Wind Turbine Payback in Kane County, UT
Wind turbine payback in Kane 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 Kane County, UT averages 4.9 m/s (11 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 11,866 kWh a year, worth $1,565 at UT's 13.19¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 64 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Kane County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Kane County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.7 m/s at the hub against 4.9 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,559 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,187, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 42¢/kWh, 3.2 times what UT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.7 m/s instead of 4.9. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of UT
Kane County is the 1,502nd 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 Kane County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.95 m/s and about 1,589 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.26 m/s and 674 kWh, so the best month makes 2.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 39% of the year's output in Kane County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.56 m/s | 824 kWh | $109 |
| February | 4.97 m/s | 947 kWh | $125 |
| March | 5.38 m/s | 1,286 kWh | $170 |
| April | 5.95 m/s | 1,589 kWh | $210 |
| May | 5.38 m/s | 1,286 kWh | $170 |
| June | 5.64 m/s | 1,399 kWh | $185 |
| July | 4.42 m/s | 752 kWh | $99 |
| August | 4.26 m/s | 674 kWh | $89 |
| September | 4.52 m/s | 775 kWh | $102 |
| October | 4.69 m/s | 890 kWh | $117 |
| November | 4.61 m/s | 825 kWh | $109 |
| December | 4.47 m/s | 778 kWh | $103 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Kane County averages 3.87 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.47 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.215, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 9,290 to 15,821 kWh a year, 70% 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 | 4.49 m/s | 9,290 kWh | 82 years |
| 30 m | 4.9 m/s | 11,873 kWh | 64 years |
| 40 m | 5.21 m/s | 14,003 kWh | 54 years |
| 50 m | 5.47 m/s | 15,821 kWh | 48 years |
Counties around Kane County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Iron County, averages 5.21 m/s.
- Garfield County, UT: 4.66 m/s, 10,320 kWh, payback 74 years (43 mi)
- Piute County, UT: 4.02 m/s, 6,678 kWh, payback over 100 years (75 mi)
- Wayne County, UT: 4.68 m/s, 10,445 kWh, payback 73 years (82 mi)
- Washington County, UT: 5.14 m/s, 13,490 kWh, payback 56 years (92 mi)
- Iron County, UT: 5.21 m/s, 13,976 kWh, payback 54 years (93 mi)
- Coconino County, AZ: 4.27 m/s, 8,008 kWh, payback 81 years (100 mi)
Sun versus wind in Kane County
Kane County gets 5.34 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,559 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,187. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.3 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.