by Anthony Watts
WUWT readers of course have heard about the Met Office and their giant new supercomputer called “deep black” that they use for climate simulation and short term forecasts.
Not to be outdone, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, CO has commissioned a new supercomputer project of their own: The NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center (NWSC) shown in artist rendering below.

In the initial press release they state the location and purpose:
January 23, 2007
BOULDER—The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and its managing organization, the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), announced today that they will form a partnership with the University of Wyoming, the State of Wyoming, and the University of Colorado at Boulder to build a new supercomputing data center for scientific research in Cheyenne. The center will house some of the world’s most powerful supercomputers in order to advance understanding of climate, weather, and other Earth and atmospheric processes.
…
The center’s supercomputers, which will be upgraded regularly, will initially achieve speeds of hundreds of teraflops (trillion floating-point operations per second).
The Met Office wrote in their initial press release:
By 2011, the total system is anticipated to have a total peak performance approaching 1 PetaFlop — equivalent to over 100,000 PCs and over 30 times more powerful than what is in place today.
We found out later that the Met Office supercomputer would have an electrical power consumption of 1.2 megawatts.
So with that it mind, we’d expect the new NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center (NWSC) to have some similar sort of power consumption. Right?
On the masthead of the NWSC page they say they are all about energy efficiency.
The NWSC project encompasses the design and construction of a world class center for high performance scientific computing in the atmospheric and related geosciences. Consistent with its mission, the facility will be a leader in energy efficiency, incorporating the newest and most efficient designs and technologies available. The center will provide new space to enable the advancement of scientific knowledge, education, and service through high-performance computing.
And on the right sidebar:
Focus on Sustainability
Maximum energy efficiency, LEED certification, and achievement of the smallest possible carbon footprint are all goals of the NWSC project. In the coming weeks and months, check this section of the site for updates on project sustainability efforts and outcomes.
That’s great, I’m all for sustainability and energy efficiency, even the “smallest possible carbon footprint” doesn’t sound too bad. Surely it will be more energy efficient and “greener” than the Met Office Supercomputer, right?
There’s an interesting unanswered question though. Why put this new facility in Wyoming rather than “green” Colorado? Isn’t Boulder, where NCAR is headquartered, the greenest of Colorado cities, and in the US top five too?
In the initial press release announcing the project, there’s this bit of political feel good prose:
“Having an NCAR supercomputing facility in Wyoming will be transformative for the University of Wyoming, will represent a significant step forward in the state’s economic development, and will provide exceptional opportunities for NCAR to make positive contributions to the educational infrastructure of an entire state,” says William Gern, the university’s vice president for research and economic development.
Gosh, what an opportunity for Wyoming. But why give the opportunity away? Colorado doesn’t want this opportunity? None of the politicians in Colorado want to be able to say to their constituents that they brought “economic development” and “positive contributions to the educational infrastructure of an entire state”? That doesn’t seem right.
The answer may very well lie in economics, but not the kind they mention in feel good press releases.
You see as we know from supercomputers, they need a lot of energy to operate. And because they operate in enclosed spaces, a lot of energy to keep them cooled so they don’t burn up from the waste heat they generate.
For all their sophistication, without power for operation and cooling, a supercomputer is just dead weight and space.
Electricity is king.
Interestingly, in the press releases and web pages, NCAR provides no answers (at least none that were easy to find) to how much electricity the new supercomputer might use for operation and cooling. They also provide no explanation as to why Colorado let this opportunity go to another state. I had to dig into NCAR’s interoffice staff notes to find the answer.
The answer is: electricity.
Measuring 108,000 square feet in total with 15,000-20,000 square feet of raised floor, it will be built for 8 megawatts of power, with 4-5 megawatts for computing and 3-4 for cooling.
8 megawatts! Yowza.
It’s really about economics. Electricity is getting expensive, and likely to be more expensive in the future. Candidate Obama said that under his leadership, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket“. Clearly NCAR is planning for a more expensive energy future.
In the interoffice staff notes, NCAR outlines its decision logic.
NCAR considered partnerships for the data center with a number of organizations along the Front Range, giving CU-Boulder and the University of Wyoming particularly close scrutiny. NCAR also looked into leasing space and retrofitting an existing data center.
With support from NSF and the UCAR Board of Trustees, NCAR chose to locate the center in Wyoming after a rigorous evaluation, concluding that this partnership would facilitate getting the greatest computing capability for the regional and national scientific community at the earliest possible time.
“The Wyoming offer provides more computing power, sooner, and at lower cost,” Tim explained during an all-staff town hall meeting on January 31. “We’ve secured the future of NCAR’s role in leadership computing.”
The Wyoming offer consists of a 24-acre “shovel-ready” site for construction in the North Range Business Park in Cheyenne near the intersection of I-80 and I-25, along with physical infra- structure for fiber optics and guaranteed power transmission of 24 megawatts. The University of Wyoming will provide $20 million in endowment funds for construction, as well as $1 million annually for operations. NCAR will utilize the State of Wyoming’s bond program to fund construction, with the state treasurer purchasing bonds that will be paid off by NCAR.
