Wind Turbine Payback in Trinity County, CA
Wind turbine payback in Trinity 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 Trinity County, CA averages 2.43 m/s (5.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 1,211 kWh a year, worth $394 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 Trinity County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Trinity County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.4 m/s at the hub against 2.43 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,422 kWh a year here against the turbine's 121, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 413¢/kWh, 12.7 times what CA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.4 m/s instead of 2.43. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CA
Trinity County is the 3,141st 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 Trinity County
March is the strongest month here, at 2.59 m/s and about 131 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.16 m/s and 64 kWh, so the best month makes 2.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Trinity County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 2.40 m/s | 99 kWh | $32 |
| February | 2.59 m/s | 118 kWh | $38 |
| March | 2.59 m/s | 131 kWh | $43 |
| April | 2.56 m/s | 121 kWh | $39 |
| May | 2.43 m/s | 103 kWh | $34 |
| June | 2.56 m/s | 122 kWh | $40 |
| July | 2.18 m/s | 66 kWh | $22 |
| August | 2.16 m/s | 64 kWh | $21 |
| September | 2.34 m/s | 85 kWh | $28 |
| October | 2.43 m/s | 103 kWh | $34 |
| November | 2.40 m/s | 94 kWh | $31 |
| December | 2.59 m/s | 131 kWh | $43 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Trinity County averages 1.65 m/s; at 50 m it is 2.91 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.353, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 667 to 2,342 kWh a year, 251% 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 | 2.11 m/s | 667 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 2.43 m/s | 1,210 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 2.69 m/s | 1,772 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 2.91 m/s | 2,342 kWh | over 100 years |
Counties around Trinity County
6 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Tehama County, averages 3.89 m/s.
- Humboldt County, CA: 2.96 m/s, 2,484 kWh, payback over 100 years (43 mi)
- Shasta County, CA: 3.27 m/s, 3,471 kWh, payback 88 years (57 mi)
- Tehama County, CA: 3.89 m/s, 6,037 kWh, payback 51 years (59 mi)
- Siskiyou County, CA: 2.97 m/s, 2,513 kWh, payback over 100 years (72 mi)
- Glenn County, CA: 3.8 m/s, 5,614 kWh, payback 55 years (81 mi)
- Mendocino County, CA: 3.87 m/s, 5,942 kWh, payback 52 years (86 mi)
Sun versus wind in Trinity County
Trinity County gets 4.87 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,422 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 121. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 11.8 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.