Wind Turbine Payback in Washington County, UT
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, UT averages 5.14 m/s (11.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 13,490 kWh a year, worth $1,779 at UT's 13.19¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 56 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, 8.7 m/s at the hub against 5.14 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,577 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,349, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 37¢/kWh, 2.8 times what UT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.7 m/s instead of 5.14. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of UT
Washington County is the 1,396th 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 Washington County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.88 m/s and about 1,547 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.09 m/s and 599 kWh, so the best month makes 2.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 46% of the year's output in Washington County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.55 m/s | 1,395 kWh | $184 |
| February | 5.39 m/s | 1,170 kWh | $154 |
| March | 5.57 m/s | 1,406 kWh | $185 |
| April | 5.88 m/s | 1,547 kWh | $204 |
| May | 5.41 m/s | 1,306 kWh | $172 |
| June | 5.33 m/s | 1,216 kWh | $160 |
| July | 4.09 m/s | 599 kWh | $79 |
| August | 4.18 m/s | 640 kWh | $84 |
| September | 4.68 m/s | 860 kWh | $113 |
| October | 5.12 m/s | 1,133 kWh | $149 |
| November | 5.19 m/s | 1,138 kWh | $150 |
| December | 5.29 m/s | 1,235 kWh | $163 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Washington County averages 4.17 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.66 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.190, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 10,926 to 17,199 kWh a year, 57% 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 | 4.76 m/s | 10,926 kWh | 69 years |
| 30 m | 5.14 m/s | 13,466 kWh | 56 years |
| 40 m | 5.43 m/s | 15,498 kWh | 49 years |
| 50 m | 5.66 m/s | 17,199 kWh | 44 years |
Counties around Washington County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Iron County, averages 5.21 m/s.
- Iron County, UT: 5.21 m/s, 13,976 kWh, payback 54 years (46 mi)
- Beaver County, UT: 4.7 m/s, 10,571 kWh, payback 72 years (77 mi)
- Lincoln County, NV: 4.67 m/s, 10,382 kWh, payback 72 years (80 mi)
- Kane County, UT: 4.9 m/s, 11,866 kWh, payback 64 years (92 mi)
- Piute County, UT: 4.02 m/s, 6,678 kWh, payback over 100 years (105 mi)
- Mohave County, AZ: 4.69 m/s, 10,508 kWh, payback 62 years (108 mi)
Sun versus wind in Washington County
Washington County gets 5.4 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,577 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,349. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.2 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.