As liquid bulk vessels are berthed in ports, auxiliary engines generate the electrical power demand, which emissions have a negative effect on the environment and local air quality in ports. Shore power is an effective solution for this problem. However, the large costs of implementing shore power and the absence of a technical safe design standard led to no adaption of shore power. Currently, there are no insights in the costs and utilisation of shore power in the liquid bulk industry. This thesis used an adapted systems engineering approach for a framework with a technical background and shore power concept evaluation. The shore power evaluation on costs and power utilisation combines the Life Cycle Costs approach and operational tanker data. By designing a model that evaluates the costs and utilisation for terminal and ships, insights for the business case for shore power have been obtained. Shore power implementation is extremely sensitive to utilisation, if the shore power readiness of ships is low at the terminal, it will be economically unfeasible. As well as for the ships, if no ports with shore power can be visited, shore power is not at all costeffective. The chemical shortsea market has the most potential for shore power implementation, due to the frequent visits of ports in Europe. This thesis has found that shore power can be economically feasible when European shortsea shipping is implemented in EU ETS with a CO2 price. The required CO2 price ranges from 33 to 84 €/ton depending on either 100% to 50% of shore power visits of the vessels, respectively. The terminals are unable to provide low shore power prices with only the vessel utilisation, therefore subsidy ranging from 25 to 100% is required on the investment, depending on the terminal. The emission reduction potential of shore power is good, with no local emissions in ports and the power generation emission reduction of 80 to 90% per pollutant. Currently, shore power for the chemical industry is not economically feasible but provides a good emission performance in the port. For all evaluated shore power systems, EU ETS CO2 prices are required for shipping and subsidies for the terminal investment. The best performing shore power concept on based on technical, economical and utilisation feasibility is the aftship based shore crane and reel, resulting in the best costeffectiveness. In order to introduce shore power to the liquid bulk market, CO2 prices on shipping of at least 50 €/ton is required and subsidies of at least 50% of the investment for terminals are required.