WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.000
Thank you, Srasi. I see that this team has already joined.

00:00:02.000 --> 00:00:11.000
So while he starts share the screen, I'll give a small introduction.

00:00:11.000 --> 00:00:14.000
Professor Bloom, can you hear us?

00:00:14.000 --> 00:00:16.000
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Are you going to say embarrassing things about me now? Is that the next item?

00:00:16.000 --> 00:00:22.000
Yeah.

00:00:22.000 --> 00:00:23.000
Okay.

00:00:23.000 --> 00:00:33.000
Not today. So Professor Ken Bloom is Villa's capture professor and chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy.

00:00:33.000 --> 00:00:46.000
At the University of Nebraska lincoln. And yes sir as us cms operation deputy manager during the US Particle Civics Community SOMAS study of 2021-22.

00:00:46.000 --> 00:00:50.000
He co-led a working group on the societal impact of particle physics.

00:00:50.000 --> 00:00:56.000
Which led to his people's involvement in issues around particle physics and climate change.

00:00:56.000 --> 00:00:57.000
Recording and following.

00:00:57.000 --> 00:01:05.000
He's a co-author of He's a co-author of a new paper on this topic that we published in annual reviews of

00:01:05.000 --> 00:01:10.000
Over to you.

00:01:10.000 --> 00:01:15.000
Okay, you ready? I mean, we're a few minutes early, but I should start. You want that?

00:01:15.000 --> 00:01:19.000
We can wait a couple of minutes

00:01:19.000 --> 00:01:32.000
Up to you, up to you. I mean, probably the people who are coming to hear the talk are probably here, right? So we can… And, you know, so, okay, well, we'll do it. Leave more time for questions at the end. Okay.

00:01:32.000 --> 00:01:39.000
Let's see. So we'll do the screen share. How's that looking?

00:01:39.000 --> 00:01:41.000
Perfect.

00:01:41.000 --> 00:01:55.000
Okay, very good. So, uh. Boy, yeah, the Zoom presentation is always not quite the same experience as doing it live since I'm just talking to my computer screen here.

00:01:55.000 --> 00:02:01.000
I have some comments on that too, but we'll do the best we can. Thank you for coming. I certainly appreciate you.

00:02:01.000 --> 00:02:17.000
Taking the time to come and hear about this. Of course, this is a presentation I usually give to more general audiences who are not experts in the subject, probably by the Your very presence here, you know a lot already. So I hope I'm not boring you too much with this.

00:02:17.000 --> 00:02:36.000
You know, we'll talk a bit about some of the issues I've been involved in looking at and maybe If you want to go out and give presentations on this, then maybe this will give you some material and some inspiration and some ideas for how you might go and talk to other audiences about this yourself.

00:02:36.000 --> 00:02:44.000
So, okay, so this presentation is really based on two papers that we have out there, and I'll tell you a bit.

00:02:44.000 --> 00:02:52.000
More about those. And, you know, I mean, I should start by saying that I was doing nothing on this topic a few years ago, right?

00:02:52.000 --> 00:03:08.000
Sure, general interest in climate change and the usual sort of uh lefty way that you should feel about things that we should be trying to do good things for the world but I wasn't doing much about it. I wasn't particularly knowledgeable about it. I didn't own an electric car.

00:03:08.000 --> 00:03:13.000
You know, it was just a, you know, sort of background thought about things.

00:03:13.000 --> 00:03:34.000
This started changing when, you know, so July 2017 is when I put the date on this when I when I I ran into my friend and colleague, Veronique Blair at CERN. And, you know, classic CERN, you know, you're you're going to eat lunch at R1 and, you know, look, there's someone else at R1 that you didn't expect to run into. But there was Vernique, right?

00:03:34.000 --> 00:03:44.000
We were in graduate school together at Cornell, and we were active in the early career community back when we were early career, which is a long time ago now.

00:03:44.000 --> 00:04:01.000
And we've been to each other's weddings and we have same age children and stuff like that. But we hadn't had a long conversation in a few years when I just ran into her accidentally. And, you know, so we're sitting and talking about things.

00:04:01.000 --> 00:04:21.000
And probably a lot of you know Veronique already since she's quite active in this area. And she was talking about what she's working on and she said, well, you know, but I'm thinking of changing my research direction. And I said, okay, so why are you… Why are you thinking about that? She said, because I'm worried about when my kids will ask me why was I working on the LHC when the world was burning up?

00:04:21.000 --> 00:04:34.000
So, okay, that was a pretty strong statement. So ask her a bit about that. And she was getting more interested in climate change. She wanted to teach a course on it and just think about how she could get more involved on this topic.

00:04:34.000 --> 00:04:47.000
And we finished lunch. We went off and did our own things. I didn't think about this anymore until… A year and a half later when the previous European strategy update process was going on.

00:04:47.000 --> 00:04:53.000
And she and some colleagues had written this short white paper on sustainability for that round of the strategy update.

00:04:53.000 --> 00:05:07.000
And they were seeking endorsers on this and uh so I wrote to her and I said, okay, look, this is great. You said you wanted to do something and now you're starting to do something. So that's good. And I see you're looking for endorsers on this and I'm not…

00:05:07.000 --> 00:05:13.000
I'm not in the European community, but can I endorse it anyway? I was thinking mostly just to support her, right?

00:05:13.000 --> 00:05:25.000
And she said, sure. So, okay, you know, I signed my name on the list. And then I didn't think about it for even longer until we get to 2021 when we had the snow mass process going on in the US.

00:05:25.000 --> 00:05:38.000
And I get an email out of the blue asking to Veronique also asking, could you lead a topical group within Snowmass about societal impacts of particle physics?

00:05:38.000 --> 00:05:44.000
And environmental issues were explicitly within the charge of that, pointing back to the European strategy update document.

00:05:44.000 --> 00:05:49.000
And I'm thinking, why did they ask me to work on this, given that I have no history on this?

00:05:49.000 --> 00:05:58.000
The answer must have been, I endorsed the thing in 2018, right? So the first lesson to learn is be very careful about what you sign.

00:05:58.000 --> 00:06:01.000
Because it can actually have some impact on what people ask you to do in the future.

00:06:01.000 --> 00:06:08.000
So I talked with Vernik and I said, okay, this could be fun. We'll learn something and we'll get to work together on a project for the first time in ages.

00:06:08.000 --> 00:06:15.000
So let's do it. And we did. And, you know, so that was sort of a year we spent on that with other people too.

00:06:15.000 --> 00:06:25.000
Led to this first archive paper, which is our working paper for the societal impacts group on the carbon impacts of particle physics.

00:06:25.000 --> 00:06:38.000
So this certainly got some notice. I started getting seminar invitations and I gave the first ever version of this talk Three years ago now, we were just out of the pandemic and this is like my first trip to give a conference doc.

00:06:38.000 --> 00:06:44.000
In several years. And I went around giving this talk. It got some notice.

00:06:44.000 --> 00:06:53.000
Such that in fall 23, we were asked to write a paper for annual reviews of nuclear and particle science, big review journal.

00:06:53.000 --> 00:07:04.000
So Veronique and I worked on that for a while, and you can find that out on archive now, and it'll be published in annual reviews officially in September. But you can read the near final draft now on archive.

00:07:04.000 --> 00:07:15.000
So that's how I got to be here. Okay, so more about the actual topic as we get into this. So first of all, I'm not a climate scientist.

00:07:15.000 --> 00:07:24.000
So don't ask me any hard questions about how we know things in climate science. I'm coming at this as a particle physicist. This is certainly also by no means an exhaustive look at the topic.

00:07:24.000 --> 00:07:39.000
There's a bit of a focus on future colliders at the energy frontier because Veronique and I and other people we've worked with are interested in this topic. It's where we do our our mainline research work. So there will be some overlap with Katerina's talk from yesterday, but that's okay.

00:07:39.000 --> 00:07:49.000
So if nothing else, I hope this presentation gets you thinking more about the impacts that we all have on climate change and what we Both as individuals and as society can do about it.

00:07:49.000 --> 00:08:02.000
Okay, so I'm not sure if there are any Americans on this at the talk today, so I don't know how much you know about US geography and so on. I live in Nebraska. This is deep in the middle of the country. This is a red state.

00:08:02.000 --> 00:08:09.000
So there's things you have to say if you live here. You've got to remind people that climate change is a real thing.

