Wind Turbine Payback in Shasta County, CA
Wind turbine payback in Shasta 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 Shasta County, CA averages 3.27 m/s (7.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,471 kWh a year, worth $1,131 at CA's 32.58¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 88 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Shasta County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Shasta County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.4 m/s at the hub against 3.27 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,448 kWh a year here against the turbine's 347, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 144¢/kWh, 4.4 times what CA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.4 m/s instead of 3.27. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CA
Shasta County is the 2,787th 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 Shasta County
December is the strongest month here, at 3.63 m/s and about 415 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.82 m/s and 178 kWh, so the best month makes 2.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Shasta County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.33 m/s | 313 kWh | $102 |
| February | 3.54 m/s | 346 kWh | $113 |
| March | 3.58 m/s | 394 kWh | $128 |
| April | 3.32 m/s | 300 kWh | $98 |
| May | 3.19 m/s | 271 kWh | $88 |
| June | 3.21 m/s | 269 kWh | $88 |
| July | 2.87 m/s | 191 kWh | $62 |
| August | 2.82 m/s | 178 kWh | $58 |
| September | 3.05 m/s | 226 kWh | $74 |
| October | 3.36 m/s | 323 kWh | $105 |
| November | 3.34 m/s | 305 kWh | $99 |
| December | 3.63 m/s | 415 kWh | $135 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Shasta County averages 2.17 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.96 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.374, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,075 to 6,378 kWh a year, 207% 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 | 2.81 m/s | 2,075 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.27 m/s | 3,476 kWh | 88 years |
| 40 m | 3.64 m/s | 4,917 kWh | 62 years |
| 50 m | 3.96 m/s | 6,378 kWh | 48 years |
Counties around Shasta County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Butte County, averages 4.25 m/s.
- Tehama County, CA: 3.89 m/s, 6,037 kWh, payback 51 years (45 mi)
- Trinity County, CA: 2.43 m/s, 1,211 kWh, payback over 100 years (57 mi)
- Siskiyou County, CA: 2.97 m/s, 2,513 kWh, payback over 100 years (63 mi)
- Lassen County, CA: 3.6 m/s, 4,736 kWh, payback 65 years (75 mi)
- Butte County, CA: 4.25 m/s, 7,897 kWh, payback 39 years (79 mi)
- Glenn County, CA: 3.8 m/s, 5,614 kWh, payback 55 years (82 mi)
Sun versus wind in Shasta County
Shasta County gets 4.96 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,448 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 347. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 4.2 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.