Wind Turbine Payback in Fresno County, CA
Wind turbine payback in Fresno 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 Fresno County, CA averages 2.88 m/s (6.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 2,259 kWh a year, worth $736 at CA's 32.58¢/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 Fresno County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Fresno County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.4 m/s at the hub against 2.88 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,588 kWh a year here against the turbine's 226, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 221¢/kWh, 6.8 times what CA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.4 m/s instead of 2.88. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CA
Fresno County is the 3,115th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in CA is San Francisco County at 6.53 m/s, payback 13 years.
Month by month in Fresno County
January is the strongest month here, at 3.08 m/s and about 241 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.76 m/s and 165 kWh, so the best month makes 1.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 44% of the year's output in Fresno County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.08 m/s | 241 kWh | $79 |
| February | 2.95 m/s | 189 kWh | $62 |
| March | 2.86 m/s | 188 kWh | $61 |
| April | 2.83 m/s | 174 kWh | $57 |
| May | 2.85 m/s | 184 kWh | $60 |
| June | 2.91 m/s | 192 kWh | $63 |
| July | 2.78 m/s | 169 kWh | $55 |
| August | 2.76 m/s | 165 kWh | $54 |
| September | 2.91 m/s | 192 kWh | $63 |
| October | 2.88 m/s | 192 kWh | $63 |
| November | 2.81 m/s | 171 kWh | $56 |
| December | 2.95 m/s | 209 kWh | $68 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Fresno County averages 2.24 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.24 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.229, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 1,626 to 3,367 kWh a year, 107% 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 | 2.63 m/s | 1,626 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 2.88 m/s | 2,266 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.08 m/s | 2,839 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 3.24 m/s | 3,367 kWh | 91 years |
Counties around Fresno County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Merced County, averages 4.5 m/s.
- Madera County, CA: 3.56 m/s, 4,570 kWh, payback 67 years (31 mi)
- Kings County, CA: 4.07 m/s, 6,934 kWh, payback 44 years (48 mi)
- Mariposa County, CA: 3.18 m/s, 3,165 kWh, payback 97 years (58 mi)
- Tulare County, CA: 3.06 m/s, 2,782 kWh, payback over 100 years (61 mi)
- Merced County, CA: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 33 years (66 mi)
- San Benito County, CA: 3.61 m/s, 4,778 kWh, payback 64 years (80 mi)
Sun versus wind in Fresno County
Fresno County gets 5.44 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,588 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 226. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 7.0 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.