Wind Turbine Payback in White Pine County, NV
Wind turbine payback in White Pine 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 White Pine County, NV averages 4.38 m/s (9.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 8,632 kWh a year, worth $1,153 at NV's 13.36¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 87 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in White Pine County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in White Pine County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.6 m/s at the hub against 4.38 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,457 kWh a year here against the turbine's 863, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 58¢/kWh, 4.3 times what NV pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.6 m/s instead of 4.38. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of NV
White Pine County is the 1,837th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in NV is Nye County at 4.71 m/s, payback 70 years.
Month by month in White Pine County
April is the strongest month here, at 5.09 m/s and about 1,083 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.86 m/s and 502 kWh, so the best month makes 2.2 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in White Pine County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.07 m/s | 590 kWh | $79 |
| February | 4.61 m/s | 768 kWh | $103 |
| March | 4.94 m/s | 1,030 kWh | $138 |
| April | 5.09 m/s | 1,083 kWh | $145 |
| May | 4.52 m/s | 803 kWh | $107 |
| June | 4.57 m/s | 805 kWh | $108 |
| July | 3.86 m/s | 502 kWh | $67 |
| August | 4.05 m/s | 582 kWh | $78 |
| September | 4.05 m/s | 564 kWh | $75 |
| October | 4.10 m/s | 602 kWh | $80 |
| November | 4.26 m/s | 656 kWh | $88 |
| December | 4.42 m/s | 753 kWh | $101 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in White Pine County averages 3.59 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.81 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.182, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 6,940 to 11,276 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 | 4.07 m/s | 6,940 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 4.38 m/s | 8,650 kWh | 87 years |
| 40 m | 4.62 m/s | 10,062 kWh | 74 years |
| 50 m | 4.81 m/s | 11,276 kWh | 66 years |
Counties around White Pine County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Beaver County, averages 4.7 m/s.
- Eureka County, NV: 4.32 m/s, 8,289 kWh, payback 90 years (83 mi)
- Millard County, UT: 4.53 m/s, 9,519 kWh, payback 80 years (100 mi)
- Juab County, UT: 4.18 m/s, 7,515 kWh, payback over 100 years (114 mi)
- Beaver County, UT: 4.7 m/s, 10,571 kWh, payback 72 years (116 mi)
- Tooele County, UT: 4.13 m/s, 7,248 kWh, payback over 100 years (119 mi)
- Lander County, NV: 4.15 m/s, 7,354 kWh, payback over 100 years (119 mi)
Sun versus wind in White Pine County
White Pine County gets 4.99 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,457 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 863. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.7 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.