Still, popular media such as this should hire someone with at least a solid grasp of physics to write such articles. There are at least a couple of either strange statements, or outright errors in the article.
Building bigger proton accelerators, such as Fermilab's Tevatron in Illinois and the Large Hadron Collider in Europe, is still possible because protons can be accelerated in a circle. But electrons need linear tracks such as that of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory or the proposed International Linear Collider.
This, obviously, is wrong. Any intro physics student can see that. There's nothing inherently different between protons and electrons that allows protons to be in a circular accelerator while electrons ".. need linear tracks..". Synchrotron centers all over the world have circular storage ring for electrons, and LEP, the predecessor of the LHC at CERN, was a circular electron accelerator/collider. So the statement in that paragraph is utter nonsense.
But this strategy also has its limits. The maximum energy of the accelerated electrons depends on the energy of the particle bunches. SLAC currently produces the highest-energy electrons of any accelerator, at 50 gigaelectronvolts (GeV, or a thousand million volts).
This is nitpicking, but "a thousand million volts" is not a unit of energy.
Today's accelerators can bring protons to much higher energies than they can electrons. Protons at the Tevatron can hit 1 TeV (hence the name), and those at the LHC will be seven times as energetic.
This makes no sense either. It is so much easier to accelerator electrons than protons. So to claim that protons can be acccelerated to much higher energies than electrons is again, nonsense. What is often confused is the center-of-mass energy and also the energy per nucleon or parton.
While the intention is good that media outlets such as Wired are covering such issues, I wish they also pay attention to the accuracy of their article.