Wind Turbine Payback in Kiowa County, CO
Wind turbine payback in Kiowa 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 Kiowa County, CO averages 5.95 m/s (13.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,334 kWh a year, worth $3,248 at CO's 16.8¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 31 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Kiowa County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Kiowa County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 5.95 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,472 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,933, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 26¢/kWh, 1.5 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 5.95. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
Kiowa County is the 914th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in CO is Baca County at 6.65 m/s, payback 24 years.
Month by month in Kiowa County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.76 m/s and about 2,080 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.40 m/s and 1,301 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 41% of the year's output in Kiowa County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.67 m/s | 1,466 kWh | $246 |
| February | 5.92 m/s | 1,466 kWh | $246 |
| March | 6.31 m/s | 1,870 kWh | $314 |
| April | 6.76 m/s | 2,080 kWh | $349 |
| May | 6.20 m/s | 1,797 kWh | $302 |
| June | 6.03 m/s | 1,636 kWh | $275 |
| July | 5.47 m/s | 1,345 kWh | $226 |
| August | 5.40 m/s | 1,301 kWh | $219 |
| September | 6.01 m/s | 1,625 kWh | $273 |
| October | 5.98 m/s | 1,662 kWh | $279 |
| November | 5.97 m/s | 1,603 kWh | $269 |
| December | 5.77 m/s | 1,528 kWh | $257 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Kiowa County averages 4.68 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.66 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.219, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,671 to 24,582 kWh a year, 57% 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 | 5.45 m/s | 15,671 kWh | 38 years |
| 30 m | 5.96 m/s | 19,372 kWh | 31 years |
| 40 m | 6.34 m/s | 22,243 kWh | 27 years |
| 50 m | 6.66 m/s | 24,582 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Kiowa County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Greeley County, averages 6.26 m/s.
- Cheyenne County, CO: 6.14 m/s, 20,742 kWh, payback 29 years (32 mi)
- Prowers County, CO: 6.15 m/s, 20,816 kWh, payback 29 years (36 mi)
- Bent County, CO: 5.75 m/s, 17,859 kWh, payback 33 years (36 mi)
- Greeley County, KS: 6.26 m/s, 21,632 kWh, payback 30 years (52 mi)
- Crowley County, CO: 5.2 m/s, 13,907 kWh, payback 43 years (55 mi)
- Lincoln County, CO: 5.67 m/s, 17,272 kWh, payback 35 years (58 mi)
Sun versus wind in Kiowa County
Kiowa County gets 5.04 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,472 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,933. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.3 times. 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.