Wind Turbine Payback in Utah County, UT
Wind turbine payback in Utah 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 Utah County, UT averages 3.6 m/s (8.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,736 kWh a year, worth $625 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 Utah County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Utah County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.7 m/s at the hub against 3.6 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,402 kWh a year here against the turbine's 474, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 106¢/kWh, 8.0 times what UT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.7 m/s instead of 3.6. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of UT
Utah County is the 2,402nd 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 Utah County
April is the strongest month here, at 4.12 m/s and about 592 kWh. January is the weakest, 3.29 m/s and 300 kWh, so the best month makes 2.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 39% of the year's output in Utah County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.29 m/s | 300 kWh | $40 |
| February | 3.55 m/s | 349 kWh | $46 |
| March | 3.89 m/s | 514 kWh | $68 |
| April | 4.12 m/s | 592 kWh | $78 |
| May | 3.68 m/s | 432 kWh | $57 |
| June | 3.91 m/s | 504 kWh | $66 |
| July | 3.40 m/s | 334 kWh | $44 |
| August | 3.51 m/s | 370 kWh | $49 |
| September | 3.53 m/s | 364 kWh | $48 |
| October | 3.45 m/s | 352 kWh | $46 |
| November | 3.53 m/s | 364 kWh | $48 |
| December | 3.41 m/s | 337 kWh | $44 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Utah County averages 2.98 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.93 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.172, typical of very open, smooth ground where height adds little. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,782 to 6,231 kWh a year, 65% 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 | 3,782 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.6 m/s | 4,734 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.78 m/s | 5,532 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 3.93 m/s | 6,231 kWh | over 100 years |
Counties around Utah County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Carbon County, averages 4.73 m/s.
- Wasatch County, UT: 3.18 m/s, 3,165 kWh, payback over 100 years (31 mi)
- Salt Lake County, UT: 3.41 m/s, 3,980 kWh, payback over 100 years (40 mi)
- Sanpete County, UT: 3.92 m/s, 6,182 kWh, payback over 100 years (52 mi)
- Summit County, UT: 3.82 m/s, 5,707 kWh, payback over 100 years (64 mi)
- Carbon County, UT: 4.73 m/s, 10,762 kWh, payback 70 years (65 mi)
- Juab County, UT: 4.18 m/s, 7,515 kWh, payback over 100 years (66 mi)
Sun versus wind in Utah County
Utah County gets 4.8 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,402 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 474. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 3.0 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.