Wind Turbine Payback in Flathead County, MT
Wind turbine payback in Flathead 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 Flathead County, MT averages 3.37 m/s (7.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,830 kWh a year, worth $541 at MT's 14.13¢/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 Flathead County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Flathead County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 3.37 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,057 kWh a year here against the turbine's 383, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 131¢/kWh, 9.2 times what MT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 3.37. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MT
Flathead County is the 2,653rd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MT is Fallon County at 6.64 m/s, payback 29 years.
Month by month in Flathead County
November is the strongest month here, at 3.82 m/s and about 468 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.90 m/s and 196 kWh, so the best month makes 2.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Flathead County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.66 m/s | 425 kWh | $60 |
| February | 3.40 m/s | 302 kWh | $43 |
| March | 3.62 m/s | 409 kWh | $58 |
| April | 3.33 m/s | 303 kWh | $43 |
| May | 3.25 m/s | 288 kWh | $41 |
| June | 3.25 m/s | 278 kWh | $39 |
| July | 3.02 m/s | 225 kWh | $32 |
| August | 2.90 m/s | 196 kWh | $28 |
| September | 3.14 m/s | 250 kWh | $35 |
| October | 3.52 m/s | 374 kWh | $53 |
| November | 3.82 m/s | 468 kWh | $66 |
| December | 3.60 m/s | 403 kWh | $57 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Flathead County averages 2.39 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.96 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.314, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,513 to 6,378 kWh a year, 154% 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 | 2.97 m/s | 2,513 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.37 m/s | 3,842 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.69 m/s | 5,130 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 3.96 m/s | 6,378 kWh | over 100 years |
Counties around Flathead County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Glacier County, averages 5.52 m/s.
- Lake County, MT: 2.95 m/s, 2,455 kWh, payback over 100 years (45 mi)
- Glacier County, MT: 5.52 m/s, 16,181 kWh, payback 44 years (56 mi)
- Sanders County, MT: 2.89 m/s, 2,287 kWh, payback over 100 years (64 mi)
- Lincoln County, MT: 2.59 m/s, 1,543 kWh, payback over 100 years (67 mi)
- Pondera County, MT: 5.4 m/s, 15,319 kWh, payback 46 years (84 mi)
- Missoula County, MT: 2.8 m/s, 2,047 kWh, payback over 100 years (88 mi)
Sun versus wind in Flathead County
Flathead County gets 3.62 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,057 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 383. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.8 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.