Wind Turbine Payback in El Paso County, CO
Wind turbine payback in El Paso 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 El Paso County, CO averages 5.4 m/s (12.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 15,319 kWh a year, worth $2,574 at CO's 16.8¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 39 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in El Paso County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in El Paso County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 5.4 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,469 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,532, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 33¢/kWh, 1.9 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 5.4. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
El Paso County is the 1,283rd 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 El Paso County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.25 m/s and about 1,772 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.50 m/s and 793 kWh, so the best month makes 2.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 47% of the year's output in El Paso County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.68 m/s | 1,472 kWh | $247 |
| February | 5.79 m/s | 1,395 kWh | $234 |
| March | 5.89 m/s | 1,606 kWh | $270 |
| April | 6.25 m/s | 1,772 kWh | $298 |
| May | 5.36 m/s | 1,275 kWh | $214 |
| June | 5.15 m/s | 1,115 kWh | $187 |
| July | 4.50 m/s | 793 kWh | $133 |
| August | 4.53 m/s | 807 kWh | $136 |
| September | 5.03 m/s | 1,045 kWh | $176 |
| October | 5.43 m/s | 1,318 kWh | $221 |
| November | 5.59 m/s | 1,371 kWh | $230 |
| December | 5.62 m/s | 1,439 kWh | $242 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in El Paso County averages 4.23 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.05 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.222, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 12,108 to 20,075 kWh a year, 66% 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 | 4.94 m/s | 12,108 kWh | 49 years |
| 30 m | 5.4 m/s | 15,329 kWh | 39 years |
| 40 m | 5.76 m/s | 17,914 kWh | 33 years |
| 50 m | 6.05 m/s | 20,075 kWh | 30 years |
Counties around El Paso County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Elbert County, averages 5.42 m/s.
- Teller County, CO: 5.09 m/s, 13,146 kWh, payback 45 years (36 mi)
- Elbert County, CO: 5.42 m/s, 15,462 kWh, payback 39 years (40 mi)
- Douglas County, CO: 4.97 m/s, 12,333 kWh, payback 48 years (41 mi)
- Pueblo County, CO: 5.18 m/s, 13,768 kWh, payback 43 years (46 mi)
- Crowley County, CO: 5.2 m/s, 13,907 kWh, payback 43 years (54 mi)
- Fremont County, CO: 4.87 m/s, 11,668 kWh, payback 51 years (55 mi)
Sun versus wind in El Paso County
El Paso County gets 5.03 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,469 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,532. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.0 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.