Wind Turbine Payback in Bannock County, ID
Wind turbine payback in Bannock 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 Bannock County, ID averages 4.31 m/s (9.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,233 kWh a year, worth $1,072 at ID's 13.02¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 93 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Bannock County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Bannock County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.7 m/s at the hub against 4.31 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,326 kWh a year here against the turbine's 823, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 61¢/kWh, 4.7 times what ID pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.7 m/s instead of 4.31. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of ID
Bannock County is the 1,893rd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in ID is Owyhee County at 5.38 m/s, payback 51 years.
Month by month in Bannock County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.88 m/s and about 995 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.73 m/s and 449 kWh, so the best month makes 2.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 49% of the year's output in Bannock County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.42 m/s | 750 kWh | $98 |
| February | 4.59 m/s | 757 kWh | $99 |
| March | 4.88 m/s | 995 kWh | $130 |
| April | 4.72 m/s | 881 kWh | $115 |
| May | 4.23 m/s | 659 kWh | $86 |
| June | 4.23 m/s | 638 kWh | $83 |
| July | 3.73 m/s | 449 kWh | $58 |
| August | 3.77 m/s | 466 kWh | $61 |
| September | 3.94 m/s | 514 kWh | $67 |
| October | 4.23 m/s | 663 kWh | $86 |
| November | 4.46 m/s | 748 kWh | $97 |
| December | 4.51 m/s | 796 kWh | $104 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Bannock County averages 3.47 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.76 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.196, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 6,465 to 10,954 kWh a year, 69% 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 | 3.98 m/s | 6,465 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.31 m/s | 8,213 kWh | 94 years |
| 40 m | 4.56 m/s | 9,679 kWh | 79 years |
| 50 m | 4.76 m/s | 10,954 kWh | 70 years |
Counties around Bannock County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Bingham County, averages 4.82 m/s.
- Power County, ID: 4.79 m/s, 11,147 kWh, payback 69 years (31 mi)
- Caribou County, ID: 3.51 m/s, 4,368 kWh, payback over 100 years (35 mi)
- Bingham County, ID: 4.82 m/s, 11,341 kWh, payback 68 years (37 mi)
- Oneida County, ID: 3.88 m/s, 5,989 kWh, payback over 100 years (38 mi)
- Franklin County, ID: 3.67 m/s, 5,034 kWh, payback over 100 years (41 mi)
- Bear Lake County, ID: 3.5 m/s, 4,329 kWh, payback over 100 years (54 mi)
Sun versus wind in Bannock County
Bannock County gets 4.54 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,326 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 823. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.6 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.