Wind Turbine Payback in Mesa County, CO
Wind turbine payback in Mesa 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 Mesa County, CO averages 4.25 m/s (9.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 7,897 kWh a year, worth $1,327 at CO's 16.8¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 75 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Mesa County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Mesa County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 4.25 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,463 kWh a year here against the turbine's 790, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 63¢/kWh, 3.8 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 4.25. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
Mesa County is the 1,914th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in CO is Baca County at 6.65 m/s, payback 24 years.
Month by month in Mesa County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.12 m/s and about 1,096 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.65 m/s and 418 kWh, so the best month makes 2.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 38% of the year's output in Mesa County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.78 m/s | 469 kWh | $79 |
| February | 4.34 m/s | 643 kWh | $108 |
| March | 4.63 m/s | 862 kWh | $145 |
| April | 5.12 m/s | 1,096 kWh | $184 |
| May | 4.69 m/s | 891 kWh | $150 |
| June | 4.82 m/s | 933 kWh | $157 |
| July | 3.76 m/s | 462 kWh | $78 |
| August | 3.65 m/s | 418 kWh | $70 |
| September | 4.07 m/s | 569 kWh | $96 |
| October | 4.17 m/s | 636 kWh | $107 |
| November | 4.08 m/s | 573 kWh | $96 |
| December | 3.91 m/s | 519 kWh | $87 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Mesa County averages 3.37 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.73 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.211, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 6,078 to 10,762 kWh a year, 77% 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 | 3.9 m/s | 6,078 kWh | 98 years |
| 30 m | 4.25 m/s | 7,879 kWh | 76 years |
| 40 m | 4.51 m/s | 9,414 kWh | 63 years |
| 50 m | 4.73 m/s | 10,762 kWh | 55 years |
Counties around Mesa County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Rio Blanco County, averages 4.6 m/s.
- Delta County, CO: 3.66 m/s, 4,991 kWh, payback over 100 years (34 mi)
- Montrose County, CO: 3.93 m/s, 6,231 kWh, payback 96 years (44 mi)
- Garfield County, CO: 3.87 m/s, 5,942 kWh, payback over 100 years (50 mi)
- Grand County, UT: 4.35 m/s, 8,460 kWh, payback 90 years (60 mi)
- Rio Blanco County, CO: 4.6 m/s, 9,947 kWh, payback 60 years (67 mi)
- San Miguel County, CO: 3.84 m/s, 5,800 kWh, payback over 100 years (70 mi)
Sun versus wind in Mesa County
Mesa County gets 5.01 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,463 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 790. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.9 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.