Wind Turbine Payback in Kings County, CA
Wind turbine payback in Kings 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 Kings County, CA averages 4.07 m/s (9.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,934 kWh a year, worth $2,259 at CA's 32.58¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 44 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Kings County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Kings County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.4 m/s at the hub against 4.07 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,588 kWh a year here against the turbine's 693, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 72¢/kWh, 2.2 times what CA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.4 m/s instead of 4.07. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CA
Kings County is the 2,014th 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 Kings County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.74 m/s and about 890 kWh. January is the weakest, 3.40 m/s and 336 kWh, so the best month makes 2.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 30% of the year's output in Kings County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.40 m/s | 336 kWh | $109 |
| February | 3.79 m/s | 428 kWh | $139 |
| March | 4.24 m/s | 668 kWh | $218 |
| April | 4.74 m/s | 890 kWh | $290 |
| May | 4.67 m/s | 881 kWh | $287 |
| June | 4.70 m/s | 871 kWh | $284 |
| July | 4.35 m/s | 719 kWh | $234 |
| August | 4.11 m/s | 607 kWh | $198 |
| September | 4.05 m/s | 561 kWh | $183 |
| October | 3.81 m/s | 481 kWh | $157 |
| November | 3.53 m/s | 364 kWh | $119 |
| December | 3.54 m/s | 380 kWh | $124 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Kings County averages 3.14 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.6 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.237, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,174 to 9,947 kWh a year, 92% 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 | 3.7 m/s | 5,174 kWh | 59 years |
| 30 m | 4.08 m/s | 6,963 kWh | 44 years |
| 40 m | 4.36 m/s | 8,535 kWh | 36 years |
| 50 m | 4.6 m/s | 9,947 kWh | 31 years |
Counties around Kings County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, San Luis Obispo County, averages 4.12 m/s.
- Fresno County, CA: 2.88 m/s, 2,259 kWh, payback over 100 years (48 mi)
- Tulare County, CA: 3.06 m/s, 2,782 kWh, payback over 100 years (59 mi)
- San Luis Obispo County, CA: 4.12 m/s, 7,195 kWh, payback 43 years (59 mi)
- Madera County, CA: 3.56 m/s, 4,570 kWh, payback 67 years (79 mi)
- Kern County, CA: 3.43 m/s, 4,056 kWh, payback 76 years (79 mi)
- San Benito County, CA: 3.61 m/s, 4,778 kWh, payback 64 years (80 mi)
Sun versus wind in Kings County
Kings County gets 5.44 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,588 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 693. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.3 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.