Wind Turbine Payback in Meagher County, MT
Wind turbine payback in Meagher 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 Meagher County, MT averages 4.63 m/s (10.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,132 kWh a year, worth $1,432 at MT's 14.13¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 70 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Meagher County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Meagher County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 4.63 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,183 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,013, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 49¢/kWh, 3.5 times what MT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 4.63. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MT
Meagher County is the 1,671st windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MT is Fallon County at 6.64 m/s, payback 29 years.
Month by month in Meagher County
January is the strongest month here, at 5.61 m/s and about 1,427 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.60 m/s and 401 kWh, so the best month makes 3.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 59% of the year's output in Meagher County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.61 m/s | 1,427 kWh | $202 |
| February | 5.10 m/s | 1,013 kWh | $143 |
| March | 5.06 m/s | 1,102 kWh | $156 |
| April | 4.61 m/s | 822 kWh | $116 |
| May | 4.15 m/s | 627 kWh | $89 |
| June | 4.01 m/s | 544 kWh | $77 |
| July | 3.60 m/s | 401 kWh | $57 |
| August | 3.61 m/s | 404 kWh | $57 |
| September | 4.05 m/s | 562 kWh | $79 |
| October | 4.87 m/s | 989 kWh | $140 |
| November | 5.43 m/s | 1,279 kWh | $181 |
| December | 5.44 m/s | 1,327 kWh | $188 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Meagher County averages 3.33 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.39 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.299, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 7,081 to 15,247 kWh a year, 115% 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 | 4.1 m/s | 7,081 kWh | 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.63 m/s | 10,111 kWh | 70 years |
| 40 m | 5.04 m/s | 12,820 kWh | 55 years |
| 50 m | 5.39 m/s | 15,247 kWh | 46 years |
Counties around Meagher County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Judith Basin County, averages 5.97 m/s.
- Broadwater County, MT: 3.97 m/s, 6,428 kWh, payback over 100 years (33 mi)
- Judith Basin County, MT: 5.97 m/s, 19,482 kWh, payback 36 years (42 mi)
- Wheatland County, MT: 5.89 m/s, 18,890 kWh, payback 38 years (51 mi)
- Cascade County, MT: 5.69 m/s, 17,419 kWh, payback 41 years (54 mi)
- Jefferson County, MT: 4.03 m/s, 6,729 kWh, payback over 100 years (63 mi)
- Sweet Grass County, MT: 5.94 m/s, 19,260 kWh, payback 37 years (71 mi)
Sun versus wind in Meagher County
Meagher County gets 4.05 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,183 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,013. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.2 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.