Where are we almost 10 years after OECD ministers endorsed Megascience Forum Global Neutron Strategy
The current choice for Europe’s future top tier facility and its expected performance
Which changes in Europe since 2004 have allowed “the dark horse” ESS to re-enter the race
Timeline and: will the Netherlands participate, and how
Dreams of intensity
SNQ Forschungszentrum Jülich early 80-ties
ESS Starting seriously early 90-ties: FZ Jülich, RAL
USA: ANS (Advanced Neutron Source) high power, high density reactor, abandoned ’96/’97 for Spallation Source SNS, based on ESS design
J-PARC: proton accelerator research complex, incorporating JSNS with similar target design as ESS: liquid Hg
OECD: A three-pronged global strategy
SNS
J-PARC
ESS Initiative
Purpose: keep ESS alive
Members:
Scientific community: ENSA
Consortia for site candidatures: Yorkshire, Scandinavia, Hungary, Spain/Basque Country, Sachsen/Sachsen-Anhalt
Some labs: ILL, FZJülich (on behalf of German labs)
Independent chair
ILL is host
Looks like we are succeeding!
Authors: Expert Group for ESFRI Neutron WG
A. Furrer, C. Vettier, R. Cywinski, F. Mulder, H. Zabel, W.I.F. David, H. Jobic, M. Latroche, J. Comenero, D. Richter, A. Arbe, F. Barocchi, R. McGreevy, F. Mezei, G. Fragneto, D. Myles, P. Timmins, R.Rinaldi, B. Winkler, S. Redfern, H. Rauch.
Cost-effectiveness dictates: eventually as many instruments as possible
Start in as complementary a mode as possible
Choice
start with 5 MW LP upgradeable to/with:
10 -15 MW
40 instruments (1 TS or 2 TSs, to be decided later)
Low power dedicated TSs (to be decided later)
As many ancillary and science facilities as affordable
Ready to operate in ‘industry-mode’ too: access mode (financial, time), IP arrangements, demonstration experiments, standardised procedures, etc.)
Costs
~1.2 B€2006 investment; 100 M€2006 /y operating. Needs of course updating in first coming phase: current prices, energy costs, steel, upgradeability
Mature, cost-effective design
Mature: a decision today is technically fully warranted!
Ion source for 5 MW LP: exists
Linac: SNS commissioned 08-05: beyond specs; others as well
No compression ring
Liquid Hg Target: risks at most at level SNS, most likely less; other target option at hand: solid rotating target. Experience with especially SNS, but also PSI important.
[Maybe other liquid metal target! Political tendency to ‘outlaw’ Hg]
Instruments: Spin-echo, SANS unproblematic; ToF instruments experience on reactors; successful experiment with running Lujan as LP source [Rencurel Workshop (September 2006): further optimisation possible (very long, 200-300 m, instruments, high m-values supermirrors, clever design guides, etc). SL in many case will be WL.]
Cost-effective:
initial configuration is by far the best you can get for the price
Upgradeability warrants ESS will be with further relatively small investments best facility for next 40 years or so.
e.g. legal form of new infrastructure EC can help
governance and logistics
e.g. decision making, management structure, advisory bodies, IPR, access rules, staff recruitment, researcher support
finances
e.g. financial arrangements for construction, operation and decommissioning
strategic work
e.g. integration of new RI in EU fabric of related facilities, identification of best possible site, planning of research services provided at international level
technical work
Only limited acmount (but still maybe 50 % of money)
Road Map for research facilities for the Netherlands (Committee established)
Set aside 100 M€ annually for facilities in the Netherlands and participation in foreign facilities (NWO BIG was first result)
How?
Bear in mind: ‘SNS’ or ‘ITER’ construction model likely: large components built in different places, to be assembled on site. Hence partially ‘in kind’ contributions.