00:08:09.000 --> 00:08:15.000
You know, we have these carefully calibrated statements from the International Panel on Climate Change.

00:08:15.000 --> 00:08:25.000
That it's unequivocal that human influences warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, that they're widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean cryosphere, and biosphere that have occurred.

00:08:25.000 --> 00:08:34.000
And that global warming of one and a half to two degrees centigrade will be exceeded during the 21st century within the lifetime of Veronique's kids and mine.

00:08:34.000 --> 00:08:40.000
Unless deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades.

00:08:40.000 --> 00:08:46.000
And there's solid evidence for this, and we saw some similar plots just now in the intro talk.

00:08:46.000 --> 00:08:54.000
You can look at the history of global surface temperatures over the past 2000 years.

00:08:54.000 --> 00:09:14.000
And there's something very different going on starting about 150, 180 years ago, whatever it is, right? Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, right? There's a clear change in surface temperatures this is not some cyclical thing. This is not just some phase that we're going to get out of this looks really different.

00:09:14.000 --> 00:09:19.000
And if you zoom in on that particular period of time, you can see that in greater detail.

00:09:19.000 --> 00:09:35.000
And also, you can see this modeling work that has been done, right, to try to simulate the impacts on global surface temperatures Just from totally natural sources like solar and volcanic activity.

00:09:35.000 --> 00:09:55.000
Which you could easily point at for reasons for climate change, but also then adding in the impact of human effects in there also. And you can see that the surface temperature changes are much more consistent with something happening due to human interactions and just natural factors alone.

00:09:55.000 --> 00:10:17.000
At the same time, what's been going on is these increases in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, right? And for much earlier times, you can look back at the gas, you can pull out of Antarctic ice cores to look at what the atmosphere was like a few hundred years ago. And now we more actively monitor it. And you can see these steady increases, you know, much more

00:10:17.000 --> 00:10:37.000
Greater increases in the second half of the 20th century And this provides a mechanism for the global warming. And you can really see the effects of this all around the world through a growth in incidences of hot extremes, in incidents of heavy precipitation, in incidents of agricultural and ecological drought.

00:10:37.000 --> 00:10:49.000
Happening all over the world. Although, interestingly, you know, maybe not as much here in the eastern part of the United States where a lot of our policy decision makers are. I don't know if that's related or not.

00:10:49.000 --> 00:11:11.000
But you can see these effects all over the world. So if you want to limit the warming, this is going to require significant reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. And the IPCC has done these calculations, right? That every thousand gigatons of cumulative CO2 emissions leads to roughly a half degree increase

00:11:11.000 --> 00:11:32.000
In warming and thus you have to talk about a carbon budget, right? A fixed amount of carbon And CO2 an equivalent that you can emit to keep a lid on the warming. And the IPCC statement is that we have a total budget of 300 gigatons of CO2 equivalent emissions

00:11:32.000 --> 00:11:43.000
For an 83% chance to limit the warming to less than one and a half degrees centigrade and that's that's the You know, that's the amount at which you start to worry about some pretty significant ecological changes.

00:11:43.000 --> 00:11:53.000
So, you know, 300 gigatons, that translates to one ton per person per year until the year 2050.

00:11:53.000 --> 00:12:01.000
So certainly, audiences that don't think about these things much, I tell them the one number to remember in here is the one, right? You get one ton per year per person.

00:12:01.000 --> 00:12:08.000
And for all the talk, anything you read in the news about climate change, I don't think it emphasizes that number, right?

00:12:08.000 --> 00:12:17.000
You know, we're physicists, right? We like quantitative things, and you really want a number to hang on to. And the number here is one time per year is what we all get.

00:12:17.000 --> 00:12:31.000
If you look at… global CO2 emissions per capita, we're pretty far away from one. The world average has been pretty steady at five tons per person per year.

00:12:31.000 --> 00:12:45.000
We're off by a factor of five right now. It's very different in different countries. And a piece of good news, I guess, is that the US, which used to be the largest per capita emitter, this has slowly come down over the past 25 years, right? So we should be glad for that.

00:12:45.000 --> 00:13:02.000
At the same time, some very populous countries, India per capita has been steadily rising during that time. India also rising, although more slowly. And those are both countries with a lot of people, and those are rapidly developing countries that have a great demand for energy.

00:13:02.000 --> 00:13:09.000
So we clearly have a lot of work to do as a world to bring down carbon emissions.

00:13:09.000 --> 00:13:13.000
Okay, so what does this have to do with particle physics, given that this is a global problem?

00:13:13.000 --> 00:13:31.000
Well, you know, when you start to think about it. Activities associated with particle physics have the potential for scientists to have a carbon impact well above that of average citizens, right? That if we we're supposed to keep the one ton per year, but if you start thinking about it, we probably do a lot more. So we have to start paying attention to this.

00:13:31.000 --> 00:13:43.000
Why? I mean, you could think of a moral reason for this, that we are responsible for leaving behind a habitable planet for Veronique's kids and my kids and maybe your kids.

00:13:43.000 --> 00:13:47.000
But if you don't want to think about that and just be practical and think about the impact on particle physics.

00:13:47.000 --> 00:13:54.000
Our major projects are going to have a significant carbon impact and are going to be scrutinized for it. How can people not ask about this at this point?

00:13:54.000 --> 00:14:00.000
Is this going to be an element of project reviews that everyone's going to have to be talking about their carbon impacts?

00:14:00.000 --> 00:14:10.000
Will we be asked to pay a price for the carbon that we emit? And is that going to have an impact on the total costs of the projects that we're talking about doing in the long term.

00:14:10.000 --> 00:14:24.000
So this is why we want to be looking at this. And more broadly, one of the reasons I do particle physics at this point is that because we are a real world leader in international cooperation for common goals that um

00:14:24.000 --> 00:14:31.000
We are living in such a dangerous time in the world without we can pull together a global community that can do something good.

00:14:31.000 --> 00:14:37.000
Is really one of our great strengths. And can we do something similar here in this area?

00:14:37.000 --> 00:14:43.000
And for all of us, we're doing particle physics because we love particle physics. And how can we do this science that we love sustainably?

00:14:43.000 --> 00:14:53.000
So let's take a look at a few topics. Oh, actually, no, before that, yeah, another field, right? We're not the only ones thinking about this. I saw that it was already a few years ago.

00:14:53.000 --> 00:14:59.000
You know, like the astronomers are looking at this too. They've done some studies.

00:14:59.000 --> 00:15:16.000
This is a paper from Nature Astronomy from, I think, 2022 Where they tried to sort of do an estimate of the carbon footprint of astronomical research infrastructure, right? This is like Just to build the infrastructure, just to build build the telescopes, launch the satellites, stuff like that, and try to figure out what the carbon footprint was.

00:15:16.000 --> 00:15:30.000
And they worked through it and they estimated they had a footprint of 36 tons CO2 equivalent per year per astronomer, right? Your quota is one and they're doing 36.

00:15:30.000 --> 00:15:48.000
Just on running the infrastructures before anyone is actually doing any of the research that make use of those infrastructures, right? And this 20 million ton carbon footprint that they estimated It's sort of similar to that of a mid-sized to smaller European country right so

00:15:48.000 --> 00:15:58.000
Pretty serious impact from these research infrastructures. So, you know, if you start seeing numbers like that in other disciplines, what's our number? It could be up there too.

00:15:58.000 --> 00:16:17.000
Okay, so the major section of this talk here is thinking about future colliders, right? We're very excited about a potential future collider program for the field. But what is the carbon impact of this? And this is the main topic of the paper for annual reviews that we have out now.

00:16:17.000 --> 00:16:21.000
So a big list of potential colliders that are on the menu.

00:16:21.000 --> 00:16:30.000
A lot of them require a new tunnel, right? If you're talking about building an FCC, an ILC, some of the other Higgs factories out there, or a muon collider.

00:16:30.000 --> 00:16:39.000
These are all, you know, will require some significant civil construction. We're talking about these different projects to be going on all around the world, different places.

00:16:39.000 --> 00:16:45.000
You might think about tunnels are expensive and they're a lot of work. Could we build something in an existing tunnel?

00:16:45.000 --> 00:17:01.000
In particular, could we reuse the LHC tunnel to build another electron positron collider or a higher energy hadron collider in there. You probably still need to do some auxiliary construction to reuse that tunnel.

00:17:01.000 --> 00:17:06.000
And if you look towards the generation after this generation, right?

