the european spallation source, 15 years in the making
DESCRIPTION
The European Spallation Source, 15 years in the making. Dr Peter Tindemans chair ESS Preparatory Phase Board NuPECC, Glasgow, 4 October 2008. Overview. High-end neutron sources in Europe; top tier sources world-wide 10 years after OECD Megascience Forum’s Global Neutron Strategy - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 1
The European Spallation Source, 15 years in the making
Dr Peter Tindemanschair ESS Preparatory Phase BoardNuPECC, Glasgow, 4 October 2008
Glasgow, 4 October- Peter Tindemans 2
Overview
1. High-end neutron sources in Europe; top tier sources world-wide 10 years after OECD Megascience Forum’s Global Neutron Strategy
2. The current choice for Europe’s future top tier facility and its expected performance Science Technology
3. Current situation: three bids to host ESS; ESFRI Site Review Panel
Poznan, 9 May 2008 - Peter Tindemans 3
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)
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 4
High-end and top tier sources
ILL reactor and ISIS spallation source were for a long time world’s best facilities; FRM-II reactor in Munich of ILL class
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, utilising ESS design
J-PARC: proton accelerator research complex, incorporating JSNS with similar target design as ESS: liquid Hg
A brief history of ESS
Cooperating labs 1992, 1993 FZJülich and RAL start technical work
ESS (R&D) Council in charge (~1995 – 2003) 1997 First science case and first technical design: further R&D areas identified 1997 – 2002 More R&D, more detailed technical design 2000 – 2001 Investigation of multipurpose linac project CONCERT: 25 MW linac for neutrons,
transmutation, nuclear physics, … CEA discontinued May 2002, Official presentation of ESS project to governments and the science community in Bonn, 5
interested sites 2003 Governments: Europe needs ESS, but at a later stage Technical team and ESS Council discontinued
ESS Initiative: ENSA, sites and major labs; hosted at ILL (2004 – 2007) 2005 choice for ESS with one, 5 MW Long Pulse target station 2006 ESS on ESFRI Road Map 2004 – 2007: three countries officially committed to be site candidate
ESS Preparatory Phase Board (2007 onwards)
Glasgow. 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 5
Glasgow,. 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 6
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 with:
20, and eventually maybe 35 - 40 instruments 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.)
and as much as possible upgradeable to: More power More target stations (SP, LP, low power dedicated TSs
Costs ~1.3 B€2008 investment; 110 M€2008 /y operating.
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 7
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 8
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, …
Long pulse sources don’t loose intensity when there is no need for excessive resolution, so peak flux characterizes source performance for sufficiently long pulses.
Shaping of ms long pulses feasible for > 95 % of cases
Hence: high power LP source with optimised instruments is way forward
The science: which ESS? Pulse length requirements
Courtesy Feri Mezei
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 9
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
ISIS TS 1 SNS ESS ILL
Insta
nta
ne
ou
s n
eu
tro
n flu
x [a
.u.]
Time [ms]
Ratio of areas defines relative power: 1:13:110:3;(only pulse duration is shown)
Pulses for High-Intensity TOF Reflectometer; various sources
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 10
ESS LPTS advantages:
Higher cold peak fluxMore often „sufficient“ pulse lengthAdjustable resolutionCleaner line shape
Figures of merit
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 11
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
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 12
H – Ion Sources : 65 mA each
ß=0.8 6cells/cavity
Funnel
2 x 57 mA
20 MeV
RFQ
308 m 262 m
CCL, ß=0.912
1334 MeV
CCL CCDTL
100 MeV
2.5 MeV 75 keV
400 MeV
DTL DTL
228 mA equivalent current
114 mA DTL DTLRFQ
1120 MHz SC linac 280 MHz
Energy Ramping / Bunch Rotation
SP, LP
SP , LP
2.2 m
Achromat and rings
LP Target
Chopper
560 MHz
78 m
SP Target
DTL DTL
560 MHz
•5 MW SP and a 5 MW LP target station•H- Ion sources•Compressor ring to produce very short (~ 1μs) pulses
2003 Design of 10 MW ESS
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 13
262 m
CCL ß = 0.875
Bunch rotation
CCL CCDTL
Funnel
LP
LP 2.2 m
28 cyro- module
2.5 MeV 75 keV
20 MeV
liquid Hg or Pb
SCL ß = 0.8
H+ sources: 85 mA each 280 MHz 560 MHz 1120 MHz SC linac:
6 cells/cavity 4 cavities/
cyromodule
1.0 GeV, 5 MW,
300 kJ/pulse
1 GeV 1 GeV
560 MHz
633 m 202 m 7 m 72 m 90 m
2 x 75 mA 150 mA RFQ DTL
100 MeV 400 MeV
Ion source for 5 MW LP: exists Linac: SNS commissioned 08-05: beyond specs; others as well
No compression ring
Technology: a mature accelerator
Accelerator Design Review and Optimisation
Design of ESS accelerator was completed in 2002-03, and at that moment considered the best mix between NC technology and SC technology.
