Wind Turbine Payback in Archuleta County, CO
Wind turbine payback in Archuleta 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 Archuleta County, CO averages 3.87 m/s (8.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 5,942 kWh a year, worth $998 at CO's 16.8¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of over 100 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Archuleta County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Archuleta County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 3.87 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,472 kWh a year here against the turbine's 594, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 84¢/kWh, 5.0 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 3.87. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
Archuleta County is the 2,157th 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 Archuleta County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.94 m/s and about 999 kWh. January is the weakest, 3.23 m/s and 283 kWh, so the best month makes 3.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 33% of the year's output in Archuleta County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.23 m/s | 283 kWh | $48 |
| February | 3.89 m/s | 462 kWh | $78 |
| March | 4.32 m/s | 704 kWh | $118 |
| April | 4.94 m/s | 999 kWh | $168 |
| May | 4.62 m/s | 854 kWh | $143 |
| June | 4.49 m/s | 764 kWh | $128 |
| July | 3.31 m/s | 307 kWh | $52 |
| August | 3.33 m/s | 312 kWh | $52 |
| September | 3.76 m/s | 447 kWh | $75 |
| October | 3.82 m/s | 486 kWh | $82 |
| November | 3.49 m/s | 353 kWh | $59 |
| December | 3.26 m/s | 291 kWh | $49 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Archuleta County averages 3.1 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.29 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.202, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,591 to 8,120 kWh a year, 77% 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 | 3.57 m/s | 4,591 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.87 m/s | 5,939 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.1 m/s | 7,095 kWh | 84 years |
| 50 m | 4.29 m/s | 8,120 kWh | 73 years |
Counties around Archuleta County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Rio Grande County, averages 4.91 m/s.
- Mineral County, CO: 4.07 m/s, 6,934 kWh, payback 86 years (24 mi)
- Rio Grande County, CO: 4.91 m/s, 11,933 kWh, payback 50 years (38 mi)
- La Plata County, CO: 4.22 m/s, 7,732 kWh, payback 77 years (44 mi)
- Hinsdale County, CO: 3.36 m/s, 3,794 kWh, payback over 100 years (46 mi)
- Conejos County, CO: 4.38 m/s, 8,632 kWh, payback 69 years (48 mi)
- Rio Arriba County, NM: 4.04 m/s, 6,780 kWh, payback 96 years (52 mi)
Sun versus wind in Archuleta County
Archuleta County gets 5.04 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,472 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 594. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.5 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.