Wind Turbine Payback in Beaver County, OK
Wind turbine payback in Beaver 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 Beaver County, OK averages 6.72 m/s (15 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 25,020 kWh a year, worth $3,455 at OK's 13.81¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 29 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Beaver County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Beaver County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.4 m/s at the hub against 6.72 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,478 kWh a year here against the turbine's 2,502, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 20¢/kWh, 1.4 times what OK pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.4 m/s instead of 6.72. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of OK
Beaver County is the 56th 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 Beaver County
April is the strongest month here, at 7.57 m/s and about 2,548 kWh. August is the weakest, 5.96 m/s and 1,649 kWh, so the best month makes 1.5 times the worst. November to March brings in 41% of the year's output in Beaver County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.45 m/s | 1,954 kWh | $270 |
| February | 6.63 m/s | 1,872 kWh | $259 |
| March | 7.08 m/s | 2,348 kWh | $324 |
| April | 7.57 m/s | 2,548 kWh | $352 |
| May | 6.91 m/s | 2,244 kWh | $310 |
| June | 7.04 m/s | 2,246 kWh | $310 |
| July | 6.18 m/s | 1,785 kWh | $247 |
| August | 5.96 m/s | 1,649 kWh | $228 |
| September | 6.66 m/s | 2,022 kWh | $279 |
| October | 6.76 m/s | 2,150 kWh | $297 |
| November | 6.83 m/s | 2,124 kWh | $293 |
| December | 6.51 m/s | 1,994 kWh | $275 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Beaver County averages 5.33 m/s; at 50 m it is 7.48 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.211, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 20,928 to 30,400 kWh a year, 45% 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 | 6.17 m/s | 20,928 kWh | 35 years |
| 30 m | 6.72 m/s | 24,989 kWh | 29 years |
| 40 m | 7.14 m/s | 28,010 kWh | 26 years |
| 50 m | 7.48 m/s | 30,400 kWh | 24 years |
Counties around Beaver County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Lipscomb County, averages 6.78 m/s.
- Lipscomb County, TX: 6.78 m/s, 25,457 kWh, payback 25 years (34 mi)
- Meade County, KS: 6.52 m/s, 23,554 kWh, payback 28 years (35 mi)
- Seward County, KS: 6.52 m/s, 23,554 kWh, payback 28 years (36 mi)
- Ochiltree County, TX: 6.72 m/s, 25,020 kWh, payback 25 years (37 mi)
- Harper County, OK: 6.38 m/s, 22,521 kWh, payback 32 years (46 mi)
- Clark County, KS: 6.46 m/s, 23,112 kWh, payback 28 years (50 mi)
Sun versus wind in Beaver County
Beaver County gets 5.06 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,478 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 2,502. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.7 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.