Many relevant developments; several linac projects ongoing; SNS completed.
Completion of baseline engineering, including modifications to optimise cost-performance ratio, were always assumed to take up to 2 years and cost ~ 30M€.
Obvious areas for consideration in design review: SC cavities below 400 MeV? How low? Higher gradients per cavity, but high beam current poses limitations Is one H+ ion source possible? Is it desirable to avoid funnel (front end intensity
limited)? One source and 2 GeV? Frequencies: CERN or DESY frequencies? Yet components will differ due to
high beam current, long pulses and low rep rate, necessary for optimal neutron production
Be careful about beam quality, impact on upgradeability, costs, etc.
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 14
Poznan, 9 May 2008 - Peter Tindemans 15
protons
Hg – Mercury 1 m3
NeutronBeam
Neutron BeamNeutron beam
Moderator
Moderator
Target
5 MW LP target perfectly feasible
Target challenges: engineering, radiation, pitting (from shock waves)
SNS shows: engineering of liquid Hg target is feasible Radiation damage to container is limited (LAMPF beam dump,
PSI’s liquid PbBi target accumulated as much irradiation as months operation of ESS target; SNS target does extremely well)
What about pitting? SP targets above 2 MW or so seriously affected. There may be solutions (e.g. injecting He bubbles) but 5 MW SP target was too optimistic, at least poses serious risks
Appreciate radical difference between SP and LP target SP: 23 kJ proton pulse deposited in 1 μs ~ 20 GW instantaneous power (20 x
Niagara Falls!) LP: 300 kJ proton pulse deposited in 2 ms ~ 150 MW (same as HFIR)
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 16
For LP target station pitting no big problem
Nature of pitting problem Almost all proton pulse energy deposited as heat in target Temperature
jump of irradiated volume Pressure jump, as heat has to be absorbed in constant volume (inertia of Hg doesn’t allow fast thermal expansion) Pressure jump travels as shock wave at velocity of sound and bounces between walls Cavitation damage (pitting).
However, propagation of sound waves allows expansion of liquid Hg and release pressure: in ~ 30 μs expansion will reach adjacent volume (outside the 2 liter irradiated volume). Does this reduce problem?
Compare now SP and LP SP: total pulse energy 23 kJ in 1 μs (<< 30 μs). No reduction LP: only ~ 4 kJ in 30 μs (as 300 kJ pulse has 2 ms duration) so full energy
distributed over much larger (2 orders magnitude) volume; moreover shock wave only due to the 4 kJ; it travels on top of continuously spreading pressure
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 17
Instrument optimalisation
Source and instrument characteristics need to be tailored to each other for optimal performance Rencurel workshop *): Monte Carlo simulations on wide range of instruments, using pulse shaping and frame multiplication by
using multiple choppers Additional gains through modern neutron optics
Cold TOF: up to 100x IN5 at ILL under favourable conditions Back scattering (among least favourable at LP source): still competitive with back scattering at SNS SANS: considerably higher than any competitor (SP or CW) of equal time averaged flux; and for whole variety of SANS instruments now in
use (focusing, magnetic, SESANS, ..) Single crystal spectrometer: at least competitive Protein Crystallography Station: shown to be feasible on LP source; will revolutionise applications of neutrons in protein crystallography Reflectometers: outperforms ILL; competes very favourably with SNS
*) H. Schober et al, Nucl. Instr and Methods in Phys. Res., A 589 (2008) 34-46
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 18
Cost-effective, innovative, feasible
ConclusionInitial configuration is by far the best you can get for the
priceTotally mature design: innovative combination of
available technologiesUpgradeability warrants ESS will be with further
relatively small investments best facility for next 40 years or so.
