Wind Turbine Payback in Beaver County, UT
Wind turbine payback in Beaver 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 Beaver County, UT averages 4.7 m/s (10.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,571 kWh a year, worth $1,394 at UT's 13.19¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 72 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Beaver County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Beaver County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.7 m/s at the hub against 4.7 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,504 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,057, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 47¢/kWh, 3.6 times what UT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.7 m/s instead of 4.7. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of UT
Beaver County is the 1,610th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in UT is Daggett County at 5.32 m/s, payback 51 years.
Month by month in Beaver County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.55 m/s and about 1,350 kWh. January is the weakest, 4.21 m/s and 653 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 39% of the year's output in Beaver County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.21 m/s | 653 kWh | $86 |
| February | 4.68 m/s | 802 kWh | $106 |
| March | 5.18 m/s | 1,172 kWh | $155 |
| April | 5.55 m/s | 1,350 kWh | $178 |
| May | 4.98 m/s | 1,052 kWh | $139 |
| June | 5.27 m/s | 1,186 kWh | $156 |
| July | 4.32 m/s | 704 kWh | $93 |
| August | 4.47 m/s | 780 kWh | $103 |
| September | 4.49 m/s | 763 kWh | $101 |
| October | 4.40 m/s | 744 kWh | $98 |
| November | 4.47 m/s | 755 kWh | $100 |
| December | 4.42 m/s | 753 kWh | $99 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Beaver County averages 3.75 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.22 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.206, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 8,301 to 14,046 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 | 4.32 m/s | 8,301 kWh | 91 years |
| 30 m | 4.7 m/s | 10,563 kWh | 72 years |
| 40 m | 4.99 m/s | 12,437 kWh | 61 years |
| 50 m | 5.22 m/s | 14,046 kWh | 54 years |
Counties around Beaver County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Iron County, averages 5.21 m/s.
- Iron County, UT: 5.21 m/s, 13,976 kWh, payback 54 years (31 mi)
- Millard County, UT: 4.53 m/s, 9,519 kWh, payback 80 years (42 mi)
- Piute County, UT: 4.02 m/s, 6,678 kWh, payback over 100 years (60 mi)
- Washington County, UT: 5.14 m/s, 13,490 kWh, payback 56 years (77 mi)
- Sevier County, UT: 4.02 m/s, 6,678 kWh, payback over 100 years (82 mi)
- Juab County, UT: 4.18 m/s, 7,515 kWh, payback over 100 years (97 mi)
Sun versus wind in Beaver County
Beaver County gets 5.15 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,504 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,057. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.4 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.