Life cycle assessment and production cost of geopolymer concrete: A meta-analysis

• The environmental impact and cost of novel concrete formulations were assessed. • Geopolymer concrete lowers greenhouse gases but increases other impact categories. • SCMs can reduce the environmental impacts of traditional concrete production. • Geopolymer currently costs approximately twice as much as traditional concrete. • Future research should focus on cost-effective, eco-friendly alkaline activators. Geopolymer concrete (GPC) has been proposed as an alternative to Portland cement concrete (PCC) to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the concrete industry. This meta-analysis compares various GPC mixtures through environmental and production cost assessments. The cradle-to-gate system boundary includes raw material acquisition, processing, and curing. Solid precursors include fly ash, blast-furnace slag, metakaolin, and rice husk ash. The study considers GHG, NO x , SO x , PM 10 , PM 2.5 , VOC and CO emissions, and manufacturing costs for each mixture. Results indicate that on average GPC emits 12 % lower GHG emissions for low-strength, 30 % lower for normal-strength, and 50 % lower for high-strength concrete than PCC. However, GPC performs worse in several other emission categories and is twice as expensive. Alkaline activator production was identified as the main driver of environmental impacts and high costs. To improve GPC's viability, shifting towards waste-derived, cost-effective activators and exploring market dynamics to lower cost disparities are recommended.