Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 53 references

High-level environmental sustainability guidelines for large accelerator facilities

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Large accelerator facilities can substantially reduce their whole-life environmental impact by embedding sustainability into planning, construction, operation, and decommissioning, with the greatest leverage at the design stage.

desk verdict A useful, honest curation of sustainability practices for accelerator labs—not a research paper, and the design-stage priority claim rests on general ecodesign intuition rather than accelerator-specific evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14979 v2 pith:3F5JIU27 submitted 2025-01-24 physics.acc-ph physics.soc-ph

Hannah Wakeling , Philip Burrows , Jim Clarke , Jo Colwell , Niko Neufeld , Ben Shepherd , Dwayne Spiteri , John Thomason This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-phphysics.soc-ph
keywords acceleratorphysicsenvironmentimpactgreenhousegascarbonlifecycleassessmentsustainable
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a working guide for the people who build and run large particle accelerators. It claims that these facilities, although inherently energy- and material-intensive, can reduce their environmental impact across every stage of their existence if sustainability is treated as a design constraint rather than an afterthought. The authors' central point is that the most powerful moment to act is early: choices made during optioneering and design determine most of a facility's lifetime footprint, so environmental impact assessments should be done at that stage even when data are rough. The guide compiles concrete recommendations, from low-carbon concrete and modular shielding to helium recovery and remote user access, together with resources for measuring progress. A sympathetic reader would take away a starting framework for making sustainability a normal part of accelerator project approval and operation.

What carries the argument

The guiding mechanism is a lifecycle-stage framework linked to a waste hierarchy. The paper organises actions by four stages -- planning/design, construction, operation, and decommissioning -- and ranks all sustainability efforts as prevent, reduce, reuse, recycle, dispose. Within that structure, the load-bearing tool is the early environmental impact assessment used as a hotspot analysis: a rough, deliberately incomplete scan at the conception and optioneering stages that identifies where the largest impacts will be and where design changes can reduce them. This early scan, rather than a full life-cycle assessment, is what lets a facility act while influence is still high.

What would settle it

A retrospective life-cycle assessment of a completed large accelerator that compares the hotspots identified in its design-stage environmental assessment with the actual distribution of lifetime emissions across construction, operation, and decommissioning would test the precedence claim directly. If operational energy, fixed by beam-energy requirements and largely outside designers' control, dominates the measured footprint and was missed by early hotspot analyses, the central assumption would be undercut.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that environmental sustainability must be designed into large accelerator facilities from the outset, not added on later. Sustainability should sit alongside scientific performance, cost, risk, and technology readiness in every design decision, and the most sustainable viable design should be the default presented to funders, with any move to a less sustainable option requiring explicit justification. The document also asserts that reaching net-zero carbon is not the same as being environmentally sustainable: other impacts such as toxicity, water use, and biodiversity loss must be considered, and carbon offsets should be a last resort. Reporting should be transparent and should separate absolute impacts from per-scientific-output metrics so that green claims cannot mask rising consumption.

Load-bearing premise

The whole guide leans on the claim that the greatest ability to influence a facility's lifetime environmental impact sits at the conception, optioneering, and design stages; if early choices cannot reliably predict or reduce whole-life impacts because operational energy use is fixed by physics and dominates the total, much of the document's advice loses its force.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • New accelerator projects would carry a sustainability case as part of the approval process, with the most sustainable design as the funded baseline unless funders explicitly choose otherwise.
  • Facilities would be built with their own decommissioning in mind: modular and separable components, reuse-ready shielding, and thorough material documentation.
  • Operational energy use would become a design target, pursued through wall-plug-to-beam efficiency, sub-metering, demand shifting, and recovery of resources such as helium and waste heat.
  • Global coordination among similar facilities, plus remote and hybrid access, would reduce duplicate resource use and travel-related emissions.
  • Environmental reporting would include absolute impact figures alongside efficiency metrics, making greenwashing and sciencewashing harder to sustain.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the same early-leverage logic implies that environmental impact assessments should be repeated as mandatory checkpoints at each major design review, not only at project approval, and that their results should be published to build a shared evidence base.
  • Beyond the paper: if the per-output metric becomes standard, it will need a carefully defined functional unit and absolute-impact reporting to prevent facilities from optimising the ratio while increasing total emissions.
  • Beyond the paper: a direct empirical test of the guide's central assumption would be to apply its recommendations to one planned facility and later compare design-stage hotspot predictions against measured lifetime impacts; the authors leave this as future work.
  • Beyond the paper: much of the guidance transfers to other large research infrastructures, such as telescopes and neutron sources, since the lifecycle stages and the prevent-reduce-reuse-recycle-dispose hierarchy are not accelerator-specific.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript, labelled Version 1 of a living document, argues that large accelerator facilities can reduce their environmental impact by embedding sustainability considerations in planning, design, construction, operation, and decommissioning. It provides definitions (Brundtland sustainability, net zero, GHG scopes), general principles (culture change, transparency, responsible sourcing), a list of concrete recommendations by lifecycle phase, and a collection of resources including LCA tools and published studies. The paper contains no original measurements, models, or quantitative validation; its contribution is a normative checklist and resource compilation.