Although CU-Boulder’s offer would have given the new center greater proximity to other NCAR facilities, it would have left NCAR with a mortgage of $50 million rather than $40 million and less long-term financial savings. The Cheyenne site offers cheaper construction costs and lends itself to future expansion. It also brings a transformative partnership to a state that has traditionally lacked opportunities in technology and research.
Indeed according to the latest figures from the Energy Information Adminsitration and Department of Energy (EIA/DOE) electricity is significantly cheaper in Wyoming.

So besides the fact that NCAR abandoned “green” Colorado for it’s cheaper electricity rates and bond program, what’s the “dirty little secret?
Coal, the “dirtiest of fuels”, some say.
According to Sourcewatch, Wyoming is quite something when it comes to coal. Emphasis mine.
Wyoming is the nation’s highest coal producer, with over 400 million tons of coal produced in the state each year. In 2006, Wyoming’s coal production accounted for almost 40% of the nation’s coal.[1] Currently Wyoming coal comes from four of the State’s ten major coal fields. The Powder River Coal Field has the largest production in the world – in 2007, it produced over 436 million short tons.[2]
Wyoming coal is shipped to 35 other states. The coal is highly desirable because of its low sulfur levels.[3] On average Wyoming coal contains 0.35 percent sulfur by weight, compared with 1.59 percent for Kentucky coal and 3 to 5 percent for other eastern coals. Although Wyoming coal may have less sulfur, it also a lower “heat rate” or fewer Btu’s of energy. On average Wyoming coal has 8600 Btu’s of energy per pound, while Eastern coal has heat rates of over 12,000 Btu’s per pound, meaning that plants have to burn 50 percent more Wyoming coal to equal the power output from Eastern coal.[4]
Coal-fired power plants produce almost 95% of the electricity generated in Wyoming. Wyoming’s average retail price of electricity is 5.27 cents per kilowatt hour, the 2nd lowest rate in the nation[5]
It’s so bad, that Wyoming’s coal plants earned the coveted “Coal Swarm” badge on that page.
Gosh.
But not to worry, NCAR has a plan to “clean up” that dirty coal use to power their supercomputer climate modeling system.
Again from the interoffice staff notes
The new center will be the first NCAR facility to earn LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification for its design, construction, and operation. Measuring 108,000 square feet in total with 15,000-20,000 square feet of raised floor, it will be built for 8 megawatts of power, with 4-5 megawatts for computing and 3-4 for cooling. The power will be generated primarily from “clean” coal (coal that has been chemically scrubbed to reduce emissions of harmful pollutants) via Cheyenne Light Fuel and Power. NCAR is also aggressively working to secure the provision of alternative energy (wind and solar) for the facility, hoping to attain an initial level of 10%.
“We’re going to push for environmentally friendly solutions,” Tim says.
Clean Coal? Hmmm. NASA GISS’ Dr. Jim Hansen says Clean Coal is a decade away:
James Hansen, one of the world’s best-known global warming researchers and a recent vocal advocate of proposed coal plants, says clean coal technology used on a full-scale coal-fired plant could be at least a decade away. He expressed the sentiment in a media briefing organized by clean energy group RE-AMP, arguing against a proposed coal plant in Marshalltown, Iowa.
Hansen also said that:
“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. When I testified against the proposed Kingsnorth power plant, I estimated that in its lifetime it would be responsible for the extermination of about 400 species – its proportionate contribution to the number that would be committed to extinction if carbon dioxide rose another 100 ppm.”
Don’t worry, the University of Wyoming in Cheyenne, where the new NCAR supercomputing center will be, is already on top of the situation. This is from their press release May 26th, 2008:
The University of Wyoming is ready to research clean coal and wants proposals from both academic and industry organizations. With the help of the Wyoming state government, they’ve arranged for up to $4.5 million in research funds — which can be matched by non-state funds.
And, Wyoming already has their hand out to Presdient Obama:
Colorado, Utah, Wyoming Seek Clean Coal Funding
DENVER (AP) ―
The governors of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming are asking President Barack Obama to fund the development of clean-coal technologies in the West.
Yup, clean coal will power that new NCAR supercomputer any day now, and we’ll be paying for it.
In the meantime:
I’m sure NCAR will let us know how those wind turbines work out for that other 10% of the power.
h/t to Steve Goddard in comments
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



Good detective work ! All true as well
The AGW hate these “dirty ” little secrets
Who’s a merry old soul?
The wind turbines are already nearby and way excess unused wind… former Wyoming resident… enough wind, in fact to blow the whole thing clear to Nebraska if they don’t nail it down.
Lovely irony. A foretaste of the dissonance to come as we cool.
======
WUWT – ‘James Hansen, one of the world’s best-known global warming researchers and a recent vocal advocate of proposed coal plants’ i don’t think you meant advocate? typo?
