Wind Turbine Payback in Grant County, OR
Wind turbine payback in Grant 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 Grant County, OR averages 3.34 m/s (7.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,720 kWh a year, worth $575 at OR's 15.46¢/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 Grant County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Grant County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 3.34 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,261 kWh a year here against the turbine's 372, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 134¢/kWh, 8.7 times what OR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 3.34. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OR
Grant County is the 2,699th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in OR is Gilliam County at 5.48 m/s, payback 41 years.
Month by month in Grant County
January is the strongest month here, at 3.68 m/s and about 433 kWh. September is the weakest, 2.92 m/s and 195 kWh, so the best month makes 2.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 54% of the year's output in Grant County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.68 m/s | 433 kWh | $67 |
| February | 3.63 m/s | 374 kWh | $58 |
| March | 3.66 m/s | 424 kWh | $66 |
| April | 3.46 m/s | 342 kWh | $53 |
| May | 3.16 m/s | 262 kWh | $41 |
| June | 3.13 m/s | 247 kWh | $38 |
| July | 2.99 m/s | 218 kWh | $34 |
| August | 2.93 m/s | 203 kWh | $31 |
| September | 2.92 m/s | 195 kWh | $30 |
| October | 3.26 m/s | 291 kWh | $45 |
| November | 3.62 m/s | 395 kWh | $61 |
| December | 3.68 m/s | 430 kWh | $66 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Grant County averages 2.29 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.98 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.343, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,333 to 6,477 kWh a year, 178% 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 | 2.91 m/s | 2,333 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.34 m/s | 3,722 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.69 m/s | 5,106 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 3.98 m/s | 6,477 kWh | 100 years |
Counties around Grant County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Morrow County, averages 5.25 m/s.
- Wheeler County, OR: 4.53 m/s, 9,519 kWh, payback 68 years (53 mi)
- Baker County, OR: 3.78 m/s, 5,523 kWh, payback over 100 years (67 mi)
- Morrow County, OR: 5.25 m/s, 14,256 kWh, payback 45 years (70 mi)
- Crook County, OR: 4.99 m/s, 12,467 kWh, payback 52 years (71 mi)
- Union County, OR: 4.23 m/s, 7,787 kWh, payback 83 years (75 mi)
- Umatilla County, OR: 5.02 m/s, 12,670 kWh, payback 51 years (77 mi)
Sun versus wind in Grant County
Grant County gets 4.32 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,261 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 372. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 3.4 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.