Wind Turbine Payback in Wibaux County, MT
Wind turbine payback in Wibaux 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 Wibaux County, MT averages 6.43 m/s (14.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,891 kWh a year, worth $3,234 at MT's 14.13¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 31 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Wibaux County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Wibaux County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 6.43 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,209 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,289, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 22¢/kWh, 1.5 times what MT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 6.43. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MT
Wibaux County is the 290th 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 Wibaux County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.91 m/s and about 2,244 kWh. July is the weakest, 5.72 m/s and 1,501 kWh, so the best month makes 1.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Wibaux County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.91 m/s | 2,244 kWh | $317 |
| February | 6.26 m/s | 1,662 kWh | $235 |
| March | 6.63 m/s | 2,072 kWh | $293 |
| April | 6.66 m/s | 2,021 kWh | $286 |
| May | 6.43 m/s | 1,942 kWh | $274 |
| June | 6.09 m/s | 1,677 kWh | $237 |
| July | 5.72 m/s | 1,501 kWh | $212 |
| August | 5.74 m/s | 1,512 kWh | $214 |
| September | 6.26 m/s | 1,781 kWh | $252 |
| October | 6.85 m/s | 2,205 kWh | $312 |
| November | 6.90 m/s | 2,166 kWh | $306 |
| December | 6.75 m/s | 2,144 kWh | $303 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Wibaux County averages 5.13 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.15 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.206, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 19,113 to 28,109 kWh a year, 47% 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 | 5.92 m/s | 19,113 kWh | 37 years |
| 30 m | 6.44 m/s | 22,934 kWh | 31 years |
| 40 m | 6.83 m/s | 25,811 kWh | 27 years |
| 50 m | 7.15 m/s | 28,109 kWh | 25 years |
Counties around Wibaux County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Slope County, averages 6.78 m/s.
- Golden Valley County, ND: 6.68 m/s, 24,728 kWh, payback 33 years (20 mi)
- Dawson County, MT: 6.49 m/s, 23,333 kWh, payback 30 years (36 mi)
- Billings County, ND: 6.76 m/s, 25,311 kWh, payback 32 years (43 mi)
- Fallon County, MT: 6.64 m/s, 24,436 kWh, payback 29 years (45 mi)
- Slope County, ND: 6.78 m/s, 25,457 kWh, payback 32 years (53 mi)
- Richland County, MT: 6.27 m/s, 21,706 kWh, payback 33 years (58 mi)
Sun versus wind in Wibaux County
Wibaux County gets 4.14 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,209 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,289. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.9 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.