Wind Turbine Payback in Boise County, ID
Wind turbine payback in Boise 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 Boise County, ID averages 2.86 m/s (6.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 2,205 kWh a year, worth $287 at ID's 13.02¢/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 Boise County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Boise County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.7 m/s at the hub against 2.86 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,337 kWh a year here against the turbine's 221, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 227¢/kWh, 17.4 times what ID pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.7 m/s instead of 2.86. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of ID
Boise County is the 3,118th 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 Boise County
March is the strongest month here, at 3.05 m/s and about 234 kWh. June is the weakest, 2.74 m/s and 156 kWh, so the best month makes 1.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 44% of the year's output in Boise County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 2.78 m/s | 170 kWh | $22 |
| February | 2.88 m/s | 174 kWh | $23 |
| March | 3.05 m/s | 234 kWh | $30 |
| April | 2.99 m/s | 212 kWh | $28 |
| May | 2.82 m/s | 177 kWh | $23 |
| June | 2.74 m/s | 156 kWh | $20 |
| July | 2.85 m/s | 185 kWh | $24 |
| August | 2.83 m/s | 181 kWh | $24 |
| September | 2.75 m/s | 158 kWh | $21 |
| October | 2.82 m/s | 177 kWh | $23 |
| November | 2.87 m/s | 183 kWh | $24 |
| December | 2.91 m/s | 199 kWh | $26 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Boise County averages 1.98 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.39 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.334, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 1,343 to 3,905 kWh a year, 191% 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 | 2.5 m/s | 1,343 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 2.86 m/s | 2,201 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.15 m/s | 3,055 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 3.39 m/s | 3,905 kWh | over 100 years |
Counties around Boise County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Canyon County, averages 4.3 m/s.
- Gem County, ID: 3.76 m/s, 5,432 kWh, payback over 100 years (34 mi)
- Elmore County, ID: 3.85 m/s, 5,847 kWh, payback over 100 years (43 mi)
- Ada County, ID: 4.17 m/s, 7,461 kWh, payback over 100 years (45 mi)
- Payette County, ID: 3.86 m/s, 5,894 kWh, payback over 100 years (51 mi)
- Canyon County, ID: 4.3 m/s, 8,176 kWh, payback 94 years (55 mi)
- Camas County, ID: 4.1 m/s, 7,090 kWh, payback over 100 years (58 mi)
Sun versus wind in Boise County
Boise County gets 4.58 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,337 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 221. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 6.0 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.