00:17:06.000 --> 00:17:20.000
Already talking about colliders that would reviews tunnels yet to be built, right? Fcchh or the Another Hadron Collider that would be a follow-on on China. You could reuse that big tunnel, but you'd still need to do some more civil construction in that.

00:17:20.000 --> 00:17:25.000
So we took a look at all of these future projects to try to figure out their carbon impacts.

00:17:25.000 --> 00:17:31.000
And I have to note here that all the projects are evaluated based on their current designs.

00:17:31.000 --> 00:17:43.000
There could still be certainly hope there are some significant improvements in emissions in the future. So this is just a snapshot of today and should not be taken as as something that's written in stone for decades to come.

00:17:43.000 --> 00:17:53.000
So let's start with the civil construction, right? You need to build a tunnel or pieces, you know, other pieces of things before you can build an accelerator.

00:17:53.000 --> 00:18:09.000
And it turns out to be a big deal, right? The construction industry actually contributes 10% to the world's total carbon emissions. And that just comes from this chemical process that you need to to make cement, right? You're basically burning rock to make cement and that

00:18:09.000 --> 00:18:14.000
Emit CO2, you're probably burning coal to make the fire, to burn the rock.

00:18:14.000 --> 00:18:30.000
And a rough estimate is that you're actually creating a ton of CO2 per ton of cement. Remember, you get one ton per year, right? And this is a process just hard to decarbonize by its nature.

00:18:30.000 --> 00:18:38.000
And so, you know, one one tunnel you know one one big cement project we thought about at first for the snowmass project was FCCEE, right, NHH.

00:18:38.000 --> 00:19:00.000
This is going to be a 90 kilometer tunnel. This is a much larger tunnel than we've ever built in particle physics before. And it would be one of the largest in the world. And not only do you have to build the 90 kilometer tunnel, but there's all sorts of access shafts and bypass tunnels and so on and the caverns. And it's a pretty big construction project.

00:19:00.000 --> 00:19:12.000
So, you know, for the SNOMASP paper, we just tried to do sort of a back of the envelope calculation to figure out the carbon impact of the main tunnel, right? Never mind the access shafts and stuff like that.

00:19:12.000 --> 00:19:26.000
So, you know, we looked in the design report and they had the picture of this annulus, you know, and Veronique and I were, you know, like we're two middle-aged professors, but we could still like calculate the volume of that annulus and figure out how much concrete was in it and

00:19:26.000 --> 00:19:39.000
Concrete is 15% cement and you figure one ton of carbon per cement. And we came up with 240 kilotons of of CO2 that you'd emit to make this main tunnel.

00:19:39.000 --> 00:19:55.000
But also, we tried sort of a top-down approach. You can look at there's studies out there of the carbon impacts of tunnel construction that say is sort of, you know, sort of generate five to 10 kilotons of carbon per kilometer of tunnel.

00:19:55.000 --> 00:20:01.000
Okay, and it's a hundred meters tunnel, so this is maybe 500, at least 500 kilotons of carbon.

00:20:01.000 --> 00:20:07.000
So, hey, you know, we're physicists and we did two different calculations. They agreed to a factor of two.

00:20:07.000 --> 00:20:16.000
We said, great, we understand the problem well enough. It's a lot of carbon, I don't know, maybe 5,000 physicists are going to make use of this tunnel.

00:20:16.000 --> 00:20:25.000
You know, it's 500, you know. 500,000 tons of CO2 and you get one ton of carbon per year, right? So this is a pretty big amount of carbon.

00:20:25.000 --> 00:20:35.000
It would require 6 million trees to offset that much carbon production. If you want to compare it to a modern construction project, and this is the East Coast US version of the talk.

00:20:35.000 --> 00:20:57.000
Compared to the One World Trade Center in New York City, a relatively new a relatively new skyscraper in New York. There's about 200 kilotons of carbon emissions associated with that skyscraper. To build the FCC is the equivalent of building a few skyscrapers underground. That's what we're actually doing in this project.

00:20:57.000 --> 00:21:02.000
So that's what the back of the envelope thing we did for Snowmass a few years ago.

00:21:02.000 --> 00:21:08.000
The field has gotten more sophisticated about this by being able to do lifecycle analyses, right?

00:21:08.000 --> 00:21:15.000
And this is very standard for studies of environmental impact. Use a lifecycle analysis framework.

00:21:15.000 --> 00:21:27.000
To characterize emissions associated with the full life of a project by as the name implies. And this is something like real environmental engineers do. And there's a set of written standards for how you go about doing it.

00:21:27.000 --> 00:21:40.000
And this should be better than back of the envelope. And Katarina mentioned this yesterday, right, that there has been a lifecycle analysis done now by this ARP organization for two possible future colliders, the ILC and QUIC.

00:21:40.000 --> 00:21:45.000
Covering the civil construction for the whole thing, the tunnels, caverns, and access shafts.

00:21:45.000 --> 00:21:50.000
And that covers the whole thing from materialist extraction all the way through transport construction.

00:21:50.000 --> 00:21:58.000
So, you know, we looked at that study. And we extracted from there a few factors that we used.

00:21:58.000 --> 00:22:03.000
For estimates of the carbon emissions per kilometer of tunnel length.

00:22:03.000 --> 00:22:11.000
For the ILC, right? And you get it 7.3 for the ILC tunnel and 6.4 kilotons per kilometer for the click tunnel.

00:22:11.000 --> 00:22:16.000
And that's in pretty good agreement for that five to 10 that we were using for the back of the envelope study.

00:22:16.000 --> 00:22:23.000
So you have that. And we tried to leverage those factors and other things that were in the ARP study.

00:22:23.000 --> 00:22:30.000
To try to make estimates for future colliders. This is definitely not as detailed as the ARP study, right?

00:22:30.000 --> 00:22:42.000
Serious stuff and then, you know, made a spreadsheet Some of the future colliders have done their own attempts at a lifecycle analysis, also quoting the ARP study.

00:22:42.000 --> 00:22:48.000
So we're just quoting their work, but for the other future colliders, we try to do our own estimates.

00:22:48.000 --> 00:23:01.000
And so these are the resulting estimates for the the carbon emissions in megatons for the different collider options that were out there.

00:23:01.000 --> 00:23:15.000
So you can look at these. I will say that sort of our original back in the envelope calculations were a decent estimate, right? We came up with basically half a megaton of carbon emissions for the FCC tunnel.

00:23:15.000 --> 00:23:25.000
And this gets you a factor of two bigger than that. And sure, once you try to include everything besides the main thumblr. You could easily imagine another factor or two.

00:23:25.000 --> 00:23:47.000
Generally, of course, the emissions for the civil construction scale with the length of the tunnel. No surprise there. The FCC tunnel The SEPC tunnel in China, right? Those are the two biggest tunnels and so that's You get the biggest emissions there. But when you think about the renovations that you might have to make to these tunnels

00:23:47.000 --> 00:24:12.000
For a future experiment, to rebuild a different set of caverns that you might need for FCCHH, that's still a pretty substantial addition to the emissions from the original tunnel, right? And such that the more compact muon collider, right, is sort of coming in in the same range of what you'd have to do to reconfigure the FCC tunnel for the Hadron collider.

00:24:12.000 --> 00:24:26.000
Yeah, so these really end up dominating the numbers, as you will see because We looked at a few other things too, right? We looked at For instance, the accelerator components, as Veronique likes to call them, the shiny bits that you

00:24:26.000 --> 00:24:30.000
Have to put into the tunnel if you're actually going to run an accelerator.

00:24:30.000 --> 00:24:40.000
Okay, so what are the shiny bits? If you're building a linear collider, this is dominated by the RF cavities to accelerate the electrons as they go down the line.

00:24:40.000 --> 00:24:46.000
And these are mostly niobium. So if you look at something like the ILC, it's going to have 8,000 cavities in it.

00:24:46.000 --> 00:24:56.000
About 40 kilograms of niobium per cavity. We had an estimate of the carbon intensity of the production of niobium from mining it to refining it and all that.

00:24:56.000 --> 00:25:07.000
We estimated that there's about 26 kilotons of emissions. For those cavities and that's only about 10% of the impact from the civil construction. So subleading.

00:25:07.000 --> 00:25:12.000
If you're going to build a circular collider and you got to make the particles go around in the circle.

