Wind Turbine Payback in Baca County, CO
Wind turbine payback in Baca 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 Baca County, CO averages 6.65 m/s (14.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 24,509 kWh a year, worth $4,117 at CO's 16.8¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 24 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Baca County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Baca County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 6.65 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,510 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,451, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 20¢/kWh, 1.2 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 6.65. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
Baca County is the 92nd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. It is the windiest county in CO.
Month by month in Baca County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.41 m/s and about 2,460 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.88 m/s and 1,597 kWh, so the best month makes 1.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Baca County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.53 m/s | 2,009 kWh | $338 |
| February | 6.69 m/s | 1,905 kWh | $320 |
| March | 7.00 m/s | 2,296 kWh | $386 |
| April | 7.41 m/s | 2,460 kWh | $413 |
| May | 6.74 m/s | 2,137 kWh | $359 |
| June | 6.76 m/s | 2,079 kWh | $349 |
| July | 6.00 m/s | 1,676 kWh | $282 |
| August | 5.88 m/s | 1,597 kWh | $268 |
| September | 6.60 m/s | 1,982 kWh | $333 |
| October | 6.60 m/s | 2,048 kWh | $344 |
| November | 6.88 m/s | 2,153 kWh | $362 |
| December | 6.71 m/s | 2,120 kWh | $356 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Baca County averages 5.27 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.41 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.212, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 20,459 to 29,920 kWh a year, 46% 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 | 6.1 m/s | 20,459 kWh | 29 years |
| 30 m | 6.65 m/s | 24,505 kWh | 24 years |
| 40 m | 7.07 m/s | 27,525 kWh | 22 years |
| 50 m | 7.41 m/s | 29,920 kWh | 20 years |
Counties around Baca County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Cimarron County, averages 6.82 m/s.
- Cimarron County, OK: 6.82 m/s, 25,747 kWh, payback 28 years (39 mi)
- Morton County, KS: 6.6 m/s, 24,142 kWh, payback 27 years (41 mi)
- Stanton County, KS: 6.44 m/s, 22,964 kWh, payback 29 years (45 mi)
- Prowers County, CO: 6.15 m/s, 20,816 kWh, payback 29 years (46 mi)
- Bent County, CO: 5.75 m/s, 17,859 kWh, payback 33 years (52 mi)
- Hamilton County, KS: 6.26 m/s, 21,632 kWh, payback 30 years (63 mi)
Sun versus wind in Baca County
Baca County gets 5.17 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,510 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,451. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.6 times. 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.