Wind Turbine Payback in Jefferson County, OR
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, OR averages 3.93 m/s (8.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,231 kWh a year, worth $963 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 Jefferson County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Jefferson County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 3.93 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,247 kWh a year here against the turbine's 623, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 80¢/kWh, 5.2 times what OR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 3.93. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OR
Jefferson County is the 2,112th 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 Jefferson County
December is the strongest month here, at 4.59 m/s and about 842 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.11 m/s and 249 kWh, so the best month makes 3.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 59% of the year's output in Jefferson County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.59 m/s | 837 kWh | $129 |
| February | 4.42 m/s | 679 kWh | $105 |
| March | 4.41 m/s | 748 kWh | $116 |
| April | 4.05 m/s | 561 kWh | $87 |
| May | 3.72 m/s | 447 kWh | $69 |
| June | 3.59 m/s | 386 kWh | $60 |
| July | 3.17 m/s | 266 kWh | $41 |
| August | 3.11 m/s | 249 kWh | $38 |
| September | 3.29 m/s | 292 kWh | $45 |
| October | 3.83 m/s | 488 kWh | $75 |
| November | 4.44 m/s | 736 kWh | $114 |
| December | 4.59 m/s | 842 kWh | $130 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Jefferson County averages 2.99 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.47 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.250, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,549 to 9,160 kWh a year, 101% 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 | 3.55 m/s | 4,549 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.93 m/s | 6,251 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.23 m/s | 7,773 kWh | 83 years |
| 50 m | 4.47 m/s | 9,160 kWh | 71 years |
Counties around Jefferson County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Crook County, averages 4.99 m/s.
- Wasco County, OR: 3.62 m/s, 4,820 kWh, payback over 100 years (36 mi)
- Deschutes County, OR: 4.23 m/s, 7,787 kWh, payback 83 years (50 mi)
- Crook County, OR: 4.99 m/s, 12,467 kWh, payback 52 years (52 mi)
- Wheeler County, OR: 4.53 m/s, 9,519 kWh, payback 68 years (57 mi)
- Sherman County, OR: 4.8 m/s, 11,212 kWh, payback 58 years (58 mi)
- Clackamas County, OR: 3.23 m/s, 3,333 kWh, payback over 100 years (61 mi)
Sun versus wind in Jefferson County
Jefferson County gets 4.27 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,247 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 623. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.0 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.