Wind Turbine Payback in Summit County, UT
Wind turbine payback in Summit 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 Summit County, UT averages 3.82 m/s (8.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 5,707 kWh a year, worth $753 at UT's 13.19¢/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 Summit County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Summit County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.7 m/s at the hub against 3.82 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,399 kWh a year here against the turbine's 571, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 88¢/kWh, 6.6 times what UT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.7 m/s instead of 3.82. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of UT
Summit County is the 2,198th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in UT is Daggett County at 5.32 m/s, payback 51 years.
Month by month in Summit County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.30 m/s and about 693 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.31 m/s and 307 kWh, so the best month makes 2.3 times the worst. November to March brings in 50% of the year's output in Summit County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.95 m/s | 537 kWh | $71 |
| February | 4.25 m/s | 608 kWh | $80 |
| March | 4.30 m/s | 693 kWh | $91 |
| April | 4.20 m/s | 624 kWh | $82 |
| May | 3.62 m/s | 411 kWh | $54 |
| June | 3.73 m/s | 434 kWh | $57 |
| July | 3.31 m/s | 307 kWh | $40 |
| August | 3.40 m/s | 336 kWh | $44 |
| September | 3.56 m/s | 375 kWh | $49 |
| October | 3.65 m/s | 420 kWh | $55 |
| November | 3.91 m/s | 506 kWh | $67 |
| December | 3.99 m/s | 555 kWh | $73 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Summit County averages 2.7 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.49 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.316, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,798 to 9,279 kWh a year, 144% 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 | 3.36 m/s | 3,798 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.82 m/s | 5,710 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.18 m/s | 7,538 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.49 m/s | 9,279 kWh | 82 years |
Counties around Summit County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Uinta County, averages 5.84 m/s.
- Morgan County, UT: 3.22 m/s, 3,299 kWh, payback over 100 years (35 mi)
- Uinta County, WY: 5.84 m/s, 18,521 kWh, payback 39 years (36 mi)
- Wasatch County, UT: 3.18 m/s, 3,165 kWh, payback over 100 years (38 mi)
- Duchesne County, UT: 3.72 m/s, 5,253 kWh, payback over 100 years (49 mi)
- Salt Lake County, UT: 3.41 m/s, 3,980 kWh, payback over 100 years (52 mi)
- Rich County, UT: 4.61 m/s, 10,008 kWh, payback 76 years (54 mi)
Sun versus wind in Summit County
Summit County gets 4.79 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,399 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 571. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.5 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.