Significance. If accepted as a practical community guideline, the document has clear value: it consolidates scattered examples, highlights the need for absolute-impact reporting, warns against greenwashing and sciencewashing, and explicitly frames recommendations as areas to investigate with due diligence. The inclusion of design-stage, operational, and decommissioning measures, together with external LCA examples (CLIC/ILC, GRAND, CTA), makes it a usable starting point for facility teams. The main technical weakness is that the paper's central priority claim—that design-stage decisions have the greatest leverage on whole-life impacts—is asserted rather than demonstrated; this needs to be addressed before the document can function as a reliable prioritisation guide.

major comments (2)
  1. [2.4] Section 2.4 asserts that 'the greatest ability to influence the whole-life environmental impacts of a large accelerator facility occurs at the conception, optioneering and design stages' and uses this to justify making the most sustainable design the funder baseline. This is an empirical ranking claim, but no accelerator-specific lifecycle evidence is cited; the document's own Section 2.6 reports that large facilities have annual consumptions in the TWh range (ESS 270 GWh/yr, CERN up to 1.3 TWh/yr). If use-phase electricity dominates whole-life impacts and is largely fixed by beam-energy, luminosity, and availability requirements, then the emphasis on early-design hotspot analyses could misdirect effort away from operational efficiency, demand shifting, and grid decarbonisation, which the paper lists but subordinates. The authors should either support the priority ranking with published LCA breakdowns (for example CTA, GRAND, or CLIC/ILC) or substantially qualify it, for instance by stating the conditions under which design-stage leverage exceeds operational leverage.
  2. [2.1] Section 2.1 states that culture change is 'the action with the greatest potential for impact on environmental sustainability' and cites refs [12,13], which discuss culture change in general and do not establish a quantitative or accelerator-specific ranking. Because the document's own prioritisation rule ('prevent, reduce, reuse, recycle, dispose') is introduced only in Section 3, the reader is left without a method for resolving conflicts among the many recommendations (for example, reusing existing buildings versus building new, more efficient ones, or demand shifting versus maximising scientific output). For a guidelines document that aims to provide a usable framework, a transparent prioritisation process, even qualitative, should accompany these claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] The word 'targetted' should be 'targeted'.
  2. [Section 2.6] The units 'Tera-Watt hours per year (TWh/yr)' and the later 'T Wh/yr' should be standardised to 'TWh/yr'.
  3. [Section 3.2] In the Computing bullet list, the fragment '– cooling power and resource consumption.' appears to be an incomplete sentence; it should be clarified whether this is a separate bullet or a continuation of the preceding item.
  4. [References] Reference [46] is listed as 'awaiting publicly available source'; a reference that is not publicly accessible should be replaced with a citable version or removed, especially since several other STFC links are already access-restricted.
  5. [Throughout] Headings such as 'W aste' and 'F or each suggestion' show unwanted spacing, likely a LaTeX artifact, and should be corrected.
  6. [Section 3.1] The term 'GWI' (Global Warming Impact) is nonstandard; consider using 'GWP' (Global Warming Potential), which is the more common term and is already introduced in Section 1.1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: this is a normative guidelines document with no derivation chain, fitted parameters, or prediction claims; self-citations are only illustrative resource pointers.

