Wind Turbine Payback in Daggett County, UT
Wind turbine payback in Daggett 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 Daggett County, UT averages 5.32 m/s (11.9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 14,750 kWh a year, worth $1,945 at UT's 13.19¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 51 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Daggett County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Daggett County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.7 m/s at the hub against 5.32 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,413 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,475, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 34¢/kWh, 2.6 times what UT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.7 m/s instead of 5.32. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of UT
Daggett County is the 1,321st windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. It is the windiest county in UT.
Month by month in Daggett County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.98 m/s and about 1,659 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.21 m/s and 653 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Daggett County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.89 m/s | 1,602 kWh | $211 |
| February | 6.00 m/s | 1,514 kWh | $200 |
| March | 5.98 m/s | 1,659 kWh | $219 |
| April | 5.90 m/s | 1,556 kWh | $205 |
| May | 5.12 m/s | 1,132 kWh | $149 |
| June | 5.14 m/s | 1,111 kWh | $147 |
| July | 4.21 m/s | 653 kWh | $86 |
| August | 4.24 m/s | 665 kWh | $88 |
| September | 4.83 m/s | 936 kWh | $123 |
| October | 5.36 m/s | 1,278 kWh | $169 |
| November | 5.59 m/s | 1,370 kWh | $181 |
| December | 5.76 m/s | 1,523 kWh | $201 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Daggett County averages 4.3 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.88 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.194, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 12,015 to 18,816 kWh a year, 57% 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 | 4.92 m/s | 12,015 kWh | 63 years |
| 30 m | 5.33 m/s | 14,787 kWh | 51 years |
| 40 m | 5.63 m/s | 16,987 kWh | 45 years |
| 50 m | 5.88 m/s | 18,816 kWh | 40 years |
Counties around Daggett County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Sweetwater County, averages 6.42 m/s.
- Uintah County, UT: 4.38 m/s, 8,632 kWh, payback 88 years (53 mi)
- Uinta County, WY: 5.84 m/s, 18,521 kWh, payback 39 years (61 mi)
- Sweetwater County, WY: 6.42 m/s, 22,817 kWh, payback 31 years (62 mi)
- Duchesne County, UT: 3.72 m/s, 5,253 kWh, payback over 100 years (64 mi)
- Moffat County, CO: 5.05 m/s, 12,873 kWh, payback 46 years (70 mi)
- Summit County, UT: 3.82 m/s, 5,707 kWh, payback over 100 years (76 mi)
Sun versus wind in Daggett County
Daggett County gets 4.84 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,413 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,475. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.0 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.