Submitted:
08 July 2025
Posted:
09 July 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- To assess the technical and economic feasibility of achieving complete energy independence of mining facilities in remote areas through the implementation of integrated renewable energy systems, with a particular focus on solar photovoltaic energy.
- To identify and evaluate the key challenges and limitations associated with the implementation of renewable energy sources and electric machinery in both underground and surface mining operations, and to propose strategies for overcoming these obstacles in order to ensure the sustainability and resilience of mining activities.
- To analyze the economic costs and long-term benefits of introducing solar energy, including potential savings and return on investment.
- To assess the environmental benefits, with an emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the overall carbon footprint.
2. Materials and Methods
- Technical analysis: Sizing of solar power systems based on local climatic data (e.g., average sunshine hours, seasonal variations in solar irradiance), as well as an assessment of wind energy potential.
- Economic evaluation: Calculation of the leveled cost of energy (LCOE), annual savings, return on investment (ROI), and net present value (NPV) for different development scenarios.
- Environmental analysis: Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions using prescribed emission factors (e.g., 84.7 kg/GJ CO₂-eq), and calculation of the mine’s carbon footprint before and after the implementation of proposed measures.
- Improved worker health and safety
- Energy efficiency
- Lower operating costs
- Sustainability and environmental compliance
- Increased productivity
- Compatibility with renewable energy integration
- High initial capital investment
- Battery limitations and charging time
- Power supply challenges
- Performance constraints
- Infrastructure and spatial requirements
- Safety risks
- Need for skilled workforce

3. Results
4. Discussion
- Increased investment in battery-electric machinery and the solar farm leads to greater overall annual savings
- Sizing the solar farm to fully meet internal electricity demands has proven essential the solar farm to fully meet internal electricity needs. While this requires a higher initial investment, it reduces long-term dependence on the external grid and maximizes savings, resulting in a more favorable payback period, as seen in Model 3 (Figure 3).
- Balancing investments: Although higher investment in battery-electric machines brings greater diesel savings due to the elimination of fuel consumption, it is critical to assess whether such an investment is justified considering the extended payback period. In this model, Model 3, despite the highest investment, has a longer payback period than Model 1 but is improved compared to the non-optimized Model 2 (Figure 3).
- Complete integration of renewable energy sources enables energy independence and resilience to external fuel price fluctuations, especially diesel.
- Critical analysis and limitations:
- Financial viability: All scenarios yield a positive NPV, confirming long-term investment profitability. However, Model 3, despite the highest savings, has the longest payback period (11.57 years), indicating a need for financial incentives and subsidies.
- Technical challenges: Although conditions for solar and wind energy are favorable, seasonal variations and the need for energy storage remain significant challenges. Increasing the share of electricity consumption requires additional infrastructure (charging stations, battery storage).
- Operational challenges: Integration of electric machinery requires availability of skilled labor and staff training. Moreover, safety requirements and logistics in underground conditions need to be thoroughly addressed.
- Introduce an Energy Management System (EMS) model with priorities for the use of renewable energy sources and storage.
- Conduct a broader sensitivity analysis on changes in energy prices.
- Consider the application of hydrogen systems or advanced battery solutions.
- Expand the study to multiple mines located in remote areas to generalize the methodology.
- Such an extension of the discussion provides a broader view of benefits, risks, and future development directions in the context of the mining industry's energy transition.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Aydogdu, K.; Duzgun, S.; Yaylaci, E. D.; Aranoglu, F. A Systems Engineering Approach to Decarbonizing Mining: Analyzing Electrification and CO2 Emission Reduction Scenarios for Copper Mining Haulage Systems. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Igogo, T.; Awuah-Offei, K.; Newman, A.; Lowder, T.; Engel-Cox, J. Integrating Renewable Energy into Mining Operations: Opportunities, Challenges, and Enabling Approaches. Appl. Energy 2021, 300, 117375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Will Owen. Electrifying mining operations. Global Mining Review. https://www.globalminingreview.com/special-reports/01102022/electrifying-mining-operations/ (accessed 2025-06-07).
