Wind Turbine Payback in Greenlee County, AZ
Wind turbine payback in Greenlee 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 Greenlee County, AZ averages 4.17 m/s (9.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 7,461 kWh a year, worth $1,146 at AZ's 15.36¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 87 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Greenlee County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Greenlee County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 4.17 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,629 kWh a year here against the turbine's 746, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 67¢/kWh, 4.4 times what AZ pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 4.17. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AZ
Greenlee County is the 1,965th 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 Greenlee County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.92 m/s and about 988 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.47 m/s and 358 kWh, so the best month makes 2.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 39% of the year's output in Greenlee County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.87 m/s | 503 kWh | $77 |
| February | 4.17 m/s | 573 kWh | $88 |
| March | 4.52 m/s | 804 kWh | $123 |
| April | 4.92 m/s | 988 kWh | $152 |
| May | 4.75 m/s | 927 kWh | $142 |
| June | 4.58 m/s | 809 kWh | $124 |
| July | 3.78 m/s | 471 kWh | $72 |
| August | 3.47 m/s | 358 kWh | $55 |
| September | 3.96 m/s | 522 kWh | $80 |
| October | 4.12 m/s | 610 kWh | $94 |
| November | 4.13 m/s | 598 kWh | $92 |
| December | 3.84 m/s | 492 kWh | $76 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Greenlee County averages 3.3 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.65 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.213, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,733 to 10,257 kWh a year, 79% 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 | 3.83 m/s | 5,733 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.17 m/s | 7,465 kWh | 87 years |
| 40 m | 4.43 m/s | 8,948 kWh | 73 years |
| 50 m | 4.65 m/s | 10,257 kWh | 64 years |
Counties around Greenlee County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Grant County, averages 5.52 m/s.
- Graham County, AZ: 4.09 m/s, 7,038 kWh, payback 93 years (42 mi)
- Grant County, NM: 5.52 m/s, 16,181 kWh, payback 40 years (61 mi)
- Catron County, NM: 5.45 m/s, 15,677 kWh, payback 42 years (67 mi)
- Hidalgo County, NM: 5.18 m/s, 13,768 kWh, payback 47 years (97 mi)
- Gila County, AZ: 4.05 m/s, 6,831 kWh, payback 95 years (98 mi)
- Cochise County, AZ: 4.69 m/s, 10,508 kWh, payback 62 years (102 mi)
Sun versus wind in Greenlee County
Greenlee County gets 5.58 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,629 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 746. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.2 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.