Wind Turbine Payback in Eagle County, CO
Wind turbine payback in Eagle 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 Eagle County, CO averages 3.34 m/s (7.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,720 kWh a year, worth $625 at CO's 16.8¢/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 Eagle County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Eagle County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 3.34 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,407 kWh a year here against the turbine's 372, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 134¢/kWh, 8.0 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 3.34. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
Eagle County is the 2,699th 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 Eagle County
April is the strongest month here, at 3.86 m/s and about 484 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.68 m/s and 149 kWh, so the best month makes 3.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Eagle County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.35 m/s | 318 kWh | $53 |
| February | 3.65 m/s | 379 kWh | $64 |
| March | 3.71 m/s | 442 kWh | $74 |
| April | 3.86 m/s | 484 kWh | $81 |
| May | 3.43 m/s | 344 kWh | $58 |
| June | 3.45 m/s | 339 kWh | $57 |
| July | 2.69 m/s | 150 kWh | $25 |
| August | 2.68 m/s | 149 kWh | $25 |
| September | 3.02 m/s | 218 kWh | $37 |
| October | 3.30 m/s | 305 kWh | $51 |
| November | 3.49 m/s | 352 kWh | $59 |
| December | 3.53 m/s | 378 kWh | $64 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Eagle County averages 2.31 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.96 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.335, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,352 to 6,378 kWh a year, 171% 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 | 2.91 m/s | 2,352 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.34 m/s | 3,710 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.67 m/s | 5,054 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 3.96 m/s | 6,378 kWh | 93 years |
Counties around Eagle County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Lake County, averages 5.03 m/s.
- Summit County, CO: 3.59 m/s, 4,694 kWh, payback over 100 years (30 mi)
- Pitkin County, CO: 3.5 m/s, 4,329 kWh, payback over 100 years (31 mi)
- Lake County, CO: 5.03 m/s, 12,737 kWh, payback 47 years (34 mi)
- Grand County, CO: 3.36 m/s, 3,794 kWh, payback over 100 years (46 mi)
- Clear Creek County, CO: 4.63 m/s, 10,132 kWh, payback 59 years (55 mi)
- Routt County, CO: 3.63 m/s, 4,862 kWh, payback over 100 years (61 mi)
Sun versus wind in Eagle County
Eagle County gets 4.82 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,407 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 372. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 3.8 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.