Wind Turbine Payback in Tooele County, UT
Wind turbine payback in Tooele 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 Tooele County, UT averages 4.13 m/s (9.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 7,248 kWh a year, worth $956 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 Tooele County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Tooele County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.7 m/s at the hub against 4.13 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,364 kWh a year here against the turbine's 725, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 69¢/kWh, 5.2 times what UT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.7 m/s instead of 4.13. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of UT
Tooele County is the 1,981st 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 Tooele County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.79 m/s and about 915 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.67 m/s and 427 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 44% of the year's output in Tooele County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.76 m/s | 461 kWh | $61 |
| February | 4.38 m/s | 661 kWh | $87 |
| March | 4.66 m/s | 878 kWh | $116 |
| April | 4.79 m/s | 915 kWh | $121 |
| May | 4.16 m/s | 630 kWh | $83 |
| June | 4.16 m/s | 610 kWh | $80 |
| July | 3.67 m/s | 427 kWh | $56 |
| August | 3.85 m/s | 496 kWh | $65 |
| September | 3.84 m/s | 477 kWh | $63 |
| October | 3.95 m/s | 536 kWh | $71 |
| November | 4.04 m/s | 556 kWh | $73 |
| December | 4.29 m/s | 688 kWh | $91 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Tooele County averages 3.25 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.61 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.217, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 5,517 to 10,008 kWh a year, 81% 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 | 3.78 m/s | 5,517 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.13 m/s | 7,228 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.39 m/s | 8,702 kWh | 87 years |
| 50 m | 4.61 m/s | 10,008 kWh | 76 years |
Counties around Tooele County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Juab County, averages 4.18 m/s.
- Juab County, UT: 4.18 m/s, 7,515 kWh, payback over 100 years (55 mi)
- Davis County, UT: 3.95 m/s, 6,329 kWh, payback over 100 years (62 mi)
- Salt Lake County, UT: 3.41 m/s, 3,980 kWh, payback over 100 years (64 mi)
- Box Elder County, UT: 4.17 m/s, 7,461 kWh, payback over 100 years (80 mi)
- Utah County, UT: 3.6 m/s, 4,736 kWh, payback over 100 years (80 mi)
- Weber County, UT: 3.08 m/s, 2,844 kWh, payback over 100 years (86 mi)
Sun versus wind in Tooele County
Tooele County gets 4.67 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,364 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 725. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.9 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.