Wind Turbine Payback in Pueblo County, CO
Wind turbine payback in Pueblo 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 Pueblo County, CO averages 5.18 m/s (11.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 13,768 kWh a year, worth $2,313 at CO's 16.8¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 43 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Pueblo County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Pueblo County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 5.18 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,469 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,377, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 36¢/kWh, 2.2 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 5.18. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
Pueblo County is the 1,389th 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 Pueblo County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.90 m/s and about 1,559 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.34 m/s and 715 kWh, so the best month makes 2.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Pueblo County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.46 m/s | 1,341 kWh | $225 |
| February | 5.45 m/s | 1,201 kWh | $202 |
| March | 5.60 m/s | 1,423 kWh | $239 |
| April | 5.90 m/s | 1,559 kWh | $262 |
| May | 5.14 m/s | 1,143 kWh | $192 |
| June | 5.06 m/s | 1,061 kWh | $178 |
| July | 4.41 m/s | 750 kWh | $126 |
| August | 4.34 m/s | 715 kWh | $120 |
| September | 4.82 m/s | 930 kWh | $156 |
| October | 5.07 m/s | 1,107 kWh | $186 |
| November | 5.37 m/s | 1,240 kWh | $208 |
| December | 5.58 m/s | 1,412 kWh | $237 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Pueblo County averages 4.03 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.82 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.228, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 10,716 to 18,374 kWh a year, 71% 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 | 4.72 m/s | 10,716 kWh | 56 years |
| 30 m | 5.18 m/s | 13,769 kWh | 43 years |
| 40 m | 5.53 m/s | 16,263 kWh | 37 years |
| 50 m | 5.82 m/s | 18,374 kWh | 32 years |
Counties around Pueblo County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Huerfano County, averages 5.51 m/s.
- Crowley County, CO: 5.2 m/s, 13,907 kWh, payback 43 years (40 mi)
- Huerfano County, CO: 5.51 m/s, 16,109 kWh, payback 37 years (42 mi)
- Otero County, CO: 5.33 m/s, 14,821 kWh, payback 40 years (46 mi)
- El Paso County, CO: 5.4 m/s, 15,319 kWh, payback 39 years (46 mi)
- Custer County, CO: 4.56 m/s, 9,702 kWh, payback 61 years (48 mi)
- Fremont County, CO: 4.87 m/s, 11,668 kWh, payback 51 years (55 mi)
Sun versus wind in Pueblo County
Pueblo County gets 5.03 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,469 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,377. 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.