00:25:12.000 --> 00:25:18.000
You need a lot of magnets for that. So this is a magnet dominated machine. Those are mostly iron and aluminum.

00:25:18.000 --> 00:25:24.000
So we looked up the specs of the FCC EE dipoles. There's 2,900 of them.

00:25:24.000 --> 00:25:37.000
They're made of iron and aluminum and you can find the carbon intensity to produce those metals And you add it all up and it's about 40 kilotons of emissions for that.

00:25:37.000 --> 00:25:49.000
And so that's only about 4% of the impact from civil construction. So definitely subleading. So this is sort of the new thing that we did was to try to look at the impacts of building the accelerator itself.

00:25:49.000 --> 00:25:53.000
And it turns out that this is small compared to the civil construction.

00:25:53.000 --> 00:25:59.000
Once you build the thing, you're going to operate the thing. And then that requires electricity to run this.

00:25:59.000 --> 00:26:10.000
An important feature in here is that we've got to make some assumptions about what electricity generation is going to be like on the timescale of when you're going to run these accelerators.

00:26:10.000 --> 00:26:19.000
And we're working on the assumption that electricity will be significantly decarbonized on that time scale, right? All of these accelerators are at least 10 years away.

00:26:19.000 --> 00:26:24.000
And decarbonizing the grid is one of the easier things to do compared to, say, replacing everyone's cars.

00:26:24.000 --> 00:26:44.000
And so we needed an estimating scheme for this and we We followed the international energy agency's announced pledges scenario, right? This is… Assuming that nations will meet their current aspirational targets on time.

00:26:44.000 --> 00:26:59.000
So if you look at the plot here, and I think Katerina showed some of this yesterday, and I think she was assuming The step scenario, which is less optimistic, less aggressive. We're going with the APS, which is more aggressive. This is the dotted lines.

00:26:59.000 --> 00:27:14.000
And we're doing this on the hypothesis that if you're not If you're not following the more aggressive scenario that the disruptions that could occur from climate change if you're not decarbonizing that quickly.

00:27:14.000 --> 00:27:18.000
Could be sufficiently large to put particle physics at risk, right? If there's enough other problems going on in the world.

00:27:18.000 --> 00:27:22.000
Maybe we can't afford to do particle physics and won't be running these accelerators at all.

00:27:22.000 --> 00:27:39.000
So that's why we went with this more aggressive scenario. It's really interesting. You can see that very different states of carbon intensity of electricity production in various advanced economies compared to the developing economies. No surprises there.

00:27:39.000 --> 00:27:50.000
But that does mean, if you look at the different situations for decarbonization in different parts of the world that has real impact on the carbon intensity of accelerator operations.

00:27:50.000 --> 00:28:04.000
So looking at this, first of all, we only looked at the Higgs factories, right? Because if you're looking at the generation accelerators beyond that, they're presumably going to be operating in an era of net zero emissions, right? And that won't be uh

00:28:04.000 --> 00:28:14.000
That won't be a concern. Geography plays a major role, right? U.s. And Europe should have decarbonized electricity by the time of any Higgs factory startups.

00:28:14.000 --> 00:28:30.000
So, you know, it's things like the ILC that's proposed in Japan, which is going more slowly sepsi in China, which has a much longer path to decarbonization, that's where you're going to have the most significant emissions from operations. And then when you try to calculate out

00:28:30.000 --> 00:28:43.000
You know, the power consumption across the program and put that together with the path towards decarbonization You can calculate what the estimated emissions are. And because you're going to put these accelerators in those particular places.

00:28:43.000 --> 00:28:51.000
It turns out that the emissions from the operations from electricity turn out to be on the same scale as construction.

00:28:51.000 --> 00:29:01.000
So… interesting numbers there. I don't want to let everyone off the hook because of being in a zero emissions era.

00:29:01.000 --> 00:29:20.000
Power consumption will always be a concern, right? Because electricity supplies may be constrained, right? We need to have enough electrical capacity to run these things. And when everyone is charging their cars every day, a lot more electricity consumption and you need to make room in there for to run a particle accelerator also.

00:29:20.000 --> 00:29:25.000
So this is the summary plot from the big study we did for the annual reviews paper.

00:29:25.000 --> 00:29:38.000
And looking at for these three different phases, the construction, the civil construction piece, the operations piece, and the components, which you only calculated for just two sample accelerators, what do you get here.

00:29:38.000 --> 00:29:42.000
And so this is, I don't know, this is what you got. And this is sort of.

00:29:42.000 --> 00:29:51.000
We're sort of halfway through the talk here and sort of, you know, this is the end of a major topic. So maybe I'll stop here just for a moment. So I'll give myself a chance to take a breath.

00:29:51.000 --> 00:29:58.000
If there's like a question or two right now, we could take them.

00:29:58.000 --> 00:30:05.000
Do you have any questions? Stage.

00:30:05.000 --> 00:30:13.000
Okay. And I can't see anyone's faces. I'm not getting any sort of visual feedback on how well this is going, but hope.

00:30:13.000 --> 00:30:17.000
Hope you're enjoying it so far. Okay, you want to keep going? We'll keep going.

00:30:17.000 --> 00:30:18.000
It's doing good. Yeah, let's go.

00:30:18.000 --> 00:30:28.000
Okay, so pivot point here in the talk to just talk about other things we do in particle physics And what their impact is on climate.

00:30:28.000 --> 00:30:41.000
So let's take a look at not in the future, but right now, right? And emissions at CERN. And we saw one of these plots in the introductory uh talk this morning also. But okay, you get to see it again.

00:30:41.000 --> 00:30:57.000
So this is looking at admissions at CERN, and we'll introduce some vocabulary here, right, about the about scopes that are used for bookkeeping of emissions, right? So you got Scope one, which is emissions directly from your organization. These are things you're doing yourself.

00:30:57.000 --> 00:31:06.000
There's scope two. Which is indirect emissions. They're basically other people's emissions that you're making use of.

00:31:06.000 --> 00:31:13.000
The emissions that are emitted by the power company for the electricity that you're using falls into scope two.

00:31:13.000 --> 00:31:18.000
And then scope three is everything else upstream and downstream, right? It's your travel to and from work.

00:31:18.000 --> 00:31:27.000
It's your business trips. It's your food that you're eating at your workplace, the things you're buying. I think this is harder to quantify, but somehow people, you know, there are formulas, people can do it.

00:31:27.000 --> 00:31:33.000
And so here's CERN's emissions broken out into the three scopes. You might think, hey, you know.

00:31:33.000 --> 00:31:40.000
The LHC, it takes a lot of energy. There must be some pretty big scope two emissions because we run the LHC.

00:31:40.000 --> 00:31:49.000
Yeah, maybe. But in fact, scope one emissions dominated CERN, right? It's not… It's not the electricity that's dominating the CERN's emissions.

00:31:49.000 --> 00:31:59.000
To be sure, there's a reason for this. The electricity is coming from France and Switzerland, which are really Already, and we'll see this, highly decarbonized electric power generation there.

00:31:59.000 --> 00:32:07.000
So what's happening in scope one? Well, here, CERN breaks it out for us over the course of different years.

00:32:07.000 --> 00:32:15.000
And what's dominating these emissions, boy, it's what we're doing in the LHC experiments. It's particle detection, detector cooling.

00:32:15.000 --> 00:32:22.000
The dark blue and the light blue bars that are dominating the emissions at CERN, right?

00:32:22.000 --> 00:32:26.000
Not anything else going on at the site. It's what we're doing with the experiments.

00:32:26.000 --> 00:32:30.000
And you can see, of course, and it has the expected behavior, right?

00:32:30.000 --> 00:32:42.000
During long shutdown two, also during the pandemic, emissions are much lower because we're not actually running the detectors, but then they pop right back up during run three once we're doing all this stuff again.

00:32:42.000 --> 00:32:59.000
So where are these emissions coming from? They're coming from the gases that we're using in these experiments, right? There's this whole long list of chemistry things I don't know enough about. The perfluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, these other fluorine gases that are out there.

00:32:59.000 --> 00:33:06.000
That all go into the scope one. They're used for a variety of things, especially particle detection and detector cooling.

00:33:06.000 --> 00:33:11.000
Just to pick out a couple of these, I mean, these are some pretty significant greenhouse gases, right?

00:33:11.000 --> 00:33:19.000
C2h2f4. I don't know the name of that, but it has 1,300 times the global warming potential of CO2.

