Wind Turbine Payback in Garfield County, UT
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, UT averages 4.66 m/s (10.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,320 kWh a year, worth $1,361 at UT's 13.19¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 74 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, 8.7 m/s at the hub against 4.66 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,559 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,032, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 48¢/kWh, 3.7 times what UT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.7 m/s instead of 4.66. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of UT
Garfield County is the 1,645th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in UT is Daggett County at 5.32 m/s, payback 51 years.
Month by month in Garfield County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.68 m/s and about 1,428 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.97 m/s and 544 kWh, so the best month makes 2.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 39% of the year's output in Garfield County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.31 m/s | 697 kWh | $92 |
| February | 4.72 m/s | 819 kWh | $108 |
| March | 5.16 m/s | 1,155 kWh | $152 |
| April | 5.68 m/s | 1,428 kWh | $188 |
| May | 5.05 m/s | 1,092 kWh | $144 |
| June | 5.34 m/s | 1,226 kWh | $162 |
| July | 4.05 m/s | 582 kWh | $77 |
| August | 3.97 m/s | 544 kWh | $72 |
| September | 4.39 m/s | 712 kWh | $94 |
| October | 4.52 m/s | 803 kWh | $106 |
| November | 4.42 m/s | 729 kWh | $96 |
| December | 4.25 m/s | 671 kWh | $89 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Garfield County averages 3.67 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.2 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.217, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 7,966 to 13,907 kWh a year, 75% 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 | 4.26 m/s | 7,966 kWh | 95 years |
| 30 m | 4.65 m/s | 10,284 kWh | 74 years |
| 40 m | 4.95 m/s | 12,227 kWh | 62 years |
| 50 m | 5.2 m/s | 13,907 kWh | 55 years |
Counties around Garfield County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Kane County, averages 4.9 m/s.
- Wayne County, UT: 4.68 m/s, 10,445 kWh, payback 73 years (39 mi)
- Kane County, UT: 4.9 m/s, 11,866 kWh, payback 64 years (43 mi)
- Piute County, UT: 4.02 m/s, 6,678 kWh, payback over 100 years (51 mi)
- Sevier County, UT: 4.02 m/s, 6,678 kWh, payback over 100 years (66 mi)
- Emery County, UT: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 81 years (90 mi)
- San Juan County, UT: 4.51 m/s, 9,399 kWh, payback 81 years (92 mi)
Sun versus wind in Garfield County
Garfield County gets 5.34 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,559 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,032. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.5 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.