“Dark-Horse Neutron Source Heads Belatedly
Towards Starting Line”
[Science, 27 October 2006]
A new perspective for ESS
Dr Peter Tindemans
chair ESS Initiative
RID, 12 February 2007
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
1
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
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
2
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
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
3
OECD: A three-pronged global strategy
1) refurbish some national ones; 2) maximise potential of ILL and ISIS; 3) three MW class
in E, US, J (Asia-Pacific)
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
4
SNS
first neutrons in August 2006
SNS Target, January 2006
SNS aerial, September 2005
Courtesy SNS
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
5
J-PARC
JSNS: first neutrons in 2007/2008
MLFacility: experimental hall #1,
December 2006
Overview J-PARC, December 2006
Courtesy J-PARC
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
6
Neutron facilities in Europe
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?
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
~300
7
Which neutron sources are left in Europe in 2017?
?
?
?
?
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
8
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!
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
9
Which ESS? Pulse length requirements
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, …
Courtesy Feri Mezei
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
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
10
Progress in source performance
SNS 1.4 MW, 60 Hz
thermal moderator
coupled cold moderator
ILL hot source
ILL thermal source
ILL cold source
17
10
16
Lines: peak fluxes
15
10
2
Flux [n/cm /s/str/Å]
10
14
10
Shaded area:
scientific capabilities
(except irradiation & single Q)
13
10
12
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Courtesy Feri Mezei
Wavelength [Å]
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
11
Progress in source performance
Courtesy Feri Mezei
SNS 1.4 MW, 60 Hz
thermal moderator
coupled cold moderator
ESS LPTS 5 MW, 16.7 Hz, 2 ms
bispectral thermal - cold
ILL hot source
ILL thermal source
ILL cold source
17
10
16
15
10
2
Flux [n/cm /s/str/Å]
10
ESS LPTS advantages:
14
10
Higher cold peak flux
More often „sufficient“
pulse length
Adjustable resolution
Cleaner line shape
13
10
12
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Wavelength [Å]
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
12
ESS study on pulse shaping
Pulse shaping technique for diffraction and inverted
geometry spectroscopy at long pulse sources
Multiplexing chopper system (with phase slewing to source)
15
Distance [m]
10
e
am
r
F
ion
t
a
ar
p
se
ll")
a
("w
s
r
pe
p
o
ch
Wavelength Frame
Multiplication
A fancy multidisc
velocity selector (RISP)
5
Pulse shaping chopper
Wavelength band chopper #1
0
0
5
10
15
Courtesy Feri Mezei
Time [ms]
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
13
Optimized LPTS up-grade: next generation
SNS 1.4 MW, 60 Hz
thermal moderator
coupled cold moderator
Optimized LPTS 15 MW, 16.7 Hz, 2 ms
bispectral thermal-cold
hot moderator
ILL hot source
ILL thermal source
ILL cold source
17
10
16
15
10
Next generation
2
Flux [n/cm /s/str/Å]
10
14
10
Current projects
(SNS, J-PARC)
13
10
12
10
Today (ILL, ISIS)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Wavelength [Å]
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
14
Comparing 3 European scenarios to SNS
Scenario 2
5 MW
Long Pulse
Scenario 3 a
1 MW Short
Pulse 10 Hz
Scenario 3 b
1 MW Short
Pulse 50 Hz
WL
SL
C
C
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 Structure
Kinetics & 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
Important Contribution to European
Priority Research Mission
Flagship Field of
Research
Functional Materials, Microsystems and IT,
Nanotechnology.
Solid State Physics
Microsystems and IT, Functional Materials,
Nanotechnologies, Traffic and Transport,
Sustainable Development.
Scenario 1
ESS 5 + 5
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
15
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.
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
16
Source strength against SNS (1.4 MW)
high priority instruments
ISIS II
ISIS / ILL
50Hz1MW
LPTS
Full ESS
16,0
High Resolution
NSE
14,0
High Intensity
SANS
12,0
Variable,
Cold Chopper
10,0
8,0
High
Intensity
reflect.
6,0
4,0
Thermal
Chopper
High Resolution
Backscattering
Cold Chopper
High Resolution
Protein
High Resolution
Powder
Engineering
Diffractometer
SNS
2,0
0,0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
The black line indicates the SNS reference
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
17
….and present/coming European sources
Magnification in order to display better the present European capabilities
SNS
0,9
0,8
High Resolution
NSE
Variable,
Cold Chopper
Thermal
Cold Chopper
Chopper
High Resolution
Backscattering
ISIS II
ISIS / ILL
50Hz1MW
LPTS
Full ESS
High Resolution
Powder
High Resolution
Protein
0,7
High Intensity
SANS
Engineering
Diffractometer
0,6
High
Intensity
reflect.
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
8
9
10
18
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
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
19
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.
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
20
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
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
21
ESFRI 2006 Road Map
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
22
ESFRI Road Map 2006
35 ‘infrastructures’: 6 in Social Sciences & Humanities; 7
Environmental Sciences; 3 Energy; 6 Biomedical & Life
Sciences; and then:
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
23
Names explained
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
24
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’
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
25
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
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
26
The ESS time line
…
Year -02 Year -01
Strategy and scoping
Year 01
Year 02
Year 03
Final project approval
2004
Baselining
Facility scoping
Project
Baselining /
Year 04
Year 05
Year 06
Year 07
Year 08
Year 09
Year 10
Construction phase
Year 11
Year 12
…
Year 17
Operations phase
M
9
Routine operations (USM)
M
8
Start of ESS operations
M
7
End of ESS construction
Construction
planning
First neutrons
M
6
Decision
on funding of
baselining &
prototyping
M
5
M
4
Prototyping
M
3
Extended
site planning
M
2
Start of machine commissioning
Start of machine installation
Ground breaking
Contract award INA
Number of instruments available
M
1
Project go-ahead
28
20
10
44
Advanced technology
programme
2004
…
Year-02
Year-01
Year 01
Year 02
Year 03
04 Year 05 Year 06 Year 07 Year 08
Delft, 12Year
February
2007 - Peter Tindemans
Year 09
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
…
Year
2717
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’.
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
28
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
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
29
Work focus
legal work
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)
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
30
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)
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
31
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?
Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans
32