Wind Turbine Payback in Piute County, UT
Wind turbine payback in Piute 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 Piute County, UT averages 4.02 m/s (9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,678 kWh a year, worth $881 at UT's 13.19¢/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 Piute County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Piute County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.7 m/s at the hub against 4.02 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,495 kWh a year here against the turbine's 668, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 75¢/kWh, 5.7 times what UT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.7 m/s instead of 4.02. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of UT
Piute County is the 2,042nd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in UT is Daggett County at 5.32 m/s, payback 51 years.
Month by month in Piute County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.90 m/s and about 975 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.08 m/s and 241 kWh, so the best month makes 4.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Piute County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.06 m/s | 582 kWh | $77 |
| February | 4.46 m/s | 698 kWh | $92 |
| March | 4.57 m/s | 831 kWh | $110 |
| April | 4.90 m/s | 975 kWh | $129 |
| May | 4.19 m/s | 642 kWh | $85 |
| June | 4.19 m/s | 621 kWh | $82 |
| July | 3.08 m/s | 241 kWh | $32 |
| August | 3.19 m/s | 273 kWh | $36 |
| September | 3.55 m/s | 371 kWh | $49 |
| October | 3.87 m/s | 505 kWh | $67 |
| November | 4.08 m/s | 575 kWh | $76 |
| December | 4.13 m/s | 614 kWh | $81 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Piute County averages 3.05 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.57 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.251, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,867 to 9,763 kWh a year, 101% 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 | 3.63 m/s | 4,867 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.02 m/s | 6,679 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.32 m/s | 8,295 kWh | 91 years |
| 50 m | 4.57 m/s | 9,763 kWh | 78 years |
Counties around Piute County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Iron County, averages 5.21 m/s.
- Sevier County, UT: 4.02 m/s, 6,678 kWh, payback over 100 years (33 mi)
- Garfield County, UT: 4.66 m/s, 10,320 kWh, payback 74 years (51 mi)
- Beaver County, UT: 4.7 m/s, 10,571 kWh, payback 72 years (60 mi)
- Wayne County, UT: 4.68 m/s, 10,445 kWh, payback 73 years (62 mi)
- Millard County, UT: 4.53 m/s, 9,519 kWh, payback 80 years (69 mi)
- Iron County, UT: 5.21 m/s, 13,976 kWh, payback 54 years (70 mi)
Sun versus wind in Piute County
Piute County gets 5.12 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,495 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 668. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.2 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.