Wind Turbine Payback in Blaine County, MT
Wind turbine payback in Blaine 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 Blaine County, MT averages 6.31 m/s (14.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,003 kWh a year, worth $3,109 at MT's 14.13¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 32 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Blaine County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Blaine County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 6.31 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,162 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,200, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.6 times what MT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 6.31. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MT
Blaine County is the 460th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MT is Fallon County at 6.64 m/s, payback 29 years.
Month by month in Blaine County
January is the strongest month here, at 7.18 m/s and about 2,405 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.33 m/s and 1,258 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 49% of the year's output in Blaine County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.18 m/s | 2,405 kWh | $340 |
| February | 6.33 m/s | 1,700 kWh | $240 |
| March | 6.62 m/s | 2,061 kWh | $291 |
| April | 6.40 m/s | 1,865 kWh | $264 |
| May | 6.15 m/s | 1,769 kWh | $250 |
| June | 5.86 m/s | 1,532 kWh | $216 |
| July | 5.45 m/s | 1,334 kWh | $188 |
| August | 5.33 m/s | 1,258 kWh | $178 |
| September | 5.77 m/s | 1,478 kWh | $209 |
| October | 6.66 m/s | 2,089 kWh | $295 |
| November | 7.11 m/s | 2,286 kWh | $323 |
| December | 6.90 m/s | 2,238 kWh | $316 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Blaine County averages 4.96 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.06 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.219, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 18,052 to 27,471 kWh a year, 52% 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 | 5.78 m/s | 18,052 kWh | 39 years |
| 30 m | 6.31 m/s | 22,023 kWh | 32 years |
| 40 m | 6.72 m/s | 25,044 kWh | 28 years |
| 50 m | 7.06 m/s | 27,471 kWh | 26 years |
Counties around Blaine County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Blaine County.
- Phillips County, MT: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 34 years (49 mi)
- Hill County, MT: 6.21 m/s, 21,262 kWh, payback 33 years (54 mi)
- Chouteau County, MT: 6.09 m/s, 20,371 kWh, payback 35 years (77 mi)
- Fergus County, MT: 6.18 m/s, 21,039 kWh, payback 34 years (84 mi)
- Liberty County, MT: 6.21 m/s, 21,262 kWh, payback 33 years (95 mi)
- Petroleum County, MT: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 38 years (95 mi)
Sun versus wind in Blaine County
Blaine County gets 3.98 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,162 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,200. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.9 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.