1. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans1 “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

2. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans2 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

3. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans3 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

4. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans4 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)

5. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans5 SNS SNS aerial, September 2005 SNS Target, January 2006 Courtesy SNS first neutrons in August 2006

6. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans6 J-PARC Overview J-PARC, December 2006 MLFacility: experimental hall #1, December 2006 Courtesy J-PARC JSNS: first neutrons in 2007/2008

7. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans7 FacilityNumber of instrumentsAnnual budget in M€ BBR Budapest 112 DR3 Risø (closed in 2000) 712-15 R2 Studsvik (closed 2004) 62-4 1) FRG-1 Geesthacht (will close 2010) 820-25 FRJ-2 Jülich (closed 2006) 1625-27 IRI TU Delft 43 ILL Grenoble 3060 BERII Berlin 2027 Orphée Saclay 2521 IBR2 Dubna 124 ISIS Didcot 2047 SINQ Villigen 1925 FRMII München 1725-30? ~300 Neutron facilities in Europe

8. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans8 Which neutron sources are left in Europe in 2017? ? ? ? ?

9. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans9 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!

10. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans10 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

11. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans11 Progress in source performance Lines: peak fluxes Shaded area: scientific capabilities (except irradiation & single Q) Courtesy Feri Mezei

12. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans12 Progress in source performance ESS LPTS advantages: Higher cold peak flux More often „sufficient“ pulse length Adjustable resolution Cleaner line shape Courtesy Feri Mezei

13. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans13 Pulse shaping technique for diffraction and inverted geometry spectroscopy at long pulse sources Multiplexing chopper system (with phase slewing to source) Wavelength Frame Multiplication A fancy multidisc velocity selector (RISP) ESS study on pulse shaping Courtesy Feri Mezei

14. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans14 Optimized LPTS up-grade: next generation Next generation Current projects (SNS, J-PARC) Today (ILL, ISIS)

15. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans15 Important Contribution to European Priority Research Mission Flagship Field of Research Scenario 1 ESS 5 + 5 Scenario 2 5 MW Long Pulse Scenario 3 a 1 MW Short Pulse 10 Hz Scenario 3 b 1 MW Short Pulse 50 Hz Functional Materials, Microsystems and IT, Nanotechnology. Solid State Physics WLSLCC Microsystems and IT, Functional Materials, Nanotechnologies, Traffic and Transport, Sustainable Development. Material Science & Engineering WLSLCC Functional Materials, Nanotechnologies, Traffic and Transport, Sustainable Development Liquids &Glasses WLSLCC Functional Materials, Nanotechnologies, Traffic and Transport, Sustainable Development Soft Condensed Matter WL SLC Functional Material, Health, Sustainable Development Chemical Structure Kinetics & Dynamics WLSLCC Health and Biotechnology Biology & Biotechnology WL CC Traffic and Transport, Cultural Heritage, Sustainable Development Mineral Science, Earth Science, Environment and Cultural Heritage WLSLCC Cosmology, Origin of the Universe, Education, Public Understanding Fundamental Physics WL SLC Comparing 3 European scenarios to SNS

16. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans16 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.

17. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans17 Source strength against SNS (1.4 MW) high priority instruments The black line indicates the SNS reference

18. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans18 Magnification in order to display better the present European capabilities ….and present/coming European sources

19. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans19 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

20. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans20 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.

21. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans21 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

22. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans22 ESFRI 2006 Road Map

23. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans23 ESFRI Road Map 2006 35 ‘infrastructures’: 6 in Social Sciences & Humanities; 7 Environmental Sciences; 3 Energy; 6 Biomedical & Life Sciences; and then:

24. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans24 Names explained

25. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans25 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’

26. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans26 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

27. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans27

28. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans28 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’.

29. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans29 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

30. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans30 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)

31. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans31 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)

32. Delft, 12 February 2007 - Peter Tindemans32 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?