Wind Turbine Payback in Ventura County, CA
Wind turbine payback in Ventura 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 Ventura County, CA averages 3.36 m/s (7.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 3,794 kWh a year, worth $1,236 at CA's 32.58¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 81 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Ventura County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Ventura County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 5.4 m/s at the hub against 3.36 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,609 kWh a year here against the turbine's 379, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 132¢/kWh, 4.0 times what CA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 5.4 m/s instead of 3.36. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of CA
Ventura County is the 2,665th 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 Ventura County
January is the strongest month here, at 3.84 m/s and about 492 kWh. July is the weakest, 2.55 m/s and 123 kWh, so the best month makes 4.0 times the worst. November to March brings in 56% of the year's output in Ventura County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 3.84 m/s | 492 kWh | $160 |
| February | 3.75 m/s | 414 kWh | $135 |
| March | 3.73 m/s | 451 kWh | $147 |
| April | 3.74 m/s | 440 kWh | $143 |
| May | 3.35 m/s | 320 kWh | $104 |
| June | 2.95 m/s | 201 kWh | $65 |
| July | 2.55 m/s | 123 kWh | $40 |
| August | 2.67 m/s | 146 kWh | $48 |
| September | 2.99 m/s | 211 kWh | $69 |
| October | 3.35 m/s | 320 kWh | $104 |
| November | 3.64 m/s | 403 kWh | $131 |
| December | 3.78 m/s | 468 kWh | $152 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Ventura County averages 2.47 m/s; at 50 m it is 3.88 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.281, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 2,599 to 5,989 kWh a year, 130% 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 m/s | 2,599 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.36 m/s | 3,798 kWh | 81 years |
| 40 m | 3.64 m/s | 4,923 kWh | 62 years |
| 50 m | 3.88 m/s | 5,989 kWh | 51 years |
Counties around Ventura County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Santa Barbara County, averages 4.51 m/s.
- Los Angeles County, CA: 3.34 m/s, 3,720 kWh, payback 83 years (51 mi)
- Santa Barbara County, CA: 4.51 m/s, 9,399 kWh, payback 33 years (53 mi)
- Kern County, CA: 3.43 m/s, 4,056 kWh, payback 76 years (72 mi)
- Orange County, CA: 3.16 m/s, 3,099 kWh, payback 99 years (91 mi)
- San Luis Obispo County, CA: 4.12 m/s, 7,195 kWh, payback 43 years (103 mi)
- Kings County, CA: 4.07 m/s, 6,934 kWh, payback 44 years (125 mi)
Sun versus wind in Ventura County
Ventura County gets 5.51 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,609 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 379. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 4.2 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.