Wind Turbine Payback in Wasco County, OR
Wind turbine payback in Wasco 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 Wasco County, OR averages 3.62 m/s (8.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 4,820 kWh a year, worth $745 at OR's 15.46¢/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 Wasco County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Wasco County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.8 m/s at the hub against 3.62 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,229 kWh a year here against the turbine's 482, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 104¢/kWh, 6.7 times what OR pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.8 m/s instead of 3.62. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OR
Wasco County is the 2,367th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in OR is Gilliam County at 5.48 m/s, payback 41 years.
Month by month in Wasco County
December is the strongest month here, at 4.07 m/s and about 590 kWh. August is the weakest, 3.01 m/s and 225 kWh, so the best month makes 2.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 55% of the year's output in Wasco County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.05 m/s | 578 kWh | $89 |
| February | 3.93 m/s | 479 kWh | $74 |
| March | 4.03 m/s | 571 kWh | $88 |
| April | 3.74 m/s | 440 kWh | $68 |
| May | 3.48 m/s | 362 kWh | $56 |
| June | 3.46 m/s | 342 kWh | $53 |
| July | 3.13 m/s | 254 kWh | $39 |
| August | 3.01 m/s | 225 kWh | $35 |
| September | 3.08 m/s | 235 kWh | $36 |
| October | 3.54 m/s | 382 kWh | $59 |
| November | 3.99 m/s | 538 kWh | $83 |
| December | 4.07 m/s | 590 kWh | $91 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Wasco County averages 2.66 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.18 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 3,337 to 7,515 kWh a year, 125% 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 | 3.23 m/s | 3,337 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.62 m/s | 4,824 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 3.93 m/s | 6,211 kWh | over 100 years |
| 50 m | 4.18 m/s | 7,515 kWh | 86 years |
Counties around Wasco County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Gilliam County, averages 5.48 m/s.
- Sherman County, OR: 4.8 m/s, 11,212 kWh, payback 58 years (29 mi)
- Hood River County, OR: 3.14 m/s, 3,034 kWh, payback over 100 years (34 mi)
- Jefferson County, OR: 3.93 m/s, 6,231 kWh, payback over 100 years (36 mi)
- Gilliam County, OR: 5.48 m/s, 15,893 kWh, payback 41 years (46 mi)
- Clackamas County, OR: 3.23 m/s, 3,333 kWh, payback over 100 years (50 mi)
- Klickitat County, WA: 4.88 m/s, 11,734 kWh, payback 59 years (52 mi)
Sun versus wind in Wasco County
Wasco County gets 4.21 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,229 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 482. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.5 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.