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.



I still don’t understand, why is all this money being spent on research and new supercomputers? Seems an awful lot of trouble and wasted resources to expend for an area of science which is “settled”. Since it’s all been worked out and there is no questioning AGW “science” the logical thing to do would be re-purpose all these research locations, computing power and scientists to other areas of research. The “science” is done and the remediation plan was put in place in Copenhagen it looks like this whole thing has been wrapped up and we needn’t expend anymore time and effort on it.
Let’s see: 8Mw x 8000 hrs per year = 64 million kwh
2 kwh/kg = 32 million kg/year (coal)
100 tonnes (long) per car = 320 cars per year
We use that much in Colorado Springs every few weeks
A bargain. And it might keep Cheyenne a bit warmer.
I don’t think we have Minutemen any more. Not that
work. SALT and such. Certainly not near the city.
And when it is all done, a handful of people will be sitting around with their home pcs and have to re-examine all of the data and re-analyze the results.
PaulH (15:44:20) :
You should come here once in a while.
I’m an electronic engineer, in so far as I design electronic doo-hickeys, not that I am, myself, electronic. I salivate at the thought of an eight mega-watt computer 🙂
Ya gotta love this business plan: Keep dropping the stations and keep adding the Petaflops. Soon, they will be able to achieve division by zero.
Hypocrites!
There are two other issues that probably are very significant players in this decision.
Boulder is a very expensive place to build, and it is a nightmare to get new construction permitted in Boulder due to their long standing “controlled growth” agenda. For example they intentionally make parking difficult to encourage folks not to use cars in downtown Boulder. During peak shopping hours, it is a royal pain to find parking anywhere near the core downtown Boulder area. You end up driving in circles for 10-15 minutes to find a close in parking spot or park in the neighborhoods and hoof it 1/2 a mile to do any business in the core city area.
It is so bad even though I am a very short drive from Boulder, I never go shopping in down town Boulder unless there is no alternative. I have probably go there once every 5 years for 20-30 years.
I only go there when that is the only place I can buy stuff, or I must meet someone there, and with internet shopping that is becoming very rare.
The Colorado power grid is also barely able to handle peak electrical loads during peak summer temps as it is, since we have not built any new large power plants for many years. The influx of folks from out of state that insist on residential AC has built up a peak cooling energy load that the local grid was not designed to carry.
Until the mid 1980’s residential AC was very rare here.
Due to our high altitude and dry air, you really only need residential AC about 2 days a year if you are smart enough to open the windows at night and close them in the day time, and have a window fan.
Even though I have AC in the apartment complex I live in, I almost never use it,I usually turn the air handling system off completely from mid June to mid Sept, as it is simply not needed.
During heat waves over the last couple decades, they have to ask people to delay peak power loads and cut back power to commercial customers that use lots of power and agree to minimize power demands during peak load to get reduced power rates. Otherwise they risk brown outs and blown transformers.
Larry
Maybe the BBC wants to trade in the MET
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6991064.ece
Now how could we trade in NCAR and their 8 Mega watts for Piers Corbin and his brain.
Thanks to this excellent article the coal industry now knows who they have to boycott for maximum effect.
How is the energy for the Whitehouse and the Hill generated?
OT, but it appears these people are missing the biggest issue facing the world today.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/poverty-is-worlds-biggest-problem-poll-20100117-mdvt.html
RE Hansen’s “Death trains” this is what a real one looks like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_train
Not some coal train in Wyoming,or Appalachia, being ran by hard working,people
with coal that was mined by hard working people-to keep the what’s left of the economy going and the lights on.
BTW my late father in law was in the Liberation of Dachau.If he were alive,I’m sure he’d love to give Mr. Hansen a little “tour” of Dachau, with a good pair of Army boots-just to move it along….
JCAkin (17:18:06) :
You have a point. We should all write our respective elected officials and demand that they stop funding research into settled areas. 🙂
Mike Ramsey
Will it set a new record for fastest GIGO?