00:33:19.000 --> 00:33:28.000
And some of these other gases, much greater, greater warming potential. So pretty… pretty ugly gases from a climate standpoint.

00:33:28.000 --> 00:33:35.000
Why am I picking out these three gases in particular? Because they're heavily used in the detectors, right?

00:33:35.000 --> 00:33:46.000
And a lot of the greenhouse gas emissions from detectors are from the C2H2F4 in particular, which is used heavily in the RPC systems.

00:33:46.000 --> 00:34:01.000
So this is a talk we got from Beatrice Mandeli. She's in the gas group at CERN, and this is, you know, during the run-up to Snowmass, this is already a few years old, so looking at some older things, comparing in particular the colored bars are emissions

00:34:01.000 --> 00:34:12.000
During run two compared to emissions during run one. And two features here, you can see that in Atlas and CMS, in fact, emissions went up.

00:34:12.000 --> 00:34:27.000
As you went from run one to run two, going in the wrong direction And I have to note also, this is one of the few places that Atlas actually does better than CMS. On the physics, never. But on greenhouse gas emissions, okay, here.

00:34:27.000 --> 00:34:40.000
Atlas is doing better. To be sure, look, these are complicated systems, right? There's 90 kilometers of gas pipes across 30 systems throughout the LHC experiments to do these gas systems.

00:34:40.000 --> 00:34:55.000
And the basic challenge here is that the detectors are leaky, right? And if you're talking about a muon system, you know, I mean, the leaks, these are deep inside the detector, right? And you'd have to sort of Take the detectors apart to really go in and fix these things. It's a hard problem.

00:34:55.000 --> 00:35:07.000
Cern has worked hard on this, right? Some significant progress on developing gas recirculation and recuperation systems that are specialized for each detector.

00:35:07.000 --> 00:35:23.000
At this point, the gas that goes into the detector is 90% recycled, so we are really working hard to to not just vent the gas, but to reuse the gas. And you can really do this recuperation process, right, to sort of clean up the exotic gases

00:35:23.000 --> 00:35:29.000
And make them high quality for reuse in the experiment to maintain performance.

00:35:29.000 --> 00:35:46.000
Certainly a concern for the future is that is that these hydrofluorocarbons are being phased out and they're not going to be available to future experiments, right? We're going to have to find other gases and there's R&D in progress on that, but it's not especially promising, right?

00:35:46.000 --> 00:36:02.000
The eco gases that are out there that could be replacing show worse performance in the detector, stronger aging effects on the detector. So there's a lot of work to do. And if you're looking for a research topic in detectors for the future for yourself.

00:36:02.000 --> 00:36:08.000
Looking at how we can replace gaseous detectors is a good place to be working.

00:36:08.000 --> 00:36:23.000
Let's see. So once we run the detectors, we take the data, we got to process the data. Computing is a big part of what we do. And it's a big part of my own personal research. If you look at just sort of worldwide, data centers and computing.

00:36:23.000 --> 00:36:28.000
Are contributing 2% to 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions right now.

00:36:28.000 --> 00:36:42.000
And you only expect this to grow before electricity is decarbonized, right? And you start thinking about artificial intelligence, which is a You know, very energy hungry sort of computation.

00:36:42.000 --> 00:36:48.000
There's going to be a bigger demand for electricity. And right now that's powered a lot by fossil fuels.

00:36:48.000 --> 00:36:57.000
So, you know, how do you think about this problem before we decarbonize? Well, first you can think about Where are we putting the computing facilities and how are they powered?

00:36:57.000 --> 00:37:10.000
There's a great variation of electricity emissions across countries and even regions within countries. So here's a plot of carbon intensity of electricity generation.

00:37:10.000 --> 00:37:23.000
Across time in different countries. I picked out the countries specifically that are hosting tier one sites for For the LHC experiments. And hey, you know, maybe we should be trying to do more of our computation in the countries that have

00:37:23.000 --> 00:37:34.000
Less carbon intensive electricity. Here's a plot within the US from the electricitymap.org website. This is a fascinating website, right? I spent too much time looking at this.

00:37:34.000 --> 00:37:45.000
It purports in real time to show you what the carbon intensity of electricity for different grids, different regions are.

00:37:45.000 --> 00:38:01.000
And, you know, hey, for CMS, we've got a tier two site in Florida, which has some of the dirtiest electricity generation in the world, in the country. Maybe we shouldn't have put that facility there and we should be looking to put those in other places.

00:38:01.000 --> 00:38:08.000
Once you've built a computing cluster, you want to maybe be smarter about how we use it, right?

00:38:08.000 --> 00:38:14.000
And these are, you know, and I work in computing, right? So I think about questions like this. So I'll share them with you, right?

00:38:14.000 --> 00:38:21.000
Could compute centers expose information on their carbon impact so that experiments can use it in scheduling, right?

00:38:21.000 --> 00:38:29.000
Try to do some optimization just not just in how much computing capacity can you get, but what is the carbon cost of that.

00:38:29.000 --> 00:38:40.000
Can we schedule the jobs to run at times when electricity supplies tend to be cheaper or cleaner and this is You're going to tend to be at the times that have less demands on electrical systems.

00:38:40.000 --> 00:38:52.000
Can we consider carbon impact as an element of computing performance when we benchmark, right? You know, when we're buying hardware. We're certainly looking at how many cycles do you get per unit of electricity that you're using?

00:38:52.000 --> 00:38:58.000
Can we also be looking at what's the carbon impact of a computer that you're buying before you buy it?

00:38:58.000 --> 00:39:09.000
And can we invest in optimization of power consumption for the products, the libraries that we're commonly using in the field, right? You know, the simulation packages and so forth that everyone uses.

00:39:09.000 --> 00:39:21.000
Or at least, you know, can we track progress over release history and see that we're getting somewhere on reducing the, you know, improving the efficiency of all these computations.

00:39:21.000 --> 00:39:23.000
If you're looking at the further, you know, the longer term, you know.

00:39:23.000 --> 00:39:29.000
Once you've decarbonized the grid, then you have a different set of considerations. For one thing.

00:39:29.000 --> 00:39:34.000
You do expect electricity supply to be constrained, as I said, right? Once everyone is charging their cars.

00:39:34.000 --> 00:39:40.000
So the energy efficiency of hardware algorithms still a concern and still something you want to work on.

00:39:40.000 --> 00:39:46.000
And you want to try to use more efficient computing hardware, parallel processing.

00:39:46.000 --> 00:39:58.000
Gpus, tensor processing units that can be more energy efficient. Then again, we also know that increased efficiency does not necessarily lead to reduced total energy usage. And hey, you know.

00:39:58.000 --> 00:40:14.000
What's your instinct once the Monte Carlo goes faster? Hey, let's make some more Monte Carlo, right? And get better statistics into your samples. You're not necessarily going to use less of a resource because the resources become more efficient.

00:40:14.000 --> 00:40:36.000
And then the emissions are not associated with operating your computers, but with making your computers, right? The embodied carbon associated with the manufacturing process. Dell will tell you that one of their servers has 1,300 kilograms of carbon embodied in just one of their servers. You get one ton per year, right? Remember that. And that computer has a ton

00:40:36.000 --> 00:40:43.000
Of emitted carbon associated with it. So you want to look at improved manufacturing processes. Can you extend hardware lifetime?

00:40:43.000 --> 00:40:47.000
How do you go about recycling computers? Things to think about as we move forward.

00:40:47.000 --> 00:40:59.000
Okay, so that's computing. Okay, you know, I usually introduce this topic differently by, you know, talking about me showing up somewhere to give a talk.

00:40:59.000 --> 00:41:10.000
Today I can talk about not going anywhere to give this talk since I'm just sitting here in my office. But here are all the places that I've gone to give this seminar, places I've flown to from Lincoln, Nebraska.

00:41:10.000 --> 00:41:30.000
Well, I could have done it online, all those places, but I had reasons to go, right? Because you get to meet people. I will also note, you know, like the, you know, the Snowmass um conference is in Seattle, which is up here. So we took people from all over the US and we all brought them to one of the most remote places in the country to have that workshop.

00:41:30.000 --> 00:41:36.000
Maybe we should have had it somewhere more central in the US, like, you know, say Lincoln, Nebraska. Why didn't we have it in Lincoln?

