Wind Turbine Payback in Conejos County, CO
Wind turbine payback in Conejos 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 Conejos County, CO averages 4.38 m/s (9.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,632 kWh a year, worth $1,450 at CO's 16.8¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 69 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Conejos County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Conejos County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 4.38 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,524 kWh a year here against the turbine's 863, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 58¢/kWh, 3.4 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 4.38. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
Conejos County is the 1,837th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in CO is Baca County at 6.65 m/s, payback 24 years.
Month by month in Conejos County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.43 m/s and about 1,275 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.96 m/s and 211 kWh, so the best month makes 6.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Conejos County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.51 m/s | 800 kWh | $134 |
| February | 5.04 m/s | 983 kWh | $165 |
| March | 5.16 m/s | 1,157 kWh | $194 |
| April | 5.43 m/s | 1,275 kWh | $214 |
| May | 4.72 m/s | 910 kWh | $153 |
| June | 4.32 m/s | 681 kWh | $114 |
| July | 2.96 m/s | 211 kWh | $35 |
| August | 3.15 m/s | 259 kWh | $44 |
| September | 3.81 m/s | 465 kWh | $78 |
| October | 4.40 m/s | 745 kWh | $125 |
| November | 4.52 m/s | 778 kWh | $131 |
| December | 4.57 m/s | 830 kWh | $139 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Conejos County averages 3 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.22 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.344, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,655 to 14,046 kWh a year, 148% 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 | 3.81 m/s | 5,655 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.38 m/s | 8,625 kWh | 69 years |
| 40 m | 4.83 m/s | 11,435 kWh | 52 years |
| 50 m | 5.22 m/s | 14,046 kWh | 42 years |
Counties around Conejos County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Rio Grande County, averages 4.91 m/s.
- Rio Grande County, CO: 4.91 m/s, 11,933 kWh, payback 50 years (24 mi)
- Alamosa County, CO: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 64 years (33 mi)
- Costilla County, CO: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 64 years (41 mi)
- Archuleta County, CO: 3.87 m/s, 5,942 kWh, payback over 100 years (48 mi)
- Mineral County, CO: 4.07 m/s, 6,934 kWh, payback 86 years (51 mi)
- Taos County, NM: 4.23 m/s, 7,787 kWh, payback 84 years (53 mi)
Sun versus wind in Conejos County
Conejos County gets 5.22 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,524 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 863. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.8 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.