Crosspatch:
“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.”
Let me guess, just beside the outside datacenter air outlet will be where they site the thermometer…
Now that this site is pushing 40 MegaWattsUpWithThat, let’s not get too carried away with the much smaller, government funded efforts!
My interpretation of a Flop is a failed attempt. I’m still waiting for WUWT to hit one Flop. Any more than one flop, to me, is not something to be proud of!
The word we are looking for I think is, Hypocrite… These mob are the epitome of Hypocrite.
To Boulder go,
where no Mann,
has gone before.
rbateman (17:41:59) :
Ya gotta love this business plan: Keep dropping the stations and keep adding the Petaflops. Soon, they will be able to achieve division by zero.
—–
Reply: But sir, you don’t need petaflops to solve that equation, or fewer weather stations, either. Division by zero, just like their climate models, is indeterminate.
Classic example of do as I say not as I do. It’s not their carbon foot print that is destroying the world, it’s ours.
Somewhat O.T. but I do not know a better way of passing this on.
Following on from the extreme cold conditions in the northern hemisphere I found this comment regarding New Zealand interesting http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2010/01/17/1247ec574543 . Considering that N.Z. is in the middle of summer it should be warm, not up to 10C colder than normal, somewhat in line with N.H. temperatures. Global Warming, what global warming.
p.s. N.Z. time is currently 13 hours ahead of GMT.
The computer takes 8 megawatts??!!!
Let’s put that in perspective,
“I‟m holding a Denver Post article that tells the story of an 8.2 MW solar-power plant built on 82 acres in Colorado. The Post proudly hails it “America‟s most productive utility-scale solar electricity plant”. But when you account for the fact that the sun doesn‟t always shine….”
From : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/14/now-thats-a-commencement-speech/
Folks, that’s 82+ acres of solar power to run this computer!!!!
Computer models are like surveys. You can design them to have any outcome that you want.
My first job as a mining engineer was modeling coal deposits in the Powder River Basin for Morrison Knudsen back in ’80. We were using a VAX 11/780 which was rated at 1 MIPS and it was shared by 32 users on terminals. Ah, those were the days. Of course, it took all night to generate your models and they were pretty imprecise–simply a top surface and a bottom surface of the coal seam and the thickness was calculated by subtracting the two.
If anything, all that “Deep Black” computer power should be put to better use–for example, optimizing utilization of our coal resources. Why, the name is absolutely appropriate, don’t you think? Along with that, the government should immediately fund research into super clean coal production and power generation. That way, when they try to phase out coal production because it isn’t clean enough, the coal industry can show them that the problem is solved. The government will find they’re been hoisted with their own petard. How deliciously appropriate!
I’m reminded of the environmentalists back in the late ’70’s and early ’80s that thought they could shut coal operations down because of the environmental destruction. Then some enterprising engineers pointed out that the first pit dug left a long and narrow refuse pile that, when shaped and covered with dirt and planted with a variety of greenery, made excellent habitat for deer, elk, and all manner of wildlife. Mining moves to the next pit adjacent to the first, filling in the first, and this process is continued until mining ceases. The last pit is a long, low trench that, when appropriately lined with clay, generally fills with water and, you guessed it, becomes excellent habitat for fish, ducks, geese, thirsty elk and deer. The intervening area between the first and last pits is leveled and covered with topsoil and now readily supports vegetation of all kinds, particularly trees and brush that can now grow there because of the broken subsurface material. This area also provides habitat for even more animals.
This novel way of adapting the “ruins of mining” to spectacular improvement in habitat was something the environmentalists had difficulty accepting. They screamed loud and long that this was simply unfair. But after a while coal mining was viewed in a completely different light–boaters, hunters and fishermen benefitted along with all that wildlife.
Galen Haugh (18:28:08) :
I was going to go for getting to zero by dividing by 2 starting with 1.
Or pose the question of how many Petaflops does it take to screw in a light bulb.