Wind Turbine Payback in Denver County, CO
Wind turbine payback in Denver 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 Denver County, CO averages 4.76 m/s (10.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,954 kWh a year, worth $1,840 at CO's 16.8¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 54 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Denver County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Denver County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 4.76 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,416 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,095, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 46¢/kWh, 2.7 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 4.76. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
Denver County is the 1,582nd 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 Denver County
January is the strongest month here, at 5.76 m/s and about 1,522 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.08 m/s and 595 kWh, so the best month makes 2.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 55% of the year's output in Denver County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.76 m/s | 1,522 kWh | $256 |
| February | 5.24 m/s | 1,086 kWh | $182 |
| March | 5.20 m/s | 1,182 kWh | $199 |
| April | 5.00 m/s | 1,029 kWh | $173 |
| May | 4.26 m/s | 676 kWh | $114 |
| June | 4.19 m/s | 622 kWh | $104 |
| July | 4.15 m/s | 623 kWh | $105 |
| August | 4.08 m/s | 595 kWh | $100 |
| September | 4.27 m/s | 658 kWh | $111 |
| October | 4.63 m/s | 862 kWh | $145 |
| November | 5.04 m/s | 1,053 kWh | $177 |
| December | 5.27 m/s | 1,224 kWh | $206 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Denver County averages 3.67 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.37 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.237, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 8,299 to 15,105 kWh a year, 82% 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 | 4.32 m/s | 8,299 kWh | 72 years |
| 30 m | 4.76 m/s | 10,939 kWh | 54 years |
| 40 m | 5.09 m/s | 13,170 kWh | 45 years |
| 50 m | 5.37 m/s | 15,105 kWh | 39 years |
Counties around Denver County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Arapahoe County, averages 5.42 m/s.
- Broomfield County, CO: 4.76 m/s, 10,954 kWh, payback 54 years (16 mi)
- Jefferson County, CO: 4.97 m/s, 12,333 kWh, payback 48 years (23 mi)
- Adams County, CO: 4.87 m/s, 11,668 kWh, payback 51 years (30 mi)
- Douglas County, CO: 4.97 m/s, 12,333 kWh, payback 48 years (30 mi)
- Arapahoe County, CO: 5.42 m/s, 15,462 kWh, payback 39 years (30 mi)
- Gilpin County, CO: 4.87 m/s, 11,668 kWh, payback 51 years (35 mi)
Sun versus wind in Denver County
Denver County gets 4.85 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,416 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,095. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.3 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.