From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: SuperCollider "For" or "Against"
Date: 25 Jul 92 02:05:00 GMT

{ talk.politics.misc, Re: SuperCollider: "For" or "Against" }

(hallam@zeus02.desy.de on 7-24), Phillip M. Hallam-Baker doubted...
}
}In article, B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice) writes:
}
} |>What they aren't saying in the Dallas Morning News is that it
} |>cost about $8 billion to construct the SSC over 8 years, that
} |>it has about a 25 year projected lifespan and that it will
} |>take about a billion dollars a year to run.
}
}Thats because it's not true.

If not then the folks who are trying to sell it as a great boon to
Texas sure have misfigured.

The estimates cited are those which come from projections by the
business school at the University of Texas at Arlington. In a seminar
I attended they also cited a 2.8 times multiplier to give a 70 billion
dollar economic stimulus to the North Texas economy, during the SSC's
projected 25 year lifespan.

}The SSC is merely a scaled up version of HERA. Our running costs here
}are nothing like the original design and development costs.
}
}Cost of building HERA, ZEUS and H1 was arround $1 billion
}
}Running costs are mainly the electricity bill and cost of personel. The
}personel are mainly free (grad students, they even pay to work!). Just
}got an estimate of 2 million DM for the fixed running costs, or $1 million.

Interesting that you would leave out *operations and maintenance* cost,
and are you using superconducting magnets?

About electricity though...

The Nation, (3-19-90) "SUPER COLLIDER -- SUPER BUST" by Gayle Hudgins.

    Low utility rates may soon be history too, because the
    S.S.C. has arranged to have its huge appetite for electricity
    subsidized...   Not only does the collider's hunger for
    electricity provide a rationale for an otherwise unnecessary
    nuclear power plant [speaking of Comanche Peak], the subsidy
    means that rate payers -- rich and poor alike -- will pay six
    to to eight times more more than the S.S.C. per kilowatt-hour.
 
Guess who get's to pay for that subsidy. Makes me wonder just how much
energy a 20 trillion electron volt particle accelerator -- with 54
miles of superconducting magnets can gobble up anyway.

Now for more doubt:
}Estimated lifespan of 25 years sounds rather long...

}I can't see how anyone would want to do a 25 year run...

And I would have thought with all your cynicism PHB that the obvious
answer would be "money." First, I'll give a handy abstract, and then
another comment from The Nation...

American Demographics, (Sept 1989 v11 n9 p62) by John Maines

    A Texas-sized jolt: a $6 billion atom smasher may fill this
    prairie town with people. (Maypearl, Texas) (the local
    impact of the proposed Superconducting Super Collider)

    Abstract: The US Department of Energy (DOE) is planning to
    construct the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) in the
    vicinity of Waxahachie and Maypearl, Texas, 40 miles south
    of Dallas. The DOE estimates that the building of the SSC
    will generate 9,650 construction-related jobs; generate
    annual sales of approximately $446 million during
    construction and $268 million during operation; and create
    6,500 jobs over the 25 year operational life-span of the
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    SSC. Land speculation in anticipation of the 1991
    groundbreaking has begun, and land prices are now 150%
    higher than pre-SSC prices.

The Nation, (3-19-90) "SUPER COLLIDER -- SUPER BUST" p. 383

    ...Incredibly, the multibillion-dollar project would be
    decommissioned in only twenty years because the metal,
    concrete and other materials in the tunnel would become
    so radioactive from bombardment by neutrons released during
    experiments that the Superconducting Super Collider could
    no longer be used.

And the author goes on for another page about radioactivity problems
such as "vac-ion pump oil" irradiation and disposal and "beam loss"
incidents, though no mention is made about building up exotic metals.

}Sounds like Mr Tice has not improved his credibility since ceasing
}to be a Perotista.
 
Who said I'd stopped? As if you could make an objective judgement
one way or the other, PHB.

First, I've always been an independent-moderate, (and an anarchist
ideally) -- so any group that can shake up the status quo gets my
encouragement, and I've made that assertion a number of times in this
group. Second, the folks who supported Perot are right in their
concerns about America -- their country -- an attitude you could
never share. Lastly, I picked _The Nation_ story to cite from,
(though there are several hundred other journal references), just to
spin your paranoia up into high gear. I'm sure you'll recognize the
names below...

The Nation, (3-19-90) "SUPER COLLIDER -- SUPER BUST" p. 382

    D. Allan Brumley, President Bush's science adviser [sic], is
    not even sure the United States has the industrial capacity
    to build the mammouth magnets for the S.S.C. "We're pushing
    technology to the absolute limits," he says. The budget is
    pushing in the same direction, as calls for more money keep
    coming in, along with predictions that cost overuns will
    eventually put the S.S.C.'s price tag at more than $10
    billion. Even the normally boosterish Dallas Times Herald
    warned recently that the nation "would be better off not
    building it than building the S.S.C. as a boondoggle."

    None of that seems to bother the Texas collider cartel, a
    combination of politicians, real estate speculators and
    other assorted wheelers and dealers led by Dallas tycoon
    Morton Meyerson, chair of the Texas National Research
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Laboratory Commission (T.N.R.L.C), which drew up the site
    proposal, and Tom Luce, the former chair and candidate for
                  ^^^^^^^^
    governor in the Republican primary on March 13...

Quite a formidable data handling problem arises as well, I think
the figure being bandied around is that the SSC will generate data
at the rate of a Terabyte per nanosecond. It would take really major
advances in computer technology to deal with all that, so the
computer systems and software R&D is another one of the spin-offs
being paraded around as a reason to fund the project. 

It's foolish PHB to make a factual statement that can't be supported
on a public, and indeed international, academic network. I reckon
my reputation for dealing in fact is quite considerably firmer
than yours. Would you now care to attempt a real rebuttal of my 
assertions about the costs of the SSC?
 
}Phill Hallam-Baker

 /                 \     |     /  The SSC is a wonderful dream,  \
(  Stephen D. Tice  ) -- S -- (   right up there with everyone    )
 \                 /     |     \  going to an Ivy League school  /
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,misc.legal