Wind Turbine Payback in Rio Blanco County, CO
Wind turbine payback in Rio Blanco 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 Blanco County, CO averages 4.6 m/s (10.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 9,947 kWh a year, worth $1,671 at CO's 16.8¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 60 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Rio Blanco County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Rio Blanco County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 4.6 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,463 kWh a year here against the turbine's 995, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 50¢/kWh, 3.0 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 4.6. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
Rio Blanco County is the 1,696th 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 Rio Blanco County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.29 m/s and about 1,194 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.77 m/s and 466 kWh, so the best month makes 2.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Rio Blanco County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.50 m/s | 795 kWh | $134 |
| February | 4.94 m/s | 933 kWh | $157 |
| March | 5.09 m/s | 1,119 kWh | $188 |
| April | 5.29 m/s | 1,194 kWh | $201 |
| May | 4.74 m/s | 921 kWh | $155 |
| June | 4.83 m/s | 938 kWh | $158 |
| July | 3.84 m/s | 494 kWh | $83 |
| August | 3.77 m/s | 466 kWh | $78 |
| September | 4.28 m/s | 665 kWh | $112 |
| October | 4.53 m/s | 809 kWh | $136 |
| November | 4.72 m/s | 877 kWh | $147 |
| December | 4.69 m/s | 892 kWh | $150 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Rio Blanco County averages 3.51 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.22 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.247, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 7,422 to 14,046 kWh a year, 89% 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 | 4.16 m/s | 7,422 kWh | 80 years |
| 30 m | 4.6 m/s | 9,954 kWh | 60 years |
| 40 m | 4.94 m/s | 12,133 kWh | 49 years |
| 50 m | 5.22 m/s | 14,046 kWh | 42 years |
Counties around Rio Blanco County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Moffat County, averages 5.05 m/s.
- Garfield County, CO: 3.87 m/s, 5,942 kWh, payback over 100 years (30 mi)
- Moffat County, CO: 5.05 m/s, 12,873 kWh, payback 46 years (44 mi)
- Mesa County, CO: 4.25 m/s, 7,897 kWh, payback 75 years (67 mi)
- Uintah County, UT: 4.38 m/s, 8,632 kWh, payback 88 years (70 mi)
- Routt County, CO: 3.63 m/s, 4,862 kWh, payback over 100 years (73 mi)
- Delta County, CO: 3.66 m/s, 4,991 kWh, payback over 100 years (79 mi)
Sun versus wind in Rio Blanco County
Rio Blanco County gets 5.01 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,463 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 995. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.5 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.