Wind Turbine Payback in Alamosa County, CO
Wind turbine payback in Alamosa County
No. The turbine wears out before it pays for itself.
At 30 m, the height a home turbine tower usually reaches, the wind in Alamosa County, CO averages 4.5 m/s (10.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 9,339 kWh a year, worth $1,569 at CO's 16.8¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 64 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Alamosa County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Alamosa County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 4.5 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,542 kWh a year here against the turbine's 934, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 54¢/kWh, 3.2 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 4.5. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
Alamosa County is the 1,743rd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in CO is Baca County at 6.65 m/s, payback 24 years.
Month by month in Alamosa County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.50 m/s and about 1,316 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.27 m/s and 294 kWh, so the best month makes 4.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Alamosa County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.68 m/s | 888 kWh | $149 |
| February | 5.17 m/s | 1,050 kWh | $176 |
| March | 5.22 m/s | 1,194 kWh | $201 |
| April | 5.50 m/s | 1,316 kWh | $221 |
| May | 4.75 m/s | 926 kWh | $156 |
| June | 4.40 m/s | 718 kWh | $121 |
| July | 3.27 m/s | 294 kWh | $49 |
| August | 3.28 m/s | 299 kWh | $50 |
| September | 3.93 m/s | 512 kWh | $86 |
| October | 4.48 m/s | 782 kWh | $131 |
| November | 4.66 m/s | 846 kWh | $142 |
| December | 4.73 m/s | 912 kWh | $153 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Alamosa County averages 3.46 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.08 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.239, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 6,991 to 13,078 kWh a year, 87% more, before counting the extra cost of the taller tower. Why tower height decides it explains the shear behind these numbers.
| Hub height | Average wind | Output | Payback |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 m | 4.08 m/s | 6,991 kWh | 85 years |
| 30 m | 4.5 m/s | 9,316 kWh | 64 years |
| 40 m | 4.82 m/s | 11,317 kWh | 53 years |
| 50 m | 5.08 m/s | 13,078 kWh | 46 years |
Counties around Alamosa County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Huerfano County, averages 5.51 m/s.
- Costilla County, CO: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 64 years (28 mi)
- Conejos County, CO: 4.38 m/s, 8,632 kWh, payback 69 years (33 mi)
- Rio Grande County, CO: 4.91 m/s, 11,933 kWh, payback 50 years (37 mi)
- Saguache County, CO: 5.18 m/s, 13,768 kWh, payback 43 years (40 mi)
- Custer County, CO: 4.56 m/s, 9,702 kWh, payback 61 years (43 mi)
- Huerfano County, CO: 5.51 m/s, 16,109 kWh, payback 37 years (46 mi)
Sun versus wind in Alamosa County
Alamosa County gets 5.28 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,542 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 934. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.7 times as much here as the turbine. Panel output assumes an 80% system performance ratio. Wind or solar runs the same comparison for every county.
How this is worked out
Wind is NASA's Power climate record, the 2001-2025 average at 10 m and 50 m for the county's centre, carried to 30 m with this county's own measured wind shear and spread into hours with a Rayleigh distribution. The turbine is a generic 10 kW, 7 m rotor machine with 10% losses. Cost is $10,000 per kW installed with no tax credit, because the federal one ended in 2025. One county-centre number cannot see your hilltop or your tree line, so treat it as the starting point for a site survey, not a substitute. The full method and its weak spots are in how the numbers are made.