Wind Turbine Payback in Douglas County, NV
Wind turbine payback in Douglas 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 Douglas County, NV averages 3.6 m/s (8.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,736 kWh a year, worth $633 at NV's 13.36¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of over 100 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Douglas County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Douglas County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.6 m/s at the hub against 3.6 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,539 kWh a year here against the turbine's 474, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 106¢/kWh, 7.9 times what NV pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.6 m/s instead of 3.6. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NV
Douglas County is the 2,402nd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NV is Nye County at 4.71 m/s, payback 70 years.
Month by month in Douglas County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.30 m/s and about 674 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.20 m/s and 273 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Douglas County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.29 m/s | 300 kWh | $40 |
| February | 3.76 m/s | 416 kWh | $56 |
| March | 4.19 m/s | 645 kWh | $86 |
| April | 4.30 m/s | 674 kWh | $90 |
| May | 3.89 m/s | 511 kWh | $68 |
| June | 3.79 m/s | 456 kWh | $61 |
| July | 3.24 m/s | 286 kWh | $38 |
| August | 3.20 m/s | 273 kWh | $36 |
| September | 3.30 m/s | 293 kWh | $39 |
| October | 3.21 m/s | 279 kWh | $37 |
| November | 3.43 m/s | 334 kWh | $45 |
| December | 3.60 m/s | 404 kWh | $54 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Douglas County averages 2.92 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.96 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.189, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,685 to 6,378 kWh a year, 73% 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 | 3.33 m/s | 3,685 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.6 m/s | 4,717 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.8 m/s | 5,598 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 3.96 m/s | 6,378 kWh | over 100 years |
Counties around Douglas County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Carson City, averages 3.75 m/s.
- Carson City, NV: 3.75 m/s, 5,387 kWh, payback over 100 years (19 mi)
- Alpine County, CA: 3.53 m/s, 4,449 kWh, payback 69 years (22 mi)
- Lyon County, NV: 3.6 m/s, 4,736 kWh, payback over 100 years (24 mi)
- Storey County, NV: 3.6 m/s, 4,736 kWh, payback over 100 years (37 mi)
- El Dorado County, CA: 3.43 m/s, 4,056 kWh, payback 76 years (50 mi)
- Placer County, CA: 3.43 m/s, 4,056 kWh, payback 76 years (61 mi)
Sun versus wind in Douglas County
Douglas County gets 5.27 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,539 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 474. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 3.2 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.