ESS: an overview.
Europe’s top tier next
generation neutron source
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
1
Overview
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The science case
The technology case
A mature and cost-effective project
The socio-economic case
The European neutron landscape 2015+;
potential and cost-effective investment options
6. The political case (Megascience, ERA for
currrent and new generations of scientists)
7. Timeline and political actions undertaken
8. Urgent short-term steps
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
2
The science case: process
• As of ’95/96 100+ scientists involved
through workshops, conferences, working
groups.
• ESF involved: Autrans conference ESFESS; joint publication 2001 science case;
SG ESF at Bonn 2002
• Document published and presented in
Bonn 2002: Volume II ESS project
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
3
Science case: overview disciplines
Providing new knowledge in many areas:
• Polymers and soft matter
• Biology and biotechnology
• Amorphous and disordered materials
• Solid state physics
• Chemistry and chemical structure
• Engineering and material science
• Earth and environmental sciences
• Liquids
• Particle physics
• Neutron scattering based computer simulation movies
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
4
Science case: overview European missions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Magneto-electronics
Magnetic neural networks
Holographic laser discs
Drug discovery
Enzymes in food production
Unveiling ancient technologies
Methane clathrates: energy resource and marine
hazard
• Templating of nanostructures
• Nanomaterials for transport and traffic
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
5
Light, neutrons, NMR, Microscopy …. to tackle complexity:
complementarity
r/Å
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
-6
10
-7
10
-8
10
Raman
scattering
2
10
1
10
UT3
Multi-Chopper
Inelastic Neutron
Scattering
Spin Echo
Photon
correlation
-3
-1
Chopper
Backscattering
10
10
Inelastic
X-ray
VUV-FEL
Brillouin
scattering
-4
0
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
t / ps
3
10
Infra-red
10
3
Dielectric spectroscopy
4
10
SR
10
4
NMR
E / meV
10
2
-1
Q/Å
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
6
Science case: some new highlights
• Methane-water clathrates: 7x more natural gas than in
sedimentary rocks; getting it out without danger for natural disasters
requires structural and dynamical studies far beyond current neutron
sources
• Glass transition: one of major problems of solid state physics (P.W.
Anderson): cf. Bob Cywinski
• Bacterial or viral infection: through specific pathways of proteinprotein and protein-nucleic acid interactions (host cell and
pathogen). Genomics, proteomics, interactomics tell us about
interactions. Biological function: structural organisation and
structural fluctuations. ESS will allow
– active site level atomic structure,
– structure of large protein assemblies,
– molecular dynamics of components and assemblies in ps and ns
timescales,
on reasonable sample volumes and using in-site intracellular studies
by in-vivo deuterium labelling in complex protein-protein, proteinnucleic acid and protein-membrane systems.
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
7
Technology case
• All major European neutron labs and many universities
collaborated from 1993 till end 2003 to produce ESS
design: 1.3 GeV linac producing 100kJ pulses on a 5
MW Short Pulse liquid Hg Target Station, and 300kJ
pulses on a 5 MW Long Pulse liquid Hg Target Station.
• Feasibility of MW spallation sources demonstrated: basis
for SNS
• Full range of options: 2 TSs, 1 TS, stages, power
upgradeability of LP TS
• Technical Advisory Committee (US, Japan, CERN,
DESY etc): very credible design, 5 MW liquid Hg TS
challenge, but confident eventually solvable
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
8
Quality
Quality =
• Source +
• Instruments (incuding ‘manipulation’) +
• Infrastructure +
• Computing power
But source cannot be made up for, all others
can in a number of years
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
9
ESFRI N WG Comparison
Contribution European Mission
Flagship Field
ESS
5 MW
LP
1 MW SP 10 Hz
1 MW SP 50 Hz
Solid State Physics
WL
SL
C
C
Material Science & Engineering
WL
SL
C
C
Liquids &Glasses
WL
SL
C
C
Soft Condensed Matter
WL
WL
SL
C
Functional Material, Health, Sust Dev
Chemical Structure Kinetics &
Dynamics
WL
SL
C
C
Health and Biotech
Biology & Biotechnology
WL
WL
C
C
Traffic and Transport,
Cultural Heritage, Sust Dev
Mineral Science, Earth Science,
Environment and Cultural
Heritage
WL
SL
C
C
WL
WL
SL
C
Functional Materials, Microsystems
and IT, Nanotech.
MS and IT, Functional Materials,
Nanotech, Traffic and
Transport, Sust Dev.
Functional Material, Nanotech,
Traffic and Transport, Sus Dev
Functional Material, Nanotech,
Traffic and Transport, Sust Dev
Cosmology, Origin of the Universe,
Education, public understanding
Fundamental
Physics
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
10
The ESS to be built
• 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
So we opt for:
• 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: 1.0 B€2000 investment; 80 M€2000 /y operating. Needs of course
updating in first coming phase: current prices, energy costs, steel,
upgradeability (for detailed costing see Annex)
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
11
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
Instruments: Spin-echo, SANS unproblematic; ToF instruments
experience on reactors; successful experiment with running
Lujan as LP source
• 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.
