Wind Turbine Payback in Austin County, TX
Wind turbine payback in Austin 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 Austin County, TX averages 5.09 m/s (11.4 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 13,146 kWh a year, worth $2,107 at TX's 16.03¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 48 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Austin County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Austin County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 7.6 m/s at the hub against 5.09 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,375 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,315, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 38¢/kWh, 2.4 times what TX pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 7.6 m/s instead of 5.09. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of TX
Austin County is the 1,408th 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 Austin County
March is the strongest month here, at 5.76 m/s and about 1,522 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.05 m/s and 579 kWh, so the best month makes 2.6 times the worst. November to March brings in 51% of the year's output in Austin County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 5.57 m/s | 1,402 kWh | $225 |
| February | 5.72 m/s | 1,355 kWh | $217 |
| March | 5.76 m/s | 1,522 kWh | $244 |
| April | 5.83 m/s | 1,516 kWh | $243 |
| May | 5.39 m/s | 1,295 kWh | $208 |
| June | 4.57 m/s | 804 kWh | $129 |
| July | 4.20 m/s | 650 kWh | $104 |
| August | 4.05 m/s | 579 kWh | $93 |
| September | 4.25 m/s | 649 kWh | $104 |
| October | 4.93 m/s | 1,027 kWh | $165 |
| November | 5.35 m/s | 1,233 kWh | $198 |
| December | 5.52 m/s | 1,375 kWh | $220 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Austin County averages 3.85 m/s; at 50 m it is 5.8 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.255, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 9,894 to 18,226 kWh a year, 84% 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 | 4.59 m/s | 9,894 kWh | 63 years |
| 30 m | 5.09 m/s | 13,158 kWh | 47 years |
| 40 m | 5.48 m/s | 15,887 kWh | 39 years |
| 50 m | 5.8 m/s | 18,226 kWh | 34 years |
Counties around Austin County
4 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Fayette County, averages 5.39 m/s.
- Waller County, TX: 5.09 m/s, 13,146 kWh, payback 48 years (19 mi)
- Washington County, TX: 5.09 m/s, 13,146 kWh, payback 48 years (24 mi)
- Colorado County, TX: 5.24 m/s, 14,186 kWh, payback 44 years (25 mi)
- Fayette County, TX: 5.39 m/s, 15,247 kWh, payback 41 years (39 mi)
- Fort Bend County, TX: 5.16 m/s, 13,629 kWh, payback 46 years (39 mi)
- Wharton County, TX: 5.24 m/s, 14,186 kWh, payback 44 years (42 mi)
Sun versus wind in Austin County
Austin County gets 4.71 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,375 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,315. Kilowatt for kilowatt, panels make 1.0 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.