full rationale

The paper makes no quantitative derivation or prediction. It defines itself as 'high-level guidelines' and explicitly frames every recommendation as an area to investigate rather than a forced conclusion: 'For each suggestion, due diligence and consideration are necessary, on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that any actions taken would indeed reduce the accelerator facility's environmental impact.' The only potentially load-bearing assertion, the Section 2.4 claim that the greatest ability to influence whole-life impacts occurs at the design stage, is an empirical ecodesign assumption, not a quantity derived from inputs; lack of supporting data is a correctness or evidence concern, not circularity. Citations are used as examples of existing practice or external policy, not as proofs that make the conclusion equivalent to its premises. One cited resource, [26], includes an author of this paper, but it is listed among 'examples of institutional, group and individual actions' and is not used to justify any central claim. No equations, fits, or renamings are present, and no cited uniqueness theorem or authority is invoked to close an argument. The document is therefore self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity analysis: its recommendations rest on stated normative choices and external examples, not on themselves.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters because the document contains no fits or derived quantities. It introduces no new entities. The central recommendations rest on several domain assumptions about design-stage leverage, culture change, and grid decarbonization, all plausible but not established by the authors.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Large accelerator facilities have positive societal impact and negative environmental impact directly related to their size and power consumption (Introduction).
    Framing of the entire document; it supports the need for guidelines but is not demonstrated by the paper.
  • domain assumption The greatest ability to influence whole-life environmental impacts occurs at the conception, optioneering and design stages (Section 2.4).
    Load-bearing for the emphasis on design-stage recommendations; no empirical support is presented.
  • domain assumption Culture change has the greatest potential for impact on environmental sustainability (Section 2.1).
    Asserted with citations but not quantified; it guides the ordering of recommendations.
  • domain assumption No current form of electricity generation has net-zero or net-negative environmental impact and this will not change by 2050 (Section 2.6 and footnote).
    Supports the argument that facilities must reduce energy demand rather than rely on green energy; based on a UK projection cited in a footnote, not a systematic review.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-level environmental sustainability guidelines for large accelerator facilities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3F5JIU27

@misc{pith2026250114979,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-level environmental sustainability guidelines for large accelerator facilities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3F5JIU27}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14979}
}
read the original abstract

The proposed construction of new particle accelerator-based facilities in the coming decades -- and upgrades to existing facilities -- provides the unique opportunity to embed innovative environmental impact reduction techniques into their design. This living document provides high-level guidelines to improve environmental sustainability in the planning, construction, operational and decommissioning stages of large accelerator facilities. A collection of various resources is provided, with examples of some existing and suggested practices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14979 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The 17 UN SDGs [11], explicitly: No Poverty; Zero Hunger; Good Health and Well-being; Quality Education; Gender Equality; Clean Water and Sanitation; Affordable and Clean Energy; Decent Work and Economic Growth; Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure; Reduced Inequality; Sustainable Cities and Com￾munities; Responsible Consumption and Production; Climate Action; Life Below Water; Life on Land; Peace and Justice Str… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020 Update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics,

    European Strategy Group, “2020 Update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics,” CERN, Geneva, Tech. Rep., 2020. [Online]. Available: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2720129

    work page arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development,

    G. Brundtland, “Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development,” 1987. [Online]. Available: http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-ov.htm

    work page 1987

  3. [3]

    The meaning of net zero and how to get it right,

    S. Fankhauser, S. M. Smith, M. Allen, K. Axelsson, T. Hale, C. Hepburn, J. M. Kendall, R. Khosla, J. Lezaun, E. Mitchell-Larson, M. Obersteiner, L. Rajamani, R. Rickaby, N. Seddon, and T. Wetzer, “The meaning of net zero and how to get it right,” Nature Climate Change, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 15–21, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-02...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41558-021-01245-w 2022

  4. [4]

    The Greenhouse Gas Protocol

    The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative, “The Greenhouse Gas Protocol.” [Online]. Available: https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf

    work page

  5. [5]

    14068: 2023. Carbon Neutral Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standard,

