“dark-horse neutron source heads belatedly towards starting line” [science, 27 october 2006]

Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans 1

“Dark-Horse Neutron Source Heads Belatedly Towards Starting Line”

[Science, 27 October 2006]

A new perspective for ESS

Dr Peter Tindemanschair ESS Initiative

RID, 12 February 2007


Overview

1. Where are we almost 10 years after OECD ministers endorsed Megascience Forum Global Neutron Strategy

2. The current choice for Europe’s future top tier facility and its expected performance

3. Which changes in Europe since 2004 have allowed “the dark horse” ESS to re-enter the race

4. 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 strategy1) refurbish some national ones; 2) maximise potential of ILL and ISIS; 3) three MW class in E, US, J (Asia-Pacific)


SNS

SNS aerial, September 2005

SNS Target, January 2006

Courtesy SNS

first neutrons in August 2006


J-PARC

Overview J-PARC, December 2006

MLFacility: experimental hall #1, December 2006

Courtesy J-PARC

JSNS: first neutrons in 2007/2008


Facility Number of instruments Annual budget in M€

BBR Budapest 11 2

DR3 Risø (closed in 2000) 7 12-15

R2 Studsvik (closed 2004) 6 2-4 1)

FRG-1 Geesthacht (will close 2010) 8 20-25

FRJ-2 Jülich (closed 2006) 16 25-27

IRI TU Delft 4 3

ILL Grenoble 30 60

BERII Berlin 20 27

Orphée Saclay 25 21

IBR2 Dubna 12 4

ISIS Didcot 20 47

SINQ Villigen 19 25

FRMII München 17 25-30?

~300

Neutron facilities in Europe


Which neutron sources are left in Europe in 2017?

? ?

?

?


ESS Initiative

Purpose: keep ESS alive

Members: Scientific community: ENSAConsortia for site candidatures: Yorkshire, Scandinavia, Hungary,

Spain/Basque Country, Sachsen/Sachsen-AnhaltSome labs: ILL, FZJülich (on behalf of German labs) Independent chair

ILL is host

Looks like we are succeeding!


Pulse length requirements by scientific needs:

Irradiation work:

Single (Q,) experiments (D3, TAS?): SANS, NSE: 2 – 4 ms

Reflectometry: 0.5 – 2 ms

Single Xtal diffraction: 100 – 500 s

Powder diffraction: 5 – 500 s

Cold neutron spectroscopy: 50 – 2000 s

Thermal neutron spectroscopy: 20 – 600 s

Hot neutron spectroscopy: 10 – 300 s

Electronvolt spectroscopy: 1 – 10 s

Backscattering spectroscopy: 10 – 100 s, …

Peak flux characterizes source performance for sufficiently long pulses to avoid intensity loss by excessive resolution

Shaping of ms long pulses feasible for > 95 % of cases

Which ESS? Pulse length requirements

Courtesy Feri Mezei


Progress in source performance

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1012

1013

1014

1015

1016

1017

ILL hot source ILL thermal source ILL cold source

SNS 1.4 MW, 60 Hz thermal moderator coupled cold moderator

Flu

x [n

/cm

2 /s/s

tr/Å

]

Wavelength [Å]

Lines: peak fluxes

Shaded area: scientific capabilities(except irradiation & single Q)

Courtesy Feri Mezei


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1012

1013

1014

1015

1016

1017



ESS LPTS 5 MW, 16.7 Hz, 2 ms bispectral thermal - cold

Flu

x [n

/cm

2 /s/s

tr/Å

]

Wavelength [Å]

Progress in source performance

ESS LPTS advantages:

Higher cold peak fluxMore often „sufficient“ pulse lengthAdjustable resolutionCleaner line shape

Courtesy Feri Mezei


Pulse shaping technique for diffraction and inverted geometry spectroscopy at long pulse sources

Multiplexing chopper system (with phase slewing to source)

Wavelength Frame Multiplication

0 5 10 150

5

10

15

Pulse shaping chopper

Wavelength band chopper #1

Dis

tanc

e [m

]

Time [ms]

A fancy multidisc velocity selector (RISP)

ESS study on pulse shaping

Courtesy Feri Mezei


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1012

1013

1014

1015

1016

1017



Optimized LPTS 15 MW, 16.7 Hz, 2 ms bispectral thermal-cold hot moderator

Flu

x [n

/cm

2 /s/s

tr/Å

]

Wavelength [Å]

Optimized LPTS up-grade: next generation

Next generation

Current projects (SNS, J-PARC)

Today (ILL, ISIS)


Important Contribution to European Priority Research Mission

Flagship Field of Research

Scenario 1ESS 5 + 5

Scenario 25 MW

Long Pulse

Scenario 3 a1 MW Short Pulse 10 Hz

Scenario 3 b1 MW Short Pulse 50 Hz

Functional Materials, Microsystems and IT, Nanotechnology.

Solid State Physics WL SL C C

Microsystems and IT, Functional Materials, Nanotechnologies, Traffic and Transport,

Sustainable Development.

Material Science &Engineering

WL SL C C

Functional Materials, Nanotechnologies, Traffic and Transport, Sustainable Development

Liquids &Glasses WL SL C C

Functional Materials, Nanotechnologies, Traffic and Transport, Sustainable Development

Soft Condensed Matter

WL WL SL C

Functional Material, Health, Sustainable Development

Chemical StructureKinetics & Dynamics

WL SL C C

Health and Biotechnology Biology & Biotechnology

WL WL C C

Traffic and Transport,Cultural Heritage, Sustainable Development

Mineral Science, Earth Science,

Environment and Cultural Heritage

WL SL C C

Cosmology, Origin of the Universe, Education, Public Understanding

Fundamental Physics WL WL SL C

Comparing 3 European scenarios to SNS


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.


