Wind Turbine Payback in Coconino County, AZ
Wind turbine payback in Coconino 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 Coconino County, AZ averages 4.27 m/s (9.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,008 kWh a year, worth $1,230 at AZ's 15.36¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 81 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Coconino County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Coconino County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 4.27 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,624 kWh a year here against the turbine's 801, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 62¢/kWh, 4.1 times what AZ pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 4.27. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AZ
Coconino County is the 1,909th 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 Coconino County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.44 m/s and about 1,283 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.45 m/s and 351 kWh, so the best month makes 3.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 38% of the year's output in Coconino County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.86 m/s | 499 kWh | $77 |
| February | 4.34 m/s | 647 kWh | $99 |
| March | 4.70 m/s | 897 kWh | $138 |
| April | 5.44 m/s | 1,283 kWh | $197 |
| May | 4.98 m/s | 1,052 kWh | $162 |
| June | 4.98 m/s | 1,018 kWh | $156 |
| July | 3.65 m/s | 419 kWh | $64 |
| August | 3.45 m/s | 351 kWh | $54 |
| September | 3.84 m/s | 476 kWh | $73 |
| October | 4.10 m/s | 602 kWh | $92 |
| November | 4.06 m/s | 564 kWh | $87 |
| December | 3.89 m/s | 514 kWh | $79 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Coconino County averages 3.45 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.72 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.195, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 6,317 to 10,698 kWh a year, 69% 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 | 3.95 m/s | 6,317 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.27 m/s | 8,022 kWh | 81 years |
| 40 m | 4.52 m/s | 9,453 kWh | 69 years |
| 50 m | 4.72 m/s | 10,698 kWh | 61 years |
Counties around Coconino County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Apache County, averages 5.25 m/s.
- Navajo County, AZ: 4.66 m/s, 10,320 kWh, payback 63 years (87 mi)
- Yavapai County, AZ: 4.44 m/s, 8,982 kWh, payback 73 years (94 mi)
- Kane County, UT: 4.9 m/s, 11,866 kWh, payback 64 years (100 mi)
- Mohave County, AZ: 4.69 m/s, 10,508 kWh, payback 62 years (111 mi)
- Apache County, AZ: 5.25 m/s, 14,256 kWh, payback 46 years (132 mi)
- Washington County, UT: 5.14 m/s, 13,490 kWh, payback 56 years (137 mi)
Sun versus wind in Coconino County
Coconino County gets 5.56 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,624 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 801. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.0 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.