Wind Turbine Payback in Grand County, UT
Wind turbine payback in Grand 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 Grand County, UT averages 4.35 m/s (9.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,460 kWh a year, worth $1,116 at UT's 13.19¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 90 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Grand County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Grand County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.7 m/s at the hub against 4.35 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,545 kWh a year here against the turbine's 846, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 59¢/kWh, 4.5 times what UT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.7 m/s instead of 4.35. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of UT
Grand County is the 1,852nd 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 Grand County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.35 m/s and about 1,232 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.70 m/s and 439 kWh, so the best month makes 2.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 37% of the year's output in Grand County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.82 m/s | 484 kWh | $64 |
| February | 4.45 m/s | 692 kWh | $91 |
| March | 4.81 m/s | 960 kWh | $127 |
| April | 5.35 m/s | 1,232 kWh | $163 |
| May | 4.85 m/s | 980 kWh | $129 |
| June | 5.01 m/s | 1,037 kWh | $137 |
| July | 3.84 m/s | 491 kWh | $65 |
| August | 3.70 m/s | 439 kWh | $58 |
| September | 4.14 m/s | 601 kWh | $79 |
| October | 4.22 m/s | 658 kWh | $87 |
| November | 4.07 m/s | 570 kWh | $75 |
| December | 3.94 m/s | 535 kWh | $71 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Grand County averages 3.45 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.84 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.210, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 6,541 to 11,472 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 | 3.99 m/s | 6,541 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.35 m/s | 8,447 kWh | 90 years |
| 40 m | 4.62 m/s | 10,061 kWh | 75 years |
| 50 m | 4.84 m/s | 11,472 kWh | 66 years |
Counties around Grand County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Carbon County, averages 4.73 m/s.
- Mesa County, CO: 4.25 m/s, 7,897 kWh, payback 75 years (60 mi)
- Emery County, UT: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 81 years (62 mi)
- Carbon County, UT: 4.73 m/s, 10,762 kWh, payback 70 years (73 mi)
- Uintah County, UT: 4.38 m/s, 8,632 kWh, payback 88 years (80 mi)
- Montrose County, CO: 3.93 m/s, 6,231 kWh, payback 96 years (81 mi)
- San Miguel County, CO: 3.84 m/s, 5,800 kWh, payback over 100 years (91 mi)
Sun versus wind in Grand County
Grand County gets 5.29 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,545 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 846. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.8 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.