Back to 'Better utilisation of existing facilities'|
The Institut Laue Langevin (ILL)
Key conclusions:
-
A first priority for the UK should be to continue to develop the quality of the existing suite of 25 public instruments at the ILL. Any plan to increase the number of public instruments would need to take account of an assessment of all ILL operation and investment costs.
-
The CCLRC should work to agree with the other international partners a future for the ILL that will exploit the unique set of capabilities that it can deliver during the next 10 to 15 years.
-
The ILL has proved consistently successful in delivering internationally leading neutron scattering facilities for almost 30 years. The UK partnership in the ILL has reaped considerable benefits for UK science and represents an outstanding return on the intellectual and financial investment. Demand for experimental time at the ILL from the UK research community (and internationally) remains high and of high quality.
-
The Science and Technology Facilites Council notes the Technology Panel’s recommendations that the current facilities at the ILL should be ‘fully’ supported and accepts the qualification of ISAC that they should be ‘appropriately’ supported. There does need to be tensioning, within the Council forward planning, of the opportunity costs associated with support of all facilities. The Council believes that the position adopted by the UK in the past six years, in respect of enhanced support for investment at the ILL in instruments and infrastructure, indicates the high priority the UK attaches to the ILL. The UK plans have been well received and are now matched by additional investment from France and Germany.
The UK partnership in the ILL has reaped considerable benefits for UK science and represents an outstanding return on the intellectual and financial investment.
-
However, the extent to which the number of experimental facilities at ILL should be increased beyond current levels – as further recommended by the Technology Panel – is a matter for European discussion. In recent years the UK has placed greater emphasis on the need to maintain the number of public instruments at the ILL at 25 and to focus resources on upgrading the quality of the instruments to match scientific developments rather than on increasing their number. Investment in additional instrumentation needs also to be tensioned against other investment requirements in, for example, the reactor.
-
The current UK contribution to ILL is some £12M a year. The Technology Panel estimated the additional UK requirement for investment in ILL (including the cost to the UK of the number of public instruments being increased from 25 to 30) to be of the order of £4M a year. This was based on figures for a budget provided by the ILL management. Any UK response will need to be set alongside the response of the existing partners and members since the UK alone (now funding around 28% of the ILL programme) cannot determine the future direction of the ILL.
-
The Council shall seek to reach agreement, by 2008, with other international partners in the ILL on the future high level goals for the next 10 to 15 years. The aim will be to continue to ensure that the ILL is able to remain competitive and able to fulfil its unique role within a wider European plan for neutron facilities.