Wind Turbine Payback in Andrews County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Andrews 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 Andrews County, TX averages 6.11 m/s (13.7 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 20,520 kWh a year, worth $3,289 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 30 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Andrews County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Andrews County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 6.11 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,632 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,052, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 24¢/kWh, 1.5 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 6.11. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Andrews County is the 675th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in TX is Dallam County at 6.82 m/s, payback 24 years.
Month by month in Andrews County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.99 m/s and about 2,217 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.37 m/s and 1,286 kWh, so the best month makes 1.7 times the worst. November to March brings in 43% of the year's output in Andrews County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.12 m/s | 1,746 kWh | $280 |
| February | 6.37 m/s | 1,719 kWh | $276 |
| March | 6.60 m/s | 2,049 kWh | $328 |
| April | 6.99 m/s | 2,217 kWh | $355 |
| May | 6.53 m/s | 2,004 kWh | $321 |
| June | 6.31 m/s | 1,810 kWh | $290 |
| July | 5.62 m/s | 1,433 kWh | $230 |
| August | 5.37 m/s | 1,286 kWh | $206 |
| September | 5.46 m/s | 1,297 kWh | $208 |
| October | 5.95 m/s | 1,645 kWh | $264 |
| November | 6.04 m/s | 1,646 kWh | $264 |
| December | 6.08 m/s | 1,724 kWh | $276 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Andrews County averages 4.79 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.85 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.222, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 16,683 to 25,964 kWh a year, 56% 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 | 5.59 m/s | 16,683 kWh | 37 years |
| 30 m | 6.12 m/s | 20,561 kWh | 30 years |
| 40 m | 6.52 m/s | 23,547 kWh | 27 years |
| 50 m | 6.85 m/s | 25,964 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Andrews County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Midland County, averages 6.3 m/s.
- Gaines County, TX: 6.11 m/s, 20,520 kWh, payback 30 years (30 mi)
- Ector County, TX: 6.12 m/s, 20,594 kWh, payback 30 years (31 mi)
- Martin County, TX: 6.22 m/s, 21,336 kWh, payback 29 years (40 mi)
- Winkler County, TX: 5.77 m/s, 18,006 kWh, payback 35 years (41 mi)
- Dawson County, TX: 6.22 m/s, 21,336 kWh, payback 29 years (50 mi)
- Midland County, TX: 6.3 m/s, 21,929 kWh, payback 28 years (51 mi)
Sun versus wind in Andrews County
Andrews County gets 5.59 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,632 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,052. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.3 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.