Wind Turbine Payback in Mason County, WA
Wind turbine payback in Mason 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 Mason County, WA averages 2.6 m/s (5.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 1,565 kWh a year, worth $226 at WA's 14.42¢/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 Mason County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Mason County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.1 m/s at the hub against 2.6 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 999 kWh a year here against the turbine's 157, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 319¢/kWh, 22.2 times what WA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.1 m/s instead of 2.6. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of WA
Mason County is the 3,132nd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in WA is Columbia County at 5.18 m/s, payback 50 years.
Month by month in Mason County
November is the strongest month here, at 3.05 m/s and about 225 kWh. July is the weakest, 1.97 m/s and 42 kWh, so the best month makes 5.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 60% of the year's output in Mason County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 2.98 m/s | 216 kWh | $31 |
| February | 2.83 m/s | 163 kWh | $24 |
| March | 2.95 m/s | 210 kWh | $30 |
| April | 2.67 m/s | 141 kWh | $20 |
| May | 2.29 m/s | 82 kWh | $12 |
| June | 2.22 m/s | 69 kWh | $10 |
| July | 1.97 m/s | 42 kWh | $6 |
| August | 2.06 m/s | 52 kWh | $7 |
| September | 2.48 m/s | 108 kWh | $16 |
| October | 2.80 m/s | 173 kWh | $25 |
| November | 3.05 m/s | 225 kWh | $32 |
| December | 2.93 m/s | 204 kWh | $29 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Mason County averages 1.72 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.15 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.376, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 858 to 3,067 kWh a year, 257% 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 | 2.23 m/s | 858 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 2.6 m/s | 1,564 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 2.9 m/s | 2,305 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 3.15 m/s | 3,067 kWh | over 100 years |
Counties around Mason County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Grays Harbor County, averages 3.45 m/s.
- Kitsap County, WA: 2.97 m/s, 2,513 kWh, payback over 100 years (32 mi)
- Thurston County, WA: 2.81 m/s, 2,073 kWh, payback over 100 years (33 mi)
- Grays Harbor County, WA: 3.45 m/s, 4,133 kWh, payback over 100 years (35 mi)
- Jefferson County, WA: 3.01 m/s, 2,631 kWh, payback over 100 years (35 mi)
- Pierce County, WA: 2.87 m/s, 2,232 kWh, payback over 100 years (52 mi)
- Island County, WA: 2.56 m/s, 1,477 kWh, payback over 100 years (60 mi)
Sun versus wind in Mason County
Mason County gets 3.42 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 999 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 157. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 6.4 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.