Where Should the International Linear Collider Be Built?

[Lima 'Ula]

Hi Folks.

Given the current speculation for the proposed locale for the International Linear Collider where in your opinion should it be sited?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

What is the speculation?

 

[Lima 'Ula]

Hi Greg.
Have you been following the public comments since the recent release of the ILC Technical Design Report? (e.g. http://phys.org/news/2013-06-international-linear-collider-ready.html).

The U.S. D.o.E. initially estimated the total cost of the project to be U.S. $20-billion how come it can now feasibly be constructed for U.S. $8.75-billion? Why did the Head of the ILC global design effort, physicist Barry Barish at a final blueprints conference in Tokyo last December 2012 suggest that if Japan were selected as a locale the design would be quote: "Technically, completely different than what we are looking at."? What reasons did he cite prohibiting the ILC from being built underground like the LHC if Japan were selected as host locale?

 

[Evo]

Hi Greg.
Have you been following the public comments since the recent release of the ILC technical Design Report? (e.g. http://phys.org/news/2013-06-international-linear-collider-ready.html).

The U.S. D.o.E. initially estimated the total cost of the project to be U.S. $20-billion how come it can now feasibly be constructed for U.S. $8.75-billion? Why did the Head of the ILC global design effort, physicist Barry Barish at a final blueprints conference in Tokyo last December 2012 suggest that if Japan were selected as a locale the design would be quote: "Technically, completely different than what we are looking at."? What reasons did he cite prohibiting the ILC from being built underground like the LHC if Japan were selected as host locale?

Please tell us and post the sources.

Thanks.

 

[cristo]

I don't know about the costs etc. but I think Japan's proposal is to build it in a mountain rather than underground (http://www.nature.com/news/japan-in-pole-position-to-host-particle-smasher-1.12047).

 

[mfb]

The U.S. D.o.E. initially estimated the total cost of the project to be U.S. $20-billion how come it can now feasibly be constructed for U.S. $8.75-billion?

As far as I know, all estimates from the collaboration where around $8 billion (+-15%).

How is "inside a mountain" not underground?
The central part of the collider should be close to the surface, as it will have the two detectors, the final focus of the beam, the damping rings, injectors, pre-accelerators and most of the remaining infrastructure. For the long acceleration tunnels, this is not so important.

FLASH and XFEL can test the superconducting acceleration cavities, there is an existing prototype of the focusing system.. the technology looks ready.

 

[JorisL]

I don't get it. I can't see any place worse to build it than Japan. Japan is geologically quite active. And taking in mind that at the current LHC site they have to take the train station and movements in the nearby lake into account I don't see how this could work well.

 

[cristo]

I don't get it. I can't see any place worse to build it than Japan. Japan is geologically quite active. And taking in mind that at the current LHC site they have to take the train station and movements in the nearby lake into account I don't see how this could work well.

I'm sure people have thought about that! Quoting from the ILC website (http://newsline.linearcollider.org/2012/02/02/a-visit-to-the-two-candidate-japanese-ilc-sites/):

The two candidate sites are located in mountainous regions where the geology for tunnelling is stable granite rock without active faults or volcanoes.

Money will play a big part, and I suspect that Japan will be looking for this investment (and using government earthquake recovery funds).

 

[JorisL]

Well the LHC is build in the optimal layer as well. They had the unexpected complications due to the lake. I'm pretty sure there will be further complications. And what about the propagation of the earthquakes? Their influence has a much larger reach than (again) the tidal effects of the lake in Switzerland.
Probably much smarter people have been thinking about the complications for a lot of time. So I'll let it rest (for now).

 

[Lima 'Ula]

Please tell us and post the sources.

Thanks.

Hi Evo.
The answers are readily available online, the *controversy* surrounding how fiscal estimates were extrapolated is available here:

U.S. DoE estimate: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/05/chu-pegs-ilc-co.html

Barry Barish's input on why this figure was an overestimate: http://newsline.linearcollider.org/2013/03/07/ilc-tdr-cost-under-review/

'If the ILC is built in Japan, the dangers from earthquakes and flooding would prohibit it from being built underground like the LHC which is "technically completely different than what we were looking at." said Barish. At either of the proposed Japan locations it would have to be built above ground, and they would need to carve into a mountain to make room for it.' Source: http://www.gizmag.com/japan-international-linear-collider/25559/

The jury remains out at this time as the host country will not be specifically selected until 2015 or so, it is noteworthy that Anders Unnervik prophetically wrote in Chapter 3.1, Lessons in Big Science Management and Contracting of "The Large Hadron Collider, a Marvel of Technology" (2009): "Our contractual strategy worked on all levels - technical, financial, contractual and logistical - and neither delayed the LHC project, nor resulted in significant cost overruns. In this story, we see lessons for the future in terms of the negotiation of equipment procurement for large international scientific collaborations."

 

[mfb]

Unfortunately, the article (or Chu?) does not give any reason why the estimates vary so significantly.

Anyway, XFEL at DESY will be a great test - it is the same acceleration technology, just with a shorter track. Currently, it is on schedule and within the planned costs.

Japan is geologically quite active.

Large earthquakes are rare. As long as they don't destroy the equipment, it does not matter if the beam alignment does not work properly during the earthquake.

And taking in mind that at the current LHC site they have to take the train station and movements in the nearby lake into account I don't see how this could work well.

They have to take into account the tidal motion of Earth (not the water). This is the same everywhere, unless you plan to build an accelerator near the south pole (;)).