Wind Turbine Payback in Garfield County, CO
Wind turbine payback in Garfield 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 Garfield County, CO averages 3.87 m/s (8.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 5,942 kWh a year, worth $998 at CO's 16.8¢/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 Garfield County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Garfield County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 3.87 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,407 kWh a year here against the turbine's 594, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 84¢/kWh, 5.0 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 3.87. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
Garfield County is the 2,157th 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 Garfield County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.55 m/s and about 794 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.25 m/s and 290 kWh, so the best month makes 2.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 41% of the year's output in Garfield County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.63 m/s | 413 kWh | $69 |
| February | 4.03 m/s | 514 kWh | $86 |
| March | 4.25 m/s | 670 kWh | $113 |
| April | 4.55 m/s | 794 kWh | $133 |
| May | 4.18 m/s | 637 kWh | $107 |
| June | 4.27 m/s | 657 kWh | $110 |
| July | 3.35 m/s | 320 kWh | $54 |
| August | 3.25 m/s | 290 kWh | $49 |
| September | 3.68 m/s | 416 kWh | $70 |
| October | 3.80 m/s | 477 kWh | $80 |
| November | 3.78 m/s | 455 kWh | $76 |
| December | 3.70 m/s | 439 kWh | $74 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Garfield County averages 3.06 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.32 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.214, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,533 to 8,289 kWh a year, 83% 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 | 3.55 m/s | 4,533 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.87 m/s | 5,954 kWh | 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.12 m/s | 7,188 kWh | 83 years |
| 50 m | 4.32 m/s | 8,289 kWh | 72 years |
Counties around Garfield County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Moffat County, averages 5.05 m/s.
- Rio Blanco County, CO: 4.6 m/s, 9,947 kWh, payback 60 years (30 mi)
- Mesa County, CO: 4.25 m/s, 7,897 kWh, payback 75 years (50 mi)
- Delta County, CO: 3.66 m/s, 4,991 kWh, payback over 100 years (51 mi)
- Pitkin County, CO: 3.5 m/s, 4,329 kWh, payback over 100 years (59 mi)
- Eagle County, CO: 3.34 m/s, 3,720 kWh, payback over 100 years (65 mi)
- Moffat County, CO: 5.05 m/s, 12,873 kWh, payback 46 years (72 mi)
Sun versus wind in Garfield County
Garfield County gets 4.82 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,407 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 594. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.4 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.