Wind Turbine Payback in Rio Grande County, CO
Wind turbine payback in Rio Grande 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 Grande County, CO averages 4.91 m/s (11 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 11,933 kWh a year, worth $2,005 at CO's 16.8¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 50 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Rio Grande County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Rio Grande County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.4 m/s at the hub against 4.91 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,524 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,193, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 42¢/kWh, 2.5 times what CO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.4 m/s instead of 4.91. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CO
Rio Grande County is the 1,500th 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 Grande County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.94 m/s and about 1,581 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.27 m/s and 294 kWh, so the best month makes 5.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 54% of the year's output in Rio Grande County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.48 m/s | 1,351 kWh | $227 |
| February | 5.84 m/s | 1,421 kWh | $239 |
| March | 5.73 m/s | 1,502 kWh | $252 |
| April | 5.94 m/s | 1,581 kWh | $266 |
| May | 5.06 m/s | 1,100 kWh | $185 |
| June | 4.65 m/s | 843 kWh | $142 |
| July | 3.27 m/s | 294 kWh | $49 |
| August | 3.36 m/s | 323 kWh | $54 |
| September | 4.13 m/s | 597 kWh | $100 |
| October | 4.91 m/s | 1,015 kWh | $171 |
| November | 5.25 m/s | 1,169 kWh | $196 |
| December | 5.47 m/s | 1,345 kWh | $226 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Rio Grande County averages 3.69 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.61 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.260, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 8,869 to 16,834 kWh a year, 90% 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 | 4.42 m/s | 8,869 kWh | 67 years |
| 30 m | 4.91 m/s | 11,948 kWh | 50 years |
| 40 m | 5.29 m/s | 14,564 kWh | 41 years |
| 50 m | 5.61 m/s | 16,834 kWh | 35 years |
Counties around Rio Grande County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Saguache County, averages 5.18 m/s.
- Conejos County, CO: 4.38 m/s, 8,632 kWh, payback 69 years (24 mi)
- Mineral County, CO: 4.07 m/s, 6,934 kWh, payback 86 years (30 mi)
- Alamosa County, CO: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 64 years (37 mi)
- Archuleta County, CO: 3.87 m/s, 5,942 kWh, payback over 100 years (38 mi)
- Saguache County, CO: 5.18 m/s, 13,768 kWh, payback 43 years (40 mi)
- Hinsdale County, CO: 3.36 m/s, 3,794 kWh, payback over 100 years (56 mi)
Sun versus wind in Rio Grande County
Rio Grande County gets 5.22 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,524 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,193. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.3 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.