Wind Turbine Payback in Mohave County, AZ
Wind turbine payback in Mohave 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 Mohave County, AZ averages 4.69 m/s (10.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,508 kWh a year, worth $1,614 at AZ's 15.36¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 62 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Mohave County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Mohave County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 4.69 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,641 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,051, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 48¢/kWh, 3.1 times what AZ pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 4.69. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AZ
Mohave County is the 1,626th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in AZ is Apache County at 5.25 m/s, payback 46 years.
Month by month in Mohave County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.28 m/s and about 1,189 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.18 m/s and 636 kWh, so the best month makes 1.9 times the worst. November to March brings in 41% of the year's output in Mohave County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.69 m/s | 893 kWh | $137 |
| February | 4.70 m/s | 811 kWh | $125 |
| March | 4.85 m/s | 982 kWh | $151 |
| April | 5.28 m/s | 1,189 kWh | $183 |
| May | 5.03 m/s | 1,080 kWh | $166 |
| June | 5.15 m/s | 1,116 kWh | $171 |
| July | 4.18 m/s | 640 kWh | $98 |
| August | 4.18 m/s | 636 kWh | $98 |
| September | 4.39 m/s | 715 kWh | $110 |
| October | 4.62 m/s | 855 kWh | $131 |
| November | 4.66 m/s | 846 kWh | $130 |
| December | 4.59 m/s | 840 kWh | $129 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Mohave County averages 3.79 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.18 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.194, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 8,382 to 13,768 kWh a year, 64% 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 | 8,382 kWh | 78 years |
| 30 m | 4.69 m/s | 10,516 kWh | 62 years |
| 40 m | 4.96 m/s | 12,269 kWh | 53 years |
| 50 m | 5.18 m/s | 13,768 kWh | 47 years |
Counties around Mohave County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Washington County, averages 5.14 m/s.
- Clark County, NV: 4.7 m/s, 10,571 kWh, payback 71 years (79 mi)
- Yavapai County, AZ: 4.44 m/s, 8,982 kWh, payback 73 years (100 mi)
- Washington County, UT: 5.14 m/s, 13,490 kWh, payback 56 years (108 mi)
- Coconino County, AZ: 4.27 m/s, 8,008 kWh, payback 81 years (111 mi)
- La Paz County, AZ: 4.54 m/s, 9,580 kWh, payback 68 years (138 mi)
- Lincoln County, NV: 4.67 m/s, 10,382 kWh, payback 72 years (146 mi)
Sun versus wind in Mohave County
Mohave County gets 5.62 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,641 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,051. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.6 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.