Infrastrukturális reziliencia és ellátásbiztonság: a zöld közbeszerzés nem látott kockázatai az útépítésben = Infrastructure resilience and supply security: The hidden risks of green procurement in road construction

Tóth, Csaba (2026) Infrastrukturális reziliencia és ellátásbiztonság: a zöld közbeszerzés nem látott kockázatai az útépítésben = Infrastructure resilience and supply security: The hidden risks of green procurement in road construction. SCIENTIA ET SECURITAS. ISSN 3057-9759

Preview

Text 112-article-10.1556-112.2026.00336.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (244kB) | Preview

Abstract

A közúti infrastruktúra anyagválasztási döntéseit egyetlen mutató uralja: a beépített szén-dioxid-kibocsátás. Ez a mitigációdomináns logika, amelyet az EPD-alapú zöld közbeszerzési rendszerek intézményesítettek, szisztematikusan alulsúlyozza a hosszú élettartamú infrastruktúra biztonsági dimenzióit. A cikk négy strukturális vakfoltot azonosít: 1) az aszfaltburkolatok klímaérzékenységéből fakadó infrastruktúra-biztonsági kockázatokat; 2) a bitumenfüggőség energiabiztonsági és stratégiai anyagfüggőségi következményeit; 3) az EPD cradle-to-gate módszertan döntési torzítását; 4) a determinisztikus LCCA kockázatmenedzsment-hiányát. A tanulmány integrált értékelési keretet java-sol, amely a mitigációt, az adaptációt, az ellátásbiztonságot és a forgatókönyv-alapú gazdasági elemzést egységes döntéstámogatási rendszerbe foglalja. | Material selection decisions in road infrastructure are increasingly dominated by a single metric: embodied carbon dioxide emissions. This mitigation-dominant logic, institutionalised through EPD-based (Environmental Product Declaration) green procurement frameworks, systematically underweights the safety dimensions of long-lived infrastructure. The article identifies four structural blind spots and proposes an integrated evaluation framework. The shift toward asphalt reflects a rational — if incomplete — response to decarbonisation pressures. Since asphalt’s cradle-to-gate (A1–A3) carbon footprint is roughly 35–70 kg CO2e/tonne compared to 80–130 kg CO2e/ tonne for Portland cement concrete, EPD-based procurement structurally favours asphalt. However, this omits usephase emissions driven by vehicle-pavement interaction, which account for 70–90% of asphalt’s full life cycle carbon footprint. The first blind spot is climate resilience. Asphalt’s viscoelastic binder is highly temperature-sensitive: above 35–40 °C it shifts toward viscous flow, causing rutting that undermines drainage and structural integrity. Climate modelling projects a 9–40% increase in rutting over twenty years. During floods, bitumen-aggregate bond loss can be severe — the 2021 Ahrtal Valley disaster in Germany damaged over 74 km of road infrastructure and destroyed 62 of 112 bridges. Concrete offers greater stiffness under thermal loading and higher flood resilience due to its rigid matrix. The second blind spot is supply security. Bitumen — a petroleum refinery residual — faces structural pressure as global oil demand peaks around 2030 and European refineries close. Central and Eastern European asphalt plants, many of which relied on Russian pipeline gas before 2022, face dual geopolitical exposure in both raw material and thermal energy supply. Cement kilns are multi-fuel compatible, with over 40% of EU cement energy already sourced from waste-derived fuels or biomass. Biobitumen alternatives remain at laboratory scale: kraft-lignin production capacity stands at ~265,000 tonnes/year against 100–120 million tonnes of annual bitumen demand. The third blind spot is methodological distortion. Cradle-to-gate EPD assessments ignore use-phase performance. Life cycle scenario analyses show that concrete’s full carbon balance — accounting for albedo correction, less frequent maintenance, and longer service life — may be more favourable than asphalt’s in warmer climates. Procuring more climate-vulnerable materials in the name of carbon reduction inadvertently undermines the resilience of critical networks. The fourth blind spot is the risk management gap in deterministic life cycle cost analysis (LCCA). Standard models use fixed parameters, failing to capture energy price volatility, supply disruption risk, or deferred maintenance costs over a 35–50 year horizon. The article proposes an integrated framework combining full life cycle carbon accounting (with albedo-corrected radiative forcing), standardised climate resilience indicators, bitumen supply chain vulnerability analysis under energy transition scenarios, and scenario-based LCCA ranked by robustness across at least three futures. The core argument is that decarbonisation which neglects adaptation, discounts supply security, and ignores deep uncertainty may produce infrastructure that fails precisely when climate stress is greatest.

Actions (login required)

View Item