Wind Turbine Payback in Alfalfa County, OK
Wind turbine payback in Alfalfa 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 Alfalfa County, OK averages 6.31 m/s (14.1 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 22,003 kWh a year, worth $3,039 at OK's 13.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 33 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Alfalfa County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Alfalfa County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 6.31 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,407 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,200, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 23¢/kWh, 1.6 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 6.31. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Alfalfa County is the 460th 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 Alfalfa County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.24 m/s and about 2,362 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.54 m/s and 1,386 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 42% of the year's output in Alfalfa County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.14 m/s | 1,759 kWh | $243 |
| February | 6.19 m/s | 1,619 kWh | $224 |
| March | 6.72 m/s | 2,127 kWh | $294 |
| April | 7.24 m/s | 2,362 kWh | $326 |
| May | 6.55 m/s | 2,022 kWh | $279 |
| June | 6.51 m/s | 1,930 kWh | $267 |
| July | 5.72 m/s | 1,496 kWh | $207 |
| August | 5.54 m/s | 1,386 kWh | $191 |
| September | 6.03 m/s | 1,637 kWh | $226 |
| October | 6.49 m/s | 1,983 kWh | $274 |
| November | 6.55 m/s | 1,957 kWh | $270 |
| December | 6.13 m/s | 1,753 kWh | $242 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Alfalfa County averages 4.92 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.09 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.227, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 17,921 to 27,684 kWh a year, 54% 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 | 5.76 m/s | 17,921 kWh | 40 years |
| 30 m | 6.31 m/s | 22,031 kWh | 33 years |
| 40 m | 6.74 m/s | 25,165 kWh | 29 years |
| 50 m | 7.09 m/s | 27,684 kWh | 26 years |
Counties around Alfalfa County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Woods County, averages 6.46 m/s.
- Grant County, OK: 6.29 m/s, 21,855 kWh, payback 33 years (30 mi)
- Woods County, OK: 6.46 m/s, 23,112 kWh, payback 31 years (30 mi)
- Major County, OK: 6.46 m/s, 23,112 kWh, payback 31 years (31 mi)
- Harper County, KS: 6.27 m/s, 21,706 kWh, payback 30 years (35 mi)
- Garfield County, OK: 6.23 m/s, 21,410 kWh, payback 34 years (38 mi)
- Barber County, KS: 6.3 m/s, 21,929 kWh, payback 30 years (39 mi)
Sun versus wind in Alfalfa County
Alfalfa County gets 4.82 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,407 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,200. 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.