Wind Turbine Payback in Mono County, CA
Wind turbine payback in Mono 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 Mono County, CA averages 4.05 m/s (9.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,831 kWh a year, worth $2,226 at CA's 32.58¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 45 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Mono County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Mono County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.4 m/s at the hub against 4.05 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,574 kWh a year here against the turbine's 683, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 73¢/kWh, 2.2 times what CA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.4 m/s instead of 4.05. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CA
Mono County is the 2,027th 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 Mono County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.71 m/s and about 903 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.23 m/s and 283 kWh, so the best month makes 3.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 53% of the year's output in Mono County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.22 m/s | 659 kWh | $215 |
| February | 4.56 m/s | 746 kWh | $243 |
| March | 4.71 m/s | 903 kWh | $294 |
| April | 4.73 m/s | 883 kWh | $288 |
| May | 4.02 m/s | 569 kWh | $185 |
| June | 3.89 m/s | 495 kWh | $161 |
| July | 3.23 m/s | 283 kWh | $92 |
| August | 3.26 m/s | 291 kWh | $95 |
| September | 3.58 m/s | 384 kWh | $125 |
| October | 3.59 m/s | 400 kWh | $130 |
| November | 4.22 m/s | 638 kWh | $208 |
| December | 4.61 m/s | 850 kWh | $277 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Mono County averages 3.34 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.43 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.175, typical of very open, smooth ground where height adds little. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,494 to 8,924 kWh a year, 62% 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 | 3.77 m/s | 5,494 kWh | 56 years |
| 30 m | 4.05 m/s | 6,837 kWh | 45 years |
| 40 m | 4.26 m/s | 7,955 kWh | 39 years |
| 50 m | 4.43 m/s | 8,924 kWh | 34 years |
Counties around Mono County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Esmeralda County, averages 4.22 m/s.
- Mineral County, NV: 3.75 m/s, 5,387 kWh, payback over 100 years (48 mi)
- Tuolumne County, CA: 3.32 m/s, 3,648 kWh, payback 84 years (60 mi)
- Mariposa County, CA: 3.18 m/s, 3,165 kWh, payback 97 years (61 mi)
- Madera County, CA: 3.56 m/s, 4,570 kWh, payback 67 years (68 mi)
- Esmeralda County, NV: 4.22 m/s, 7,732 kWh, payback 97 years (68 mi)
- Alpine County, CA: 3.53 m/s, 4,449 kWh, payback 69 years (70 mi)
Sun versus wind in Mono County
Mono County gets 5.39 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,574 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 683. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.3 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.