Wind Turbine Payback in Clatsop County, OR
Wind turbine payback in Clatsop 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 Clatsop County, OR averages 3.95 m/s (8.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,329 kWh a year, worth $978 at OR's 15.46¢/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 Clatsop County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Clatsop County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 3.95 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,013 kWh a year here against the turbine's 633, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 79¢/kWh, 5.1 times what OR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 3.95. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OR
Clatsop County is the 2,089th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in OR is Gilliam County at 5.48 m/s, payback 41 years.
Month by month in Clatsop County
January is the strongest month here, at 4.90 m/s and about 1,007 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.10 m/s and 248 kWh, so the best month makes 4.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 62% of the year's output in Clatsop County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.90 m/s | 1,007 kWh | $156 |
| February | 4.32 m/s | 637 kWh | $98 |
| March | 4.26 m/s | 676 kWh | $105 |
| April | 3.84 m/s | 478 kWh | $74 |
| May | 3.40 m/s | 335 kWh | $52 |
| June | 3.35 m/s | 308 kWh | $48 |
| July | 3.22 m/s | 282 kWh | $44 |
| August | 3.10 m/s | 248 kWh | $38 |
| September | 3.38 m/s | 318 kWh | $49 |
| October | 4.00 m/s | 559 kWh | $86 |
| November | 4.73 m/s | 886 kWh | $137 |
| December | 4.90 m/s | 1,007 kWh | $156 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Clatsop County averages 2.94 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.53 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.269, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,491 to 9,519 kWh a year, 112% 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 | 3.54 m/s | 4,491 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.95 m/s | 6,321 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.27 m/s | 7,987 kWh | 81 years |
| 50 m | 4.53 m/s | 9,519 kWh | 68 years |
Counties around Clatsop County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Tillamook County, averages 4.01 m/s.
- Wahkiakum County, WA: 2.89 m/s, 2,287 kWh, payback over 100 years (23 mi)
- Columbia County, OR: 3 m/s, 2,601 kWh, payback over 100 years (30 mi)
- Pacific County, WA: 3.57 m/s, 4,612 kWh, payback over 100 years (37 mi)
- Tillamook County, OR: 4.01 m/s, 6,628 kWh, payback 98 years (39 mi)
- Washington County, OR: 3.29 m/s, 3,541 kWh, payback over 100 years (44 mi)
- Cowlitz County, WA: 2.96 m/s, 2,484 kWh, payback over 100 years (51 mi)
Sun versus wind in Clatsop County
Clatsop County gets 3.47 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,013 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 633. 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.