Wind Turbine Payback in Mineral County, MT
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, MT averages 3 m/s (6.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 2,601 kWh a year, worth $368 at MT's 14.13¢/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 Mineral County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Mineral County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 3 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,092 kWh a year here against the turbine's 260, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 192¢/kWh, 13.6 times what MT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 3. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MT
Mineral County is the 3,061st 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 Mineral County
January is the strongest month here, at 3.35 m/s and about 320 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.57 m/s and 127 kWh, so the best month makes 2.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 54% of the year's output in Mineral County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.35 m/s | 320 kWh | $45 |
| February | 3.15 m/s | 235 kWh | $33 |
| March | 3.25 m/s | 288 kWh | $41 |
| April | 3.06 m/s | 230 kWh | $32 |
| May | 2.76 m/s | 165 kWh | $23 |
| June | 2.74 m/s | 156 kWh | $22 |
| July | 2.57 m/s | 127 kWh | $18 |
| August | 2.58 m/s | 128 kWh | $18 |
| September | 2.80 m/s | 168 kWh | $24 |
| October | 3.09 m/s | 244 kWh | $34 |
| November | 3.32 m/s | 300 kWh | $42 |
| December | 3.28 m/s | 298 kWh | $42 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Mineral County averages 2 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.62 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.369, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 1,524 to 4,820 kWh a year, 216% 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 | 2.58 m/s | 1,524 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3 m/s | 2,595 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.33 m/s | 3,698 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 3.62 m/s | 4,820 kWh | over 100 years |
Counties around Mineral County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Benewah County, averages 3.61 m/s.
- Shoshone County, ID: 2.97 m/s, 2,513 kWh, payback over 100 years (40 mi)
- Clearwater County, ID: 2.58 m/s, 1,521 kWh, payback over 100 years (41 mi)
- Sanders County, MT: 2.89 m/s, 2,287 kWh, payback over 100 years (44 mi)
- Missoula County, MT: 2.8 m/s, 2,047 kWh, payback over 100 years (57 mi)
- Lake County, MT: 2.95 m/s, 2,455 kWh, payback over 100 years (59 mi)
- Benewah County, ID: 3.61 m/s, 4,778 kWh, payback over 100 years (73 mi)
Sun versus wind in Mineral County
Mineral County gets 3.74 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,092 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 260. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 4.2 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.