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
12
Socio-economic case
• Macro-economic argument: 1 % additional R&D
expenditure
0.17 % increase in Total Factor
Productivity/GDP (OECD, EU).
• Network effects: ESS impacts major industries. Argument:
additional new firms in areas of regional specialisation
• Marked positive effect on regional and European pool of
talent. Brain gain instead of brain drain
• Additional effects for whole field of material technology
industries as a consequence of systematic European
investments in synchrotrons, neutrons, microscopy, NMR
etc.
• Money value for firms of solving ‘big’ ($, €, ¥) problems:
integrated approach to malaria or TB, enhanced oil
extraction, ….Japanese justification for JSNS
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
13
Where is Europe in 2015+? (missed a few smaller ones)
?
?
?
?
?
?
Lost/ to be
lost since
2000:
•Risø
•Studsvik
•FZ Jülich
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
•Geesthacht
14
Potential and cost-effective investment options
Criteria:
• Performance in light of competition
• Costs
• Impact on European user community
• Simultaneous or sequential affordability
• Three categories
– < 50 M€; 50 M€<Costs< 200 or 250 M€; > 250 M€.
Current options
• ILL to continue (category 1 and 2)
• ESS, ISIS 1 MW, Spanish 250 kW (?) source (category
3). For all Performance comparisons made by ESFRI N
WG (performance scales). Cost comparisons for ESS
and ISIS 1 MW (for detaild costing see Annex)
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
15
Political case
• Apart from the science and socio-economic case (resting
ultimately on the importance of ESS for the whole of
materials science, technology and industries and
services) there is a simple political case
• OECD ministers endorsed Megascience Forum global
neutron strategy in 1999: US, Japan complete SNS and
JSNS. Europe invests in ISIS and ILL, phases out
reactors more rapidly than foreseen. Decision on ESS
still pending.
• Lisbon/Barcelona: Europe at very least needs to
maintain lead in one of its cutting edge areas
• Attracting next generation of scientists requires network
of facilities, but also world leading top tier facility in
network
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
16
Timeline and political actions undertaken
• Late 06:
– acceptance science case; preliminary baseline range,
– decision (20-30M€) to complete detailed engineering
design including detailed costing and optimisation
upgradeability;
•
•
•
•
Detailed negotiations End 06- Mid 08;
Go-ahead, performance baseline End 08;
Start construction 09;
First neutrons 2016/7; First user operations
2018/9
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
17
Short-term actions
• No need for feasibility studies or R&D: any
mature design by definition does not need these
• ESF evaluation to have a common reference for
all governments. But quick procedure needed:
can build on ESFs earlier involvement.
• Programme (jointly for neutrons and neutrino
targets) to maintain target experience for ESS,
future neutrino factory and other projects
(including fusion!) urgently needed.
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
18
ANNEX: ESFRI Neutron WG 2003: construction costs in €2000
Spallation neutron source
Sub systems
ESS
5 MW SP+
5 MW LP
AUSTRO
N 1 MW
ESS Staged
5 MW LP
ISIS
1 MW
5MWLP +SP
Instruments & Scientific
Utilization
115
60
115
60
60
Target Systems
180
90
180
90
90
Ac
cel
er
at
or
Sy
ste
ms
Linac
370
330
410
267
Achromat & Rings
85
0
85
Beam transfer to targets
20
10
20
Conventional facilities
465
305
520
390
260
Controls & networks
55
30
55
25
Management & admin. Support
60
35
60
24
Total estimated costs
1350
860
1445
726
540
Contingency (15%)
202
131
217
109
81
1552
991
1662
835
621
Total
construction
costs(including manpower)
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
19
ANNEX: ESFRI Neutron WG 2003: operational costs in €2000
Spallation neutron source
Sub systems
ESS
5 MW SP+
5 MW LP
AUSTRO
N 1 MW
ESS Staged
5 MW LP
ISIS
1 MW
5MWLP +SP
Instruments & Scientific
Utilization
115
60
115
60
60
Target Systems
180
90
180
90
90
Ac
cel
er
at
or
Sy
ste
ms
Linac
370
330
410
267
Achromat & Rings
85
0
85
Beam transfer to targets
20
10
20
Conventional facilities
465
305
520
390
260
Controls & networks
55
30
55
25
Management & admin. Support
60
35
60
24
Total estimated costs
1350
860
1445
726
540
Contingency (15%)
202
131
217
109
81
1552
991
1662
835
621
Total
construction
costs(including manpower)
Peter Tindemans, Brussels, 02 February 2006
20