Where Should the International Linear Collider Be Built?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential site selection for the International Linear Collider (ILC), focusing on the implications of building it in Japan versus other locations. Participants explore various factors including geological stability, cost estimates, and technical challenges associated with different proposed sites.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the recent cost estimates for the ILC, noting a significant reduction from an initial U.S. $20 billion to U.S. $8.75 billion, and question the reasons behind this change.
  • There are discussions regarding the feasibility of constructing the ILC in Japan, with some suggesting that it would need to be built above ground due to geological concerns, while others argue that building inside a mountain is not fundamentally different from being underground.
  • Concerns are raised about Japan's geological activity, with participants expressing skepticism about the suitability of Japan as a host country due to the risk of earthquakes and their potential impact on the collider's operation.
  • Some participants reference the ILC's design considerations, including the need for stable geological conditions and the implications of building in mountainous regions.
  • There are mentions of existing technologies and prototypes that may support the construction of the ILC, such as the FLASH and XFEL projects, which could provide insights into the necessary acceleration technologies.
  • Participants also highlight the importance of financial considerations and potential funding sources for the project, particularly in the context of Japan's recovery from past disasters.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion reflects multiple competing views regarding the optimal site for the ILC, with no consensus reached on the suitability of Japan compared to other potential locations. Participants express differing opinions on geological risks, cost implications, and technical challenges.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the geological stability of proposed sites in Japan is a critical factor, with references to previous experiences at the LHC site highlighting the complexities involved in site selection. The discussion also touches on the variability of cost estimates and the lack of clarity on the reasons for these discrepancies.

Lima 'Ula
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi Folks.

Given the current speculation for the proposed locale for the International Linear Collider where in your opinion should it be sited?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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?
 
Last edited:
Lima 'Ula said:
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.
 
Lima 'Ula said:
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.
 
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.
 
JorisL said:
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).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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).
 
  • #10
Evo said:
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."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
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.

JorisL said:
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 (;)).
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Beyond LHC, future particle colliders and lasers
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
Two-port linear network general representation AV + BI = 0
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Graduate Possibility to see Higgs particles at the International Linear Collider
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Linear 2-port network representation
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
6K
Graduate Should I submit an outlandish physics idea that feels right?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
: Calculation of Linear Bearing (Carriage) Load
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Undergrad Computing QED amplitudes in a collider
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad How powerful would a collider have to be to observe a sphaleron?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Where will the masses lose contact?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Investigating Linearity of Event Occurrences Over Time
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K