00:41:36.000 --> 00:41:52.000
I mean, I can tell you why we didn't do Snowmass and Lincoln. There's a lot of reasons, but you can wonder about travel. And, you know, particle physics is like, we're famous for how much travel we do, right? I mean, your colleagues say, oh, you know, yeah, particle physics, they're on planes all the time.

00:41:52.000 --> 00:41:58.000
Yeah, because, you know, the experiments are in a small number of places in the world. We have a worldwide system of conferences that we go to.

00:41:58.000 --> 00:42:07.000
At the moment, air travel is only 2% of global emissions, but it's been going up rapidly. And certainly pre-pandemic, it was rising very rapidly.

00:42:07.000 --> 00:42:19.000
And this is just a hard thing to decarbonize. The energy density of of fossil fuel is very helpful for moving a plane around. And long haul flights in particular.

00:42:19.000 --> 00:42:32.000
Are decarbonized. And, you know, you can talk about electric planes, but that plane is basically You know, it's a heavy battery with wings attached to it is an electric plane, right?

00:42:32.000 --> 00:42:46.000
One fun feature of petroleum powered planes is that they get lighter as they fly, right? So, you know, takeoff and landing is a very different thing because, you know, the mass of your plane is different when you land than when you take off.

00:42:46.000 --> 00:42:56.000
And that is not the case for the electric plane where you're carrying that battery. Okay, I mean, it's like true from E equals MC squared standpoint, but that's not enough to be a real difference in this.

00:42:56.000 --> 00:43:16.000
So this is something we did for the annual reviews paper also, right? We took a quick look at what might travel look like for a Higgs factory? A Higgs factory, you could imagine it being at CERN. Maybe there's collaboration of 5,000 physicists. That might be the right scale for a Higgs factory experiment.

00:43:16.000 --> 00:43:24.000
Maybe half of them stay on site. The other half are somewhere else. Some are close by, and some are much further away, right? Have to cross an ocean.

00:43:24.000 --> 00:43:34.000
Go from the US to CERN. So we did a model of this, of what the carbon emissions were per trip. The long-all trips are much more carbon intensive.

00:43:34.000 --> 00:43:48.000
Maybe you take fewer of them because you're coming from further away, but that still gives the remote collaborators a much greater emissions per collaborator, like eight tons per year, you only get one ton per year.

00:43:48.000 --> 00:44:00.000
So if you imagine a travel model like that, then the emissions from travel are about a quarter of that from the civil construction, right? The megaton that you need for the tunnel.

00:44:00.000 --> 00:44:16.000
Again, subleading, but not small. So what's the approach you got to take here? Try to reduce long haul travel while still maintaining equitable experiment participation, right? You want people to have the same impact, to have the same set of experiences as much as possible.

00:44:16.000 --> 00:44:34.000
For that, you're probably looking at longer residencies, right? You don't want to fly, you know, maybe you're sending someone to be at CERN for two or three years rather than having them go back home a couple times a year. And maybe we have to look at carbon offsets to try to address the impacts of the travel.

00:44:34.000 --> 00:44:48.000
Ah, travel. I mean, it… It's still important, right? It's important to get people in person. And I am very much missing getting to be with you in person and to interact with you in person, right? Because if we were all together

00:44:48.000 --> 00:44:56.000
For this talk, we would be having conversations afterwards. We would be going out for coffee and stuff like that. That's not going to happen because I'm giving the talk.

00:44:56.000 --> 00:45:08.000
This way. And I think from the pandemic, we've learned a lot, right, about what can be done remotely and what can't be done remotely. And I think you've had your pandemic experiences And what did and didn't work in that.

00:45:08.000 --> 00:45:19.000
We can certainly look at greater reliance on regional centers. So that people don't have to fly across an ocean, participate in particle physics, but places they can go closer by.

00:45:19.000 --> 00:45:29.000
They can have a long-term residency, some capabilities there for remote operations. We do this at Fermilab in the US that you can do a lot of remote operation of CMS from a control room at Fermilab.

00:45:29.000 --> 00:45:33.000
You know, as a way to get people together more locally.

00:45:33.000 --> 00:45:54.000
Improving meeting technology, right? You know, Zoom, it works, but can we really provide the same experience to everyone regardless of location? You know, can you reproduce the experience of hanging out in the Building 40 atrium while on Zoom. At the moment, I would say no, right? But it's the sort of thing we want to find a way to get to.

00:45:54.000 --> 00:46:03.000
Conferences, oh boy, that's an interesting question right you know Do you have to show up at a conference? What's it for? I mean, it used to be, you know, decades ago to find out anything, you had to go to a conference, right?

00:46:03.000 --> 00:46:09.000
To hear the latest developments. Now it's a career development thing or are we just going there for fun?

00:46:09.000 --> 00:46:18.000
So, you know, people have looked at this. It looks like sort of one ton per conference participant to stage a conference. You only get one done per year.

00:46:18.000 --> 00:46:23.000
So we can think about more accessible venues. Virtual attendance conferences like this one.

00:46:23.000 --> 00:46:30.000
Or do annual conferences need to happen annually? Could you set up a distributed conference that takes place in regional hubs?

00:46:30.000 --> 00:46:36.000
All things we can think about, and maybe judicious choices can have an impact.

00:46:36.000 --> 00:46:48.000
So, I don't know, thinking about going forward, what can we do? I mean, certainly these issues are getting more attention in the particle physics community. Hey, this conference right here happening right now, that's a way that's getting more interest.

00:46:48.000 --> 00:46:53.000
We're seeing tracks on this now at iChat that, you know, trying to generate interest on this.

00:46:53.000 --> 00:47:01.000
Starting to see some funding opportunities around this. And we are starting to see future facilities start to pick up, you know.

00:47:01.000 --> 00:47:20.000
These lifetime analyses to optimize their designs to reduce environmental impact and And Katerina talked a bit about that yesterday. We're getting a bit more interest in the community. We got one sentence in the big snowmass summary report, you know, 70 page

00:47:20.000 --> 00:47:35.000
Summary report, it got one sentence in there. And in the US, we had the big P5 report that's, you know, the strategic plan for the U.S, that came out a year and a half ago. And there was one of the more minor recommendations in there that we should be

00:47:35.000 --> 00:47:50.000
Developing a sustainability strategy for particle physics. You know you know tossed at the heat app. I'm on heat app right now. And in collaboration with international partners, no one really has responsibility for this but Hopefully we can get something done.

00:47:50.000 --> 00:48:07.000
One of the practical things that we can do in terms of R&D, For future colliders, it's a civil construction, right, that needs the most the most mitigation. What can we do to reduce the lengths of these tunnels and still achieve the physics goals?

00:48:07.000 --> 00:48:11.000
Not only do you save carbon, you save money if you can make a shorter tunnel.

00:48:11.000 --> 00:48:15.000
Can we look at different building materials? Everything is based right now in Portland cement.

00:48:15.000 --> 00:48:21.000
But there's different variants of cement out there that have lower emissions, but are they going to give you the structural stability that you need?

00:48:21.000 --> 00:48:28.000
On the detector R&D side, the biggest issue out there looks like alternatives to the gas-based components.

00:48:28.000 --> 00:48:40.000
Overall, of course, anything that reduces electricity consumption is a help, even in a in a decarbonized electricity scheme because we're expecting a limited supply of electricity.

00:48:40.000 --> 00:48:49.000
In general, though, you want to really set quantitative emissions targets for these projects and specify pathways to meeting them.

00:48:49.000 --> 00:48:58.000
Not just for this to be an abstract qualitative goal, but if you want to get something done as a physicist, you'll always need numbers, right? And you want to have target numbers.

00:48:58.000 --> 00:49:09.000
And, you know, really, really specific strategies. Maybe we got to look at doing negative emissions to

00:49:09.000 --> 00:49:22.000
Projects, right? If we have to satisfy a net zero policy that's imposed on us by government bodies. How can we do some sort of negative emissions to offset.

00:49:22.000 --> 00:49:28.000
Well, I could look at nature-based solutions. We took a quick look at these for the paper.

00:49:28.000 --> 00:49:39.000
Aforestation, right? You know, growing forest where there weren't some before, reforestation to uh to rebuild forests. It's a lot of work, right? I mean, you know, trees.

00:49:39.000 --> 00:49:57.000
Only peak their their peak absorption rates when they're mature, right? A 50-year-old tree is is you know what is going to absorb the most carbon. So presumably we should be, you know, for the FCC, presumably we should be planting the forest already if we want to start to offset that.

