Wind Turbine Payback in Sacramento County, CA
Wind turbine payback in Sacramento 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 Sacramento County, CA averages 3.82 m/s (8.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 5,707 kWh a year, worth $1,859 at CA's 32.58¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 54 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Sacramento County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Sacramento County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.4 m/s at the hub against 3.82 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,527 kWh a year here against the turbine's 571, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 88¢/kWh, 2.7 times what CA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.4 m/s instead of 3.82. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CA
Sacramento County is the 2,198th 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 Sacramento County
December is the strongest month here, at 4.31 m/s and about 698 kWh. October is the weakest, 3.33 m/s and 313 kWh, so the best month makes 2.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Sacramento County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.83 m/s | 490 kWh | $160 |
| February | 4.23 m/s | 596 kWh | $194 |
| March | 3.96 m/s | 541 kWh | $176 |
| April | 3.87 m/s | 488 kWh | $159 |
| May | 3.92 m/s | 526 kWh | $171 |
| June | 3.90 m/s | 498 kWh | $162 |
| July | 3.87 m/s | 504 kWh | $164 |
| August | 3.69 m/s | 435 kWh | $142 |
| September | 3.39 m/s | 319 kWh | $104 |
| October | 3.33 m/s | 313 kWh | $102 |
| November | 3.47 m/s | 348 kWh | $113 |
| December | 4.31 m/s | 698 kWh | $227 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Sacramento County averages 3.01 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.26 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.216, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 4,309 to 7,953 kWh a year, 85% 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 | 3.5 m/s | 4,309 kWh | 71 years |
| 30 m | 3.81 m/s | 5,683 kWh | 54 years |
| 40 m | 4.06 m/s | 6,880 kWh | 45 years |
| 50 m | 4.26 m/s | 7,953 kWh | 39 years |
Counties around Sacramento County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Yolo County, averages 4.42 m/s.
- Yolo County, CA: 4.42 m/s, 8,865 kWh, payback 35 years (34 mi)
- Solano County, CA: 4.42 m/s, 8,865 kWh, payback 35 years (35 mi)
- San Joaquin County, CA: 4.09 m/s, 7,038 kWh, payback 44 years (36 mi)
- Amador County, CA: 3.59 m/s, 4,694 kWh, payback 65 years (37 mi)
- Sutter County, CA: 3.93 m/s, 6,231 kWh, payback 49 years (45 mi)
- Calaveras County, CA: 3.22 m/s, 3,299 kWh, payback 93 years (46 mi)
Sun versus wind in Sacramento County
Sacramento County gets 5.23 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,527 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 571. 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.