Wind Turbine Payback in Riverside County, CA
Wind turbine payback in Riverside 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 Riverside County, CA averages 3.95 m/s (8.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,329 kWh a year, worth $2,062 at CA's 32.58¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 49 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Riverside County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Riverside County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.4 m/s at the hub against 3.95 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,699 kWh a year here against the turbine's 633, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 79¢/kWh, 2.4 times what CA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.4 m/s instead of 3.95. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CA
Riverside County is the 2,089th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in CA is San Francisco County at 6.53 m/s, payback 13 years.
Month by month in Riverside County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.69 m/s and about 863 kWh. December is the weakest, 3.51 m/s and 372 kWh, so the best month makes 2.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 34% of the year's output in Riverside County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.57 m/s | 391 kWh | $127 |
| February | 3.79 m/s | 426 kWh | $139 |
| March | 4.18 m/s | 637 kWh | $208 |
| April | 4.69 m/s | 863 kWh | $281 |
| May | 4.60 m/s | 843 kWh | $275 |
| June | 4.52 m/s | 780 kWh | $254 |
| July | 3.88 m/s | 508 kWh | $166 |
| August | 3.68 m/s | 430 kWh | $140 |
| September | 3.69 m/s | 420 kWh | $137 |
| October | 3.75 m/s | 458 kWh | $149 |
| November | 3.55 m/s | 372 kWh | $121 |
| December | 3.51 m/s | 372 kWh | $121 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Riverside County averages 3.23 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.34 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.184, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,019 to 8,403 kWh a year, 67% 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 | 3.67 m/s | 5,019 kWh | 61 years |
| 30 m | 3.95 m/s | 6,332 kWh | 49 years |
| 40 m | 4.17 m/s | 7,437 kWh | 41 years |
| 50 m | 4.34 m/s | 8,403 kWh | 37 years |
Counties around Riverside County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, La Paz County, averages 4.54 m/s.
- Imperial County, CA: 4.5 m/s, 9,339 kWh, payback 33 years (60 mi)
- San Diego County, CA: 3.87 m/s, 5,942 kWh, payback 52 years (66 mi)
- San Bernardino County, CA: 4.3 m/s, 8,176 kWh, payback 38 years (79 mi)
- Orange County, CA: 3.16 m/s, 3,099 kWh, payback 99 years (102 mi)
- La Paz County, AZ: 4.54 m/s, 9,580 kWh, payback 68 years (113 mi)
- Los Angeles County, CA: 3.34 m/s, 3,720 kWh, payback 83 years (133 mi)
Sun versus wind in Riverside County
Riverside County gets 5.82 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,699 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 633. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.7 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.