Wind Turbine Payback in Mineral County, NV
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, NV averages 3.75 m/s (8.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 5,387 kWh a year, worth $720 at NV's 13.36¢/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, 8.6 m/s at the hub against 3.75 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,568 kWh a year here against the turbine's 539, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 93¢/kWh, 6.9 times what NV pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.6 m/s instead of 3.75. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NV
Mineral County is the 2,250th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NV is Nye County at 4.71 m/s, payback 70 years.
Month by month in Mineral County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.46 m/s and about 748 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.14 m/s and 256 kWh, so the best month makes 2.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Mineral County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.83 m/s | 489 kWh | $65 |
| February | 4.14 m/s | 560 kWh | $75 |
| March | 4.17 m/s | 633 kWh | $85 |
| April | 4.46 m/s | 748 kWh | $100 |
| May | 3.96 m/s | 541 kWh | $72 |
| June | 3.75 m/s | 442 kWh | $59 |
| July | 3.14 m/s | 256 kWh | $34 |
| August | 3.15 m/s | 261 kWh | $35 |
| September | 3.31 m/s | 297 kWh | $40 |
| October | 3.41 m/s | 338 kWh | $45 |
| November | 3.72 m/s | 432 kWh | $58 |
| December | 4.03 m/s | 572 kWh | $76 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Mineral County averages 3.09 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.1 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.176, typical of very open, smooth ground where height adds little. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,287 to 7,090 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 | 3.49 m/s | 4,287 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.75 m/s | 5,375 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.94 m/s | 6,290 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.1 m/s | 7,090 kWh | over 100 years |
Counties around Mineral County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Esmeralda County, averages 4.22 m/s.
- Mono County, CA: 4.05 m/s, 6,831 kWh, payback 45 years (48 mi)
- Lyon County, NV: 3.6 m/s, 4,736 kWh, payback over 100 years (55 mi)
- Esmeralda County, NV: 4.22 m/s, 7,732 kWh, payback 97 years (66 mi)
- Douglas County, NV: 3.6 m/s, 4,736 kWh, payback over 100 years (70 mi)
- Churchill County, NV: 3.58 m/s, 4,653 kWh, payback over 100 years (71 mi)
- Alpine County, CA: 3.53 m/s, 4,449 kWh, payback 69 years (75 mi)
Sun versus wind in Mineral County
Mineral County gets 5.37 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,568 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 539. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.9 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.