Wind Turbine Payback in Morrow County, OR
Wind turbine payback in Morrow 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 Morrow County, OR averages 5.25 m/s (11.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 14,256 kWh a year, worth $2,204 at OR's 15.46¢/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 Morrow County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Morrow County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 5.25 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,232 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,426, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 35¢/kWh, 2.3 times what OR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 5.25. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OR
Morrow County is the 1,353rd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in OR is Gilliam County at 5.48 m/s, payback 41 years.
Month by month in Morrow County
December is the strongest month here, at 5.92 m/s and about 1,623 kWh. September is the weakest, 4.54 m/s and 787 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Morrow County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.86 m/s | 1,583 kWh | $245 |
| February | 5.55 m/s | 1,255 kWh | $194 |
| March | 5.72 m/s | 1,500 kWh | $232 |
| April | 5.29 m/s | 1,193 kWh | $184 |
| May | 4.86 m/s | 985 kWh | $152 |
| June | 4.95 m/s | 1,002 kWh | $155 |
| July | 4.74 m/s | 922 kWh | $143 |
| August | 4.61 m/s | 850 kWh | $131 |
| September | 4.54 m/s | 787 kWh | $122 |
| October | 5.14 m/s | 1,148 kWh | $177 |
| November | 5.91 m/s | 1,565 kWh | $242 |
| December | 5.92 m/s | 1,623 kWh | $251 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Morrow County averages 4.09 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.9 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.228, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 11,132 to 18,964 kWh a year, 70% 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 | 4.79 m/s | 11,132 kWh | 58 years |
| 30 m | 5.25 m/s | 14,266 kWh | 45 years |
| 40 m | 5.61 m/s | 16,815 kWh | 39 years |
| 50 m | 5.9 m/s | 18,964 kWh | 34 years |
Counties around Morrow County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Gilliam County, averages 5.48 m/s.
- Gilliam County, OR: 5.48 m/s, 15,893 kWh, payback 41 years (33 mi)
- Umatilla County, OR: 5.02 m/s, 12,670 kWh, payback 51 years (44 mi)
- Wheeler County, OR: 4.53 m/s, 9,519 kWh, payback 68 years (52 mi)
- Sherman County, OR: 4.8 m/s, 11,212 kWh, payback 58 years (52 mi)
- Benton County, WA: 4.84 m/s, 11,472 kWh, payback 61 years (56 mi)
- Klickitat County, WA: 4.88 m/s, 11,734 kWh, payback 59 years (65 mi)
Sun versus wind in Morrow County
Morrow County gets 4.22 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,232 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,426. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.2 times. 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.