Wind Turbine Payback in McKinley County, NM
Wind turbine payback in McKinley 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 McKinley County, NM averages 5.51 m/s (12.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 16,109 kWh a year, worth $2,471 at NM's 15.34¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 41 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in McKinley County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in McKinley County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 5.51 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,615 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,611, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 31¢/kWh, 2.0 times what NM pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 5.51. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NM
McKinley County is the 1,215th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NM is Union County at 6.75 m/s, payback 26 years.
Month by month in McKinley County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.85 m/s and about 2,136 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.98 m/s and 550 kWh, so the best month makes 3.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 47% of the year's output in McKinley County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.48 m/s | 1,349 kWh | $207 |
| February | 6.21 m/s | 1,631 kWh | $250 |
| March | 6.31 m/s | 1,868 kWh | $287 |
| April | 6.85 m/s | 2,136 kWh | $328 |
| May | 6.09 m/s | 1,727 kWh | $265 |
| June | 5.65 m/s | 1,407 kWh | $216 |
| July | 4.12 m/s | 612 kWh | $94 |
| August | 3.98 m/s | 550 kWh | $84 |
| September | 4.78 m/s | 912 kWh | $140 |
| October | 5.43 m/s | 1,322 kWh | $203 |
| November | 5.60 m/s | 1,380 kWh | $212 |
| December | 5.60 m/s | 1,426 kWh | $219 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in McKinley County averages 4.31 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.17 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.223, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 12,736 to 20,965 kWh a year, 65% 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 | 5.03 m/s | 12,736 kWh | 51 years |
| 30 m | 5.51 m/s | 16,078 kWh | 41 years |
| 40 m | 5.87 m/s | 18,746 kWh | 35 years |
| 50 m | 6.17 m/s | 20,965 kWh | 31 years |
Counties around McKinley County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Cibola County, averages 5.8 m/s.
- Cibola County, NM: 5.8 m/s, 18,226 kWh, payback 36 years (48 mi)
- San Juan County, NM: 4.56 m/s, 9,702 kWh, payback 67 years (64 mi)
- Apache County, AZ: 5.25 m/s, 14,256 kWh, payback 46 years (71 mi)
- Sandoval County, NM: 5 m/s, 12,535 kWh, payback 52 years (77 mi)
- Bernalillo County, NM: 4.45 m/s, 9,041 kWh, payback 72 years (97 mi)
- Valencia County, NM: 4.65 m/s, 10,257 kWh, payback 64 years (101 mi)
Sun versus wind in McKinley County
McKinley County gets 5.53 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,615 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,611. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.0 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.