Wind Turbine Payback in Pitkin County, CO
Wind turbine payback in Pitkin 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 Pitkin County, CO averages 3.5 m/s (7.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,329 kWh a year, worth $727 at CO's 16.8¢/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 Pitkin County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Pitkin County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 3.5 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,407 kWh a year here against the turbine's 433, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 116¢/kWh, 6.9 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 3.5. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
Pitkin County is the 2,507th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in CO is Baca County at 6.65 m/s, payback 24 years.
Month by month in Pitkin County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.22 m/s and about 634 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.73 m/s and 158 kWh, so the best month makes 4.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Pitkin County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.40 m/s | 333 kWh | $56 |
| February | 3.90 m/s | 467 kWh | $78 |
| March | 3.88 m/s | 510 kWh | $86 |
| April | 4.22 m/s | 634 kWh | $107 |
| May | 3.75 m/s | 459 kWh | $77 |
| June | 3.61 m/s | 392 kWh | $66 |
| July | 2.73 m/s | 158 kWh | $27 |
| August | 2.73 m/s | 158 kWh | $27 |
| September | 3.14 m/s | 249 kWh | $42 |
| October | 3.56 m/s | 387 kWh | $65 |
| November | 3.56 m/s | 375 kWh | $63 |
| December | 3.51 m/s | 370 kWh | $62 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Pitkin County averages 2.5 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.09 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.306, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,875 to 7,038 kWh a year, 145% 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 | 3.09 m/s | 2,875 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.5 m/s | 4,321 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.82 m/s | 5,707 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.09 m/s | 7,038 kWh | 85 years |
Counties around Pitkin County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Lake County, averages 5.03 m/s.
- Lake County, CO: 5.03 m/s, 12,737 kWh, payback 47 years (30 mi)
- Eagle County, CO: 3.34 m/s, 3,720 kWh, payback over 100 years (31 mi)
- Gunnison County, CO: 4.6 m/s, 9,947 kWh, payback 60 years (39 mi)
- Chaffee County, CO: 5.01 m/s, 12,602 kWh, payback 47 years (47 mi)
- Summit County, CO: 3.59 m/s, 4,694 kWh, payback over 100 years (50 mi)
- Delta County, CO: 3.66 m/s, 4,991 kWh, payback over 100 years (57 mi)
Sun versus wind in Pitkin County
Pitkin County gets 4.82 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,407 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 433. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 3.2 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.