Comparative analysis of life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of asphalt from stationary and portable plants: an assessment for Colorado, USA
定置式と移動式アスファルトプラントのライフサイクル温室効果ガス排出量の比較分析：米国コロラド州における評価 (AI 翻訳)
Daniel Donado Quintero, Soonhee Han, Christopher T Senseney
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本研究は、米国コロラド州のBuy Clean政策に関連し、定置式と移動式アスファルトプラントの温室効果ガス排出量を比較した。プラントの可動性が材料設計や輸送距離、製造排出に影響を与えることを示し、統計的に有意な差があることから、カテゴリーを分けて評価する必要性を提案している。
English
This study compares life cycle GHG emissions of asphalt from stationary and portable plants in Colorado, USA, in the context of Buy Clean policies. It finds statistically significant differences, suggesting these plant types should be categorized separately for fair benchmarking.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
In the global GX context
This paper contributes to the global discussion on construction material carbon benchmarks (Buy Clean, EU's Level(s), etc.) by providing empirical evidence on how plant mobility affects EPD results, which has implications for setting thresholds in procurement policies.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides empirical evidence on the impact of plant mobility on asphalt LCA results, useful for refining EPD methodologies.
🏢実務担当者:Helps construction material suppliers and contractors understand how plant type affects carbon footprint estimates for procurement.
🏛政策担当者:Informs the design of Buy Clean policies and similar regulations by highlighting the need for distinct categories for portable vs stationary plants.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Abstract Different jurisdictions across the United States continue to implement Buy Clean policies that mandate infrastructure agencies to benchmark Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with construction materials. Therefore, understanding how to categorize those materials reliably has become a relevant point of departure to ensure a fair analysis and comparison of their Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) results. Colorado’s Buy Clean legislation specifically requires materials to be assessed on a cradle-to-gate (A1-A3) scope due to the current state of Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) reporting, the production stage emphasis associated with suppliers for threshold setting, and the substantial impact of cradle-to-gate emissions on the overall life cycle of construction materials. This study proposes an assessment of how asphalt plant mobility (stationary versus portable plants) influences the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of asphalt mixtures by analyzing life cycle modules from raw material supply to transportation to the construction site (A1-A4) in Colorado. The scope is expanded beyond the production stage to evaluate the effect of plant placement relative to a construction site (A4). Plant mobility can systematically influence mixture design decisions (A1), transportation distances to a manufacturing plant (A2), and manufacturing emissions (A3), potentially evidenced by notable differences in GWP results. This study summarizes available EPD information for stationary and portable asphalt plants in Colorado, in conjunction with a broader job mix formula information submitted for placement on Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) projects. The study concluded that portable and stationary plants should be categorized differently based on statistically significant differences in the currently available data.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- crossref https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/ae7154first seen 2026-05-22 04:58:59 · last seen 2026-05-27 05:09:59
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。