Wind Turbine Payback in Graham County, AZ
Wind turbine payback in Graham 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 Graham County, AZ averages 4.09 m/s (9.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 7,038 kWh a year, worth $1,081 at AZ's 15.36¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 93 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Graham County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Graham County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 4.09 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,699 kWh a year here against the turbine's 704, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 71¢/kWh, 4.6 times what AZ pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 4.09. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AZ
Graham County is the 2,005th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in AZ is Apache County at 5.25 m/s, payback 46 years.
Month by month in Graham County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.65 m/s and about 844 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.36 m/s and 321 kWh, so the best month makes 2.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Graham County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.04 m/s | 576 kWh | $88 |
| February | 4.15 m/s | 563 kWh | $86 |
| March | 4.35 m/s | 716 kWh | $110 |
| April | 4.65 m/s | 844 kWh | $130 |
| May | 4.44 m/s | 761 kWh | $117 |
| June | 4.31 m/s | 676 kWh | $104 |
| July | 3.71 m/s | 441 kWh | $68 |
| August | 3.36 m/s | 321 kWh | $49 |
| September | 3.86 m/s | 484 kWh | $74 |
| October | 4.00 m/s | 560 kWh | $86 |
| November | 4.27 m/s | 660 kWh | $101 |
| December | 4.06 m/s | 583 kWh | $90 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Graham County averages 3.26 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.55 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.207, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,449 to 9,641 kWh a year, 77% 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 | 3.76 m/s | 5,449 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.09 m/s | 7,056 kWh | 92 years |
| 40 m | 4.34 m/s | 8,429 kWh | 77 years |
| 50 m | 4.55 m/s | 9,641 kWh | 68 years |
Counties around Graham County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Grant County, averages 5.52 m/s.
- Greenlee County, AZ: 4.17 m/s, 7,461 kWh, payback 87 years (42 mi)
- Cochise County, AZ: 4.69 m/s, 10,508 kWh, payback 62 years (76 mi)
- Gila County, AZ: 4.05 m/s, 6,831 kWh, payback 95 years (80 mi)
- Pinal County, AZ: 4.22 m/s, 7,732 kWh, payback 84 years (86 mi)
- Grant County, NM: 5.52 m/s, 16,181 kWh, payback 40 years (88 mi)
- Hidalgo County, NM: 5.18 m/s, 13,768 kWh, payback 47 years (97 mi)
Sun versus wind in Graham County
Graham County gets 5.82 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,699 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 704. 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.