Wind Turbine Payback in Washington County, IA
Wind turbine payback in Washington 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 Washington County, IA averages 6.03 m/s (13.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,926 kWh a year, worth $2,899 at IA's 14.55¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 35 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Washington County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Washington County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.1 m/s at the hub against 6.03 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,177 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,993, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 25¢/kWh, 1.7 times what IA pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.1 m/s instead of 6.03. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of IA
Washington County is the 791st windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in IA is Dickinson County at 6.59 m/s, payback 29 years.
Month by month in Washington County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.97 m/s and about 2,208 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.74 m/s and 920 kWh, so the best month makes 2.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 48% of the year's output in Washington County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.49 m/s | 1,979 kWh | $288 |
| February | 6.47 m/s | 1,777 kWh | $259 |
| March | 6.66 m/s | 2,090 kWh | $304 |
| April | 6.97 m/s | 2,208 kWh | $321 |
| May | 6.17 m/s | 1,783 kWh | $259 |
| June | 5.43 m/s | 1,275 kWh | $186 |
| July | 4.74 m/s | 920 kWh | $134 |
| August | 4.74 m/s | 920 kWh | $134 |
| September | 5.59 m/s | 1,370 kWh | $199 |
| October | 6.33 m/s | 1,884 kWh | $274 |
| November | 6.56 m/s | 1,958 kWh | $285 |
| December | 6.27 m/s | 1,845 kWh | $268 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Washington County averages 4.69 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.78 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.229, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,013 to 25,457 kWh a year, 59% 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 | 5.5 m/s | 16,013 kWh | 43 years |
| 30 m | 6.03 m/s | 19,938 kWh | 35 years |
| 40 m | 6.44 m/s | 22,981 kWh | 30 years |
| 50 m | 6.78 m/s | 25,457 kWh | 27 years |
Counties around Washington County
None of the 6 closest counties is windier than Washington County.
- Keokuk County, IA: 6.03 m/s, 19,926 kWh, payback 35 years (23 mi)
- Johnson County, IA: 6.03 m/s, 19,926 kWh, payback 35 years (25 mi)
- Louisa County, IA: 6 m/s, 19,704 kWh, payback 35 years (25 mi)
- Henry County, IA: 6 m/s, 19,704 kWh, payback 35 years (26 mi)
- Jefferson County, IA: 5.97 m/s, 19,482 kWh, payback 35 years (26 mi)
- Iowa County, IA: 6.03 m/s, 19,926 kWh, payback 35 years (30 mi)
Sun versus wind in Washington County
Washington County gets 4.03 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,177 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,993. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.7 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.