00:49:57.000 --> 00:50:03.000
I hadn't given a whole lot of consideration to this, but yeah, interesting fact. I mean.

00:50:03.000 --> 00:50:18.000
Sure, you can grow trees, but if that tree then lives out its life and decays, then you've re-emitted the carbon, right? So you have to build a tree and then use the tree, right? Cut down the tree and make it into something so that you don't re-release the carbon.

00:50:18.000 --> 00:50:26.000
We're going to like need to build many more buildings out of wood and all sorts of things need to be made from wood to capture the carbon.

00:50:26.000 --> 00:50:38.000
It takes a lot of trees, right? You know, the megaton that's associated with um the FCC scale tunnel. If you want to offset over 10 years, that's going to take 10 million trees.

00:50:38.000 --> 00:50:43.000
10 to 30 times the size of Central Park in New York City. It's a lot of trees.

00:50:43.000 --> 00:50:54.000
Or you could look at technology, right? Carbon capture technology. There's the Climeworks company that's building this plant in Iceland, $600 million to build it.

00:50:54.000 --> 00:50:59.000
Significant amount of electricity to operate it, to capture one ton of carbon.

00:50:59.000 --> 00:51:06.000
And if you want to absorb that one megaton, you'd have to operate this facility for 28 years.

00:51:06.000 --> 00:51:21.000
And that's just to absorb the carbon associated with this tunnel for particle physics you're talking about carbon capture for a world's worth of carbon emissions. That's quite a lot of uh quite a lot of technology and a lot of these mammoth facilities to be able to do that.

00:51:21.000 --> 00:51:28.000
Yeah, we got to work on trying to, you know, trying to emitting, trying to keep from emitting the carbon to begin with.

00:51:28.000 --> 00:51:38.000
Okay, so I'm going to wrap this up. You know, the summary, right? So human influence in climate change is real and particle physics does have to be considered in that context.

00:51:38.000 --> 00:51:44.000
And I think we've seen here that a wide range of our activities can have an outsized impact on carbon emissions.

00:51:44.000 --> 00:52:00.000
And I think something we're seeing now over the past few years, these more realistic emission estimates of emissions For future accelerator projects that are becoming available, right? Whether it's me and Veronique trying to calculate things or it's these lifecycle analyses that are

00:52:00.000 --> 00:52:07.000
Really have some serious engineering consideration behind them. You can get a quantitative impact of what the emissions are.

00:52:07.000 --> 00:52:18.000
You can see that there are significant challenges in significantly reducing emissions And in reducing net zero. But there's definitely things that we can explore.

00:52:18.000 --> 00:52:36.000
And what I think we got to push on, right, is getting our funding agencies to view Sustainability research for particle physics as normal particle physics research, right? That you can include You know, besides, you know, here's the here's the data analyses I want to do. And you know, here is

00:52:36.000 --> 00:52:45.000
The detector development I want to do to also say in there, hey, I'm going to work on sustainability research as part of my grant too and get your funding agency to pay for that.

00:52:45.000 --> 00:52:57.000
How do I feel about all this? Boy, if you sit here in the US, it's pretty easy to be pessimistic because with our change of government this year, we are definitely going in the wrong direction.

00:52:57.000 --> 00:53:07.000
We might be stuck with four years of going in the wrong direction at least, right? I'm very worried that my own country Which is one of the bigger carbon emitters is not going to be helping out on this.

00:53:07.000 --> 00:53:15.000
On the other hand. You know, as a scientist, as a teacher, I got to be an optimistic person, right?

00:53:15.000 --> 00:53:23.000
You know, that most recent IPCC report that certainly highlights lots of problems says that it's also not too late to slow the impacts of climate change.

00:53:23.000 --> 00:53:35.000
But we need to get started now. And I just got to believe that a community that can build and operate some of the world's most complex scientific experiments can also address this challenge.

00:53:35.000 --> 00:53:40.000
Glad you're here. Glad you took the time to listen to this. Hope you'll get on board. Hope you get your friends on board also.

00:53:40.000 --> 00:53:48.000
And pursue this. So thank you very much. And also, by the way, I did go and buy an electric car.

00:53:48.000 --> 00:53:50.000
Okay, I'll take questions.

00:53:50.000 --> 00:53:57.000
Thank you. Thank you very much for Fantastic talk. We already have a question.

00:53:57.000 --> 00:54:01.000
See a real chance from there. It went, okay.

00:54:01.000 --> 00:54:05.000
I'm going to stop sharing here so i can Try to see what's going on.

00:54:05.000 --> 00:54:09.000
Yep, so Hannah.

00:54:09.000 --> 00:54:15.000
Oh, I did see someone else put up their hand before me, but they look like they've taken it down.

00:54:15.000 --> 00:54:19.000
Okay, I can go ahead and please do raise your hand again.

00:54:19.000 --> 00:54:31.000
And so, yeah, thank you. Thank you. That was a really interesting talk and overview. And I think Yeah, like a really good overview of all the issues and all of the numbers that we're seeing within the field.

00:54:31.000 --> 00:54:38.000
I guess my question is, quite early on you showed all of the proposed experiments and their potential impacts. And obviously there's quite a bit of big uncertainty of those numbers at the moment.

00:54:38.000 --> 00:54:43.000
Yeah. Yeah.

00:54:43.000 --> 00:54:46.000
Absolutely, absolutely.

00:54:46.000 --> 00:55:04.000
But there was quite a big difference between say the muon collider and then the FCCEEE and FCChh I guess, what's your opinion in obviously there's a big discussion ongoing around those what's your opinion in potentially waiting for the muon collided technology to be ready

00:55:04.000 --> 00:55:16.000
Because it seems to be a much smaller environmental impact and like how should we weight the environmental impact compared to the progression of science and that kind of thing.

00:55:16.000 --> 00:55:22.000
Yeah, boy, that's a tough question. Do you want to look at this slide or you want to look at the bar graph?

00:55:22.000 --> 00:55:25.000
Yeah, this one works. This was the one I was referring to.

00:55:25.000 --> 00:55:45.000
Yeah, yeah. Boy, that's a hard question, right? I mean, I mean, I mean the various white papers you've read about opinion of the community right has been We care about these issues, but we don't want to stop the physics.

00:55:45.000 --> 00:56:00.000
And I think that's the tenor of the community right now. I think that There are, I think, real concerns about the sustainability of particle physics as a field If we don't keep doing particle physics, right? You know, if you wait

00:56:00.000 --> 00:56:18.000
Several decades to run an experiment again you know do we like know how to run an experiment and uh Are we sort of ready to, you know, put that into uh you know, I don't know, like, you know, Han Solo and the carbon block for a few decades, right? You know, put that uh

00:56:18.000 --> 00:56:27.000
Put particle physics as we currently practice it into suspended animation for a few decades while we work on these other problems?

00:56:27.000 --> 00:56:33.000
I mean, yeah, I mean, I understand the inclination, but it sounds impractical.

00:56:33.000 --> 00:56:46.000
I mean, you know, you know, I mean, I, you know, I got plenty of things to do right now. I'm not committed to any future Collider project at some point, but I'm going to keep working on these things, right? And try to try to help make them happen.

00:56:46.000 --> 00:57:00.000
So, I mean, it's… We have our challenges, but these are societal problems too, right? And I'm not, you know, I don't think we can put this all on particle physics and particle physicists, right? And I think, you know, if we

00:57:00.000 --> 00:57:14.000
We need to keep working on a global picture and not um We alone are not going to solve the the the climate change problem. And it doesn't take, you know, we have to be concerned. It doesn't take us off the hook. But, you know, I'm not

00:57:14.000 --> 00:57:23.000
No, I'm, you know, throw me in jail you want if you want, but I'm not ready to stop particle physics just because of this.

00:57:23.000 --> 00:57:27.000
Thank you.

00:57:27.000 --> 00:57:36.000
We have a next question of Valerie Lance.

00:57:36.000 --> 00:57:37.000
Yeah.

00:57:37.000 --> 00:57:47.000
Hi, can you hear me? Yeah. Okay. So I, it's a bit less of a question um rather a bit of a comment. You mentioned a lot The U.S.

00:57:47.000 --> 00:57:50.000
Process strategy process but we have the European strategy process also ongoing right now.

00:57:50.000 --> 00:57:56.000
Yeah. Yeah, I'm in the US, yeah.

