NCAR's dirty little secret

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.

click for a larger image

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.

click for source data

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.”

hansen_coal_death_train1

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:

From CBS in Denver:

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

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

175 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Frederick Michael
January 16, 2010 12:32 pm

They need 8 megawatts like a hole in the head. Is it possible they invented that ridiculous spec to justify the move?

January 16, 2010 12:32 pm

Its nice to see a contribution (even if it is only a tip) from Steve Goddard. I hope that previous history can be moved-on-from, and we can see more activity from Steve.

Roger Knights
January 16, 2010 12:35 pm

When the day comes that nobody will “buy” the output of their models, NCAR and CRU can set their computers to playing thousands of simultaneous chess games against each other. Or a million solitaire games alone.

crosspatch
January 16, 2010 12:35 pm

” Clawga (12:19:16) :”
I am also familiar with data centers and power consumption. “Back in the day”, bandwidth was the limiting factor to growth and your biggest financial constraint. These days bandwidth is cheap, it is power that is the constraint. A data center might have plenty of available floor space but it is “out of power”. This is why Google, for example, wants to become a power company. It has nothing to do with “green” this or that. It has to do with them buying power wholesale or being power operators themselves in order to get the power they need for their data centers.
Data center operators are deploying some interesting concepts to reduce power requirements. For every watt brought into that data center in electricity, a watt must be removed from the building in heat. Often, air handling capacity is the constraint on how much power you can bring in. If your climate control can only remove 10MW of heat, you are only going to bring in 10MW of power. So they are doing interesting things these days such as when the temperature outside is cooler than the desired data center temperature, you shut down your air handler and flood the data center with outside air.
Places like Wyoming have more days that are below the data center temperature than above. The average high temperature in Cheyenne is above optimum data center temperatures for only 3 months out of 12 and average nighttime lows are low enough year-round to use outside air. If the center is designed well, this can be leveraged to greatly reduce the amount of power overhead required to cool the data center.
Reference:
http://www.rssweather.com/climate/Wyoming/Cheyenne/

Peter of Sydney
January 16, 2010 12:53 pm

There are lies, damned lies, statistics, climate science and politicians.

latitude
January 16, 2010 12:54 pm

““deep black” that they use for climate simulation and short term forecasts.”
and they can’t get either one right
So what’s the point?

Dave Trimble
January 16, 2010 1:02 pm

Are we to believe there is enough weather data to keep that monster busy for more than a couple of seconds per day?
(sarcasm on)
I sure hope they can find other uses for all that computng power to justify its existence. Hey, maybe they could use it to keep track of the comings and goings of all the deniers and instigating troublemakers. Yeah, I bet they haven’t thought of that. Who should I contact? Maybe they could put one in each state as sort of a stimulus thing.
(sarcasm off)
A side benefit would be sending the Met a daily forcast so they won’t be caught with their pants down again, regarding the weather, that is.
Dave

P Walker
January 16, 2010 1:11 pm

If I remember correctly , coal production in Wyoming has led to a major financial boom , and has brought jobs to the state which suffered an economic downturn after the expected oil shale boom went bust in the early eighties . No surprise to see that they rely on coal power .

Henry chance
January 16, 2010 1:11 pm

Coal powered electric is fine. It is theft to force people to pay extra twice for wind. Once by subsidizing the construction and the other when each Killowatt is subsidized. I stopped and waited for a coal train last night. Ummm cheap power. Boulder is also high for real estate prices and taxes. I often enjoy boulder but Wyoming is a superior choice.
My daughter is an architectural engineer. She has over a billion dollars construction crossing her desk. The cooling costs are the big deal. Her take on one data center they did lines up with this choice. This should be cost driven and not political driven.

January 16, 2010 1:12 pm

Hundreds of teraflops will be able to generate wrong answers much faster than we are presently capable of doing. It’s called progress, and I’m proud to be a part of (funding) it. Well, actually we’re funding it by borrowing money from the Chinese who are building coal fired plants like the dickens, but at least our grandchildren will be proud of funding it.
By the time they get it built, you should be able to plug three Nintendo’s into a USB 3.0 hub and get a teraflop.
.
Another Mike D (12:12:23) :
I’m sure that MARVIN’s results will be as cheerful as its namesake.

We’re doomed.

January 16, 2010 1:12 pm

The unholy alliance of politicians and scientists includes:
a.) Scientists using politicians to get research funds.
b.) Politicians using scientists to justify “pork” projects like the NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center (NWSC).
c.) The public paying taxes to get misinformation.
What a scam!
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo

Leon Brozyna
January 16, 2010 1:13 pm

This is so wrong on so many levels.
Being generous to NCAR — their super dooper computer will operate in the hundreds of teraFLOPS range, while the UK’s toy hopes to hit a more impressive target of a petaFLOPS. And NCAR’s unit will use four times the energy to operate (4-5 MW) than the UK’s more powerful unit (1.2 MW).
That’s a mighty impressive waste processing center NCAR’s aiming for in Wyoming.

