Wind Turbine Payback in Park County, MT
Wind turbine payback in Park 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 Park County, MT averages 4.68 m/s (10.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,445 kWh a year, worth $1,476 at MT's 14.13¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 68 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Park County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Park County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 4.68 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,197 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,045, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 48¢/kWh, 3.4 times what MT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 4.68. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MT
Park County is the 1,635th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MT is Fallon County at 6.64 m/s, payback 29 years.
Month by month in Park County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.05 m/s and about 1,708 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.46 m/s and 353 kWh, so the best month makes 4.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 64% of the year's output in Park County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.05 m/s | 1,708 kWh | $241 |
| February | 5.40 m/s | 1,173 kWh | $166 |
| March | 5.20 m/s | 1,183 kWh | $167 |
| April | 4.53 m/s | 781 kWh | $110 |
| May | 3.94 m/s | 533 kWh | $75 |
| June | 3.90 m/s | 498 kWh | $70 |
| July | 3.46 m/s | 353 kWh | $50 |
| August | 3.49 m/s | 365 kWh | $52 |
| September | 4.01 m/s | 545 kWh | $77 |
| October | 4.78 m/s | 942 kWh | $133 |
| November | 5.57 m/s | 1,361 kWh | $192 |
| December | 5.84 m/s | 1,575 kWh | $223 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Park County averages 3.53 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.33 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.256, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 7,708 to 14,821 kWh a year, 92% 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 | 4.22 m/s | 7,708 kWh | 92 years |
| 30 m | 4.68 m/s | 10,424 kWh | 68 years |
| 40 m | 5.03 m/s | 12,765 kWh | 55 years |
| 50 m | 5.33 m/s | 14,821 kWh | 48 years |
Counties around Park County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Sweet Grass County, averages 5.94 m/s.
- Gallatin County, MT: 4.18 m/s, 7,515 kWh, payback 94 years (31 mi)
- Sweet Grass County, MT: 5.94 m/s, 19,260 kWh, payback 37 years (37 mi)
- Stillwater County, MT: 5.8 m/s, 18,226 kWh, payback 39 years (57 mi)
- Madison County, MT: 4.63 m/s, 10,132 kWh, payback 70 years (68 mi)
- Carbon County, MT: 4.41 m/s, 8,807 kWh, payback 80 years (75 mi)
- Broadwater County, MT: 3.97 m/s, 6,428 kWh, payback over 100 years (76 mi)
Sun versus wind in Park County
Park County gets 4.1 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,197 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,045. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.1 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.