Wind Turbine Payback in Rio Arriba County, NM
Wind turbine payback in Rio Arriba 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 Rio Arriba County, NM averages 4.04 m/s (9 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,780 kWh a year, worth $1,040 at NM's 15.34¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 96 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Rio Arriba County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Rio Arriba County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 4.04 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,545 kWh a year here against the turbine's 678, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 74¢/kWh, 4.8 times what NM pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 4.04. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NM
Rio Arriba County is the 2,033rd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NM is Union County at 6.75 m/s, payback 26 years.
Month by month in Rio Arriba County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.07 m/s and about 1,067 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.29 m/s and 302 kWh, so the best month makes 3.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 40% of the year's output in Rio Arriba County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.74 m/s | 453 kWh | $69 |
| February | 4.33 m/s | 641 kWh | $98 |
| March | 4.59 m/s | 842 kWh | $129 |
| April | 5.07 m/s | 1,067 kWh | $164 |
| May | 4.64 m/s | 865 kWh | $133 |
| June | 4.40 m/s | 720 kWh | $110 |
| July | 3.33 m/s | 312 kWh | $48 |
| August | 3.29 m/s | 302 kWh | $46 |
| September | 3.76 m/s | 445 kWh | $68 |
| October | 3.93 m/s | 529 kWh | $81 |
| November | 3.76 m/s | 448 kWh | $69 |
| December | 3.69 m/s | 433 kWh | $66 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Rio Arriba County averages 3.02 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.63 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.265, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,870 to 10,132 kWh a year, 108% 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 | 4,870 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.04 m/s | 6,800 kWh | 96 years |
| 40 m | 4.36 m/s | 8,541 kWh | 76 years |
| 50 m | 4.63 m/s | 10,132 kWh | 64 years |
Counties around Rio Arriba County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Sandoval County, averages 5 m/s.
- Los Alamos County, NM: 4.28 m/s, 8,064 kWh, payback 81 years (49 mi)
- Archuleta County, CO: 3.87 m/s, 5,942 kWh, payback over 100 years (52 mi)
- Conejos County, CO: 4.38 m/s, 8,632 kWh, payback 69 years (56 mi)
- Sandoval County, NM: 5 m/s, 12,535 kWh, payback 52 years (58 mi)
- Taos County, NM: 4.23 m/s, 7,787 kWh, payback 84 years (59 mi)
- Rio Grande County, CO: 4.91 m/s, 11,933 kWh, payback 50 years (69 mi)
Sun versus wind in Rio Arriba County
Rio Arriba County gets 5.29 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,545 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 678. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.3 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.