Wind Turbine Payback in Tulare County, CA
Wind turbine payback in Tulare 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 Tulare County, CA averages 3.06 m/s (6.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 2,782 kWh a year, worth $906 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 Tulare County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Tulare County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.4 m/s at the hub against 3.06 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,580 kWh a year here against the turbine's 278, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 180¢/kWh, 5.5 times what CA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.4 m/s instead of 3.06. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CA
Tulare County is the 3,023rd 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 Tulare County
April is the strongest month here, at 3.32 m/s and about 299 kWh. August is the weakest, 2.80 m/s and 174 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 41% of the year's output in Tulare County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.15 m/s | 261 kWh | $85 |
| February | 3.01 m/s | 202 kWh | $66 |
| March | 3.09 m/s | 246 kWh | $80 |
| April | 3.32 m/s | 299 kWh | $97 |
| May | 3.27 m/s | 295 kWh | $96 |
| June | 3.22 m/s | 272 kWh | $89 |
| July | 2.85 m/s | 186 kWh | $61 |
| August | 2.80 m/s | 174 kWh | $57 |
| September | 2.98 m/s | 210 kWh | $68 |
| October | 3.00 m/s | 222 kWh | $72 |
| November | 3.00 m/s | 214 kWh | $70 |
| December | 2.95 m/s | 208 kWh | $68 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Tulare County averages 2.58 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.31 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.155, typical of very open, smooth ground where height adds little. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,237 to 3,612 kWh a year, 61% 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 | 2.87 m/s | 2,237 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.06 m/s | 2,776 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.2 m/s | 3,223 kWh | 95 years |
| 50 m | 3.31 m/s | 3,612 kWh | 85 years |
Counties around Tulare County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, San Luis Obispo County, averages 4.12 m/s.
- Kings County, CA: 4.07 m/s, 6,934 kWh, payback 44 years (59 mi)
- Fresno County, CA: 2.88 m/s, 2,259 kWh, payback over 100 years (61 mi)
- Kern County, CA: 3.43 m/s, 4,056 kWh, payback 76 years (61 mi)
- Inyo County, CA: 3.03 m/s, 2,691 kWh, payback over 100 years (80 mi)
- Madera County, CA: 3.56 m/s, 4,570 kWh, payback 67 years (86 mi)
- San Luis Obispo County, CA: 4.12 m/s, 7,195 kWh, payback 43 years (110 mi)
Sun versus wind in Tulare County
Tulare County gets 5.41 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,580 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 278. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 5.7 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.