Wind Turbine Payback in Richland County, MT
Wind turbine payback in Richland 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 Richland County, MT averages 6.27 m/s (14 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 21,706 kWh a year, worth $3,067 at MT's 14.13¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 33 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Richland County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Richland County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 6.27 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,183 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,171, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.6 times what MT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 6.27. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MT
Richland County is the 510th 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 Richland County
October is the strongest month here, at 6.66 m/s and about 2,088 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.66 m/s and 1,462 kWh, so the best month makes 1.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Richland County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.52 m/s | 1,998 kWh | $282 |
| February | 5.97 m/s | 1,493 kWh | $211 |
| March | 6.46 m/s | 1,964 kWh | $278 |
| April | 6.61 m/s | 1,993 kWh | $282 |
| May | 6.40 m/s | 1,925 kWh | $272 |
| June | 6.06 m/s | 1,655 kWh | $234 |
| July | 5.66 m/s | 1,462 kWh | $207 |
| August | 5.70 m/s | 1,484 kWh | $210 |
| September | 6.14 m/s | 1,704 kWh | $241 |
| October | 6.66 m/s | 2,088 kWh | $295 |
| November | 6.63 m/s | 2,004 kWh | $283 |
| December | 6.44 m/s | 1,953 kWh | $276 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Richland County averages 4.99 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.98 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.209, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,958 to 26,900 kWh a year, 50% 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 | 5.76 m/s | 17,958 kWh | 39 years |
| 30 m | 6.27 m/s | 21,730 kWh | 33 years |
| 40 m | 6.66 m/s | 24,596 kWh | 29 years |
| 50 m | 6.98 m/s | 26,900 kWh | 26 years |
Counties around Richland County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, McKenzie County, averages 6.59 m/s.
- Dawson County, MT: 6.49 m/s, 23,333 kWh, payback 30 years (39 mi)
- Roosevelt County, MT: 6.24 m/s, 21,484 kWh, payback 33 years (40 mi)
- McKenzie County, ND: 6.59 m/s, 24,069 kWh, payback 33 years (54 mi)
- McCone County, MT: 6.43 m/s, 22,891 kWh, payback 31 years (57 mi)
- Wibaux County, MT: 6.43 m/s, 22,891 kWh, payback 31 years (58 mi)
- Williams County, ND: 6.33 m/s, 22,151 kWh, payback 36 years (63 mi)
Sun versus wind in Richland County
Richland County gets 4.05 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,183 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,171. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.8 times. 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.