Wind Turbine Payback in Wheatland County, MT
Wind turbine payback in Wheatland 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 Wheatland County, MT averages 5.89 m/s (13.2 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 18,890 kWh a year, worth $2,669 at MT's 14.13¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 38 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Wheatland County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Wheatland County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 5.89 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,183 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,889, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 26¢/kWh, 1.9 times what MT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 5.89. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MT
Wheatland County is the 1,001st windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MT is Fallon County at 6.64 m/s, payback 29 years.
Month by month in Wheatland County
January is the strongest month here, at 7.68 m/s and about 2,696 kWh. July is the weakest, 4.38 m/s and 732 kWh, so the best month makes 3.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 59% of the year's output in Wheatland County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 7.68 m/s | 2,696 kWh | $381 |
| February | 6.64 m/s | 1,875 kWh | $265 |
| March | 6.30 m/s | 1,865 kWh | $264 |
| April | 5.65 m/s | 1,405 kWh | $199 |
| May | 5.10 m/s | 1,125 kWh | $159 |
| June | 4.88 m/s | 966 kWh | $136 |
| July | 4.38 m/s | 732 kWh | $103 |
| August | 4.46 m/s | 771 kWh | $109 |
| September | 5.08 m/s | 1,074 kWh | $152 |
| October | 6.23 m/s | 1,820 kWh | $257 |
| November | 7.12 m/s | 2,293 kWh | $324 |
| December | 7.28 m/s | 2,465 kWh | $348 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Wheatland County averages 4.56 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.64 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.233, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,059 to 24,436 kWh a year, 62% 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 | 5.36 m/s | 15,059 kWh | 47 years |
| 30 m | 5.89 m/s | 18,926 kWh | 37 years |
| 40 m | 6.3 m/s | 21,955 kWh | 32 years |
| 50 m | 6.64 m/s | 24,436 kWh | 29 years |
Counties around Wheatland County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Fergus County, averages 6.18 m/s.
- Golden Valley County, MT: 6 m/s, 19,704 kWh, payback 36 years (34 mi)
- Judith Basin County, MT: 5.97 m/s, 19,482 kWh, payback 36 years (43 mi)
- Sweet Grass County, MT: 5.94 m/s, 19,260 kWh, payback 37 years (48 mi)
- Meagher County, MT: 4.63 m/s, 10,132 kWh, payback 70 years (51 mi)
- Fergus County, MT: 6.18 m/s, 21,039 kWh, payback 34 years (58 mi)
- Stillwater County, MT: 5.8 m/s, 18,226 kWh, payback 39 years (62 mi)
Sun versus wind in Wheatland County
Wheatland County gets 4.05 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,183 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,889. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.6 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.