    International Organization for Standardization, “14068: 2023. Carbon Neutral Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standard,” ISO Geneva, Switzerland, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Greening government commitments: Overview of reporting requirements 2016-2020

    Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Cabinet Office, “Greening government commitments: Overview of reporting requirements 2016-2020.” [Online]. Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment data/file/585344/greening-government-commitmen ts-overview-reporting-requirements-2016-2020.pdf

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    STFC Sustainability Action Plan

    STFC, “STFC Sustainability Action Plan.” [Online]. Available: https://ukri.sharepoint.com/sites/thesou rce-stfc/Shared%20Documents/ES/STFCSustainabilityActionPlan.pdf

    work page

  8. [8]

    UKRI environmental sustainability strategy

    UKRI, “UKRI environmental sustainability strategy.” [Online]. Available: https://www.ukri.org/publica tions/ukri-environmental-sustainability-strategy/? ga=2.241693313.2014145532.1694640433-1826877347. 1683224890

    work page arXiv

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    What is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change?

    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “What is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change?” [Online]. Available: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/what-is-t he-united-nations-framework-convention-on-climate-change

  2. [10]

    The Paris Agreement

    ——, “The Paris Agreement.” [Online]. Available: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agr eement

  3. [11]

    [Online]

    United Nations. [Online]. Available: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/

  4. [12]

    Culture: the ultimate renewable resource to tackle climate change

    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, “Culture: the ultimate renewable resource to tackle climate change.” [Online]. Available: https://www.unesco.org/en/climate-change/cult ure

  5. [13]

    Environmental culture change in local government: a practised perspective from the international council for local environmental initiatives—Australia/New Zealand,

    Y. Strengers, “Environmental culture change in local government: a practised perspective from the international council for local environmental initiatives—Australia/New Zealand,” Local Environment, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 621–628, 2004. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080...

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    14040: 2006. 2006 Environmental management-life cycle assesment-principles and framework,

    International Organization for Standardization, “14040: 2006. 2006 Environmental management-life cycle assesment-principles and framework,” ISO Geneva, Switzerland, 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    Environmental management: life cycle assessment; requirements and guidelines,

    ——, “Environmental management: life cycle assessment; requirements and guidelines,” ISO Geneva, Switzerland, vol. 14044, 2006. 21 Version 1 Living document

    2006

  8. [16]

    Sustainability considerations for accelerator and collider facilities,

    T. Roser, “Sustainability considerations for accelerator and collider facilities,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.07423.pdf

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    What’s the carbon footprint of a Higgs boson? It varies — a lot

    E. Gibney, “What’s the carbon footprint of a Higgs boson? It varies — a lot.” [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03551-5

  10. [18]

    Sustainability strategy for the Cool Copper Collider,

    M. Breidenbach, B. Bullard, E. A. Nanni, D. Ntounis, and C. Vernieri, “Sustainability strategy for the Cool Copper Collider,” PRX Energy , vol. 2, p. 047001, Oct 2023. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXEnergy.2.047001

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Life cycle assessment – CLIC & ILC

    Arup, S. Evans, Y. Loo, H. Pantelidou, and J. Sasaki, “Life cycle assessment – CLIC & ILC.” [Online]. Available: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1259275/contributions/5306834/attachments/2610775/4510638/2 0230309%20-%20Arup CERN%20LCA%20-%20March%2023%20Update%20Meeting.pdf

    2023

  12. [20]

    Available: https://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element /2/helium

    Royal Society of Chemistry, “Helium.” [Online]. Available: https://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element /2/helium

  13. [21]

    Helium recovery system

    McGill Chemistry Characterization Facility, “Helium recovery system.” [Online]. Available: https: //www.mcgill.ca/mc2/helium-recovery-system

  14. [22]

    Site, architecture & sustainability

    European Spallation Source, “Site, architecture & sustainability.” [Online]. Available: https: //europeanspallationsource.se/building-project/site-architecture-energy

  15. [23]

    Powering CERN

    CERN, “Powering CERN.” [Online]. Available: https://home.cern/science/engineering/powering-cern

  16. [24]

    Green Book supplementary guidance: valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal

    U. Government, “Green Book supplementary guidance: valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal.” [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuation-o f-energy-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions-for-appraisal

