Wind Turbine Payback in Santa Cruz County, AZ
Wind turbine payback in Santa Cruz 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 Santa Cruz County, AZ averages 4.65 m/s (10.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 10,257 kWh a year, worth $1,575 at AZ's 15.36¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 64 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Santa Cruz County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Santa Cruz County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 4.65 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,705 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,026, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 49¢/kWh, 3.2 times what AZ pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 4.65. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of AZ
Santa Cruz County is the 1,659th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in AZ is Apache County at 5.25 m/s, payback 46 years.
Month by month in Santa Cruz County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.41 m/s and about 1,267 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.33 m/s and 312 kWh, so the best month makes 4.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 49% of the year's output in Santa Cruz County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.95 m/s | 1,034 kWh | $159 |
| February | 5.04 m/s | 985 kWh | $151 |
| March | 5.09 m/s | 1,116 kWh | $171 |
| April | 5.41 m/s | 1,267 kWh | $195 |
| May | 5.14 m/s | 1,148 kWh | $176 |
| June | 4.72 m/s | 880 kWh | $135 |
| July | 3.59 m/s | 398 kWh | $61 |
| August | 3.33 m/s | 312 kWh | $48 |
| September | 4.09 m/s | 579 kWh | $89 |
| October | 4.47 m/s | 777 kWh | $119 |
| November | 4.95 m/s | 1,000 kWh | $154 |
| December | 5.03 m/s | 1,080 kWh | $166 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Santa Cruz County averages 3.7 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.17 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.208, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 8,024 to 13,698 kWh a year, 71% 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 | 4.27 m/s | 8,024 kWh | 81 years |
| 30 m | 4.65 m/s | 10,250 kWh | 64 years |
| 40 m | 4.94 m/s | 12,102 kWh | 54 years |
| 50 m | 5.17 m/s | 13,698 kWh | 48 years |
Counties around Santa Cruz County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Hidalgo County, averages 5.18 m/s.
- Cochise County, AZ: 4.69 m/s, 10,508 kWh, payback 62 years (67 mi)
- Pima County, AZ: 4.58 m/s, 9,824 kWh, payback 66 years (69 mi)
- Pinal County, AZ: 4.22 m/s, 7,732 kWh, payback 84 years (101 mi)
- Graham County, AZ: 4.09 m/s, 7,038 kWh, payback 93 years (112 mi)
- Hidalgo County, NM: 5.18 m/s, 13,768 kWh, payback 47 years (126 mi)
- Greenlee County, AZ: 4.17 m/s, 7,461 kWh, payback 87 years (151 mi)
Sun versus wind in Santa Cruz County
Santa Cruz County gets 5.84 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,705 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,026. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.7 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.