Wind Turbine Payback in Latah County, ID
Wind turbine payback in Latah 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 Latah County, ID averages 3.61 m/s (8.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,778 kWh a year, worth $622 at ID's 13.02¢/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 Latah County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Latah County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.7 m/s at the hub against 3.61 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,168 kWh a year here against the turbine's 478, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 105¢/kWh, 8.0 times what ID pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.7 m/s instead of 3.61. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of ID
Latah County is the 2,382nd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in ID is Owyhee County at 5.38 m/s, payback 51 years.
Month by month in Latah County
March is the strongest month here, at 3.98 m/s and about 550 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.21 m/s and 276 kWh, so the best month makes 2.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Latah County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.96 m/s | 543 kWh | $71 |
| February | 3.77 m/s | 421 kWh | $55 |
| March | 3.98 m/s | 550 kWh | $72 |
| April | 3.74 m/s | 438 kWh | $57 |
| May | 3.33 m/s | 313 kWh | $41 |
| June | 3.33 m/s | 303 kWh | $39 |
| July | 3.21 m/s | 276 kWh | $36 |
| August | 3.25 m/s | 288 kWh | $37 |
| September | 3.38 m/s | 318 kWh | $41 |
| October | 3.63 m/s | 413 kWh | $54 |
| November | 3.89 m/s | 495 kWh | $64 |
| December | 3.83 m/s | 489 kWh | $64 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Latah County averages 2.42 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.34 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.363, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,944 to 8,403 kWh a year, 185% 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 | 3.11 m/s | 2,944 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.61 m/s | 4,759 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4 m/s | 6,589 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.34 m/s | 8,403 kWh | 91 years |
Counties around Latah County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Garfield County, averages 4.91 m/s.
- Benewah County, ID: 3.61 m/s, 4,778 kWh, payback over 100 years (28 mi)
- Nez Perce County, ID: 3.94 m/s, 6,280 kWh, payback over 100 years (34 mi)
- Whitman County, WA: 4.84 m/s, 11,472 kWh, payback 61 years (38 mi)
- Lewis County, ID: 3.33 m/s, 3,684 kWh, payback over 100 years (43 mi)
- Garfield County, WA: 4.91 m/s, 11,933 kWh, payback 58 years (47 mi)
- Asotin County, WA: 3.69 m/s, 5,121 kWh, payback over 100 years (50 mi)
Sun versus wind in Latah County
Latah County gets 4 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,168 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 478. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.4 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.