Wind Turbine Payback in Cochise County, AZ
Wind turbine payback in Cochise 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 Cochise County, AZ averages 4.69 m/s (10.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,508 kWh a year, worth $1,614 at AZ's 15.36¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 62 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Cochise County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Cochise County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 4.69 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,705 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,051, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 48¢/kWh, 3.1 times what AZ pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 4.69. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AZ
Cochise County is the 1,626th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in AZ is Apache County at 5.25 m/s, payback 46 years.
Month by month in Cochise County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.43 m/s and about 1,278 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.56 m/s and 388 kWh, so the best month makes 3.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Cochise County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.79 m/s | 946 kWh | $145 |
| February | 4.98 m/s | 950 kWh | $146 |
| March | 5.08 m/s | 1,113 kWh | $171 |
| April | 5.43 m/s | 1,278 kWh | $196 |
| May | 5.16 m/s | 1,160 kWh | $178 |
| June | 4.84 m/s | 944 kWh | $145 |
| July | 3.98 m/s | 549 kWh | $84 |
| August | 3.56 m/s | 388 kWh | $60 |
| September | 4.21 m/s | 631 kWh | $97 |
| October | 4.54 m/s | 813 kWh | $125 |
| November | 4.93 m/s | 993 kWh | $153 |
| December | 4.83 m/s | 966 kWh | $148 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Cochise County averages 3.67 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.26 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.224, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 8,086 to 14,327 kWh a year, 77% 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 | 4.28 m/s | 8,086 kWh | 81 years |
| 30 m | 4.69 m/s | 10,516 kWh | 62 years |
| 40 m | 5 m/s | 12,558 kWh | 52 years |
| 50 m | 5.26 m/s | 14,327 kWh | 45 years |
Counties around Cochise County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Grant County, averages 5.52 m/s.
- Hidalgo County, NM: 5.18 m/s, 13,768 kWh, payback 47 years (60 mi)
- Santa Cruz County, AZ: 4.65 m/s, 10,257 kWh, payback 64 years (67 mi)
- Graham County, AZ: 4.09 m/s, 7,038 kWh, payback 93 years (76 mi)
- Greenlee County, AZ: 4.17 m/s, 7,461 kWh, payback 87 years (102 mi)
- Grant County, NM: 5.52 m/s, 16,181 kWh, payback 40 years (102 mi)
- Pinal County, AZ: 4.22 m/s, 7,732 kWh, payback 84 years (119 mi)
Sun versus wind in Cochise County
Cochise County gets 5.84 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,705 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,051. 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.