Wind Turbine Payback in Modoc County, CA
Wind turbine payback in Modoc 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 Modoc County, CA averages 4.73 m/s (10.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,762 kWh a year, worth $3,506 at CA's 32.58¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 29 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Modoc County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Modoc County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.4 m/s at the hub against 4.73 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,405 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,076, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 46¢/kWh, 1.4 times what CA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.4 m/s instead of 4.73. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CA
Modoc County is the 1,596th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in CA is San Francisco County at 6.53 m/s, payback 13 years.
Month by month in Modoc County
December is the strongest month here, at 5.55 m/s and about 1,392 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.76 m/s and 460 kWh, so the best month makes 3.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in Modoc County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.27 m/s | 1,223 kWh | $398 |
| February | 5.28 m/s | 1,110 kWh | $362 |
| March | 5.41 m/s | 1,304 kWh | $425 |
| April | 5.01 m/s | 1,036 kWh | $338 |
| May | 4.66 m/s | 877 kWh | $286 |
| June | 4.43 m/s | 733 kWh | $239 |
| July | 3.78 m/s | 470 kWh | $153 |
| August | 3.76 m/s | 460 kWh | $150 |
| September | 4.03 m/s | 551 kWh | $180 |
| October | 4.51 m/s | 798 kWh | $260 |
| November | 5.16 m/s | 1,122 kWh | $366 |
| December | 5.55 m/s | 1,392 kWh | $454 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Modoc County averages 3.74 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.28 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.214, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 8,402 to 14,467 kWh a year, 72% 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 | 4.34 m/s | 8,402 kWh | 37 years |
| 30 m | 4.73 m/s | 10,782 kWh | 29 years |
| 40 m | 5.03 m/s | 12,763 kWh | 24 years |
| 50 m | 5.28 m/s | 14,467 kWh | 21 years |
Counties around Modoc County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Lake County, averages 4.75 m/s.
- Lassen County, CA: 3.6 m/s, 4,736 kWh, payback 65 years (61 mi)
- Washoe County, NV: 3.61 m/s, 4,778 kWh, payback over 100 years (81 mi)
- Lake County, OR: 4.75 m/s, 10,890 kWh, payback 59 years (84 mi)
- Klamath County, OR: 3.28 m/s, 3,506 kWh, payback over 100 years (89 mi)
- Shasta County, CA: 3.27 m/s, 3,471 kWh, payback 88 years (90 mi)
- Siskiyou County, CA: 2.97 m/s, 2,513 kWh, payback over 100 years (94 mi)
Sun versus wind in Modoc County
Modoc County gets 4.81 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,405 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,076. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.3 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.