PAVING THE WAVES

This paper presents a comparison between the modular floating Transport&Logistics@Sea (T&L@Sea) hub that is designed in the Space@Sea project, and container terminals situated onshore. Taking into account that the Port of Antwerp (PoA) is already considering expansion further along the river Scheldt the T&L@Sea hub is examined as an alternative to normal onshore expansion or via land reclamation. The research question to be answered was under which circumstances can the designed T&L@Sea hub be more beneficial than the 2 major alternative solutions, an onshore terminal and a terminal situated on reclaimed land. Additionally, 2 other locations are examined as potential deployment sites with different characteristics. A smaller T&L@Sea hub outside the Port of Genoa with limited inland expansion opportunities and situated at deeper water depths, and a much smaller scale and short-term disaster relief effort off the coast of Africa.

​

Based on the results for the Port of Antwerp, the T&L@Sea hub cannot achieve lower costs than either of the 2 alternatives, resulting in higher Financial Net Present Values (FNPVs) in all cases. The main reason is the high construction costs of the modules that comprise the platform, and the constraints of the modules requiring an equipment unit present on each module, leading to significant equipment acquisition and maintenance costs.

However, in cases of deep water and extremely limited possibilities for expansion, such as the Genoa port, or for short lived specialized operations, a T&L@Sea hub might be the only feasible choice. Furthermore, the T&L@Sea hub offers numerous non-monetary benefits (or non-direct monetary benefits), which may make it a viable option for certain cases, either as an extension of the Antwerp port or as a standalone project. Reduced vessel turnaround times, flexibility in size/operations, low environmental impact and opportunities for temporary deployment may be deciding factors for the realization of such a project.