Battery Electric Vehicles in Underground Mining: Benefits, Challenges, and Safety Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the implementation of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in underground mining operations, focusing on their benefits, challenges, and safety considerations. The study examines the shift from traditional diesel-powered machinery to BEVs in response to increasing environmental concerns and stricter emission regulations. It discusses various lithium-ion battery chemistries used in BEVs, particularly lithium–iron–phosphate (LFP) and nickel–manganese–cobalt (NMC), comparing their performance, safety, and suitability for underground mining applications. The research highlights the significant benefits of BEVs, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved air quality in confined spaces, and potential ventilation cost savings. However, it also addresses critical safety concerns, such as fire risks associated with lithium-ion batteries and the emission of toxic gases during thermal runaway events. The manuscript emphasises the importance of comprehensive risk assessment and mitigation strategies when introducing BEVs to underground mining environments. It concludes that while BEVs offer promising solutions for more sustainable and environmentally friendly mining operations, further research is needed to ensure their safe integration into underground mining practices. This study contributes valuable insights to the ongoing discussion on the future of mining technology and its environmental impact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".