Wind Turbine Payback in Colfax County, NM
Wind turbine payback in Colfax 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 Colfax County, NM averages 5.94 m/s (13.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,260 kWh a year, worth $2,954 at NM's 15.34¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 34 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Colfax County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Colfax County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 5.94 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,548 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,926, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 26¢/kWh, 1.7 times what NM pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 5.94. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NM
Colfax County is the 934th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NM is Union County at 6.75 m/s, payback 26 years.
Month by month in Colfax County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.82 m/s and about 2,117 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.73 m/s and 915 kWh, so the best month makes 2.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Colfax County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.26 m/s | 1,840 kWh | $282 |
| February | 6.54 m/s | 1,817 kWh | $279 |
| March | 6.61 m/s | 2,056 kWh | $315 |
| April | 6.82 m/s | 2,117 kWh | $325 |
| May | 6.12 m/s | 1,750 kWh | $268 |
| June | 5.74 m/s | 1,462 kWh | $224 |
| July | 4.73 m/s | 915 kWh | $140 |
| August | 4.73 m/s | 915 kWh | $140 |
| September | 5.39 m/s | 1,251 kWh | $192 |
| October | 5.87 m/s | 1,589 kWh | $244 |
| November | 6.28 m/s | 1,791 kWh | $275 |
| December | 6.38 m/s | 1,912 kWh | $293 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Colfax County averages 4.58 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.71 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.237, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,320 to 24,947 kWh a year, 63% 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 | 5.4 m/s | 15,320 kWh | 43 years |
| 30 m | 5.94 m/s | 19,296 kWh | 34 years |
| 40 m | 6.36 m/s | 22,405 kWh | 29 years |
| 50 m | 6.71 m/s | 24,947 kWh | 26 years |
Counties around Colfax County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Union County, averages 6.75 m/s.
- Mora County, NM: 5.15 m/s, 13,560 kWh, payback 48 years (46 mi)
- Taos County, NM: 4.23 m/s, 7,787 kWh, payback 84 years (55 mi)
- Las Animas County, CO: 6.19 m/s, 21,113 kWh, payback 28 years (59 mi)
- Costilla County, CO: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 64 years (63 mi)
- Union County, NM: 6.75 m/s, 25,239 kWh, payback 26 years (65 mi)
- Harding County, NM: 6.25 m/s, 21,558 kWh, payback 30 years (68 mi)
Sun versus wind in Colfax County
Colfax County gets 5.3 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,548 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,926. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.2 times. 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.