0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ISIS IIISIS / ILL50Hz1MWLPTSFull ESS

Cold ChopperHigh ResolutionBackscattering

High ResolutionPowder

High Intensityreflect.

High IntensitySANS

High ResolutionProtein Engineering

Diffractometer

Variable,Cold Chopper

High ResolutionNSE

SNS

Thermal Chopper

Source strength against SNS (1.4 MW)

high priority instruments

The black line indicates the SNS reference


0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ISIS IIISIS / ILL50Hz1MWLPTSFull ESSCold Chopper High Resolution

Backscattering

High ResolutionPowder

High Intensityreflect.

High IntensitySANS

High ResolutionProtein

EngineeringDiffractometer

Variable,Cold Chopper

High ResolutionNSE

SNS

Thermal Chopper

Magnification in order to display better the present European capabilities

….and present/coming European sources


The ESS to be built

Arguments SNS + 10 (+) years ESS “5x SNS” in many areas Maintain network of sources 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.


Changes in European political landscape

1.ESFRI Road Map

2.UK Neutron Review

3.Several very serious site candidates backed by national governments with money


ESFRI 2006 Road Map


ESFRI Road Map 2006

35 ‘infrastructures’: 6 in Social Sciences & Humanities; 7 Environmental Sciences; 3 Energy; 6 Biomedical & Life Sciences; and then:


Names explained


UK Neutron Review

Decision by minister for science to review UK’s need triggered by Yorkshire consortium (to host ESS)

In contrast to e.g. Germany (Deutsche Kommission für Neutronenforschung always put ESS first) UK ambiguous

1 MW upgrade of ISIS or ESS? End 2005 possible outcome was still: 2-year feasibility study of 1 MW upgrade of ISIS, and delay ESS

Eventually (assisted by ESFRI’s clear statement that only ESS and ILL 20/20 are on the European Road Map??): ‘next generation European Source’ is first priority. No feasibility study into ISIS upgrade yet. Science case for new neutron source unequivocal.

CCLRC puts forward RAL as site for ‘next generation European Source’


Serious site candidates

Scandinavia/Sweden: Lund Swedish government asked former finance minister Alan Larson to make the case Colin Carlile appointed professor at Lund University

Spain/Basque Country: Bilbao Backdrop partially ITER Formal agreement National government and Basque government: 50-50; 300+ M€

available and 20 M€ for preparations When presidents and prime ministers meet…..Chirac and Zapatero: “French

support for Bilbao; joint WG to investigate things”

Hungary Secretary of State for Economy and Transport in charge Structural Funds EU, European Investment Bank Strong regional support

Yorkshire, RAL? Sachsen/Sachsen-Anhalt: no longer


The ESS time line

Number of instruments available

Start of machine commissioning

Construction phase Operations phase

Routine operations (USM)

Start of machine installation

Ground breaking

First neutrons

10 20 4428Project go-ahead

Project Baselining /

Construction planning

2004 … Year -02 Year -01 Year 01 Year 02 Year 03 Year 04 Year 05 Year 06 Year 07 Year 08 Year 09 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 … Year 17

Baselining

2004 … Year-02 Year-01 Year 01 Year 02 Year 03 Year 04 Year 05 Year 06 Year 07 Year 08 Year 09 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 … Year 17

Strategy and scoping

Facility scoping

Extendedsite planning

Fin

al p

roje

ct a

pp

rov

al

Advanced technology programme

M1

Contract award INAM2

M3

M4

M5

M6

M7

M8

M9

End of ESS construction

Start of ESS operations

Decisionon funding ofbaselining &prototyping

Prototyping


What is happening now?

European situation still very much: individual countries talking and striking (package) deals. Countries pay, not EU.

Will ESFRI Road Map result in transparent process? Unlikely. Bu tit may help

EU Commission: special component in first Infrastructures call for FP7 for Road Map projects only on non-competitive basis for ‘feasibility study’.


Proposal for the Preparatory Phase

Call on Dec. 22, deadline May 2, 2007

130 M€ for the 35 ESFRI-projects; 1-7 M€ per project (ESS 10 M€?)

Duration: 1-4 years

Purpose: * Facilitate decision making for politicians

* Investigate critical issues (financial, legal…)

* Conclude an agreement

Matching funds: 50% profit / 25% non-profit organizations (cash/in kind)

Peer review (scientists/policy makers): no fixed rejection rate


Work focus

legal work e.g. legal form of new infrastructure EC can help

governance and logisticse.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)


Work structure ESS-FP7 project

Coordination Team to project proposal Peter Allenspach (ENSA), chair Colin Carlile Feri Mezei Juan Urrutia

Board to supervise chair: Peter Tindemans) ENSA president ESS-Bilbao ESS-Yorkshire ESS-Scandinavia ESS-Hungary CCLRC FZ-Jülich Italy (INFN?) Peter Tindemans chair

(non-exclusive; expected additional members: ILL, CEA, PSI etc)


What about the Netherlands?

Default option: Netherlands should participate in all major European facilities, unless…..

Working Group of Innovatieplatform recommended: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.

Is that an option?Who takes the lead?

“dark-horse neutron source heads belatedly towards starting line” [science, 27 october 2006]

Documents

peter tindemansprogress

peter tindemansoecd

peter tindemansoverviewwhere

s cold neutron spectroscopy

s hot neutron spectroscopy

s thermal neutron spectroscopy

peter tindemanssnssns

neutron facilities