Wind Turbine Payback in Camas County, ID
Wind turbine payback in Camas 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 Camas County, ID averages 4.1 m/s (9.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 7,090 kWh a year, worth $923 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 Camas County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Camas County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.7 m/s at the hub against 4.1 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,340 kWh a year here against the turbine's 709, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 71¢/kWh, 5.4 times what ID pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.7 m/s instead of 4.1. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of ID
Camas County is the 1,994th 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 Camas County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.39 m/s and about 737 kWh. September is the weakest, 3.89 m/s and 496 kWh, so the best month makes 1.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 41% of the year's output in Camas County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.89 m/s | 513 kWh | $67 |
| February | 4.13 m/s | 556 kWh | $72 |
| March | 4.39 m/s | 737 kWh | $96 |
| April | 4.41 m/s | 722 kWh | $94 |
| May | 4.20 m/s | 648 kWh | $84 |
| June | 4.21 m/s | 631 kWh | $82 |
| July | 4.05 m/s | 580 kWh | $76 |
| August | 3.98 m/s | 550 kWh | $72 |
| September | 3.89 m/s | 496 kWh | $65 |
| October | 4.10 m/s | 604 kWh | $79 |
| November | 4.07 m/s | 569 kWh | $74 |
| December | 3.96 m/s | 542 kWh | $71 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Camas County averages 3.18 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.62 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.232, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,321 to 10,070 kWh a year, 89% 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 | 3.74 m/s | 5,321 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.1 m/s | 7,109 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.39 m/s | 8,672 kWh | 89 years |
| 50 m | 4.62 m/s | 10,070 kWh | 76 years |
Counties around Camas County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Gooding County, averages 4.99 m/s.
- Elmore County, ID: 3.85 m/s, 5,847 kWh, payback over 100 years (36 mi)
- Gooding County, ID: 4.99 m/s, 12,467 kWh, payback 62 years (37 mi)
- Blaine County, ID: 4.2 m/s, 7,623 kWh, payback over 100 years (42 mi)
- Lincoln County, ID: 4.97 m/s, 12,333 kWh, payback 62 years (47 mi)
- Boise County, ID: 2.86 m/s, 2,205 kWh, payback over 100 years (58 mi)
- Custer County, ID: 3.3 m/s, 3,577 kWh, payback over 100 years (59 mi)
Sun versus wind in Camas County
Camas County gets 4.59 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,340 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 709. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.9 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.