- Kujundžić, T.; Korman, T.; Purkić, R.; Perić, M. Mogućnost primjene obnovljivih izvora energije pri eksploataciji arhitektonsko-građevnog kamena. Klesarstvo Graditelj. 2025, 32, 100–114. [Google Scholar]
- Bołoz, Ł. Global Trends in the Development of Battery-Powered Underground Mining Machines. Multidiscip. Asp. Prod. Eng. 2021, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kozłowski, A.; Bołoz, Ł. Design and Research on Power Systems and Algorithms for Controlling Electric Underground Mining Machines Powered by Batteries. Energies 2021, 14, 4060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fugiel, A.; Burchart-Korol, D.; Czaplicka-Kolarz, K.; Smoliński, A. Environmental Impact and Damage Categories Caused by Air Pollution Emissions from Mining and Quarrying Sectors of European Countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansson, B.; Johansson, J. “The New Attractive Mine”: 36 Research Areas for Attractive Workplaces in Future Deep Metal Mining. Int. J. Min. Miner. Eng. 2014, 5, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lajunen, A.; Suomela, J. Evaluation of Energy Storage System Requirements for Hybrid Mining Loader. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2012, 61, 3387–3393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD; Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Chile 2016, OECD, 2016. [CrossRef]
- Galina, Alova. Integrating Renewables in Mining: Review of Business Models and Policy Implications; OECD Development Policy Paper; 2018; Volume 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radovac, D. Modeliranje ležišta boksita i podzemnih prostorija na boksitonosnom području studena vrila s prijedlogom razvoja rudarskih radova. 2024.
- Niklas Jäderblom. From Diesel to Battery Power in Underground Mines, 2017.
- R1700 XE (Battery-Electric) Underground Mining Load Haul Dump (LHD) Loaders | Cat | Caterpillar. https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/equipment/underground-hard-rock/underground-mining-load-haul-dump-lhd-loaders/112700.html. https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/equipment/underground-hard-rock/underground-mining-load-haul-dump-lhd-loaders/112700.html (accessed 2025-06-07).
- World Bank Group. The Growing Role of Minerals and Metals for a Low Carbon Future, World Bank: Washington, DC, 2017. [CrossRef]
- MINGO, *!!! REPLACE !!!*; Antić, *!!! REPLACE !!!*; Galić, I. Vodič o Metodologiji Izračuna Faktora Emisija i Uklanjanja Stakleničkih Plinova, 2022.


| Type of machine and equipment | Power (kW) | Purpose-phase of work | Energy |
| LHD – “GHH LF 4.5” | 102 | Load, haul and dump | Diesel |
| LHD – “KLCD-2” | 230 | Load, haul and dump | Diesel |
| LHD – “XYWJY – 1KA KCG080002” | 135 | Load, haul and dump | Diesel |
| LHD – “R1700 XE” | 220 | Load, haul and dump | Battery-Electric |
| LHD “CAVO - 310” | 18,5 | Load, haul and dump | Compressed air |
| Dump truck “kamah uk – 12” | - | Transporting material | Diesel |
| Dump truck “ghh trd mk-a15” | - | Transporting material | Diesel |
| Conveyor belts | - | Transporting material | Electric |
| R1700 XE | Specifications |
| Bucket capacity | 5,7-7,5 m3 |
| Power output | 220 kW |
| Torque | 3200 N·m/660 N·m |
| Cooling type | Liquid |
| Battery type | Li-ion |
| Battery capacity | 213 kWh |
| Fast charging speed (0–100%) | 20 to 30 min |
| Data on solar farm (sf) | Specifications |
| Installed capacity of the solar farm (Psf), kW | 349 |
| Unit cost (Cj), €/kW | 1.100 |
| Total investment cost in the solar farm (Isf), € | 383.900 |
