Wind Turbine Payback in Daniels County, MT
Wind turbine payback in Daniels 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 Daniels County, MT averages 6.6 m/s (14.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 24,142 kWh a year, worth $3,411 at MT's 14.13¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 29 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Daniels County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Daniels County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 6.6 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,159 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,414, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 21¢/kWh, 1.5 times what MT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 6.6. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MT
Daniels County is the 114th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MT is Fallon County at 6.64 m/s, payback 29 years.
Month by month in Daniels County
January is the strongest month here, at 7.23 m/s and about 2,437 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.80 m/s and 1,550 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Daniels County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.23 m/s | 2,437 kWh | $344 |
| February | 6.49 m/s | 1,788 kWh | $253 |
| March | 6.84 m/s | 2,197 kWh | $310 |
| April | 6.85 m/s | 2,132 kWh | $301 |
| May | 6.56 m/s | 2,025 kWh | $286 |
| June | 6.11 m/s | 1,686 kWh | $238 |
| July | 5.80 m/s | 1,550 kWh | $219 |
| August | 5.81 m/s | 1,555 kWh | $220 |
| September | 6.27 m/s | 1,784 kWh | $252 |
| October | 7.02 m/s | 2,307 kWh | $326 |
| November | 7.20 m/s | 2,338 kWh | $330 |
| December | 7.06 m/s | 2,335 kWh | $330 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Daniels County averages 5.26 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.34 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.207, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 20,237 to 29,437 kWh a year, 45% 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 | 6.07 m/s | 20,237 kWh | 35 years |
| 30 m | 6.6 m/s | 24,168 kWh | 29 years |
| 40 m | 7.01 m/s | 27,105 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 7.34 m/s | 29,437 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Daniels County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Daniels County.
- Roosevelt County, MT: 6.24 m/s, 21,484 kWh, payback 33 years (43 mi)
- Sheridan County, MT: 6.24 m/s, 21,484 kWh, payback 33 years (46 mi)
- Valley County, MT: 6.11 m/s, 20,520 kWh, payback 35 years (60 mi)
- McCone County, MT: 6.43 m/s, 22,891 kWh, payback 31 years (81 mi)
- Richland County, MT: 6.27 m/s, 21,706 kWh, payback 33 years (83 mi)
- Divide County, ND: 6.42 m/s, 22,817 kWh, payback 35 years (92 mi)
Sun versus wind in Daniels County
Daniels County gets 3.97 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,159 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,414. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 2.1 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.