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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".