Wind Turbine Payback in Mineral County, CO
Wind turbine payback in Mineral 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 Mineral County, CO averages 4.07 m/s (9.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,934 kWh a year, worth $1,165 at CO's 16.8¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 86 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Mineral County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Mineral County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 4.07 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,472 kWh a year here against the turbine's 693, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 72¢/kWh, 4.3 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 4.07. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
Mineral County is the 2,014th 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 Mineral County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.16 m/s and about 1,122 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.82 m/s and 179 kWh, so the best month makes 6.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Mineral County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.03 m/s | 572 kWh | $96 |
| February | 4.55 m/s | 741 kWh | $124 |
| March | 4.63 m/s | 862 kWh | $145 |
| April | 5.16 m/s | 1,122 kWh | $188 |
| May | 4.56 m/s | 825 kWh | $139 |
| June | 4.22 m/s | 635 kWh | $107 |
| July | 2.82 m/s | 179 kWh | $30 |
| August | 2.93 m/s | 204 kWh | $34 |
| September | 3.63 m/s | 398 kWh | $67 |
| October | 4.12 m/s | 611 kWh | $103 |
| November | 4.13 m/s | 595 kWh | $100 |
| December | 4.12 m/s | 611 kWh | $103 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Mineral County averages 3.24 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.52 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.207, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,338 to 9,459 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 | 3.74 m/s | 5,338 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.07 m/s | 6,916 kWh | 86 years |
| 40 m | 4.32 m/s | 8,266 kWh | 72 years |
| 50 m | 4.52 m/s | 9,459 kWh | 63 years |
Counties around Mineral County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Rio Grande County, averages 4.91 m/s.
- Archuleta County, CO: 3.87 m/s, 5,942 kWh, payback over 100 years (24 mi)
- Hinsdale County, CO: 3.36 m/s, 3,794 kWh, payback over 100 years (28 mi)
- Rio Grande County, CO: 4.91 m/s, 11,933 kWh, payback 50 years (30 mi)
- San Juan County, CO: 3.36 m/s, 3,794 kWh, payback over 100 years (40 mi)
- La Plata County, CO: 4.22 m/s, 7,732 kWh, payback 77 years (49 mi)
- Conejos County, CO: 4.38 m/s, 8,632 kWh, payback 69 years (51 mi)
Sun versus wind in Mineral County
Mineral County gets 5.04 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,472 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 693. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.1 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.