Wind Turbine Payback in Adair County, OK
Wind turbine payback in Adair 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 Adair County, OK averages 3.94 m/s (8.8 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 6,280 kWh a year, worth $867 at OK's 13.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of over 100 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Adair County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Adair County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 3.94 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,296 kWh a year here against the turbine's 628, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 80¢/kWh, 5.8 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 3.94. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Adair County is the 2,096th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in OK is Cimarron County at 6.82 m/s, payback 28 years.
Month by month in Adair County
March is the strongest month here, at 4.57 m/s and about 829 kWh. July is the weakest, 3.05 m/s and 233 kWh, so the best month makes 3.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 53% of the year's output in Adair County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 4.31 m/s | 702 kWh | $97 |
| February | 4.45 m/s | 696 kWh | $96 |
| March | 4.57 m/s | 829 kWh | $114 |
| April | 4.58 m/s | 806 kWh | $111 |
| May | 3.96 m/s | 542 kWh | $75 |
| June | 3.54 m/s | 370 kWh | $51 |
| July | 3.05 m/s | 233 kWh | $32 |
| August | 3.09 m/s | 244 kWh | $34 |
| September | 3.46 m/s | 343 kWh | $47 |
| October | 3.92 m/s | 525 kWh | $73 |
| November | 4.21 m/s | 630 kWh | $87 |
| December | 4.16 m/s | 629 kWh | $87 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Adair County averages 2.58 m/s; at 50 m it is 4.79 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.384, typical of rough, sheltered ground: trees or buildings slow the low wind a lot. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 3,827 to 11,147 kWh a year, 191% 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 | 3.37 m/s | 3,827 kWh | over 100 years |
| 30 m | 3.94 m/s | 6,264 kWh | over 100 years |
| 40 m | 4.4 m/s | 8,729 kWh | 83 years |
| 50 m | 4.79 m/s | 11,147 kWh | 65 years |
Counties around Adair County
5 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Delaware County, averages 5.2 m/s.
- Cherokee County, OK: 4.28 m/s, 8,064 kWh, payback 90 years (19 mi)
- Washington County, AR: 3.94 m/s, 6,280 kWh, payback over 100 years (25 mi)
- Sequoyah County, OK: 4.62 m/s, 10,070 kWh, payback 72 years (28 mi)
- Crawford County, AR: 4.28 m/s, 8,064 kWh, payback 90 years (32 mi)
- Delaware County, OK: 5.2 m/s, 13,907 kWh, payback 52 years (35 mi)
- Benton County, AR: 4.69 m/s, 10,508 kWh, payback 69 years (38 mi)
Sun versus wind in Adair County
Adair County gets 4.44 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,296 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 628. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 2.1 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.