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 19
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 20
Changes in European political landscape brought us to where we are
1. ESFRI Road Map (modeled after DoE 20-year facilities outlook) + strong desire of countries and European Commission to implement this ESS and ILL 20/20 are the (only) neutron projects on this Road Map of
European projects. ESS is exactly as proposed by ESS Initiative: 5 MW LP upgradeable,
same timeschedule (first neutrons 2017/2018). No need for new science review
2. UK Neutron Review Science case unequivocal Reviewing 1 MW upgrade of ISIS and new multi-MW European source :
‘next generation European Source’ is first priority. No feasibility study into ISIS upgrade yet.
3. Three very serious site candidatures formally proposed by their governments and backed up with money
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 21
ESFRI Road Map 2006
35 ‘infrastructures’: 6 in Social Sciences & Humanities; 7 Environmental Sciences; 3 Energy; 6 Biomedical & Life Sciences; and then:
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 22
Serious site candidates
Scandinavia/Sweden: Lund Spain/Basque Country: Bilbao Hungary: Debrecen
Governments pledged each between 300 and 400 M€ for construction (including site premium); innovative schemes (either EIB’s Risk Sharing Financing Facility or - in Spain’s case - National Innovation Fund) to bridge mismatches between financing requirements and flow of contributions.
Larger (initial) share in operational costs than corresponding to current size of neutron communities
All set up project organisations and committed funds in the order of millions of Euros for the next few years.
All meet basic site requirements. Site contenders have started to inform and negotiate with other governments.
Round Table meetings held. Supplying decentrally constructed components? Yes, but strict central project
leadership (ideally full power of the purse): cf. SNS-model
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 23
Towards a decision
ESFRI instigated official Site Review December 2007
Sites responded (end April 2008) to Questionnaire
Site visits and review (July 2008): Catherine Cesarsky (former DG ESO), Thom Mason (director ORNL), Norbert Holtkamp (dep DG ITER), Peter Tindemans. Reported on Science and design issues Legal structure and applicable tax regime (esp. VAT) Cost estimates: any site-dependent aspects? Financial offers Physical site characteristics Licensing issues Local team, envisioned building up of international team Living and working conditions Scientific and industrial environment
ESFRI transmits Review second half October to ministers Some hope that Council of Ministers and Infrastructure Conference at
Versailles in December 2008 will mark next step
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 24
FP7: ESS Preparatory Phase Project
Site decision and basic financial agreement parallel to 2-year Preparatory Phase project, (5 M€ EU support) starting April 2008)
Issues:
•Site reviews to get better more comparable site proposals•Addressing more in-depth safety issues, socio-economic aspects, regulatory requirements•Environmental compliance issues different target materials•Radio-active inventory, emission, handling, storage•Decommissioning•Upgradeability•Novel ideas for user operations ,and for governance•Enhancing support for ES: industry, funding agencies, public at large, politics
The Dark Horse’s finish
Editorial Science magazine (October 2006, after ESFRI ROAD Map): “Dark Horse ESS re-enters the race”
A coalition of core countries seems to be in the making
How much time needed? Site Review Group’s view: 2 years for design review, design optimisation and completion of baseline
engineering 5-6 years for construction until first neutrons
Let us hope Europe lives up to the challenge after 15 years!
Glasgow, 4 October 2008 - Peter Tindemans 25