Wind Turbine Payback in Siskiyou County, CA
Wind turbine payback in Siskiyou 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 Siskiyou County, CA averages 2.97 m/s (6.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 2,513 kWh a year, worth $819 at CA's 32.58¢/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 Siskiyou County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Siskiyou County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.4 m/s at the hub against 2.97 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,413 kWh a year here against the turbine's 251, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 199¢/kWh, 6.1 times what CA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.4 m/s instead of 2.97. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CA
Siskiyou County is the 3,068th 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 Siskiyou County
December is the strongest month here, at 3.39 m/s and about 333 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.48 m/s and 112 kWh, so the best month makes 3.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 55% of the year's output in Siskiyou County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.19 m/s | 273 kWh | $89 |
| February | 3.31 m/s | 276 kWh | $90 |
| March | 3.33 m/s | 314 kWh | $102 |
| April | 3.09 m/s | 236 kWh | $77 |
| May | 2.86 m/s | 188 kWh | $61 |
| June | 2.81 m/s | 171 kWh | $56 |
| July | 2.49 m/s | 113 kWh | $37 |
| August | 2.48 m/s | 112 kWh | $36 |
| September | 2.68 m/s | 144 kWh | $47 |
| October | 2.92 m/s | 201 kWh | $65 |
| November | 3.11 m/s | 241 kWh | $79 |
| December | 3.39 m/s | 333 kWh | $108 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Siskiyou County averages 2.19 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.42 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.277, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 1,687 to 4,018 kWh a year, 138% 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 | 2.65 m/s | 1,687 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 2.97 m/s | 2,509 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.22 m/s | 3,282 kWh | 94 years |
| 50 m | 3.42 m/s | 4,018 kWh | 76 years |
Counties around Siskiyou County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Klamath County, averages 3.28 m/s.
- Jackson County, OR: 2.98 m/s, 2,542 kWh, payback over 100 years (57 mi)
- Shasta County, CA: 3.27 m/s, 3,471 kWh, payback 88 years (63 mi)
- Trinity County, CA: 2.43 m/s, 1,211 kWh, payback over 100 years (72 mi)
- Del Norte County, CA: 2.88 m/s, 2,259 kWh, payback over 100 years (76 mi)
- Josephine County, OR: 2.84 m/s, 2,152 kWh, payback over 100 years (77 mi)
- Klamath County, OR: 3.28 m/s, 3,506 kWh, payback over 100 years (88 mi)
Sun versus wind in Siskiyou County
Siskiyou County gets 4.84 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,413 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 251. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 5.6 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.