REPLY: That’s from the article he advocates “clean coal” apparently….- A
Great, more wasted money, just what we need.
The circular tiled building on the left looks a lot like CRU at UEA too!
I don’t see the barbecue in the pic, but I’m sure there will be one. Maybe the vast open pit coal mines sort of overwhelm that factor.
In a related matter, Jane “NOAA” Lysenko is attempting to swing funds to her home base in Oregon, but she is meeting resistance. Isn’t slush another name for rotten snow? The irony would be delicious if it wasn’t so expensive!
Apart from the monster truck of course but that is offset by the Volvo and the (BMW) Mini in the car park.
I love it. It’s so emblematic. The models are so uncertain they have to burn coal by the trainload to try to see if they can get them to work right.
kim’s back? You absence was noted …
The city of Boulder, Colorado has a goal to comply with the Kyoto protocol, but alas cannot seem to reduce GHG emissions. (The city even sent a delegation to the COP meeting in Copenhagen.) AGW protests outside Xcel’s Valmont (coal) power station located at the Eastern edge of the city are regular occurrences. The activists want to close that plant or have it converted to a wood-fired plant. They’ve made numerous attempts to get the city to revoke its operating license. So far, rationality has prevailed. Even the liberal city council sees the value of electricity.
For NCAR, it’s probably better for them politically to “hide” their hypocrisy.
Weren’t Democrats like Barrack Obama touting against clean-coal technology in their campaigns, whereas the Republicans were for it? I guess in the end, money talks. In exchange for building/powering a computing monstrosity to “show” that AGW is real, Wyoming and its coal businesses get a handout.
The leech called government grows ever larger.
This article is an excellent example of good journalism by the way.
You build a facility that has two conventional reactors and a reprocessing plant. A small amount of plutonium is brought to the site to start the processing breeder. At that point you bring in nothing but natural uranium or “depleted” uranium to make fuel in the breeder for the conventional reactors. After the initial load of plutonium, no dangerous highly radioactive nuclear materials need to be transported to the site again.
From that point on the fuel is used and reprocessed. Waste that is produced after the recycling process decays in a few hundred years, can be stored on-site (we know how to build things that can last a few hundred years), and requires about 10% of the volume that current waste storage requires. Nothing requires transport off-site. No hazardous materials require transport to the site after the initial breeder seed load.
End result: Wyoming has a large amount of power for a very long time.
See SciAm December 2005 “Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste”.
42-next question?
“Hitchiker’s Guide” fan here.
The climate models don’t work – they are far too simplistic – I thought we had finally had a clear demonstration of that.
As my Daddy used to say, “Son, if you are trying to do something, and it isn’t working, there is no point in trying to do the same thing harder”.
8MW is a lot of power, and we might just wish that we had access to that power later, when we get deeper into the coming ice age.
Sweeeet:
“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. When I testified against the proposed Kingsnorth power plant, I estimated that in its lifetime it would be responsible for the extermination of about 400 species – its proportionate contribution to the number that would be committed to extinction if carbon dioxide rose another 100 ppm.
”
Who said it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal
Hansen! Yay!
REPLY: Thanks for the reminder! I’ve added WUWT’s previous coverage of this event to the article. – A
(apologies to Douglas Adams) I look forward the to Multiple Analysis Research Variability Integration Normalizer being put to work on the project.
I’m sure that MARVIN’s results will be as cheerful as its namesake.
Since we’ve finally stumbled in to something I’m finally very familiar with…
This is about average to above average size for a single use data center. What’s not mentioned is in addition to the 8 MW incoming power from coal there will be at least 10 MW back up power from diesel generator – probably four 2.5 MW generators. These will run at least once a week unloaded and once a month fully loaded for about an hour. Fuel rate fully loaded for all four … 600 to 750 gallons per hour.
This is one reason why new data centers are located away from cities … too many emission restrictions. Even CDC in Atlanta has limits on testing their emergency power system.
Lets just put a small nuke plant by the technology park. It’ll answer all the green questions and power everything in the park.
Of course, that nuke will mean that everyone in the park will be glowing… 😉
Personally, I find the seaweed nailed to my fence to be more reliable than the Met Office’s mega-bloater. What’s more it’s carbon footprint is a big fat zero…
nice to see Steven Goddard’s name
/snark on
What no windmills? No solar panels? No earthquake producing geothermal sites?How can this be? We were told that this was all ready to go and would produce all those “green” jobs. By not using “green” power sources and costing us all those new green jobs, NCAR must be un-American and they must be funded by the nasty Big Oil and Coal companies. Well we know what that means nothing they produce can be trusted since their Supercomputer benefits Big Coal.
/snarkoff
If a model doesn’t work then you can throw as many resources as you like at it, it still won’t work.
Incidentally, love the ‘Death Train’ picture detail. Priceless.
Meanwhile, Michael Mann gets another $500,000 — while he’s under investigation.