Wind Turbine Payback in Eureka County, NV
Wind turbine payback in Eureka 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 Eureka County, NV averages 4.32 m/s (9.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,289 kWh a year, worth $1,107 at NV's 13.36¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 90 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Eureka County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Eureka County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.6 m/s at the hub against 4.32 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,469 kWh a year here against the turbine's 829, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 60¢/kWh, 4.5 times what NV pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.6 m/s instead of 4.32. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NV
Eureka County is the 1,882nd 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 Eureka County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.89 m/s and about 967 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.74 m/s and 452 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Eureka County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.38 m/s | 733 kWh | $98 |
| February | 4.61 m/s | 765 kWh | $102 |
| March | 4.77 m/s | 935 kWh | $125 |
| April | 4.89 m/s | 967 kWh | $129 |
| May | 4.36 m/s | 724 kWh | $97 |
| June | 4.29 m/s | 667 kWh | $89 |
| July | 3.74 m/s | 452 kWh | $60 |
| August | 3.84 m/s | 491 kWh | $66 |
| September | 3.90 m/s | 500 kWh | $67 |
| October | 4.08 m/s | 593 kWh | $79 |
| November | 4.40 m/s | 718 kWh | $96 |
| December | 4.57 m/s | 829 kWh | $111 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Eureka County averages 3.48 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.77 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.196, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 6,507 to 11,018 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 | 3.99 m/s | 6,507 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.32 m/s | 8,264 kWh | 91 years |
| 40 m | 4.57 m/s | 9,737 kWh | 77 years |
| 50 m | 4.77 m/s | 11,018 kWh | 68 years |
Counties around Eureka County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, White Pine County, averages 4.38 m/s.
- Lander County, NV: 4.15 m/s, 7,354 kWh, payback over 100 years (41 mi)
- White Pine County, NV: 4.38 m/s, 8,632 kWh, payback 87 years (83 mi)
- Elko County, NV: 4.26 m/s, 7,953 kWh, payback 94 years (94 mi)
- Churchill County, NV: 3.58 m/s, 4,653 kWh, payback over 100 years (110 mi)
- Pershing County, NV: 3.52 m/s, 4,408 kWh, payback over 100 years (117 mi)
- Humboldt County, NV: 3.8 m/s, 5,614 kWh, payback over 100 years (139 mi)
Sun versus wind in Eureka County
Eureka 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 829. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.8 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.