Wind Turbine Payback in Inyo County, CA
Wind turbine payback in Inyo 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 Inyo County, CA averages 3.03 m/s (6.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 2,691 kWh a year, worth $877 at CA's 32.58¢/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 Inyo County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Inyo County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.4 m/s at the hub against 3.03 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,667 kWh a year here against the turbine's 269, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 186¢/kWh, 5.7 times what CA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.4 m/s instead of 3.03. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CA
Inyo County is the 3,045th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in CA is San Francisco County at 6.53 m/s, payback 13 years.
Month by month in Inyo County
June is the strongest month here, at 3.48 m/s and about 349 kWh. December is the weakest, 2.56 m/s and 126 kWh, so the best month makes 2.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 29% of the year's output in Inyo County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 2.58 m/s | 129 kWh | $42 |
| February | 2.86 m/s | 169 kWh | $55 |
| March | 3.14 m/s | 258 kWh | $84 |
| April | 3.47 m/s | 346 kWh | $113 |
| May | 3.37 m/s | 325 kWh | $106 |
| June | 3.48 m/s | 349 kWh | $114 |
| July | 3.30 m/s | 304 kWh | $99 |
| August | 3.17 m/s | 266 kWh | $87 |
| September | 2.96 m/s | 205 kWh | $67 |
| October | 2.82 m/s | 179 kWh | $58 |
| November | 2.60 m/s | 128 kWh | $42 |
| December | 2.56 m/s | 126 kWh | $41 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Inyo County averages 2.64 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.23 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.125, typical of very open, smooth ground where height adds little. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,261 to 3,333 kWh a year, 47% 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 | 2.88 m/s | 2,261 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.03 m/s | 2,691 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.14 m/s | 3,038 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 3.23 m/s | 3,333 kWh | 92 years |
Counties around Inyo County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Nye County, averages 4.71 m/s.
- Tulare County, CA: 3.06 m/s, 2,782 kWh, payback over 100 years (80 mi)
- Esmeralda County, NV: 4.22 m/s, 7,732 kWh, payback 97 years (85 mi)
- Nye County, NV: 4.71 m/s, 10,635 kWh, payback 70 years (110 mi)
- Kern County, CA: 3.43 m/s, 4,056 kWh, payback 76 years (112 mi)
- Mono County, CA: 4.05 m/s, 6,831 kWh, payback 45 years (124 mi)
- Fresno County, CA: 2.88 m/s, 2,259 kWh, payback over 100 years (126 mi)
Sun versus wind in Inyo County
Inyo County gets 5.71 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,667 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 269. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 6.2 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.