Wind Turbine Payback in Plumas County, CA
Wind turbine payback in Plumas 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 Plumas County, CA averages 3.24 m/s (7.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,367 kWh a year, worth $1,097 at CA's 32.58¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 91 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Plumas County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Plumas County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.4 m/s at the hub against 3.24 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,501 kWh a year here against the turbine's 337, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 149¢/kWh, 4.6 times what CA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.4 m/s instead of 3.24. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CA
Plumas County is the 2,831st 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 Plumas County
March is the strongest month here, at 3.64 m/s and about 417 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.80 m/s and 173 kWh, so the best month makes 2.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Plumas County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.39 m/s | 331 kWh | $108 |
| February | 3.51 m/s | 334 kWh | $109 |
| March | 3.64 m/s | 417 kWh | $136 |
| April | 3.45 m/s | 339 kWh | $110 |
| May | 3.21 m/s | 278 kWh | $91 |
| June | 3.08 m/s | 235 kWh | $77 |
| July | 2.82 m/s | 179 kWh | $58 |
| August | 2.80 m/s | 173 kWh | $56 |
| September | 2.91 m/s | 192 kWh | $63 |
| October | 3.11 m/s | 249 kWh | $81 |
| November | 3.35 m/s | 307 kWh | $100 |
| December | 3.62 m/s | 408 kWh | $133 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Plumas County averages 2.24 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.84 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.335, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,112 to 5,800 kWh a year, 175% 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 | 2.83 m/s | 2,112 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.24 m/s | 3,354 kWh | 92 years |
| 40 m | 3.56 m/s | 4,584 kWh | 67 years |
| 50 m | 3.84 m/s | 5,800 kWh | 53 years |
Counties around Plumas County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Butte County, averages 4.25 m/s.
- Sierra County, CA: 3.32 m/s, 3,648 kWh, payback 84 years (33 mi)
- Butte County, CA: 4.25 m/s, 7,897 kWh, payback 39 years (47 mi)
- Nevada County, CA: 3.32 m/s, 3,648 kWh, payback 84 years (48 mi)
- Lassen County, CA: 3.6 m/s, 4,736 kWh, payback 65 years (51 mi)
- Yuba County, CA: 3.74 m/s, 5,342 kWh, payback 58 years (57 mi)
- Placer County, CA: 3.43 m/s, 4,056 kWh, payback 76 years (65 mi)
Sun versus wind in Plumas County
Plumas 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 337. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 4.5 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.