| Annual electricity production (Qann), kWh | 523.500 |
| Annual electricity consumption (Qpot), kWh | 559.144 |
| Electricity price (Cel), €/kWh | 0,12 |
| Data on solar farm (sf) | Calculation | Value |
| Installed capacity (Psf) (20% increase), kW | =349 kW×1,20 | 419 |
| Unit cost (Cj), €/kW | =1.100 €/1 kW | 1.100 |
| Total investment in solar farm (Ifarm), € | =419 kW×1 100 €/kW | 460.900 |
| Annual production (Qann) (20% increase), kWh | =523.500 kWh×1,20 | 628.200 |
| Annual electricity consumption (30% increase), kWh | =559.144 kWh×1,30 | 726.887,2 |
| Electricity price (Cel), €/kWh | =0,12 €/1 kWh | 0,12 |
| Battery-electric machinery data (bes) | ||
| Initial investment (100% increase), € | =300.000 €×2 | 600.000 |
| Monthly diesel savings (Qdis-m), l/m | =1,7 t×1.180 l/t | 2.006 |
| Diesel price (Cdis), €/l | =1,3 €/1 l | 1,3 |
| Economic indicator | Calculation | Value |
| Electricity savings (Pel), € Qann =628.200 kWh; Cel=×0,12 €/kWh |
=628.200 kWh×0,12 €/kWh | 75.384 |
| Diesel savings (Zann), € Zm=2.006 l/m; Cdis =1,3 €/l; Zm=2.607,8 €/m |
=2.607,8 €/m×12 m | 31.293,6 |
| Total investment (I), € ILHD=600.000 €; Isf =460.900 € |
=600.000 €+460.900 € | 1.060.900 |
| Total annual savings (P), € Pel=75.384 €; Zann=31.293,6 € |
=75.384 €+31.293,6 € | 106.677,6 € |
| Return on investment (V), years I=1.060.900 €; U=106.677,6 €/ |
=1.060.900 €/106.677,6 €/years | 9,94 |
| Economic indicator | Calculation | Value |
| Total investment cost in the solar farm (Isf), € Pn =485 kW; Cj=1.100 €/kW |
=485 kW×1.100 €/kW | 533.500 |
| Electricity savings (Pel=P), € Qann =726.887,2 kWh; Cel=×0,12 €/kWh |
=726.887,2 kWh×0,12 €/kWh | 87.226,5 |
| Diesel savings (Zann), € Zm=4.012 l/m; Cdis =1,3 €/l; Zm=5.215,6 €/m |
=5.215,6 €/m×12 m | 62.587,2 |
| Total investment (I), € ILHD=1.200.000 €; Isf =533.500 € |
=1.200.000 €+533.500 € | 1.733.500 |
| Total annual savings (P), € Pel=87.226,5 €; Zann=62.587,2 € |
=87.226,5 €+62.587,2 € | 149.813,7 € |
| Return on investment (V), years I=1.733.500 €; U=149.813,7 €/years |
=1.733.500 €/149.813,7 €/years | 11,57 |
| Indicator | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
| Solar farm power, kW | 349 | 419 | 485 |
| Solar farm investment, € | 383.900 | 460.900 | 533.500 |
| Production of electrical energy, kWh/year | 523.500 | 628.200 | 726.887 |
| Electrical energy consumption, kWh/year | 559.144 | 726.887 | 726.887 |
| Electrical energy price (Cel), €/kWh | 0,12 | 0,12 | 0,12 |
| Electrical energy savings (Pel), € | 62.820 | 75.384 | 87.226 |
| Investment in LHD (ILHD), € | 300.000 | 600.000 | 1.200.000 |
| Diesel fuel savings (Qdis), l/m | 708 | 2.006 | 4.012 |
| Diesel price (Cdis), € | 1,3 | 1,3 | 1,3 |
| Annual savings on diesel (Zann), € | 11.040 | 31.294 | 62.587 |
| Total annual savings (P), € | 73.860 | 106.678 | 149.814 |
| Total investment (I), € | 683.900 | 1.060.900 | 1.733.500 |
| Return on investment (V), year | 9,26 | 9,94 | 11,57 |
| Carbon footprint indicator | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
| Total saving on diesel (Qdis), kg | 66.672 | 202.776 | 472.056 |
| =Qm / 1,18 kg/l x 12 m x V | |||
| Energy content of diesel (Pdg), GJ | 2.874 | 8.740 | 20.346 |
| =Qdiz x 0,0431 GJ/kg | |||
| Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, kg CO2eq | -243.473 | -740.499 | -1.723.858 |
| = - Pdg x 84,728723 kg/GJ CO2ekv | |||
| Share of carbon footprint reduction through renewable energy integration, % | 14 | 43 | 100 |
| Share of carbon footprint during mine operation, % | 86 | 57 | 0 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).