Wind Turbine Payback in Deschutes County, OR
Wind turbine payback in Deschutes 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 Deschutes County, OR averages 4.23 m/s (9.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 7,787 kWh a year, worth $1,204 at OR's 15.46¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 83 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Deschutes County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Deschutes County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 4.23 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,323 kWh a year here against the turbine's 779, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 64¢/kWh, 4.2 times what OR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 4.23. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OR
Deschutes County is the 1,926th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in OR is Gilliam County at 5.48 m/s, payback 41 years.
Month by month in Deschutes County
December is the strongest month here, at 5.28 m/s and about 1,228 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.15 m/s and 260 kWh, so the best month makes 4.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 64% of the year's output in Deschutes County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.23 m/s | 1,197 kWh | $185 |
| February | 4.86 m/s | 892 kWh | $138 |
| March | 4.79 m/s | 949 kWh | $147 |
| April | 4.28 m/s | 665 kWh | $103 |
| May | 3.78 m/s | 470 kWh | $73 |
| June | 3.58 m/s | 383 kWh | $59 |
| July | 3.15 m/s | 260 kWh | $40 |
| August | 3.18 m/s | 270 kWh | $42 |
| September | 3.48 m/s | 349 kWh | $54 |
| October | 4.18 m/s | 638 kWh | $99 |
| November | 5.03 m/s | 1,046 kWh | $162 |
| December | 5.28 m/s | 1,228 kWh | $190 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Deschutes County averages 3.1 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.89 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.283, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,491 to 11,800 kWh a year, 115% 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 | 3.77 m/s | 5,491 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.23 m/s | 7,797 kWh | 83 years |
| 40 m | 4.59 m/s | 9,890 kWh | 65 years |
| 50 m | 4.89 m/s | 11,800 kWh | 55 years |
Counties around Deschutes County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Crook County, averages 4.99 m/s.
- Crook County, OR: 4.99 m/s, 12,467 kWh, payback 52 years (46 mi)
- Jefferson County, OR: 3.93 m/s, 6,231 kWh, payback over 100 years (50 mi)
- Linn County, OR: 2.9 m/s, 2,315 kWh, payback over 100 years (76 mi)
- Wheeler County, OR: 4.53 m/s, 9,519 kWh, payback 68 years (82 mi)
- Lane County, OR: 2.72 m/s, 1,846 kWh, payback over 100 years (83 mi)
- Wasco County, OR: 3.62 m/s, 4,820 kWh, payback over 100 years (86 mi)
Sun versus wind in Deschutes County
Deschutes County gets 4.53 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,323 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 779. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.7 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.