  17. [25]

    Energy and emissions projections: 2023 to 2050

    UK Government Energy Security, “Energy and emissions projections: 2023 to 2050.” [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/energy-and-emissions-projections-2023-to-2050

    2023

  18. [26]

    Environmental sustainability in basic research: a perspective from HECAP+,

    S. Banerjee, T. Y. Chen, C. David, M. D¨ uren, H. Erbin, J. Ghiglieri, M. S. S. Gill, L. Glaser, C. G¨ utschow, J. J. Hall, J. Hampp, P. Koppenburg, M. Koschnitzke, K. Lohwasser, R. Mahbubani, V. Mehta, P. Milling- ton, A. Paul, F. Poblotzki, K. Potamianos, N. ˇSarˇ cevi´ c, R...

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Vol. 3 (2023): CERN Environment Report—Rapport sur l’environnement 2021–2022

    CERN, “Vol. 3 (2023): CERN Environment Report—Rapport sur l’environnement 2021–2022.”

    2023

  20. [28]

    DESY Sustainability Report 2019-2021

    Sustainable DESY, “DESY Sustainability Report 2019-2021.” [Online]. Available: https://nachhaltigkeit .desy.de/sites/sites desygroups/sites extern/site nachhaltigkeit/content/e187633/e187643/DESY-Sustain abilityReport2019-2021 eng.pdf

    2019

  21. [29]

    Sustainability and carbon management

    STFC, “Sustainability and carbon management.” [Online]. Available: https://www.she.stfc.ac.uk/Pages /Sustainability-and-Carbon-Management.aspx

  22. [30]

    Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development,

    J. Elkington, “Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development,” California Management Review, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 90–100, 1994. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2307/41165746

    1994 doi

  23. [31]

    The fine art of detecting sciencewashing: Definition, consequences, forms & prevention

    S. Siegel and J. Terdenge, “The fine art of detecting sciencewashing: Definition, consequences, forms & prevention.” [Online]. Available: https://www.wissenschaftskommunikation.de/the-fine-art-of-detecting-s ciencewashing-definition-consequences-forms-prevention-65003/ 22 Vers...

  24. [32]

    Should you buy carbon offsets? A practical and philosophical guide to neutralizing your carbon footprint

    B. Palmer, “Should you buy carbon offsets? A practical and philosophical guide to neutralizing your carbon footprint.” [Online]. Available: https://www.nrdc.org/stories/should-you-buy-carbon-offsets

  25. [33]

    World Energy Outlook 2022

    International Energy Agency, “World Energy Outlook 2022.” [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/re ports/world-energy-outlook-2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Innovate uk invests £3.2 million in concrete decarbonisation

    UKRI, “Innovate uk invests £3.2 million in concrete decarbonisation.” [Online]. Available: https: //www.ukri.org/news/innovate-uk-invests-3-2-million-in-concrete-decarbonisation/

  27. [35]

    Ten simple rules to make your computing more environmentally sustainable

    L. Lannelongue, J. Grealey, A. Bateman, and I. M., “Ten simple rules to make your computing more environmentally sustainable.” PLoS Comput Biol. , 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009324

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Green Algorithms: Quantifying the Carbon Footprint of Computation

    L. Lannelongue, J. Grealey, and M. Inouye, “Green Algorithms: Quantifying the Carbon Footprint of Computation.” [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202100707

    doi

  29. [37]

    Green DiSC: a Digital Sustainability Certification

    Software Sustainability Institute, “Green DiSC: a Digital Sustainability Certification.” [Online]. Available: https://www.software.ac.uk/GreenDiSC

  30. [38]

    Green-ILC AAA-2014 Report

    2014 AAA Green-ILC Working Group, “Green-ILC AAA-2014 Report.” [Online]. Available: https://green-ilc.in2p3.fr/materials/GreenILC-Report-E-2014-feb-9.pdf

    2014

  31. [39]

    Compact Linear Collider energy load and cost analysis final report version 1.0 29.11.2018

