Wind Turbine Payback in Jefferson County, ID
Wind turbine payback in Jefferson 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 Jefferson County, ID averages 3.91 m/s (8.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,134 kWh a year, worth $799 at ID's 13.02¢/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 Jefferson County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Jefferson County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.7 m/s at the hub against 3.91 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,329 kWh a year here against the turbine's 613, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 82¢/kWh, 6.3 times what ID pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.7 m/s instead of 3.91. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of ID
Jefferson County is the 2,125th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in ID is Owyhee County at 5.38 m/s, payback 51 years.
Month by month in Jefferson County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.44 m/s and about 738 kWh. January is the weakest, 3.05 m/s and 233 kWh, so the best month makes 3.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 32% of the year's output in Jefferson County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.05 m/s | 233 kWh | $30 |
| February | 3.80 m/s | 429 kWh | $56 |
| March | 4.28 m/s | 684 kWh | $89 |
| April | 4.44 m/s | 738 kWh | $96 |
| May | 4.27 m/s | 680 kWh | $89 |
| June | 4.37 m/s | 704 kWh | $92 |
| July | 4.20 m/s | 647 kWh | $84 |
| August | 4.08 m/s | 594 kWh | $77 |
| September | 3.91 m/s | 505 kWh | $66 |
| October | 3.77 m/s | 465 kWh | $61 |
| November | 3.39 m/s | 322 kWh | $42 |
| December | 3.37 m/s | 325 kWh | $42 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Jefferson County averages 3.07 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.38 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.221, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,641 to 8,632 kWh a year, 86% 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 | 3.58 m/s | 4,641 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.91 m/s | 6,145 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.17 m/s | 7,457 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.38 m/s | 8,632 kWh | 89 years |
Counties around Jefferson County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Bonneville County, averages 5.09 m/s.
- Madison County, ID: 4.39 m/s, 8,690 kWh, payback 88 years (33 mi)
- Clark County, ID: 3.94 m/s, 6,280 kWh, payback over 100 years (34 mi)
- Bingham County, ID: 4.82 m/s, 11,341 kWh, payback 68 years (40 mi)
- Butte County, ID: 4.32 m/s, 8,289 kWh, payback 93 years (44 mi)
- Bonneville County, ID: 5.09 m/s, 13,146 kWh, payback 58 years (45 mi)
- Fremont County, ID: 4.12 m/s, 7,195 kWh, payback over 100 years (51 mi)
Sun versus wind in Jefferson County
Jefferson County gets 4.55 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,329 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 613. 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.