Wind Turbine Payback in Archer County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Archer 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 Archer County, TX averages 6.03 m/s (13.5 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 19,926 kWh a year, worth $3,194 at TX's 16.03¢/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 Archer County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Archer County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 6.03 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,451 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,993, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 25¢/kWh, 1.6 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 6.03. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Archer County is the 791st 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 Archer County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.05 m/s and about 2,250 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.03 m/s and 1,082 kWh, so the best month makes 2.1 times the worst. November to March brings in 45% of the year's output in Archer County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.09 m/s | 1,729 kWh | $277 |
| February | 6.24 m/s | 1,647 kWh | $264 |
| March | 6.62 m/s | 2,063 kWh | $331 |
| April | 7.05 m/s | 2,250 kWh | $361 |
| May | 6.40 m/s | 1,924 kWh | $308 |
| June | 6.04 m/s | 1,646 kWh | $264 |
| July | 5.28 m/s | 1,228 kWh | $197 |
| August | 5.03 m/s | 1,082 kWh | $173 |
| September | 5.23 m/s | 1,158 kWh | $186 |
| October | 6.03 m/s | 1,695 kWh | $272 |
| November | 6.34 m/s | 1,825 kWh | $293 |
| December | 6.06 m/s | 1,712 kWh | $274 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Archer County averages 4.68 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.79 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.231, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 15,999 to 25,529 kWh a year, 60% 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 | 5.49 m/s | 15,999 kWh | 39 years |
| 30 m | 6.03 m/s | 19,958 kWh | 31 years |
| 40 m | 6.45 m/s | 23,030 kWh | 27 years |
| 50 m | 6.79 m/s | 25,529 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Archer County
3 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Throckmorton County, averages 6.16 m/s.
- Wichita County, TX: 5.95 m/s, 19,334 kWh, payback 32 years (26 mi)
- Clay County, TX: 5.94 m/s, 19,260 kWh, payback 32 years (30 mi)
- Baylor County, TX: 6.09 m/s, 20,371 kWh, payback 31 years (30 mi)
- Young County, TX: 6.07 m/s, 20,223 kWh, payback 31 years (32 mi)
- Jack County, TX: 5.94 m/s, 19,260 kWh, payback 32 years (40 mi)
- Throckmorton County, TX: 6.16 m/s, 20,891 kWh, payback 30 years (43 mi)
Sun versus wind in Archer County
Archer County gets 4.97 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,451 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,993. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.4 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.