Wind Turbine Payback in Monterey County, CA
Wind turbine payback in Monterey 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 Monterey County, CA averages 4.07 m/s (9.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,934 kWh a year, worth $2,259 at CA's 32.58¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 44 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Monterey County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Monterey County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.4 m/s at the hub against 4.07 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,539 kWh a year here against the turbine's 693, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 72¢/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 4.07. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CA
Monterey County is the 2,014th 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 Monterey County
May is the strongest month here, at 4.62 m/s and about 855 kWh. September is the weakest, 3.73 m/s and 435 kWh, so the best month makes 2.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 39% of the year's output in Monterey County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.90 m/s | 517 kWh | $168 |
| February | 4.17 m/s | 574 kWh | $187 |
| March | 4.19 m/s | 644 kWh | $210 |
| April | 4.56 m/s | 795 kWh | $259 |
| May | 4.62 m/s | 855 kWh | $279 |
| June | 4.56 m/s | 800 kWh | $261 |
| July | 3.85 m/s | 495 kWh | $161 |
| August | 3.75 m/s | 456 kWh | $149 |
| September | 3.73 m/s | 435 kWh | $142 |
| October | 3.77 m/s | 467 kWh | $152 |
| November | 3.80 m/s | 462 kWh | $151 |
| December | 4.02 m/s | 567 kWh | $185 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Monterey County averages 3.32 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.48 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.186, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,513 to 9,219 kWh a year, 67% 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 | 3.78 m/s | 5,513 kWh | 56 years |
| 30 m | 4.07 m/s | 6,955 kWh | 44 years |
| 40 m | 4.3 m/s | 8,164 kWh | 38 years |
| 50 m | 4.48 m/s | 9,219 kWh | 33 years |
Counties around Monterey County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Merced County, averages 4.5 m/s.
- San Benito County, CA: 3.61 m/s, 4,778 kWh, payback 64 years (29 mi)
- Santa Cruz County, CA: 3.46 m/s, 4,172 kWh, payback 74 years (66 mi)
- Santa Clara County, CA: 3.46 m/s, 4,172 kWh, payback 74 years (71 mi)
- Merced County, CA: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 33 years (74 mi)
- San Luis Obispo County, CA: 4.12 m/s, 7,195 kWh, payback 43 years (76 mi)
- Kings County, CA: 4.07 m/s, 6,934 kWh, payback 44 years (84 mi)
Sun versus wind in Monterey County
Monterey County gets 5.27 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,539 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 693. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.2 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.