Wind Turbine Payback in Esmeralda County, NV
Wind turbine payback in Esmeralda 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 Esmeralda County, NV averages 4.22 m/s (9.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 7,732 kWh a year, worth $1,033 at NV's 13.36¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 97 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Esmeralda County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Esmeralda County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.6 m/s at the hub against 4.22 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,635 kWh a year here against the turbine's 773, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 65¢/kWh, 4.8 times what NV pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.6 m/s instead of 4.22. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NV
Esmeralda County is the 1,935th 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 Esmeralda County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.08 m/s and about 1,075 kWh. September is the weakest, 3.81 m/s and 466 kWh, so the best month makes 2.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 42% of the year's output in Esmeralda County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.00 m/s | 560 kWh | $75 |
| February | 4.49 m/s | 713 kWh | $95 |
| March | 4.69 m/s | 893 kWh | $119 |
| April | 5.08 m/s | 1,075 kWh | $144 |
| May | 4.58 m/s | 836 kWh | $112 |
| June | 4.38 m/s | 711 kWh | $95 |
| July | 3.91 m/s | 522 kWh | $70 |
| August | 3.80 m/s | 478 kWh | $64 |
| September | 3.81 m/s | 466 kWh | $62 |
| October | 3.88 m/s | 507 kWh | $68 |
| November | 3.92 m/s | 509 kWh | $68 |
| December | 4.15 m/s | 624 kWh | $83 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Esmeralda County averages 3.41 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.66 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.194, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 6,091 to 10,320 kWh a year, 69% 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 | 3.9 m/s | 6,091 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.22 m/s | 7,734 kWh | 97 years |
| 40 m | 4.46 m/s | 9,116 kWh | 82 years |
| 50 m | 4.66 m/s | 10,320 kWh | 73 years |
Counties around Esmeralda County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Nye County, averages 4.71 m/s.
- Nye County, NV: 4.71 m/s, 10,635 kWh, payback 70 years (65 mi)
- Mineral County, NV: 3.75 m/s, 5,387 kWh, payback over 100 years (66 mi)
- Mono County, CA: 4.05 m/s, 6,831 kWh, payback 45 years (68 mi)
- Inyo County, CA: 3.03 m/s, 2,691 kWh, payback over 100 years (85 mi)
- Lyon County, NV: 3.6 m/s, 4,736 kWh, payback over 100 years (121 mi)
- Madera County, CA: 3.56 m/s, 4,570 kWh, payback 67 years (123 mi)
Sun versus wind in Esmeralda County
Esmeralda County gets 5.6 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,635 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 773. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.1 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.