Wind Turbine Payback in Moffat County, CO
Wind turbine payback in Moffat 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 Moffat County, CO averages 5.05 m/s (11.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 12,873 kWh a year, worth $2,163 at CO's 16.8¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 46 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Moffat County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Moffat County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 5.05 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,416 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,287, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 39¢/kWh, 2.3 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 5.05. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
Moffat County is the 1,430th 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 Moffat County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.75 m/s and about 1,466 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.11 m/s and 606 kWh, so the best month makes 2.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Moffat County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.07 m/s | 1,103 kWh | $185 |
| February | 5.52 m/s | 1,243 kWh | $209 |
| March | 5.64 m/s | 1,448 kWh | $243 |
| April | 5.75 m/s | 1,466 kWh | $246 |
| May | 5.08 m/s | 1,108 kWh | $186 |
| June | 5.19 m/s | 1,138 kWh | $191 |
| July | 4.15 m/s | 626 kWh | $105 |
| August | 4.11 m/s | 606 kWh | $102 |
| September | 4.64 m/s | 836 kWh | $140 |
| October | 4.96 m/s | 1,041 kWh | $175 |
| November | 5.21 m/s | 1,148 kWh | $193 |
| December | 5.29 m/s | 1,235 kWh | $207 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Moffat County averages 3.98 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.64 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.217, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 10,089 to 17,053 kWh a year, 69% 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 | 4.62 m/s | 10,089 kWh | 59 years |
| 30 m | 5.05 m/s | 12,861 kWh | 46 years |
| 40 m | 5.37 m/s | 15,129 kWh | 39 years |
| 50 m | 5.64 m/s | 17,053 kWh | 35 years |
Counties around Moffat County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Sweetwater County, averages 6.42 m/s.
- Rio Blanco County, CO: 4.6 m/s, 9,947 kWh, payback 60 years (44 mi)
- Routt County, CO: 3.63 m/s, 4,862 kWh, payback over 100 years (65 mi)
- Daggett County, UT: 5.32 m/s, 14,750 kWh, payback 51 years (70 mi)
- Garfield County, CO: 3.87 m/s, 5,942 kWh, payback over 100 years (72 mi)
- Uintah County, UT: 4.38 m/s, 8,632 kWh, payback 88 years (76 mi)
- Sweetwater County, WY: 6.42 m/s, 22,817 kWh, payback 31 years (80 mi)
Sun versus wind in Moffat County
Moffat County gets 4.85 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,416 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,287. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.1 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.