Wind Turbine Payback in Sanders County, MT
Wind turbine payback in Sanders 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 Sanders County, MT averages 2.89 m/s (6.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 2,287 kWh a year, worth $323 at MT's 14.13¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of over 100 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Sanders County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Sanders County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 2.89 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,092 kWh a year here against the turbine's 229, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 219¢/kWh, 15.5 times what MT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 2.89. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MT
Sanders County is the 3,113th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MT is Fallon County at 6.64 m/s, payback 29 years.
Month by month in Sanders County
March is the strongest month here, at 3.11 m/s and about 250 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.70 m/s and 152 kWh, so the best month makes 1.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 42% of the year's output in Sanders County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 2.82 m/s | 178 kWh | $25 |
| February | 2.81 m/s | 159 kWh | $22 |
| March | 3.11 m/s | 250 kWh | $35 |
| April | 3.09 m/s | 235 kWh | $33 |
| May | 2.90 m/s | 197 kWh | $28 |
| June | 2.89 m/s | 189 kWh | $27 |
| July | 2.79 m/s | 171 kWh | $24 |
| August | 2.70 m/s | 152 kWh | $21 |
| September | 2.81 m/s | 171 kWh | $24 |
| October | 2.97 m/s | 213 kWh | $30 |
| November | 2.99 m/s | 210 kWh | $30 |
| December | 2.82 m/s | 178 kWh | $25 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Sanders County averages 1.93 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.48 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.366, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 1,327 to 4,250 kWh a year, 220% 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 | 2.49 m/s | 1,327 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 2.89 m/s | 2,278 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.21 m/s | 3,255 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 3.48 m/s | 4,250 kWh | over 100 years |
Counties around Sanders County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Kootenai County, averages 3.64 m/s.
- Shoshone County, ID: 2.97 m/s, 2,513 kWh, payback over 100 years (43 mi)
- Mineral County, MT: 3 m/s, 2,601 kWh, payback over 100 years (44 mi)
- Lake County, MT: 2.95 m/s, 2,455 kWh, payback over 100 years (52 mi)
- Lincoln County, MT: 2.59 m/s, 1,543 kWh, payback over 100 years (57 mi)
- Flathead County, MT: 3.37 m/s, 3,830 kWh, payback over 100 years (64 mi)
- Kootenai County, ID: 3.64 m/s, 4,905 kWh, payback over 100 years (71 mi)
Sun versus wind in Sanders County
Sanders County gets 3.74 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,092 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 229. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 4.8 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.