Wind Turbine Payback in Juab County, UT
Wind turbine payback in Juab 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 Juab County, UT averages 4.18 m/s (9.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 7,515 kWh a year, worth $991 at UT's 13.19¢/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 Juab County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Juab County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.7 m/s at the hub against 4.18 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,463 kWh a year here against the turbine's 752, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 67¢/kWh, 5.0 times what UT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.7 m/s instead of 4.18. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of UT
Juab County is the 1,957th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in UT is Daggett County at 5.32 m/s, payback 51 years.
Month by month in Juab County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.92 m/s and about 986 kWh. January is the weakest, 3.61 m/s and 406 kWh, so the best month makes 2.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 37% of the year's output in Juab County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.61 m/s | 406 kWh | $54 |
| February | 4.17 m/s | 571 kWh | $75 |
| March | 4.61 m/s | 848 kWh | $112 |
| April | 4.92 m/s | 986 kWh | $130 |
| May | 4.36 m/s | 725 kWh | $96 |
| June | 4.66 m/s | 848 kWh | $112 |
| July | 3.95 m/s | 538 kWh | $71 |
| August | 4.12 m/s | 612 kWh | $81 |
| September | 4.08 m/s | 573 kWh | $76 |
| October | 3.95 m/s | 538 kWh | $71 |
| November | 3.92 m/s | 510 kWh | $67 |
| December | 3.85 m/s | 497 kWh | $66 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Juab County averages 3.32 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.66 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.211, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,804 to 10,320 kWh a year, 78% 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 | 3.84 m/s | 5,804 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.18 m/s | 7,536 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.45 m/s | 9,016 kWh | 84 years |
| 50 m | 4.66 m/s | 10,320 kWh | 74 years |
Counties around Juab County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Millard County, averages 4.53 m/s.
- Tooele County, UT: 4.13 m/s, 7,248 kWh, payback over 100 years (55 mi)
- Millard County, UT: 4.53 m/s, 9,519 kWh, payback 80 years (55 mi)
- Utah County, UT: 3.6 m/s, 4,736 kWh, payback over 100 years (66 mi)
- Sanpete County, UT: 3.92 m/s, 6,182 kWh, payback over 100 years (69 mi)
- Salt Lake County, UT: 3.41 m/s, 3,980 kWh, payback over 100 years (80 mi)
- Sevier County, UT: 4.02 m/s, 6,678 kWh, payback over 100 years (85 mi)
Sun versus wind in Juab County
Juab County gets 5.01 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,463 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 752. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.9 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.