AleaJactaEst
January 16, 2010 1:15 pm

I note with interest that the BBC news website has the ever so slightest hint of a “chilling” [:o)] to their usual warming diatribe in this little ditty regarding the Met Office and their annual predictions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8462890.stm
The spin is losing kinetic energy – only a matter of time before the coin lands on heads.

January 16, 2010 1:18 pm

Incidentally, love the ‘Death Train’ picture detail. Priceless.
Is that Jim in a cape?

Henry chance
January 16, 2010 1:20 pm

Another location could be West Virginia. They could use electric from Mountain top coal. Folks this rush to wind power is going to fizzle. It is laced with kickbacks, inneficiency and gubment welfare. If a company wants a power contract, they can defeat wind electric by forcing lowest bid rules.
Parts of California allow the consumer to choose the source of power and wind source is higher. Even most municipals refuse to go with wind. Money is tight.

Z
January 16, 2010 1:32 pm

greg2213 (12:21:40) :
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… 😉

But at least they will be glowing green.

DirkH
January 16, 2010 1:33 pm

The Met offices supercomputer is from IBM :
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/SOA_Off_the_Record/entry/did_you_know_governments_leveraging?lang=en
Didn’t find out what system will be used by NCAR but it will surely beat the Met – Petaflops targeted:
http://www.gcn.com/Articles/2008/11/12/NCAR-installs-major-storage-upgrade.aspx?Page=2
‘The 40-year-old Mesa Laboratory computing facility is rapidly becoming obsolete,’ NCAR said. ‘CISL continues to pursue the goal of building a new data center in Wyoming,’ the NCAR Supercomputing Center, ‘which will enable development of petascale systems that will soon be required by the atmospheric and related science communities.’
Anything else wouldn’t make sense. New systems in general beat older systems. Especially when they suck more power.

Jim Cole
January 16, 2010 1:37 pm

As a resident of the Peoples’ Republic of Boulder, I too read the initial announcement of the Wyoming winning proposal with a smile. Cheap power, power-friendly gummint, Dick Cheney – what could be more ironic? Oh, and the state has a persistent surplus!
Boulder has a Climate Action Plan tied to Kyoto measures and a Smart Grid – interactive meters that show real-time power consumption (Hey kids, let’s gather ’round and watch the Smart Grid meter!). If NCAR had won the supercomputer competition, imagine the fun of watching the meter whirl at an 8-megawatt clip!
As noted above by R Shearer, the eeeko-types are whining about our local coal-fired power plant that is franchised by the city. Shut it down! Put up solar panels! Put up windmills! (actually, put those icky things somewhere else!)
We just survived a very cold, snowy December that allowed darn little solar and even less wind-power generation. These folk don’t understand base-load.
Now, if we took all the runners, bikers, triathletes, and dogs in Boulder and put them on treadmills 24/7, and harnessed the hot air from a typical city council meeting, we just might be able to meet those Kyoto goals!

Sharon
January 16, 2010 1:37 pm

So Hansen actually compared coal power to the Holocaust?
Shameful.

Andrew Parker
January 16, 2010 1:42 pm

The NSA is locating their new supercomputing center in Utah for similar reasons.
Why have they not yet found a way to reclaim the unwanted heat to generate electricity or heat greenhouses or something else productive?

blownaway
January 16, 2010 1:42 pm

Pure arrogance. They think this will improve accuracy? Will just make their screwy assumptions more expensive.
And this is what they are going to spend your money on, after they create a carbon tax?
I think it’s time to BAN climate science. What a bunch of tools!

Hank Hancock
January 16, 2010 1:46 pm

AleaJactaEst (13:15:28)
The spin is losing kinetic energy – only a matter of time before the coin lands on heads.

Thanks for the link. I read the article and was astounded at absurdity of Professor Stephen Mobbs’ comments regarding the Met’s failed predictions:

“All models have biases and these are very small. It may be, as the Met Office suggests, that the observations are wrong, not the model.”

All that snow on the ground and biting cold weather is merely an observational error or perhaps mass hallucination? It is amazing to witness how these scientists have become so invested in their models that they are forced deny reality even when it bites them in the back side.

DirkH
January 16, 2010 1:46 pm

NCAR is also using their supercomputing power to simulate sunspots:
http://gcn.com/articles/2009/06/24/sunspot-model.aspx?sc_lang=en
For all those who think that this enormous new supercomputer will bide its time computing flawed climate models. This is typical; you use the money that flows into the scare scenario of the day to build a computing facility that you might also use for doing real research. Of course you advertise the project with the doomsday scenario de jour but it’s a universal computing system in the end.

Nick de Cusa
January 16, 2010 1:46 pm

Costly energy makes jobs fly away to places with reasonably priced energy. QED.

D Caldwell
January 16, 2010 1:48 pm

Lot’s of coal making lots of heat
Lot’s of chocolate for me to eat
Warm face, warm hands, warm feet
Oh, wouldn’t it be loverly!

Verified by MonsterInsights