Wind Turbine Payback in Crowley County, CO
Wind turbine payback in Crowley 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 Crowley County, CO averages 5.2 m/s (11.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 13,907 kWh a year, worth $2,336 at CO's 16.8¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 43 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Crowley County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Crowley County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 5.2 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,486 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,391, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 36¢/kWh, 2.1 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 5.2. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
Crowley County is the 1,379th 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 Crowley County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.15 m/s and about 1,714 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.52 m/s and 803 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Crowley County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.03 m/s | 1,081 kWh | $182 |
| February | 5.26 m/s | 1,100 kWh | $185 |
| March | 5.68 m/s | 1,474 kWh | $248 |
| April | 6.15 m/s | 1,714 kWh | $288 |
| May | 5.38 m/s | 1,287 kWh | $216 |
| June | 5.22 m/s | 1,153 kWh | $194 |
| July | 4.60 m/s | 845 kWh | $142 |
| August | 4.52 m/s | 803 kWh | $135 |
| September | 4.97 m/s | 1,012 kWh | $170 |
| October | 5.20 m/s | 1,180 kWh | $198 |
| November | 5.23 m/s | 1,163 kWh | $195 |
| December | 5.16 m/s | 1,159 kWh | $195 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Crowley County averages 4.08 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.82 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.221, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 10,910 to 18,374 kWh a year, 68% 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 | 4.75 m/s | 10,910 kWh | 55 years |
| 30 m | 5.2 m/s | 13,898 kWh | 43 years |
| 40 m | 5.54 m/s | 16,326 kWh | 37 years |
| 50 m | 5.82 m/s | 18,374 kWh | 32 years |
Counties around Crowley County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Kiowa County, averages 5.95 m/s.
- Otero County, CO: 5.33 m/s, 14,821 kWh, payback 40 years (29 mi)
- Pueblo County, CO: 5.18 m/s, 13,768 kWh, payback 43 years (40 mi)
- Bent County, CO: 5.75 m/s, 17,859 kWh, payback 33 years (46 mi)
- Lincoln County, CO: 5.67 m/s, 17,272 kWh, payback 35 years (50 mi)
- El Paso County, CO: 5.4 m/s, 15,319 kWh, payback 39 years (54 mi)
- Kiowa County, CO: 5.95 m/s, 19,334 kWh, payback 31 years (55 mi)
Sun versus wind in Crowley County
Crowley County gets 5.09 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,486 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,391. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.1 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.