Wind Turbine Payback in Kern County, CA
Wind turbine payback in Kern 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 Kern County, CA averages 3.43 m/s (7.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,056 kWh a year, worth $1,321 at CA's 32.58¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 76 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Kern County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Kern County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.4 m/s at the hub against 3.43 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,638 kWh a year here against the turbine's 406, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 123¢/kWh, 3.8 times what CA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.4 m/s instead of 3.43. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CA
Kern County is the 2,587th 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 Kern County
April is the strongest month here, at 3.80 m/s and about 463 kWh. September is the weakest, 2.96 m/s and 203 kWh, so the best month makes 2.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Kern County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.73 m/s | 450 kWh | $147 |
| February | 3.54 m/s | 343 kWh | $112 |
| March | 3.44 m/s | 349 kWh | $114 |
| April | 3.80 m/s | 463 kWh | $151 |
| May | 3.64 m/s | 416 kWh | $136 |
| June | 3.61 m/s | 393 kWh | $128 |
| July | 3.26 m/s | 292 kWh | $95 |
| August | 3.03 m/s | 229 kWh | $75 |
| September | 2.96 m/s | 203 kWh | $66 |
| October | 3.10 m/s | 248 kWh | $81 |
| November | 3.41 m/s | 326 kWh | $106 |
| December | 3.64 m/s | 416 kWh | $136 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Kern County averages 2.87 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.72 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.161, typical of very open, smooth ground where height adds little. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,264 to 5,253 kWh a year, 61% 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 | 3.21 m/s | 3,264 kWh | 94 years |
| 30 m | 3.43 m/s | 4,042 kWh | 76 years |
| 40 m | 3.59 m/s | 4,689 kWh | 66 years |
| 50 m | 3.72 m/s | 5,253 kWh | 58 years |
Counties around Kern County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Santa Barbara County, averages 4.51 m/s.
- Tulare County, CA: 3.06 m/s, 2,782 kWh, payback over 100 years (61 mi)
- Ventura County, CA: 3.36 m/s, 3,794 kWh, payback 81 years (72 mi)
- Kings County, CA: 4.07 m/s, 6,934 kWh, payback 44 years (79 mi)
- Los Angeles County, CA: 3.34 m/s, 3,720 kWh, payback 83 years (84 mi)
- Santa Barbara County, CA: 4.51 m/s, 9,399 kWh, payback 33 years (93 mi)
- San Luis Obispo County, CA: 4.12 m/s, 7,195 kWh, payback 43 years (97 mi)
Sun versus wind in Kern County
Kern County gets 5.61 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,638 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 406. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 4.0 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.