2030–35) MV vessel shore supply + early high‑power EV/HGV charging + scale storage + adopt MV–DC common bus (with scalable offtake integration as surplus renewable generation increases);
• P4 (~2035) hybrid ferry fast charging (~8 MWh/turnaround) + expand buffering;
• P5 (2040+) fully battery‑electric ferries with multi‑MW turnaround charging and ~250–300 MWh LAES.

The GREENPORTSIDE project looks at how Newhaven Port can cope with a rapid rise in electricity demand over the next 15–20 years.
This increase is driven by three major changes:
1. Ships switching away from fossil fuels
2. More electric vehicles (including heavy goods vehicles) serving the port
3. A push to generate more local renewable electricity
The project asks a simple question:
How can the port supply a lot more clean power, reliably and affordably, without rebuilding everything from scratch?
How much electricity demand will grow
Our modelling looks at different future stages (called P0 to P5, covering roughly 2025 to 2040 and beyond).
• Average electricity use grows by approximately 30x from about 186 MWh per year today to around 5,800 MWh per year
• Peak demand (short bursts of very high power use) rises in the same order from under 1 MW to over 31 MW
These peak demand spikes happen when several things line up at once, such as:
• Ferries docking and turning around quickly
• Many electric cars and lorries charging at the same time
• Ships plugging into shore‑side power instead of running engines
Why the current electricity network isn’t enough
The port’s current combination of low‑voltage (LV) and medium-voltage (MV) electrical system works fine today and in the short term, but it cannot safely handle the much higher power levels expected later.
From the mid‑phases (P3) onwards, the port will need to move to a consolidated medium‑voltage (11,000‑volt) supply.
Without this upgrade, the future electrification simply wouldn’t be possible.
What clean energy sources were studied
The project assessed several local renewable energy options to supply the port:
Solar power
• Solar panels on roofs, ground, and fences
• Rooftop panels provide about 95% of the total solar output
• Fence and ground‑mounted solar are smaller‑scale trials
Wind power
Vertical‑axis wind turbines (VAWTs), which are better suited to gusty and turbulent wind conditions often found in ports. This technology is required to meet 10MW+ demand.
Wave power
• OBREC wave energy, which could provide about 570 MWh per year
• This is strongest in winter, when electricity demand is often highest
Tidal power
• Very‑low‑head tidal turbines at Tide Mills
• Smaller but predictable output (around 60–100 MWh per year)
Together, these provide clean energy, but not always at the same time as demand.
Why energy storage is essential
Because renewables don’t produce power exactly when it’s needed, large‑scale energy storage is critical.
The study recommends:
• A Liquid Air Energy Storage (LAES) system sized at about 50 MW / 300 MWh
• This stores energy for many hours, not just minutes; and
• Investigation of combining with smaller battery systems (BESS) for:
• Fast response
• Power quality and stability
Think of this like:
• LAES = a large reservoir supplying sustained demand
• Batteries = shock absorbers handling sudden changes
Together, they allow the port to meet big power peaks without overloading the grid.
Recommended power system design
The preferred solution is a medium‑voltage microgrid, meaning the port can:
• Generate, store, and manage its own power locally
• Share electricity efficiently between ships, vehicles, and infrastructure
Key features include:
• Medium‑voltage supply feeding into power converters
• A shared direct‑current (DC) bus supplying:
o Shore power for ships
o High‑power vehicle charging
• Energy storage located close to quaysides to buffer peaks; and
• Flexible offtake connections (e.g., hydrogen, cold‑storage, data‑centre) to use surplus clean power and LAES cold/heat when available.
Offtake arrangements: turning surplus energy into value
A renewable‑and‑storage port system is not only about meeting demand, it is also about using clean electricity efficiently when it is available. At certain times (for example, windy nights or sunny periods outside peak operations), the port may produce surplus renewable power. GREENPORTSIDE therefore considered “offtake” arrangements: co‑located or nearby users who can absorb surplus electricity and help balance the system.
Examples include:
• Hydrogen production (electrolysis), which can run flexibly and, if developed further, could use the cold from Liquid Air Energy Storage (LAES) to support liquefaction and improve efficiency.
• Cold‑storage and refrigerated containers (reefers), where LAES cold can reduce the electricity needed for cooling and allow pre‑cooling during lower‑cost periods.
• A data‑centre or other heat‑using facility, which can make productive use of heat during parts of the LAES cycle, increasing overall utilisation.
These arrangements strengthen the overall case because the system does more than “keep the lights on”: it reduces wasted energy, improves utilisation of renewables and storage, and can create additional income or cost savings. In the project’s techno‑economic work, adding offtake options materially improves the financial outlook compared with renewables‑only cases, with hydrogen‑related offtake showing the strongest uplift in the modelled scenarios.
This integrated approach reduces losses, improves reliability, and future‑proofs the port.
Environmental benefits of the approach
Environmentally, the system performs well because:
• Solar/ Wind power is prioritised
• Long‑duration storage allows clean power to be used when needed
• Re‑using existing infrastructure (ducts, harbour structures) avoids unnecessary construction
• Materials are chosen for marine durability and recyclability
Demonstrator technologies like tidal and wave power provide:
• Lower‑carbon electricity
• Predictable output
• Useful learning for future expansion
Phased delivery plan (what happens and when)
Rather than doing everything at once, the project proposes a step‑by‑step roadmap:
• P1 (2026–2028)
Shore power for ships using AC supply
Rooftop solar panels and trial fence‑mounted panels
Initial battery storage
• P2 (2028–2030)
Connect nearby sites through private electricity wires
Expand solar
Install:
 Wind
 First LAES unit
 Wave/ Tidal as appropriate
Begin early offtake partnerships (e.g., hydrogen, cold‑storage, data‑centre) to use surplus renewable electricity and improve system economics
• P3 (2030–2035)
Shore power for larger vessels
Early high‑power EV and lorry charging
More storage
Move to a shared MV‑to‑DC power system
Scale up offtake so more surplus clean electricity is used productively, reducing waste and supporting local clean industry
• P4 (around 2035)
Fast charging for hybrid ferries
Very large energy use per turnaround
Expanded storage near quayside
• P5 (2040+)
Fully electric ferries
Multi‑megawatt charging during short stops
Large‑scale LAES (around 250–300 MWh) to support operations
In short
GREENPORTSIDE shows how Newhaven Port can move from today’s modest electricity needs to becoming a fully electrified, low‑carbon port. Our work shows that this can be achieved without losing reliability, by combining smart grid design, local renewables, and large‑scale energy storage, delivered step by step over time.

Our modelling across P0–P5 (2025–2040+) shows average demand rising from ~186 MWh to ~5,800 MWh and peaks from ~862 kW to >31,400 kW, with peaks 4–8× average due to ferry turnarounds, EV/HGV charging and occasional MV shore‑supply for vessels. Low Voltage (LV) networks are inadequate beyond early phases and a transition to 11 kV MV is essential.