00:57:56.000 --> 00:57:57.000
Yeah.

00:57:57.000 --> 00:58:03.000
And just wanted to comment that There are a couple of sustainability statements in that one included.

00:58:03.000 --> 00:58:04.000
Yep.

00:58:04.000 --> 00:58:28.000
So I think much more than than last round. So maybe that can also give us some hope and maybe there can also be somewhat a push in that respect from europe coming to the us If something is built at zone.

00:58:28.000 --> 00:58:29.000
Yep. Yep.

00:58:29.000 --> 00:58:44.000
And in Europe, then it has sort of the European regulations on that And then participating institutes from the US might have to from my could i for like push for also fulfilling that because they are participating in a European project

00:58:44.000 --> 00:58:58.000
In a sense sort of like something built in europe under the european regulation so so that might be a handle also given the political situation.

00:58:58.000 --> 00:59:13.000
Yeah, that's quite possibly true, right? And if I have to lay a bed on it, right, I mean, you know, the next collider is most likely to be in Europe, right? That's, I think, the direction things are going.

00:59:13.000 --> 00:59:20.000
Despite our US muon collider dreams, I mean, that's a further off dream.

00:59:20.000 --> 00:59:40.000
So, you know, I think you're right. And also… And you're also right that, I mean, this is just getting more attention, right? I mean, this is, you know, more people are getting interested in this and uh I mean, in part through, you know, everyone who's watching this right now and uh

00:59:40.000 --> 00:59:51.000
And those of us who've been raising the issues. So… Yeah, I mean, that, yeah, sure. That's a reason for optimism, right? Just because it is just getting more attention.

00:59:51.000 --> 00:59:59.000
Yep.

00:59:59.000 --> 01:00:00.000
That's the next question.

01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:06.000
Okay, so I guess I guess… Yeah, go ahead. So Greg, I guess, is up next.

01:00:06.000 --> 01:00:07.000
Yeah.

01:00:07.000 --> 01:00:13.000
Hi. Yeah, you showed a slide of the gas emissions from CERN. Could you go back to that?

01:00:13.000 --> 01:00:21.000
Yeah, sure. This one. This one? Yeah, okay.

01:00:21.000 --> 01:00:28.000
Okay.

01:00:28.000 --> 01:00:29.000
This one? Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah.

01:00:29.000 --> 01:00:44.000
Yeah. I think that's the one, yeah. Yeah, okay. The next one, the one you just flashed up briefly now, that's Go back. That one. That's the Yeah. So if you look at the fluorocarbons you see this total of around 69,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. But what you have to put in perspective

01:00:44.000 --> 01:00:51.000
Is that these fluids typically have a GWP of around 6,000 times that of the equivalent mass of CO2.

01:00:51.000 --> 01:01:00.000
You bet.

01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:01.000
Yeah.

01:01:01.000 --> 01:01:14.000
So that only represents a loss of 10 tons of those fluids over the entire LHC campus over a period of a year. And if you wanted to, for example, get some perspective and you imagined an enormous shopping mall With hundreds of air conditioners on the top of it, not running these fluids admittedly because we need these fluids for their radiation resistance, which

01:01:14.000 --> 01:01:25.000
Normal people don't need. But you've got hundreds of air conditioners on a big shopping mall. And the losses, the collective losses per year are not going to be that different to CERN for a big shopping mall. You're talking about acres of air conditioning okay

01:01:25.000 --> 01:01:29.000
Yeah.

01:01:29.000 --> 01:01:43.000
Okay. So we do do very well. I mean, we shouldn't be too daunted by the size of this number. Obviously, you should do everything you can.

01:01:43.000 --> 01:01:57.000
To recover gases, particularly the fluorocarbons. The other thing I wanted to mention is that I've been having conversations with fluorocarbon manufacturers And despite 3M wanting to leave the PFAS market.

01:01:57.000 --> 01:02:04.000
There are other companies saying, look, the electronics industry can't function for semiconductor manufacture without these fluorocarbons.

01:02:04.000 --> 01:02:14.000
The substitutes don't work in the same way. The suppression of these fluids completely is really unrealistic.

01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:28.000
So… there's the wish to ban them, but I don't think some of these fluids, they're just not alternatives to and the electronics industry is so central.

01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:38.000
To Western economies, it's hard to imagine these things being phased out. We just have to be better. We have to do better husbandry of these fluids, if you like, to not lose them.

01:02:38.000 --> 01:02:40.000
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thanks for the comment.

01:02:40.000 --> 01:02:49.000
Okay.

01:02:49.000 --> 01:02:55.000
Okay. Another one? Yes. So, yeah, yeah.

01:02:55.000 --> 01:03:17.000
Yes, so I can. Thanks for this talk. To me the two main points you mentioned that you mentioned have really a big impact. It's length of a new tunnel Definitely. And then another point that you mentioned that it's not just about carbon emissions.

01:03:17.000 --> 01:03:21.000
And it's also energy consumption. And when you look at the prospects for our future colliders.

01:03:21.000 --> 01:03:24.000
Yeah.

01:03:24.000 --> 01:03:34.000
From that point of view, they don't look good at all. Like FCCE is twice the energy of the ahc And FCHH is effective three.

01:03:34.000 --> 01:03:35.000
So it goes exactly in the wrong direction compared to what we're supposed to do.

01:03:35.000 --> 01:03:39.000
Yeah.

01:03:39.000 --> 01:03:47.000
So… Personally, I don't see a way out beyond not building those facilities.

01:03:47.000 --> 01:03:48.000
Right, right.

01:03:48.000 --> 01:04:07.000
Which I agree with you is not really the direction that I want to take for us as a field but If we are reasonable about energy availability and other usage, like you mentioned, maybe we'll be in a situation where we are just not allowed to run those facilities because they consume too much energy.

01:04:07.000 --> 01:04:08.000
So do you have… ideas of where to go to not be in that position.

01:04:08.000 --> 01:04:15.000
Bye.

01:04:15.000 --> 01:04:25.000
No, I mean, I can't rule it out. I can't rule it out, right? It's uh You know, these are going to be societal questions, right?

01:04:25.000 --> 01:04:33.000
Yeah, I don't have an easy answer. I wish I did.

01:04:33.000 --> 01:04:34.000
So we'll take the last. We'll take the last question from Shyasi.

01:04:34.000 --> 01:04:38.000
Sorry.

01:04:38.000 --> 01:04:39.000
In time.

01:04:39.000 --> 01:04:45.000
Hello. Yeah, thank you for the very nice talk. And yeah, it was very detailed and I really enjoyed it.

01:04:45.000 --> 01:05:15.000
Yeah, so just following up on the discussions, yes, I also agree that these are more societal issues. But I think in your last slides you had also mentioned about other mitigating factors like reforestation and stuff And I mean, in terms of when we have like put this in action or like propose this, how feasible is it that we also kind of

01:05:16.000 --> 01:05:35.000
Like take into account the negative emissions into the, I don't know, the policy making or something so that In one way, of course, we try to reduce the emissions and In other ways, we try to like, you know, do this carbon capture methods and something just to also because that also helps in every other

01:05:35.000 --> 01:05:43.000
Not only does physics experiments but In every other sectors as well.

01:05:43.000 --> 01:05:48.000
How feasible would that be or Should we lobby for it?

01:05:48.000 --> 01:05:57.000
I mean, I don't think any of the proposals we've seen for future machines have included anything along these lines, right?

01:05:57.000 --> 01:05:58.000
Yeah.

01:05:58.000 --> 01:06:15.000
I mean, I think this would probably I'm just speculating at this point for sure, but I mean, this is, I think you'd probably need some government agency saying, hey, if you want to do this project, you're going to have to do these other things.

01:06:15.000 --> 01:06:26.000
I think if I had to bet that would you know this is going to have to come from outside This is just not going to be top of mind for physicists, right?

01:06:26.000 --> 01:06:34.000
So, you know, who's going to be the funding agency that's going to be courageous enough to ask for this?

01:06:34.000 --> 01:06:39.000
Yeah.

01:06:39.000 --> 01:06:44.000
Alright then. Thank you, Professor Bloom. Any further question can be taken up or can be discussed?

01:06:44.000 --> 01:06:50.000
On the conference Mathemos Forum. So let's show the application via clapping reaction.

01:06:50.000 --> 01:07:03.000
I'll hand