Wind Turbine Payback in Nevada County, CA
Wind turbine payback in Nevada 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 Nevada County, CA averages 3.32 m/s (7.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,648 kWh a year, worth $1,189 at CA's 32.58¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 84 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Nevada County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Nevada County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.4 m/s at the hub against 3.32 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,501 kWh a year here against the turbine's 365, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 137¢/kWh, 4.2 times what CA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.4 m/s instead of 3.32. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CA
Nevada County is the 2,715th 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 Nevada County
December is the strongest month here, at 3.82 m/s and about 487 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.72 m/s and 158 kWh, so the best month makes 3.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in Nevada County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.68 m/s | 432 kWh | $141 |
| February | 3.74 m/s | 410 kWh | $134 |
| March | 3.66 m/s | 423 kWh | $138 |
| April | 3.39 m/s | 321 kWh | $105 |
| May | 3.12 m/s | 251 kWh | $82 |
| June | 3.02 m/s | 218 kWh | $71 |
| July | 2.72 m/s | 158 kWh | $51 |
| August | 2.76 m/s | 165 kWh | $54 |
| September | 3.06 m/s | 228 kWh | $74 |
| October | 3.30 m/s | 304 kWh | $99 |
| November | 3.52 m/s | 364 kWh | $119 |
| December | 3.82 m/s | 487 kWh | $159 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Nevada County averages 2.24 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.98 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.357, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,231 to 6,477 kWh a year, 190% 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 | 2.87 m/s | 2,231 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.32 m/s | 3,636 kWh | 84 years |
| 40 m | 3.68 m/s | 5,056 kWh | 61 years |
| 50 m | 3.98 m/s | 6,477 kWh | 47 years |
Counties around Nevada County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Butte County, averages 4.25 m/s.
- Placer County, CA: 3.43 m/s, 4,056 kWh, payback 76 years (16 mi)
- Sierra County, CA: 3.32 m/s, 3,648 kWh, payback 84 years (23 mi)
- Yuba County, CA: 3.74 m/s, 5,342 kWh, payback 58 years (31 mi)
- El Dorado County, CA: 3.43 m/s, 4,056 kWh, payback 76 years (38 mi)
- Plumas County, CA: 3.24 m/s, 3,367 kWh, payback 91 years (48 mi)
- Butte County, CA: 4.25 m/s, 7,897 kWh, payback 39 years (51 mi)
Sun versus wind in Nevada County
Nevada County gets 5.14 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,501 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 365. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 4.1 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.