    D. R. ¨Ochsner, C. Lange, A. Nuß, M. Steinberger, T. Erge, S. Killinger, D. C. Rohde, and M. Fritz, “Compact Linear Collider energy load and cost analysis final report version 1.0 29.11.2018.” [Online]. Available: https://edms.cern.ch/ui/file/2065162/1/CLIC-energy-Fraunhofer.pdf

    2018

  32. [40]

    Carbon footprint of the helium recovery system at the ISIS facility

    R. Down, A. Jones, C. Lawson, and O. Kirichek, “Carbon footprint of the helium recovery system at the ISIS facility.” [Online]. Available: https://epubs.stfc.ac.uk/work/53761171

  33. [41]

    Estimating the carbon footprint of the GRAND project, a multi-decade astrophysics experiment,

    C. Aujoux, K. Kotera, and O. Blanchard, “Estimating the carbon footprint of the GRAND project, a multi-decade astrophysics experiment,” Astroparticle Physics, vol. 131, p. 102587, Sep. 2021. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2021.102587

    2021

  34. [42]

    Europe-America-Japan Accelerator Development and Exchange Programme

    European Commission, “Europe-America-Japan Accelerator Development and Exchange Programme.” [Online]. Available: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101086276

  35. [43]

    Work package 4: Sustainable technologies for scientific facilities

    B. List and M. Titov, “Work package 4: Sustainable technologies for scientific facilities.” [Online]. Available: https://indico.desy.de/event/36774/

  36. [44]

    Innovation Fostering in Accelerator Science and Technology

    European Commission, “Innovation Fostering in Accelerator Science and Technology.” [Online]. Available: https://ifast-project.eu/

  37. [45]

    Innovate for Sustainable Accelerating Systems

    iSAS, “Innovate for Sustainable Accelerating Systems.” [Online]. Available: https://isas.ijclab.in2p3.fr/

  38. [46]

    SPADE - awaiting publicly available source,

    SPADE, “SPADE - awaiting publicly available source,” 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    ISO 50001 Energy management,

    International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 50001 Energy management,” ISO Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/iso-50001-energy-management.html

    2018

  40. [48]

    LEAF - Laboratory Efficiency Assessment Framework

    University College London, “LEAF - Laboratory Efficiency Assessment Framework.” [Online]. Available: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sustainable/take-action/staff-action/leaf-laboratory-efficiency-assessment-frame work

  41. [49]

    My Green Lab certification: A commitment to sustainable science

    My Green Lab, “My Green Lab certification: A commitment to sustainable science.” [Online]. Available: https://www.mygreenlab.org/green-lab-certification.html 23 Version 1 Living document

  42. [50]

    Life cycle analysis of the GRAND experiment,

    L. T. Vargas-Ib´ a˜ nez, K. Kotera, O. Blanchard, P. Zwolinski, A. Cheffer, M. Collilieux, P. Lambert, Q. Lef` ebvre, and T. Protois, “Life cycle analysis of the GRAND experiment,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.12282

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Sustainable astronomy: A com- parative life cycle assessment of off-grid hybrid energy systems to supply large telescopes,

    I. Viole, L. Shen, L. Ramirez Camargo, M. Zeyringer, and S. Sartori, “Sustainable astronomy: A com- parative life cycle assessment of off-grid hybrid energy systems to supply large telescopes,” 08 2023, https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3281965/v1

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    Assessment of the environmental impacts of the cherenkov telescope array mid-sized telescope,

    G. dos Santos Ilha, M. Boix, J. Kn¨ odlseder, P. Garnier, L. Montastruc, P. Jean, G. Pareschi, A. Steiner, and F. Toussenel, “Assessment of the environmental impacts of the cherenkov telescope array mid-sized telescope,” Nature Astronomy, vol. 8, no. 11, p. 1468–1477, Jul. 202...

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    Life cycle assessment of the Athena X-ray integral field unit,

    D. Barret, V. Albouys, J. Kn¨ odlseder, X. Loizillon, M. D’Andrea, F. Ardellier, S. Bandler, P. Dieleman, L. Duband, L. Dubbeldam, C. Macculi, E. Medinaceli, F. Pajot, D. Prˆ ele, L. Ravera, T. Thibert, I. V. Trallero, and N. Webb, “Life cycle assessment of the Athena X-ray in...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.