Wind Turbine Payback in Walsh County, ND
Wind turbine payback in Walsh 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 Walsh County, ND averages 6.37 m/s (14.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,447 kWh a year, worth $2,797 at ND's 12.46¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 36 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Walsh County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Walsh County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 9.1 m/s at the hub against 6.37 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,101 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,245, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 22¢/kWh, 1.8 times what ND pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 9.1 m/s instead of 6.37. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of ND
Walsh County is the 380th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in ND is Bowman County at 6.79 m/s, payback 31 years.
Month by month in Walsh County
October is the strongest month here, at 6.85 m/s and about 2,208 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.61 m/s and 1,427 kWh, so the best month makes 1.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Walsh County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.49 m/s | 1,985 kWh | $247 |
| February | 6.40 m/s | 1,742 kWh | $217 |
| March | 6.62 m/s | 2,063 kWh | $257 |
| April | 6.76 m/s | 2,077 kWh | $259 |
| May | 6.67 m/s | 2,091 kWh | $261 |
| June | 6.02 m/s | 1,631 kWh | $203 |
| July | 5.61 m/s | 1,427 kWh | $178 |
| August | 5.70 m/s | 1,488 kWh | $185 |
| September | 6.43 m/s | 1,882 kWh | $234 |
| October | 6.85 m/s | 2,208 kWh | $275 |
| November | 6.64 m/s | 2,007 kWh | $250 |
| December | 6.28 m/s | 1,849 kWh | $230 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Walsh County averages 5.06 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.09 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.210, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 18,587 to 27,684 kWh a year, 49% 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 | 5.85 m/s | 18,587 kWh | 43 years |
| 30 m | 6.37 m/s | 22,438 kWh | 36 years |
| 40 m | 6.77 m/s | 25,351 kWh | 32 years |
| 50 m | 7.09 m/s | 27,684 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Walsh County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Cavalier County, averages 6.57 m/s.
- Pembina County, ND: 6.35 m/s, 22,299 kWh, payback 36 years (28 mi)
- Grand Forks County, ND: 6.4 m/s, 22,669 kWh, payback 35 years (34 mi)
- Nelson County, ND: 6.53 m/s, 23,628 kWh, payback 34 years (39 mi)
- Cavalier County, ND: 6.57 m/s, 23,922 kWh, payback 34 years (43 mi)
- Ramsey County, ND: 6.53 m/s, 23,628 kWh, payback 34 years (47 mi)
- Kittson County, MN: 6.25 m/s, 21,558 kWh, payback 28 years (51 mi)
Sun versus wind in Walsh County
Walsh County gets 3.77 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,101 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,245. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 2.0 times. 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.