Wind Turbine Payback in Linn County, OR
Wind turbine payback in Linn 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 Linn County, OR averages 2.9 m/s (6.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 2,315 kWh a year, worth $358 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 Linn County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Linn County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 2.9 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,145 kWh a year here against the turbine's 232, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 216¢/kWh, 14.0 times what OR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 2.9. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OR
Linn County is the 3,106th 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 Linn County
December is the strongest month here, at 3.66 m/s and about 424 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.27 m/s and 79 kWh, so the best month makes 5.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 66% of the year's output in Linn County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.60 m/s | 403 kWh | $62 |
| February | 3.23 m/s | 255 kWh | $39 |
| March | 3.15 m/s | 262 kWh | $41 |
| April | 2.80 m/s | 167 kWh | $26 |
| May | 2.45 m/s | 107 kWh | $17 |
| June | 2.41 m/s | 97 kWh | $15 |
| July | 2.27 m/s | 79 kWh | $12 |
| August | 2.32 m/s | 86 kWh | $13 |
| September | 2.55 m/s | 120 kWh | $19 |
| October | 2.93 m/s | 203 kWh | $31 |
| November | 3.47 m/s | 347 kWh | $54 |
| December | 3.66 m/s | 424 kWh | $66 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Linn County averages 1.87 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.56 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.400, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 1,285 to 4,570 kWh a year, 256% 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 | 2.47 m/s | 1,285 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 2.9 m/s | 2,320 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.26 m/s | 3,422 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 3.56 m/s | 4,570 kWh | over 100 years |
Counties around Linn County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Polk County, averages 3.46 m/s.
- Marion County, OR: 3.23 m/s, 3,333 kWh, payback over 100 years (29 mi)
- Lane County, OR: 2.72 m/s, 1,846 kWh, payback over 100 years (43 mi)
- Benton County, OR: 3.42 m/s, 4,018 kWh, payback over 100 years (44 mi)
- Clackamas County, OR: 3.23 m/s, 3,333 kWh, payback over 100 years (49 mi)
- Polk County, OR: 3.46 m/s, 4,172 kWh, payback over 100 years (51 mi)
- Yamhill County, OR: 3.46 m/s, 4,172 kWh, payback over 100 years (65 mi)
Sun versus wind in Linn County
Linn County gets 3.92 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,145 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 232. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 4.9 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.