## 4 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline
**EoL CRC** & **ADPe** & **ADPf** & **AP** & **EP** & **FAETP** & **GWP** & **HTP** & **MAETP** & **ODP** & **POCP** & **TETP** \\ \hline Concrete fraction & 0.0 & 27.3 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & **2.0** & 0.0 & 33.6 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\ \hline Mechanical recycling & 0.0 & 164.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.1 & **4.9** & 0.3 & 521.1 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\ \hline Concrete fraction + & \multirow{2}{*}{0.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{191.3} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.1} & \multirow{2}{*}{**7.0**} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.4} & \multirow{2}{*}{554.7} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.0} \\  & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Pyrolysis & 0.0 & 445.6 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.1 & **18.7** & 1.0 & 1849.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.1 \\ \hline Concrete fraction + & \multirow{2}{*}{0.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{473.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.1} & \multirow{2}{*}{**20.7**} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{1882.6} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.1} \\   pyrolysis & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: LCA CRC-EoL CML2001. Figure 7: Hotspots GWP mechanical recycling (**left**) and pyrolysis (**right**). By analyzing scenarios B1 and B2, the following hotspots can be identified in terms of total GWP. Scenario B1 requires a large fraction of fuel for the selective demolition, leading to a fraction of 32% of the total GWP (3.1 kg CO\({}_{2}\)e of total 9.5 kg CO\({}_{2}\)e). The transport accounts for 39% of the total GWP emissions (as the complete wall was transported to the processing plant) and the dry processing accounts for the remaining 28% (Figure 9). In scenario B2, the innovative stationary processing plant additionally uses wet processing, which accounts for the largest share of GWP (8 kg CO\({}_{2}\)e of total 14 kg CO\({}_{2}\)e) due to the required energy, fuel, and water. The wet processing corresponds to 29%. Furthermore, transport has a large share of the GWP with 27%, followed by dry processing and selective demolition (Figure 9). In terms of ADP\({}_{\text{fossl}}\), carbon fraction and mechanical recycling lead to 191.3 MJ, while carbon fraction and pyrolysis amount to 473 MJ. For steel recycling, the impact is similar (412.9-475.5 MJ for stationary plants) or significantly higher in terms of the mobile plant (700.3-725.5 MJ). The HTP for carbon concrete recycling with pyrolysis is almost twice as high as the option with only mechanical recycling (1.0 vs. 0.4 kg DCB eq. ), while the HTP for steel recycling ranges between 0.6 and 0.9 kg DCB eq. The MAET\({}_{\text{inf}}\). for carbon concrete recycling again is significantly higher as the mechanical treatment (more the three times the impact: 1882.6 vs. 557.7 kg DCB eq.). The environmental impacts of recycling of SRC are higher than the mechanical treatment of carbon-reinforced concrete, but lower than the option which includes pyrolysis (769.6-1301.0 kg DCB eq.) (Tables 2 and 3). Figure 8: GWP per SRC double wall. Figure 9: HotSpots GWP scenario B1 (stationary plant conventional) (**left**) and scenario B2 (stationary plant innovative) (**right**).