## 5 Environmental Analysis of GERO Perforated Brick with Olive Stone Doped Mortar
### Environmental Results
#### 5.2.2 Results in the Use Phase of GERO Bricks in Building Construction
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**5\% Doping per m\({}^{2}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**10\% Doping per m\({}^{2}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**15\% Doping per m\({}^{2}\)**} \\ \cline{2-7}
**Type of Energy** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\({}^{**}\)**Primary Energy**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\({}^{**}\)**kg of**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\({}^{*}\)**Primary Energy**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\({}^{**}\)**kg of**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\({}^{*}\)**Primary Energy**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\({}^{**}\)**kg of**} \\
**Source** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MJ/m\({}^{2}\)-year**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CO\({}_{2}\)/m\({}^{2}\)-year**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MJ/m\({}^{2}\)-year**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CO\({}_{2}\)/m\({}^{2}\)-year**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MJ/m\({}^{2}\)-year**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CO\({}_{2}\)/m\({}^{2}\)-year**} \\ \hline Electricity & 3.67 & 0.34 & 4.72 & 0.43 & 5.61 & 0.52 \\ Natural Gas & 1.85 & 0.13 & 2.38 & 0.17 & 2.83 & 0.20 \\ Diesel & 1.83 & 0.16 & 2.36 & 0.20 & 2.80 & 0.24 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 15: Results of energy savings per m\({}^{2}\) of facade depending on the percentage of doping. \({}^{*}\) The step factor for obtaining primary energy is 2.368 for electricity, 1.195 for natural gas and 1.182 for diesel. \({}^{**}\) The step factor for CO\({}_{2}\) emissions is 0.331 for electricity, 0.252 for natural gas and 0.311 for diesel [60]. In terms of CO\({}_{2}\) emissions, there is again a tendency to emit less kg of CO\({}_{2}\) as the percentage of doping increases. This is evident in the case of an electrical energy source and the maximum percentage of doping (15%), where the square meter of facade means to stop emitting \(-1.0\) kg of net CO\({}_{2}\) in a period of 35 years. This is a great result compared to the original value of 17.1 kg CO\({}_{2}\)/m\({}^{2}\). This reduced CO\({}_{2}\) emissions by \(-105.84\%\). It can be indicated that the production of one square meter of facade with 15% doping has zero CO\({}_{2}\) emission for the case of the electric power source. This decreasing trend is applicable to other energy sources such as natural gas, where for the same doping case the reduction with respect to the original is 40.35% of CO\({}_{2}\) emissions, And finally, in the case of diesel, a decrease of 49.70%. Extending the study horizon to 70 years, for example, would result in negative CO\({}_{2}\) emission values per square meter of facade for all energy sources. In other words, it behaves as a CO\({}_{2}\) sink derived from energy savings. In conclusion, if the framework of study is in the production and implementation of one square meter of facade in a building in which the GERO-type brick whose mortar contains ground olive stones is not environmentally viable, however, if the study frame is extended to the middle of the building's useful life (35 years), the environmental benefits are evident in categories such as ADFF and GWP. This stems from the fact that ground olive stones have better thermal properties than undoped mortar, thus inducing a number of energy savings. If these energy savings accumulate over time, they can exceed the amounts of energy that were initially used to create the functional unit, even reaching negative values, which means that energy consumption is being avoided. The same results can be extrapolated to CO\({}_{2}\) emissions released into the atmosphere.