Wind Turbine Payback in Okanogan County, WA
Wind turbine payback in Okanogan 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 Okanogan County, WA averages 2.7 m/s (6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 1,797 kWh a year, worth $259 at WA's 14.42¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of over 100 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Okanogan County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Okanogan County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.1 m/s at the hub against 2.7 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,127 kWh a year here against the turbine's 180, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 278¢/kWh, 19.3 times what WA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.1 m/s instead of 2.7. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of WA
Okanogan County is the 3,131st windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in WA is Columbia County at 5.18 m/s, payback 50 years.
Month by month in Okanogan County
July is the strongest month here, at 2.94 m/s and about 206 kWh. January is the weakest, 2.33 m/s and 87 kWh, so the best month makes 2.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 32% of the year's output in Okanogan County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 2.33 m/s | 87 kWh | $13 |
| February | 2.55 m/s | 112 kWh | $16 |
| March | 2.84 m/s | 182 kWh | $26 |
| April | 2.95 m/s | 201 kWh | $29 |
| May | 2.86 m/s | 188 kWh | $27 |
| June | 2.89 m/s | 188 kWh | $27 |
| July | 2.94 m/s | 206 kWh | $30 |
| August | 2.81 m/s | 176 kWh | $25 |
| September | 2.73 m/s | 153 kWh | $22 |
| October | 2.65 m/s | 142 kWh | $20 |
| November | 2.48 m/s | 107 kWh | $15 |
| December | 2.36 m/s | 92 kWh | $13 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Okanogan County averages 1.95 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.14 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.296, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 1,142 to 3,034 kWh a year, 166% 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 | 2.39 m/s | 1,142 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 2.7 m/s | 1,796 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 2.94 m/s | 2,425 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 3.14 m/s | 3,034 kWh | over 100 years |
Counties around Okanogan County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Lincoln County, averages 4.88 m/s.
- Ferry County, WA: 2.74 m/s, 1,895 kWh, payback over 100 years (56 mi)
- Douglas County, WA: 3.61 m/s, 4,778 kWh, payback over 100 years (56 mi)
- Chelan County, WA: 2.51 m/s, 1,371 kWh, payback over 100 years (62 mi)
- Stevens County, WA: 2.55 m/s, 1,456 kWh, payback over 100 years (87 mi)
- Lincoln County, WA: 4.88 m/s, 11,734 kWh, payback 59 years (91 mi)
- Grant County, WA: 4.55 m/s, 9,641 kWh, payback 72 years (93 mi)
Sun versus wind in Okanogan County
Okanogan County gets 3.86 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,127 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 180. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 6.3 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.