Wind Turbine Payback in Skagit County, WA
Wind turbine payback in Skagit 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 Skagit County, WA averages 2.34 m/s (5.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 1,043 kWh a year, worth $150 at WA's 14.42¢/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 Skagit County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Skagit County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.1 m/s at the hub against 2.34 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,025 kWh a year here against the turbine's 104, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 479¢/kWh, 33.2 times what WA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.1 m/s instead of 2.34. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of WA
Skagit County is the 3,143rd windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in WA is Columbia County at 5.18 m/s, payback 50 years.
Month by month in Skagit County
January is the strongest month here, at 3.04 m/s and about 231 kWh. August is the weakest, 1.65 m/s and 16 kWh, so the best month makes 14.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 74% of the year's output in Skagit County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.04 m/s | 231 kWh | $33 |
| February | 2.68 m/s | 134 kWh | $19 |
| March | 2.71 m/s | 155 kWh | $22 |
| April | 2.30 m/s | 80 kWh | $12 |
| May | 1.93 m/s | 38 kWh | $5 |
| June | 1.82 m/s | 27 kWh | $4 |
| July | 1.65 m/s | 16 kWh | $2 |
| August | 1.65 m/s | 16 kWh | $2 |
| September | 1.97 m/s | 40 kWh | $6 |
| October | 2.44 m/s | 105 kWh | $15 |
| November | 2.91 m/s | 194 kWh | $28 |
| December | 2.97 m/s | 214 kWh | $31 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Skagit County averages 1.62 m/s; at 50 m it is 2.78 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.336, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 582 to 1,995 kWh a year, 243% 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 | 2.04 m/s | 582 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 2.34 m/s | 1,045 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 2.58 m/s | 1,519 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 2.78 m/s | 1,995 kWh | over 100 years |
Counties around Skagit County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, San Juan County, averages 3.83 m/s.
- Whatcom County, WA: 2.31 m/s, 989 kWh, payback over 100 years (24 mi)
- Snohomish County, WA: 2.49 m/s, 1,330 kWh, payback over 100 years (30 mi)
- Island County, WA: 2.56 m/s, 1,477 kWh, payback over 100 years (46 mi)
- San Juan County, WA: 3.83 m/s, 5,753 kWh, payback over 100 years (59 mi)
- King County, WA: 2.75 m/s, 1,920 kWh, payback over 100 years (69 mi)
- Chelan County, WA: 2.51 m/s, 1,371 kWh, payback over 100 years (70 mi)
Sun versus wind in Skagit County
Skagit County gets 3.51 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,025 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 104. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 9.9 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.