Carbon Savings from reduced off-site fill import distance

[Tristan11148]

Hi E Tool Community,

I have a project which will require a significant quantity of off-site fill to achieve desired levels.

The default template for sourcing off-site fill for earthworks in e-tool is 45.9 kg CO2e per m3 of off-site fill.

What is the default transport distance this is based on?

I’m curious to know because we have a quarry within 5 km of the site, and if I know what the default quarry distance is (e.g. 75 km) then surely the CO2e per m3 will be reduced significantly.

I’m also curious to know if there is a template for off-site fill that has been sourced from a project and not directly from a quarry.

Cheers
Tristan

[Ray8668]

Hi team,

I have the same question in mind.

According to this support post: https://support.etool.app/index.php/knowledgebase/references-for-transportation-impact/
The default distance for quarried goods (e.g. off-site fill) is outlined as: 40km by Articulated Truck, and 15km by Rigid Truck for Australasian data. The support post also outlined: “Users can also customise transport modes and distances, but defaults are applicable for each region when products are initially added to templates or designs.”

My take on this is that we are free to alter the transport mode and distance if the supplier location is known, and we can propose this as a reduction with respect to the default transport emissions. Can you please confirm if this is a viable scenario to model?

On this note, most of our projects are registered with Green Star, where which no specific guidelines had been given with regards to the default transport distance. Do you think the default transport modes and distance published by the eTool support page are generally accepted as the reference benchmark for the GBCA?

Ny project had 151,450m3 of “Bulk earthworks – Fill (Sourced from off-site)” with the 55km default transport distance and modes, and its A4 impact was 4,476,993.79 kgCO2e. We confirmed with the project team that the actual transport distance is 5km, and thus the A4 impact is then calculated to be 814,553.98 kgCO2e, which is approximately 18% of the original emissions (LCI source is Australasian LCI – V20 – Life Cycle Strategies). Given the large emissions reduction from this alone, I just wanted to clarify that this is an acceptable method in demonstrating compliance towards carbon reduction.

Any response regarding this would be greatly appreciated.

Kind Regards,
Ray

[Laura Campos]

Hi Tristan and Ray,

Apologies for the delayed response, and thank you for posting your question here — this is best practice, as it helps other users learn as well.

Please note that transport distance and mode can vary by region, which is why transport impacts are regionalised. You can find more information on this in our support article: https://support.etool.app/index.php/knowledgebase/references-for-transportation-impact/

The total impact shown for a template in the Template Library is for reference only. The GWP values you see when browsing templates might change once the template is added to your design. That’s because each template needs to have an LCI version assigned to appear in the library, but once it’s added to a project, it automatically updates to match the LCI version set at the project level. So, the LCI source shown in the library is really just a placeholder, and the actual impacts will reflect your project’s LCI setup.

As Ray mentioned, you can customise the transport settings at the element level—just click Edit on the template and scroll down to the Transport to Site section. There, you can select the appropriate transport mode and input the distance relevant to your project.

Regarding the use of our default transport distances as a benchmark, GBCA hasn’t provided any formal position on this. In general, they rely on expert judgement and expect LCA practitioners to ensure assumptions are intentional and justifiable. However, based on our experience, using adjusted transport distances is a strategy that has been used and accepted in past submissions.

Our default values are particularly useful in early design stages when detailed transport information isn’t available, and they represent average conditions for the region. That said, if you’re aiming for a more accurate comparison, you could model the reference design using an average distance from a few local suppliers, and the proposed case with the actual supplier distance.

I hope this helps.