Wind Turbine Payback in Alpine County, CA
Wind turbine payback in Alpine 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 Alpine County, CA averages 3.53 m/s (7.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,449 kWh a year, worth $1,449 at CA's 32.58¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 69 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Alpine County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Alpine County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.4 m/s at the hub against 3.53 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,539 kWh a year here against the turbine's 445, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 112¢/kWh, 3.4 times what CA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.4 m/s instead of 3.53. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CA
Alpine County is the 2,484th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in CA is San Francisco County at 6.53 m/s, payback 13 years.
Month by month in Alpine County
December is the strongest month here, at 3.94 m/s and about 535 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.02 m/s and 227 kWh, so the best month makes 2.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 53% of the year's output in Alpine County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.83 m/s | 490 kWh | $160 |
| February | 3.92 m/s | 474 kWh | $154 |
| March | 3.90 m/s | 517 kWh | $168 |
| April | 3.68 m/s | 416 kWh | $136 |
| May | 3.40 m/s | 336 kWh | $109 |
| June | 3.33 m/s | 304 kWh | $99 |
| July | 3.02 m/s | 227 kWh | $74 |
| August | 3.06 m/s | 236 kWh | $77 |
| September | 3.32 m/s | 299 kWh | $97 |
| October | 3.40 m/s | 336 kWh | $109 |
| November | 3.64 m/s | 404 kWh | $132 |
| December | 3.94 m/s | 535 kWh | $174 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Alpine County averages 2.55 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.11 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.297, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,004 to 7,143 kWh a year, 138% 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 | 3.13 m/s | 3,004 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.53 m/s | 4,454 kWh | 69 years |
| 40 m | 3.85 m/s | 5,830 kWh | 53 years |
| 50 m | 4.11 m/s | 7,143 kWh | 43 years |
Counties around Alpine County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Carson City, averages 3.75 m/s.
- Douglas County, NV: 3.6 m/s, 4,736 kWh, payback over 100 years (22 mi)
- Carson City, NV: 3.75 m/s, 5,387 kWh, payback over 100 years (37 mi)
- El Dorado County, CA: 3.43 m/s, 4,056 kWh, payback 76 years (41 mi)
- Tuolumne County, CA: 3.32 m/s, 3,648 kWh, payback 84 years (42 mi)
- Lyon County, NV: 3.6 m/s, 4,736 kWh, payback over 100 years (43 mi)
- Amador County, CA: 3.59 m/s, 4,694 kWh, payback 65 years (48 mi)
Sun versus wind in Alpine County
Alpine County gets 5.27 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,539 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 445. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 3.5 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.