Wind Turbine Payback in Lane County, OR
Wind turbine payback in Lane 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 Lane County, OR averages 2.72 m/s (6.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 1,846 kWh a year, worth $285 at OR's 15.46¢/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 Lane County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Lane County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 2.72 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,238 kWh a year here against the turbine's 185, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 271¢/kWh, 17.5 times what OR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 2.72. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OR
Lane County is the 3,129th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in OR is Gilliam County at 5.48 m/s, payback 41 years.
Month by month in Lane County
December is the strongest month here, at 3.34 m/s and about 315 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.25 m/s and 75 kWh, so the best month makes 4.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 63% of the year's output in Lane County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.25 m/s | 290 kWh | $45 |
| February | 2.92 m/s | 183 kWh | $28 |
| March | 2.96 m/s | 210 kWh | $32 |
| April | 2.66 m/s | 140 kWh | $22 |
| May | 2.38 m/s | 94 kWh | $15 |
| June | 2.37 m/s | 90 kWh | $14 |
| July | 2.26 m/s | 77 kWh | $12 |
| August | 2.25 m/s | 75 kWh | $12 |
| September | 2.42 m/s | 97 kWh | $15 |
| October | 2.75 m/s | 162 kWh | $25 |
| November | 3.17 m/s | 256 kWh | $40 |
| December | 3.34 m/s | 315 kWh | $49 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Lane County averages 1.71 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.38 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.423, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 962 to 3,868 kWh a year, 302% 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 | 2.29 m/s | 962 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 2.72 m/s | 1,853 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.08 m/s | 2,830 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 3.38 m/s | 3,868 kWh | over 100 years |
Counties around Lane County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Lincoln County, averages 3.57 m/s.
- Linn County, OR: 2.9 m/s, 2,315 kWh, payback over 100 years (43 mi)
- Douglas County, OR: 2.81 m/s, 2,073 kWh, payback over 100 years (46 mi)
- Benton County, OR: 3.42 m/s, 4,018 kWh, payback over 100 years (47 mi)
- Marion County, OR: 3.23 m/s, 3,333 kWh, payback over 100 years (69 mi)
- Lincoln County, OR: 3.57 m/s, 4,612 kWh, payback over 100 years (70 mi)
- Polk County, OR: 3.46 m/s, 4,172 kWh, payback over 100 years (72 mi)
Sun versus wind in Lane County
Lane County gets 4.24 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,238 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 185. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 6.7 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.