Wind Turbine Payback in Harding County, NM
Wind turbine payback in Harding 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 Harding County, NM averages 6.25 m/s (14 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,558 kWh a year, worth $3,307 at NM's 15.34¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 30 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Harding County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Harding County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 6.25 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,594 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,156, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.5 times what NM pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 6.25. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NM
Harding County is the 528th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NM is Union County at 6.75 m/s, payback 26 years.
Month by month in Harding County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.18 m/s and about 2,326 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.11 m/s and 1,129 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Harding County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.38 m/s | 1,910 kWh | $293 |
| February | 6.66 m/s | 1,886 kWh | $289 |
| March | 6.95 m/s | 2,264 kWh | $347 |
| April | 7.18 m/s | 2,326 kWh | $357 |
| May | 6.51 m/s | 1,994 kWh | $306 |
| June | 6.18 m/s | 1,729 kWh | $265 |
| July | 5.19 m/s | 1,176 kWh | $180 |
| August | 5.11 m/s | 1,129 kWh | $173 |
| September | 5.73 m/s | 1,459 kWh | $224 |
| October | 6.19 m/s | 1,793 kWh | $275 |
| November | 6.57 m/s | 1,967 kWh | $302 |
| December | 6.47 m/s | 1,966 kWh | $302 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Harding County averages 4.87 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.02 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.227, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,504 to 27,186 kWh a year, 55% 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 | 5.7 m/s | 17,504 kWh | 37 years |
| 30 m | 6.25 m/s | 21,569 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 6.67 m/s | 24,679 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 7.02 m/s | 27,186 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Harding County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Union County, averages 6.75 m/s.
- Union County, NM: 6.75 m/s, 25,239 kWh, payback 26 years (48 mi)
- Quay County, NM: 6.32 m/s, 22,077 kWh, payback 30 years (55 mi)
- San Miguel County, NM: 6 m/s, 19,704 kWh, payback 33 years (60 mi)
- Mora County, NM: 5.15 m/s, 13,560 kWh, payback 48 years (60 mi)
- Colfax County, NM: 5.94 m/s, 19,260 kWh, payback 34 years (68 mi)
- Hartley County, TX: 6.55 m/s, 23,775 kWh, payback 26 years (70 mi)
Sun versus wind in Harding County
Harding County gets 5.46 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,594 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,156. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.4 times. 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.