Wind Turbine Payback in Custer County, CO
Wind turbine payback in Custer 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 Custer County, CO averages 4.56 m/s (10.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 9,702 kWh a year, worth $1,630 at CO's 16.8¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 61 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Custer County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Custer County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 4.56 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,460 kWh a year here against the turbine's 970, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 52¢/kWh, 3.1 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 4.56. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
Custer County is the 1,711th 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 Custer County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.43 m/s and about 1,279 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.23 m/s and 283 kWh, so the best month makes 4.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 54% of the year's output in Custer County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.04 m/s | 1,086 kWh | $182 |
| February | 5.38 m/s | 1,164 kWh | $196 |
| March | 5.24 m/s | 1,208 kWh | $203 |
| April | 5.43 m/s | 1,279 kWh | $215 |
| May | 4.61 m/s | 851 kWh | $143 |
| June | 4.30 m/s | 670 kWh | $113 |
| July | 3.25 m/s | 288 kWh | $48 |
| August | 3.23 m/s | 283 kWh | $48 |
| September | 3.83 m/s | 474 kWh | $80 |
| October | 4.52 m/s | 804 kWh | $135 |
| November | 4.85 m/s | 947 kWh | $159 |
| December | 5.08 m/s | 1,112 kWh | $187 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Custer County averages 3.67 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.04 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.197, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 7,665 to 12,805 kWh a year, 67% 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 | 4.21 m/s | 7,665 kWh | 78 years |
| 30 m | 4.56 m/s | 9,686 kWh | 62 years |
| 40 m | 4.82 m/s | 11,363 kWh | 52 years |
| 50 m | 5.04 m/s | 12,805 kWh | 47 years |
Counties around Custer County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Huerfano County, averages 5.51 m/s.
- Fremont County, CO: 4.87 m/s, 11,668 kWh, payback 51 years (25 mi)
- Huerfano County, CO: 5.51 m/s, 16,109 kWh, payback 37 years (36 mi)
- Alamosa County, CO: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 64 years (43 mi)
- Saguache County, CO: 5.18 m/s, 13,768 kWh, payback 43 years (47 mi)
- Pueblo County, CO: 5.18 m/s, 13,768 kWh, payback 43 years (48 mi)
- Teller County, CO: 5.09 m/s, 13,146 kWh, payback 45 years (54 mi)
Sun versus wind in Custer County
Custer County gets 5 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,460 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 970. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.5 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.